global – Technology Liberation Front https://techliberation.com Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Thu, 03 Apr 2025 23:20:10 +0000 en-US hourly 1 6772528 New Report: Do We Need Global Government to Address AI Risk? https://techliberation.com/2023/06/16/new-report-do-we-need-global-government-to-address-ai-risk/ https://techliberation.com/2023/06/16/new-report-do-we-need-global-government-to-address-ai-risk/#comments Fri, 16 Jun 2023 13:27:15 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=77138

Can we advance AI safety without new international regulatory bureaucracies, licensing schemes or global surveillance systems? I explore that question in my latest R Street Institute study, “Existential Risks & Global Governance Issues around AI & Robotics.” (31 pgs)  My report rejects extremist thinking about AI arms control & stresses how the “realpolitik” of international AI governance is such that things cannot and must not be solved through silver-bullet gimmicks and grandiose global government regulatory regimes.

The report uses Nick Bostrom’s “vulnerable world hypothesis” as a launching point and discusses how his five specific control mechanisms for addressing AI risks have started having real-world influence with extreme regulatory proposals now being floated. My report also does a deep dive into the debate about a proposed global ban on “killer robots” and looks at how past treaties and arms control efforts might apply, or what we can learn from them about what won’t work.

I argue that proposals to impose global controls on AI through a worldwide regulatory authority are both unwise and unlikely to work. Calls for bans or “pauses” on AI developments are largely futile because many nations will not agree to them. As with nuclear and chemical weapons, treaties, accords, sanctions and other multilateral agreements can help address some threats of malicious uses of AI or robotics. But trade-offs are inevitable, and addressing one type of existential risk sometimes can give rise to other risks.

A culture of AI safety by design is critical. But there is an equally compelling interest in ensuring algorithmic innovations are developed and made widely available to society. The most effective solution to technological problems usually lies in more innovation, not less. Many other multistakeholder and multilateral efforts can help AI safety. Final third of my study is devoted to a discussion of that. Continuous communication, coordination, and cooperation—among countries, developers, professional bodies and other stakeholders—will be essential.

My new report on concludes with a plea to reject fatalism and fanaticism when discussing global AI risks. It’s worth recalling what Bertrand Russell said in 1951 about how only global government could save humanity. He predicted, “[t]he end of human life, perhaps of all life on our planet,” before the end of the century unless the world unified under “a single government, possessing a monopoly of all the major weapons of war.” He was very wrong, of course, and thank God he did not get his wish because an effort to unite the world under one global government would have entailed different existential risks that he never bothered seriously considering. We need to reject extremist global government solutions as the basis for controlling technological risk.

Three quick notes.

First, this new report is the third in a trilogy of major R Street Institute s tudies on bottom-up, polycentric AI governance. If you only read one, make it this: “Flexible, Pro-Innovation Governance Strategies for Artificial Intelligence.” 

Second, I wrapped up this latest report a few months ago, before the Microsoft and OpenAI floated new comprehensive AI regulatory controls. So, for an important follow-up to this report, please read: “Microsoft’s New AI Regulatory Framework & the Coming Battle over Computational Control.”

Finally, if you’d like to hear me discuss many of the findings from these new reports and essays at greater length, check out my recent appearance on TechFreedom’s “Tech Policy Podcast,” with Corbin K. Barthold. We do a deep dive on all these AI governance trends and regulatory proposals.

As always, all my writing on AI, ML and robotics can be found here and my most recent things are found below.

Additional Reading :

]]> https://techliberation.com/2023/06/16/new-report-do-we-need-global-government-to-address-ai-risk/feed/ 4 77138 AI Eats the World: Preparing for the Computational Revolution and the Policy Debates Ahead https://techliberation.com/2022/09/12/ai-eats-the-world-preparing-for-the-computational-revolution-and-the-policy-debates-ahead/ https://techliberation.com/2022/09/12/ai-eats-the-world-preparing-for-the-computational-revolution-and-the-policy-debates-ahead/#comments Mon, 12 Sep 2022 23:52:26 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=77039

[Cross-posted from Medium.]

The Coming Computational Revolution

Thomas Edison once spoke of how electricity was a “field of fields.” This is even more true of AI, which is ready to bring about a sweeping technological revolution. In Carlota Perez’s influential 2009 paper on “Technological Revolutions and Techno-economic Paradigms,” she defined a technological revolution “as a set of interrelated radical breakthroughs, forming a major constellation of interdependent technologies; a cluster of clusters or a system of systems.” To be considered a legitimate technological revolution, Perez argued, the technology or technological process must be “opening a vast innovation opportunity space and providing a new set of associated generic technologies, infrastructures and organisational principles that can significantly increase the efficiency and effectiveness of all industries and activities.” In other words, she concluded, the technology must have “the power to bring about a transformation across the board.”

Expanding Our Skillset

Thus, AI (and AI policy) is multi-dimensional, amorphous, and ever-changing. It has many layers and complexities. This will require public policy analysts and institutions to reorient their focus and develop new capabilities.

Mapping the AI Policy Terrain: Broad vs. Narrow

Beyond talent development, the other major challenge is issue coverage. How can we cover all the AI policy bases? There are two general categories of AI concerns, and supporters of free markets need to be prepared to engage on both battlefields.

Confronting the Formidable Resistance to Change

Finally, free-market analysts and organizations must prepare to defend the general concept of progress through technological change as AI becomes a central social, economic, and legal battleground — both domestically and globally. Every technological revolution involves major social and economic disruptions and gives rise to intense efforts to defend the status quo and block progress. As Perez concludes, “the profound and wide-ranging changes made possible by each technological revolution and its techno-economic paradigm are not easily assimilated; they give rise to intense resistance.”

]]> https://techliberation.com/2022/09/12/ai-eats-the-world-preparing-for-the-computational-revolution-and-the-policy-debates-ahead/feed/ 3 77039 Running List of My Research on AI, ML & Robotics Policy https://techliberation.com/2022/07/29/running-list-of-my-research-on-ai-ml-robotics-policy/ https://techliberation.com/2022/07/29/running-list-of-my-research-on-ai-ml-robotics-policy/#respond Fri, 29 Jul 2022 12:51:54 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=77020

[last updated 4/3/2025 – Check my Medium page for latest posts]

This a running list of all the essays and reports I’ve already rolled out on the governance of artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning (ML), and robotics. Why have I decided to spend so much time on this issue? Because this will become the most important technological revolution of our lifetimes. Every segment of the economy will be touched in some fashion by AI, ML, robotics, and the power of computational science. It should be equally clear that public policy will be radically transformed along the way.

Eventually, all policy will involve AI policy and computational considerations. As AI “eats the world,” it eats the world of public policy along with it. The stakes here are profound for individuals, economies, and nations. As a result, AI policy will be the most important technology policy fight of the next decade, and perhaps next quarter century. Those who are passionate about the freedom to innovate need to prepare to meet the challenge as proposals to regulate AI proliferate.

There are many socio-technical concerns surrounding algorithmic systems that deserve serious consideration and appropriate governance steps to ensure that these systems are beneficial to society. However, there is an equally compelling public interest in ensuring that AI innovations are developed and made widely available to help improve human well-being across many dimensions. And that’s the case that I’ll be dedicating my life to making in coming years.

Here’s the list of what I’ve done so far. I will continue to update this as new material is released:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021 (and earlier)

]]> https://techliberation.com/2022/07/29/running-list-of-my-research-on-ai-ml-robotics-policy/feed/ 0 77020 Keeping Uncle Sam out of the Industrial Policy Casino https://techliberation.com/2021/07/16/keeping-uncle-sam-out-of-the-industrial-policy-casino/ https://techliberation.com/2021/07/16/keeping-uncle-sam-out-of-the-industrial-policy-casino/#comments Fri, 16 Jul 2021 19:01:32 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=76898

Financial Help for Gamblers: How to Get Find ReliefIn my latest column for The Hill, I consider that dangers of government gambling our tax dollars on risky industrial policy programs. I begin by noting:

Roll the dice at a casino enough times, and you are bound to win a few games. But knowing the odds are not in your favor, how much are you willing to risk losing by continuing to gamble? This is the same issue governments confront when they gamble taxpayer dollars on industrial policy efforts, which can best be described as targeted and directed efforts to plan for specific future industrial outputs and outcomes. Throwing enough money at risky ventures might net a few wins, but at what cost? Could those resources have been better spent? And do bureaucrats really make better bets than private investors?

I continue on to note that, while the US is embarking on a major new industrial policy push, history does not provide us with a lot of hope regarding Uncle Sam’s betting record when he starts rolling those industrial policy dice. “How much tolerance should the public have for government industrial policy gambling?” I ask. I continue on:

Generally speaking, “basic” support (broad-based funding for universities and research labs) is wiser than “applied” (targeted subsidies for specific firms or sectors). With basic R&D funding, the chances of wasting resources on risky investments can be contained, at least as compared to highly targeted investments in unproven technologies and firms.

I also argue that “The riskiest bets on new technologies and sectors are better left to private investors,” and note how, “America’s venture capital industry remains the envy of the world because it continues to power world-beating advanced technology.” Accordingly, I conclude:

While some government investments will always be necessary, policymakers engaging in casino economics means bad industrial policy bets and taxpayer money squandered on risky ventures best made by private actors. We need to keep Uncle Sam’s gambling habits in check.

Read the whole thing here. And here’s a list of more of my recent writing on industrial policy:

]]> https://techliberation.com/2021/07/16/keeping-uncle-sam-out-of-the-industrial-policy-casino/feed/ 2 76898 6 Ways Trump’s Social Media Executive Order Betrays Conservative Principles https://techliberation.com/2020/06/05/6-ways-trumps-social-media-executive-order-betrays-conservative-principles/ https://techliberation.com/2020/06/05/6-ways-trumps-social-media-executive-order-betrays-conservative-principles/#comments Fri, 05 Jun 2020 14:52:38 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=76751

[Co-authored with Connor Haaland and originally published on The Bridge as, “Do Our Leaders Believe in Free Speech and Online Freedom Anymore?”]

The president is a counterpuncher': Trump on familiar ground in ...A major policy battle has developed regarding the wisdom of regulating social media platforms in the United States, with the internet’s most important law potentially in the crosshairs. Leaders in both major parties are calling for sweeping regulation.

Specifically, President Trump and his presumptive opponent in the coming presidential election, former Vice President Joe Biden, have both called for “Section 230” of the Communications Decency Act to be repealed. Last week, the president took a misguided step in this direction by signing an executive order that, if fully carried out, will result in significantly greater regulation of the internet and of speech.

A Growing Call to Regulate Internet Platforms

The ramifications of these threats and steps could not be more profound. Without Section 230—also known as “the 26 words that created the internet”—we would have a much less advanced internet ecosystem. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and Wikipedia would have never grown as quickly. Indeed, the repeal of Section 230 means many fewer jobs, less information distribution, and, frankly, less joy.

Shockingly, by backing Trump’s recent push for regulating these internet platforms, many conservatives are betraying their own principles—the ones that support freedom of expression and the ability to run private businesses without government interference.

Section 230 limits the liability online intermediaries face for the content and communications that travel over their networks. The immunities granted by Section 230 let online speech and commerce flow freely, without the constant threat of legal action or onerous liability looming overhead for digital platforms. To put it another way, without this provision, today’s vibrant internet ecosystem likely would not exist.

For completely different reasons, however, Biden and Trump want it axed. “Section 230 should be revoked, immediately should be revoked, number one. For [Facebook CEO Mark] Zuckerberg and other platforms,” said Biden in a New York Times interview. Like many other Democrats, Biden wants social media platforms to do far more to block speech they find to be offensive in various ways. If they fail to do more, Biden and other Democrats want Sec. 230 revised or repealed.

In contrast, Trump and his allies want these same platforms to do far less to curate content. Although lacking any empirical evidence, they allege that massive anti-conservative bias exists across today’s most popular platforms. As a result, they want Sec. 230 gutted. “Repeal 230,” said Trump in a tweet. Tensions reached a boiling point last week following a public fight between the president and Twitter after the social networking platform on May 27 added a fact-check notice to one of the president’s tweets about the supposed dangers of mail-in voting.

Retaliating Against Social Media

On May 28, Trump struck back against Twitter by signing an executive order on “preventing online censorship.” The EO cited Twitter six times but also went after Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube by name. Paradoxically, it also noted that the “freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people,” even though the order will result in arbitrary government rule over our free speech rights.

Indeed, Trump’s executive order runs afoul of traditional conservative principles in several ways:

  1. It expands the power of the government by delegating more authority to the administrative state and expanding arbitrary bureaucratic rule and regulatory abuse. It encourages the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Trade Commission to take a more active interest in content policy decisions, which is of dubious legality. Section 3 of the EO also says the Department of Justice “shall review the viewpoint-based speech restrictions imposed by each online platform identified in the report … and assess whether any online platforms are problematic vehicles for government speech due to viewpoint discrimination, deception to consumers, or other bad practices.” (emphasis added)

    What do other bad practices entail, and who in the government gets to make the call? It is not prudent to delegate authority over something as sacred as our rights to free speech to unelected government bureaucrats. Such power will stifle civil discourse and increase the possibility for special interests to co-opt the government by using its power for their own desires.

  2. It undermines property rights of private companies by letting Big Government dictate how they use their business platforms. Carrying out the president’s executive order would amount to a taking of private property by the government, an action that conservatives have historically loathed. Our Founding Fathers considered property rights to be the cornerstone of a free and just society, yet Trump pays that fact little respect in this EO, running afoul of a centuries-old American tradition.

  3. It will encourage frivolous lawsuits. By gutting Sec. 230, a law that protects online platforms from punishing liability for third-party speech, Trump’s EO would empower trial lawyers. We are already too litigious a country, filing over 80 million cases in state courts every year, and we do not need another reason to be in the courtroom. Repealing 230 would open the floodgates to endless lawsuits about online speech and clog up our judicial system, using resources that could be directed to more important matters.

  4. It undermines free speech and would likely hurt conservative voices most. Trump’s executive order makes a mockery of the First Amendment by applying the Fairness Doctrine and net neutrality notions to social media, regulations that conservatives have vociferously opposed. A recent lawsuit filed by the Center for Democracy and Technology that seeks to challenge the EO alleges this exact point, saying it could chill free speech. In the past we have seen such concepts applied arbitrarily, harming free speech and media competition.

    For instance, our colleague Brent Skorup, has written on how the FCC exploited another arbitrary rule—the “public interest” standard. He points to the fact that a documentary portraying former Sen. John Kerry in a negative light was taken off the air thanks to the authority of the public interest standard as a paradigmatic example of how arbitrary regulatory power can harm free speech. The EO also undermines platforms that have greatly amplified conservative voices in recent years. On Facebook, for instance, 7 of the top 10 most cited news outlets were conservative. Meanwhile, Trump and other conservative leaders have tapped the power of Twitter to directly communicate with their base. The EO would therefore likely result in much conservative content being removed quickly to avoid legal hassles with regulators or the courts.

  5. The combined effect of all these other factors will undermine the global competitiveness of US-based firms, potentially benefiting Chinese internet companies the most. Willingly giving up a comparative advantage would be foolish, considering how America’s tech companies are the envy of the world. Not only does the EO affect existing social platforms, but it could stifle innovation throughout the digital economy moving forward. Who wants to try and innovate in a field that is subject to regulations that can change on a president’s whim?

  6. It could be used by future politicians against conservative platforms, like Fox News and other right-leaning outlets. This is clearly not the intent of Trump’s executive order, but that will eventually be the result nonetheless. Going forward, we will have different presidents with different political outlooks. When making laws, regulations, and executive orders, it is always important to consider how they could be applied by successive administrations with opposite political and ideological stripes.

Today’s social media platforms are not perfect, but it is impossible for them to please everyone. There is no Goldilocks formula whereby they can get speech policies just right and make everyone happy. Instead, the ideal policy for speech platforms is: Let a thousand flowers bloom. One-size-fits-all content management and community standards shouldn’t be the goal. We need diverse platforms and approaches for a diverse citizenry.

But when presidential candidates and their allies line up in support of repealing Sec. 230 and opening the door to speech controls, the end result will be homogenized conformity with the will of those in power. That’s a horrible result for a nation that values diversity of opinion and freedom of speech, and it will only end up hurting those who seek to change the conversation.

Also see: Brent Skorup, “The Section 230 Executive Order, Free Speech, and the FCC,” Technology Liberation Front, June 3, 2010.

]]> https://techliberation.com/2020/06/05/6-ways-trumps-social-media-executive-order-betrays-conservative-principles/feed/ 2 76751 The Economist on Innovation Arbitrage https://techliberation.com/2018/09/04/the-economist-on-innovation-arbitrage/ https://techliberation.com/2018/09/04/the-economist-on-innovation-arbitrage/#comments Tue, 04 Sep 2018 15:43:18 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=76369

In recent essays and papers, I have discussed the growth of “innovation arbitrage,” which I defined as, “The movement of ideas, innovations, or operations to those jurisdictions that provide a legal and regulatory environment more hospitable to entrepreneurial activity.” A new Economist article about “Why startups are leaving Silicon Valley,” discusses innovation arbitrage without calling it such. The article notes that, for a variety of reasons, Valley innovators and investors are looking elsewhere to set up shop or put money into new ventures. The article continues:

Other cities are rising in relative importance as a result. The Kauffman Foundation, a non-profit group that tracks entrepreneurship, now ranks the Miami-Fort Lauderdale area first for startup activity in America, based on the density of startups and new entrepreneurs. Mr Thiel is moving to Los Angeles, which has a vibrant tech scene. Phoenix and Pittsburgh have become hubs for autonomous vehicles; New York for media startups; London for fintech; Shenzhen for hardware. None of these places can match the Valley on its own; between them, they point to a world in which innovation is more distributed. If great ideas can bubble up in more places, that has to be welcome. There are some reasons to think the playing-field for innovation is indeed being levelled up. Capital is becoming more widely available to bright sparks everywhere: tech investors increasingly trawl the world, not just California, for hot ideas. There is less reason than ever for a single region to be the epicentre of technology. Thanks to the tools that the Valley’s own firms have produced, from smartphones to video calls to messaging apps, teams can work effectively from different offices and places.

That’s the power of innovation arbitrage at work. Alas, the Economist article ends on a sour note, arguing that “innovation everywhere is becoming harder” because tech firms are becoming too big and anti-immigrant policies (especially in the US) are turning away some of the best and brightest minds. The latter is a real problem and one that is of the Trump Administration’s own making. By turning away the next generation of exciting innovators and limiting exciting start-up opportunities, America is shooting itself in the foot by undermining competitiveness and our competitive advantage among nations more generally. Which speaks to the first point made in the Economist article: If we want more competition to the big dogs, we need a lot more puppies. We’re not going to get them with backwards immigration policies. But nor will we get them by hobbling the biggest tech innovators. We shouldn’t be punishing success; we should be praising it.

We should recall Joseph Schumpeter’s essential insights in this regard. First, never underestimate how, in his words, “an untried technological possibility” can usher in one wave of “creative destruction” after another. Many critics talk about today’s “tech titans” (like Google, Facebook, Apple, and Amazon) as if they have always stalked the land. In reality, if you jump back in time just 15 years, it was Microsoft, MySpace, AOL Time Warner, Blackberry, and Motorola which allegedly possessed unassailable market power. And then creative destruction rolled into town. It happened before and it can happen again.

Schumpeter’s second insight was even more crucial and closely linked to his first. As I described it in a previous essay:

[Schumpeter] explained that uneven entrepreneurial gains — even supranormal short-term profits — must be tolerated if innovation is to occur. Innovators will only take risks if they can expect the potential for big gains from it. Attempts to curtail those potential benefits through hasty regulatory interventions or antitrust threats will sap the entrepreneurial spirit from the marketplace, limit technological innovation, and diminish the possibility of greater market dynamism and consumer choice over the long-haul. “In this respect,” Schumpeter concluded, “perfect competition is not only impossible but inferior,” precisely because it would sabotage “the most powerful engine of that progress … those entrepreneurial profits which are the prizes offered by capitalist society to the successful innovator.”

Thus, if you want still more disruptive innovation and creative destruction, you absolutely cannot sabotage entrepreneurs by eliminating the quest for the prize of profitability. Innovators need to know that when they take big risks, big rewards are possible. If they see innovative acts punished, they will look elsewhere. Indeed, that’s one reason that innovation arbitrage happens with increasing regularity today.

That doesn’t mean we throw out antitrust law entirely. There can still be circumstances where market power is abused and needs to be addressed, but simply making big profits does not automatically qualify as an abuse of consumer welfare.

]]> https://techliberation.com/2018/09/04/the-economist-on-innovation-arbitrage/feed/ 3 76369 Celebrating 20 Years of Internet Free Speech & Free Exchange https://techliberation.com/2017/06/22/celebrating-20-years-of-internet-free-speech-free-exchange/ https://techliberation.com/2017/06/22/celebrating-20-years-of-internet-free-speech-free-exchange/#comments Thu, 22 Jun 2017 14:47:15 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=76149

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

]]> https://techliberation.com/2017/06/22/celebrating-20-years-of-internet-free-speech-free-exchange/feed/ 1 76149 Innovation Arbitrage, Technological Civil Disobedience & Spontaneous Deregulation https://techliberation.com/2016/12/05/innovation-arbitrage-technological-civil-disobedience-spontaneous-deregulation/ https://techliberation.com/2016/12/05/innovation-arbitrage-technological-civil-disobedience-spontaneous-deregulation/#comments Mon, 05 Dec 2016 20:06:53 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=76096

The future of emerging technology policy will be influenced increasingly by the interplay of three interrelated trends: “innovation arbitrage,” “technological civil disobedience,” and “spontaneous private deregulation.” Those terms can be briefly defined as follows:

  • “Innovation arbitrage” refers to the idea that innovators can, and will with increasingly regularity, move to those jurisdictions that provide a legal and regulatory environment more hospitable to entrepreneurial activity. Just as capital now fluidly moves around the globe seeking out more friendly regulatory treatment, the same is increasingly true for innovations. And this will also play out domestically as innovators seek to play state and local governments off each other in search of some sort of competitive advantage.
  • “Technological civil disobedience” represents the refusal of innovators (individuals, groups, or even corporations) or consumers to obey technology-specific laws or regulations because they find them offensive, confusing, time-consuming, expensive, or perhaps just annoying and irrelevant. New technological devices and platforms are making it easier than ever for the public to openly defy (or perhaps just ignore) rules that limit their freedom to create or use modern technologies.
  • “Spontaneous private deregulation” can be thought of as de facto rather than the de jure elimination of traditional laws and regulations owing to a combination of rapid technological change as well the potential threat of innovation arbitrage and technological civil disobedience. In other words, many laws and regulations aren’t being formally removed from the books, but they are being made largely irrelevant by some combination of those factors. “Benign or otherwise, spontaneous deregulation is happening increasingly rapidly and in ever more industries,” noted Benjamin Edelman and Damien Geradin in a Harvard Business Review article on the phenomenon.[1]

I have previously documented examples of these trends in action for technology sectors as varied as drones, driverless cars, genetic testing, Bitcoin, and the sharing economy. (For example, on the theme of global innovation arbitrage, see all these various essays. And on the growth of technological civil disobedience, see, “DOT’s Driverless Cars Guidance: Will ‘Agency Threats’ Rule the Future?” and “Quick Thoughts on FAA’s Proposed Drone Registration System.” I also discuss some of these issues in the second edition of my Permissionless Innovation book.)

In this essay, I want to briefly highlight how, over the course of just the past month, a single company has offered us a powerful example of how both global innovation arbitrage and technological civil disobedience— or at least the threat thereof—might become a more prevalent feature of discussions about the governance of emerging technologies. And, in the process, that could lead to at least the partial spontaneous deregulation of certain sectors or technologies. Finally, I will discuss how this might affect technological governance more generally and accelerate the movement toward so-called “soft law” governance mechanisms as an alternative to traditional regulatory approaches.

Comma.ai Case Study, Part 1: The Innovation Arbitrage Threat

The company I want to highlight is Comma.ai, a start-up that had hoped to sell a $999 after-market kit for vehicles called the “Comma One,” which “would give average, everyday cars autonomous functionality.”[2] Created by famed hacker George Hotz, who as a teenager gained notoriety for being the first person to unlock an iPhone in 2007, the Comma One represents an attempt to create autonomous vehicle tech “on the cheap” by using off-the-shelf cameras and GPS technology combined with a healthy dose of artificial intelligence technology.

comma-one

But regulators at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the federal agency responsible for road safety and automobile regulation, were none too happy to hear about Hotz’s plan to unleash his technology into the wild without first getting their blessing. On October 27, the agency fired off a nastygram to Hotz saying: “We are concerned that your product would put the safety of your customers and other road users at risk. We strongly encourage you to delay selling or deploying your product on the public roadways unless and until you can ensure it is safe.”

Hotz responded on Twitter promptly and angrily. After posting the full NHTSA letter, he said, “First time I hear from them and they open with threats. No attempt at a dialog.” In a follow-up tweet, he said, “Would much rather spend my life building amazing tech than dealing with regulators and lawyers. It isn’t worth it.” And then he announced that, “The comma one is cancelled. comma.ai will be exploring other products and markets. Hello from Shenzhen, China.” A flood of news articles followed about Hotz’s threat to engage in this sort of global innovation arbitrage by bolting US shores.[3]

Incidentally, what Hotz and Comma.ai were proposing to do with Comma One—i.e., deploy autonomous vehicle tech into the wild without prior regulatory approval—was recently done by Otto, a developer of autonomous trucking technology. As Mark Harris reported on Backchannel:

When Otto performed its test drive — the one shown in the May video — it did so despite a clear warning from Nevada’s Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) that it would be violating the state’s autonomous vehicle regulations. When the DMV realized that Otto had gone ahead anyway, one official called the drive “illegal” and even threatened to shut down the agency’s autonomous vehicle program.”[4]

While Nevada regulators were busy firing off angry letters, Otto was busy doing even more testing in others states (like Ohio), which are eager to make their jurisdictions a testbed for autonomous vehicle innovation.[5] In fact, just recently, Ohio Gov. John Kasich announced the creation of the “Smart Mobility Corridor,” which, according to the Dayton Daily News, will be “a 35-mile stretch of U.S. 33 in central Ohio that runs through Logan County. Officials say that section of U.S. 33 will become a corridor where technologies can be safely tested in real-life traffic, aided by a fiber-optic cable network and sensor systems slated for installation next year.”[6]

otto-truck

This is an example of innovation arbitrage will increasingly take root here domestically as well as abroad, and some states (or countries) will use inducements in an effort to lure innovators to their jurisdictions.

Anyway, let’s get back to the Comma One case study. I don’t want to get too sidetracked regarding the merits of the concerns raised by NHTSA in its letter to Hotz and the implications of the agency’s threats for innovation in this space. But EFF board member Brad Templeton did a nice job addressing that issue in an essay about NHTSA’s letter that threatened Comma. As Templeton observed:

I will presume the regulators will say, “We only want to scare away dangerous innovation” but the hard truth is that is a very difficult thing to judge. All innovation in this space is going to be a bit dangerous. It’s all there trying to take the car — the 2nd most dangerous legal consumer product — and make it safer, but it starts from a place of danger. We are not going to get to safety without taking risks along the way.[7]

This gets to the very real trade-offs in play in the debate over driverless car technology and its regulation. In fact, my Mercatus Center colleague Caleb Watney and I recently filed comments [8] with NHTSA addressing the agency’s recently proposed “Federal Automated Vehicles Policy.”[9] We stressed the potentially deleterious implications of prior regulatory restraints on autonomous vehicle innovation by stressing the horrific real-world baseline we live with today, in which over 35,000 people dying on US roadways in 2015 (roughly 96 people per day) and 94 percent of all those crashes being attributable to human error.

Caleb and I noted that, by imposing new preemptive constraints on the coding of superior autonomous driving technology, “NHTSA’s proposed policy for automated vehicles may inadvertently increase the number of total automobile fatalities by delaying the rapid development and diffusion of this life-saving technology.” Needless to say, if that comes to pass, it would be a disaster because “automation on the roads could be the great public-health achievement of the 21st century.”[10]

In our filing, Caleb and I estimated that, “If NHTSA’s proposed premarket approval process slows the deployment of HAVs by 5 percent, we project an additional 15,500 fatalities over the course of the next 31 years. At 10 percent regulatory delay, we project an additional 34,600 fatalities over 33 years. And at 25 percent regulatory delay, we project an additional 112,400 fatalities over 40 years.[11]

So, needless to say, this is a very big deal.

But let’s ignore all those potential foregone benefits for the moment and just stick with the question of whether Hotz’s threat to engage in a bit of global innovation arbitrage (by moving to China or somewhere else) could work, or at least affect policy in some fashion. I think it absolutely could be an effective threat both because (a) policymakers really do want to do everything they can to achieve greater road safety, and (b) the auto sector remains a hugely important industry for the United States, and one that policymakers will want to do everything in their power to retain on our shores.

Moreover, as Templeton observes that “Comma is not the only company trying to build a system with pure neural networks doing the actual steering decisions.” Even if NHTSA succeeds in bringing Comma to heel, there will be others who will follow in its footsteps. It might be a firm like Otto, but there are many other players in this space today, including big dogs like Tesla and Google. If ever there was a truly global technology industry, it the automotive sector. Autonomous vehicle innovation could take root and blossom in almost any country in the world, and many countries will be waiting with open arms if America screws up its regulatory process.

As Templeton concludes:

The USA and California led the way in robocars in part because it was unregulated. In the USA, everything is permitted unless it was explicitly forbidden and nobody thought to write “no robots” in the laws. Progress in other countries where everything is forbidden unless it is permitted was much slower. The USA is moving in the wrong direction.[12]

Comma.ai Case Study, Part 2: The Technological Civil Disobedience Threat

But an interesting thing happened on the way to Comma’s threatened exodus. On November 30, the firm announced that it would now be open sourcing the code for its autonomous vehicle technology. Reporters at The Verge noted that, during a press conference:

Hotz said that Comma.ai decided to go open source in an effort to sidestep NHTSA as well as the California DMV, the latter of which he said showed up to his house on three separate occasions. “NHTSA only regulates physical products that are sold,” Hotz said. “They do not regulate open source software, which is a whole lot more like speech.” He went on to say that “if the US government doesn’t like this [project], I’m sure there are plenty of countries that will.”[13]

So here we see Hotz combining the threat of still potentially taking the project offshore (i.e., global innovation arbitrage) with the suggestion that by open-sourcing the code for Comma One he might be able to get around the law altogether. We might consider that an indirect form of technological civil disobedience.

george-hotz

Incidentally, Hotz may not be aware of the fact that NHTSA is in the process of making a power-play to become a driverless car code cop. While Hotz is technically correct that, under current law, NHTSA officials “do not regulate open source software, which is a whole lot more like speech,” NHTSA’s recent Federal Automated Vehicles Policy claimed that the agency “has authority to regulate the safety of software changes provided by manufacturers after a vehicle’s first sale to a consumer” while also suggesting that the agency “may need to develop additional regulatory tools and rules to regulate the certification and compliance verification of such post-sale software updates.”[14]

Needless to say, this proposal has important ramifications for not only Comma, but all other firms in this sector. Consider the implications for Tesla’s “autopilot” mode, which is really little more than a string of constantly-evolving code it pushes out to offer greater and greater autonomous driving functionality.  How would that iterative process work if every time Tesla wanted to make a little tweak to its code it had to run to Washington and file paperwork with NHTSA petitioning for permission to experiment and improve their systems? And then think about all the smaller innovators out there who want to be the next Elon Musk or George Hotz but do not yet have the resources or political connections in Washington to even go through this complex and costly process.

In any event, I have no idea if Hotz or Comma.ai will follow through with any of these threats or be successful in doing so. It may be the case that he is just blowing off smoke and that he and his firm will end up staying in the U.S. and perhaps even later reversing course on the decision to open source the Comma code. But to the extent that innovators like Hotz even hint that they might split the country or open source their code to avoid burdensome regulatory regimes, it can have an influence on future policy decisions. Or at least it should.

New Tech Realities & Their Policy Implications

Indeed, the increasing prevalence of global innovation arbitrage and technological civil disobedience raise some interesting issues for the governance of emerging technologies going forward. The traditional regulatory stance toward many existing sectors and technologies will be challenged by these realities. That’s because most of those traditional regulatory systems are highly precautionary, preemptive, and prophylactic in character. They generally opt for policy solutions that are top-down, overly rigid, and bureaucratic.

marcandreessen
This results in a slow-moving and sometimes completely stagnant regulatory approval process that can stop innovation dead in its tracks, or at least delay it for many years. Such systems send innovators a clear message: You are guilty until proven innocent and must receive some bureaucrat’s blessing before you can move forward.

Of course, in the past, many innovators (especially smaller scale entrepreneurs) really couldn’t do much to avoid similar regulatory systems where they existed. You either fell into line, or else! It wasn’t always clear what “or else!” would entail, but it could range from being denied a permit/license to operate, waiting months or years for rules to emerge, dealing with fines or other penalties, or some combination of all those things. Or perhaps you would just give up on your innovative idea altogether and exit the market.

But the world has changed in some important ways in recent years. Many of the underlying drivers of the digital revolution—massive increases in processing power, exploding storage capacity, steady miniaturization of computing, ubiquitous communications and networking capabilities, the digitization of all data, and more—are beginning to have a profound impact beyond the confines of cyberspace.[15] As venture capitalist Marc Andreessen explained in a widely read 2011 essay about how “software is eating the world”:

More and more major businesses and industries are being run on software and delivered as online services—from movies to agriculture to national defense. Many of the winners are Silicon Valley-style entrepreneurial technology companies that are invading and overturning established industry structures. Over the next 10 years, I expect many more industries to be disrupted by software, with new world-beating Silicon Valley companies doing the disruption in more cases than not. Why is this happening now? Six decades into the computer revolution, four decades since the invention of the microprocessor, and two decades into the rise of the modern Internet, all of the technology required to transform industries through software finally works and can be widely delivered at global scale.[16]

We can add to this list of a new realities the more general problem of technology accelerating at an unprecedented pace. This is what philosophers of technology call the “pacing problem.”  In his new book,  A Dangerous Master: How to Keep Technology from Slipping beyond Our Control, Wendell Wallach concisely defined the pacing problem as “the gap between the introduction of a new technology and the establishment of laws, regulations, and oversight mechanisms for shaping its safe development.” “There has always been a pacing problem,” Wallach correctly observed, but like other philosophers, he believes that modern technological innovation is accelerating much faster than it was in the past.[17]

What are the ramifications of all this for policy? As technology lawyer and consultant Larry Downes has noted, lawmaking in the information age is now inexorably governed by the “law of disruption” or the fact that “technology changes exponentially, but social, economic, and legal systems change incrementally.”[18] This law is “a simple but unavoidable principle of modern life,” he said, and it will have profound implications for the way businesses, government, and culture evolve. “As the gap between the old world and the new gets wider,” he argues, “conflicts between social, economic, political, and legal systems” will intensify and “nothing can stop the chaos that will follow.”[19]

laws-of-disruption

The end result of the “law or disruption” and a world relentlessly governed by the ever-accelerating “pacing problem” is that it will be harder than ever to effectively control emerging technologies using traditional legal and regulatory systems and mechanisms. And this makes it even more likely that the related threats of global innovation arbitrage and various forms of technological civil disobedience will become more regular fixtures in debates about many emerging technologies.

New Governance Models

How one reacts to these new realities will depend upon their philosophical disposition toward innovative activities more generally.

Consider first those adhering to a more “precautionary principle” mindset, which I have defined in my recent book as those who believe “that new innovations should be curtailed or disallowed until their developers can prove that they will not cause any harm to individuals, groups, specific entities, cultural norms, or various existing laws, norms, or traditions.”[20]

Needless to say, the precautionary principle crowd with be dismayed by these new trends and perhaps even decry them as “lawlessness.” Some of these folks seem to be in denial about these new realities and pretend that nothing much has changed. Yet, I have found that most precautionary principle-oriented advocates, and even many regulatory agencies themselves, tend to acknowledge these new realities. But they remain very uncertain about how best to respond to them, often just suggesting that we’ll all need to just try harder to impose new and better regulations on a more expedited or streamlined basis.

Of course, those of us who generally embrace the alternative policy vision for technological governance—“permissionless innovation”—are going to be more accepting of the new technological realities I have described, and we will perhaps even work to defend and encourage them. But while I count myself among this crowd, we cannot ignore the fact that many serious challenges will arise when innovation outpaces law or can easily evade it.

There is some middle ground here, although it is very messy middle ground.

The era of technocratic, top-down, one-size-fits-all regulatory regimes is fading, or at least being severely strained. We will instead need to craft flexible and adaptive policies going forward that are bottom-up, flexible, and evolutionary in character.

What that means in practice is that a lot more “soft law” and informal governance mechanisms will become the new norm. I wrote about this new policy environment in my recent essay, “DOT’s Driverless Cars Guidance: Will ‘Agency Threats’ Rule the Future?” as well as this lengthy review of Wendell Wallach’s latest book about technology ethics.  Along with Gary Marchant of the Arizona State University law school, Wallach recently published an excellent book chapter on “Governing the Governance of Emerging Technologies,” which discussed these soft law mechanisms, which include: “codes of conduct, statements of principles, partnership programs, voluntary programs and standards, certifications programs and private industry initiatives.”[21]

Their chapter appears in an important collection of essays that Gary Marchant edited with Kenneth W. Abbott and Braden Allenby entitled, Innovative Governance Models for Emerging Technologies.

governance-book

What is interesting about the chapters in that book is that seemingly widespread consensus now exists among experts in this field that some combination of these soft law mechanisms are likely to become the primary mode of technological governance for the indefinite future.  This is because, as Marc A. Saner points out in a different chapter of that book, “the control paradigm is too limited to address all the issues that arise in the context of emerging technologies.”[22] By the control paradigm, he generally means traditional administrative regulatory agencies and processes. He and other contributors in the book all seem to agree that the control problem paradigm “has its limits when diffusion, pacing and ethical issues associated with emerging technologies become significant, as is often the case.”[23]

And so the traditional command-and-control ways will gradually give way to a new paradigm for emerging technology governance. In fact, as I noted in my recent essay on driverless cars, we see this happening quite a bit already. “Multistakeholder processes” are already all the rage in the world of emerging technologies and their governance. In recent years, we have seen the White House and various agencies (such as the FTC, NTIA, FDA, and others) craft multistakeholder agreements or best practice guidance documents for technologies as far ranging as:

  • Drones & privacy
  • Sharing economy
  • Internet of Things
  • Driverless cars
  • Big data
  • Artificial intelligence
  • Cross-device tracking
  • Native advertising
  • Online data collection
  • Mobile app transparency and security
  • Mobile apps for kids
  • Mobile medical apps
  • Online health advertising
  • 3D printing
  • Facial recognition

And that list is not comprehensive. I know I am missing other multistakeholder efforts, best practices, or industry guidance documents that have been crafted in recent years.

Of course, many challenging issues need to be sorted out here, most notably: how transparent and accountable will these soft law systems be in practice? How will they be enforced? And what will happen to all those existing laws, regs, and agencies that will continue to exist? More generally, it is worth asking whether we can more closely study these various multistakeholder arrangements and soft law governance mechanisms and determine if there are certain principles or strategies that could be applicable across a wide class of technologies and sectors. In other words, can we a do a better job of “formalizing the informal,” without falling right back into the trap of trying to impose rules in a rigid, top-down, one-size-fits-all fashion?

Conclusion

Those are just a few of the hard questions we will need to consider going forward. For now, however, I think it is safe to conclude that we will no longer see much “law” being made for emerging technologies, at least not in the traditional sense of the term. Thanks to the new technological realities I have described here—and the relentless reality of the “pacing problem” more generally—I believe we are witnessing a wide-ranging and quite profound transformation in how technology is governed in our modern world. And I believe this movement away from traditional “hard law” and toward “soft law” governance mechanisms is likely to accelerate due to the increasing prevalence of innovation arbitrage, technological civil disobedience, and spontaneous private deregulation.

The ramifications of this transformation will be studied by philosophers, legal theorists, and political scientists for many decades to come. But we are still in the early years of this momentous transformation in technological governance and we will continue to struggle to figure out how to make it all work, as messy as it all may be.

[ Note: This essay is condensed from a manuscript I have been working on about The Rise of Technological Civil Disobedience. I’m not sure I will ever get around to finishing it, however, so I thought I would at least post this piece for now. In a subsequent essay, which is also part of that draft manuscript, I hope to discuss how this process might play out for technologies that are “born free” versus those that are “born in captivity.” That is, how likely is it that the trends I discuss here will take hold for technologies that have no pre-existing laws or agencies, while other technologies that are born into a regulatory environment are potentially doomed to be pigeonholed into those old regulatory regimes? What are the chances that the latter technologies can escape captivity and gain the freedom the other technologies already enjoy? How might technology-enabled “spontaneous private deregulation” be accelerated for those sectors? Is that always desirable? Again, I will leave these questions for another day. Scholars and students who are interested in these topics can feel free to contact me if they are interested in discussing them as well as potential paper ideas. Regardless of how you feel about these trends, these issues are ripe for intellectual exploration.]

[1]     Benjamin Edelman and Damien Geradin, “Spontaneous Deregulation,” Harvard Business Review, April 2016, https://hbr.org/2016/04/spontaneous-deregulation.

[2]     Megan Geuss, “After mothballing Comma One, George Hotz releases free autonomous car software,” Ars Technica, November 30, 2016, http://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/11/after-mothballing-comma-one-george-hotz-releases-free-autonomous-car-software.

[3]     See: “NHTSA Scared This Self-Driving Entrepreneur Off the Road,” Bloomberg Technology, October 28, 2016, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-28/nhtsa-scared-this-self-driving-entrepreneur-off-the-road; Sean O’Kane, “George Hotz cancels his self-driving car project after NHTSA expresses concern,” The Verge, October 28, 2016, http://www.theverge.com/2016/10/28/13453344/comma-ai-self-driving-car-comma-one-kit-canceled; Brad Templeton, “Comma.ai cancels comma-one add-on box after threats from NHTSA,” Robohub, October 31, 2016, http://robohub.org/comma-ai-cancels-comma-one-add-on-box-after-threats-from-nhtsa.

[4]     Mark Harris, “How Otto Defied Nevada and Scored a $680 Million Payout from Uber,” Backchannel, November 28, 2016,  https://backchannel.com/how-otto-defied-nevada-and-scored-a-680-million-payout-from-uber-496aa07f5ba2#.9rmtb29bl

[5]     Larry E. Hall, “Otto Self-Driving Truck Tests in Ohio; Violated Nevada Regulations,” Hybrid Cars, November 29, 2016, http://www.hybridcars.com/otto-self-driving-truck-tests-in-ohio-violated-nevada-regulations.

[6]     Kara Driscoll, “Ohio to create ‘smart’ road for driverless trucks,” Dayton Daily News, November 30, 2016, http://www.daytondailynews.com/business/ohio-create-smart-road-for-driverless-trucks/25qC7uYjz9rE96q6YFVUUK.

[7]     Brad Templeton, “Comma.ai cancels comma-one add-on box after threats from NHTSA,” Robohub, October 31, 2016, http://robohub.org/comma-ai-cancels-comma-one-add-on-box-after-threats-from-nhtsa/

[8]     Adam Thierer and Caleb Watney, “Comment on the Federal Automated Vehicles Policy,” November 22, 2016, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311065194_Comment_on_the_Federal_Automated_Vehicles_Policy.

[9]     National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Federal Automated Vehicles Policy, September 2016.

[10]   Adrienne LaFrance, “Self-Driving Cars Could Save 300,000 Lives per Decade in America,” Atlantic, September 29, 2015

[11]   Adam Thierer and Caleb Watney, “Comment on the Federal Automated Vehicles Policy,” November 22, 2016, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311065194_Comment_on_the_Federal_Automated_Vehicles_Policy.

[12]   Templeton.

[13]   Sean O’Kane and Lauren Goode, “George Hotz is giving away the code behind his self-driving car project,” The Verge, November 30, 2016, http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/30/13779336/comma-ai-autopilot-canceled-autonomous-car-software-free.

[14]   NHTSA, Federal Automated Vehicles Policy, 76.

[15]   Adam Thierer, Jerry Brito, and Eli Dourado, “Technology Policy: A Look Ahead,” Technology Liberation Front, May 12, 2014, http://techliberation.com/2014/05/12/technology-policy-a-look-ahead.

[16]   Marc Andreessen, “Why Software Is Eating the World,” Wall Street Journal, August 20, 2011, http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424053111903480904576512250915629460.

[17]   Wendell Wallach, A Dangerous Master: How to Keep Technology from Slipping beyond Our Control (New York: Basic Books, 2015), 60.

[18]   Larry Downes, The Laws of Disruption: Harnessing the New Forces That Govern Life and Business in the Digital Age 2 (2009).

[19]   Id.

[20]   Thierer, Permissionless Innovation, at 1.

[21]   Gary E. Marchant and Wendell Wallach, “Governing the Governance of Emerging Technologies,” in Gary E. Marchant, Kenneth W. Abbott & Braden Allenby (eds.), Innovative Governance Models for Emerging Technologies (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2013), 136.

[22]   Marc A. Saner,  “The Role of Adaptation in the Governance of Emerging Technologies,” in Gary E. Marchant, Kenneth W. Abbott & Braden Allenby (eds.), Innovative Governance Models for Emerging Technologies (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2013), 106.

[23]   Ibid., at 94.

]]> https://techliberation.com/2016/12/05/innovation-arbitrage-technological-civil-disobedience-spontaneous-deregulation/feed/ 3 76096 Global Innovation Arbitrage: Drone Delivery Edition https://techliberation.com/2016/08/25/global-innovation-arbitrage-drone-delivery-edition/ https://techliberation.com/2016/08/25/global-innovation-arbitrage-drone-delivery-edition/#comments Thu, 25 Aug 2016 15:46:01 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=76076

Dominos pizza drone
Just three days ago I penned another installment in my ongoing series about the growing phenomenon of “global innovation arbitrage” — or the idea that “innovators can, and increasingly will, move to those countries and continents that provide a legal and regulatory environment more hospitable to entrepreneurial activity.” And now it’s already time for another entry in the series!

My previous column focused on driverless car innovation moving overseas, and earlier installments discussed genetic testing, drones, and the sharing economy. Now another drone-related example has come to my attention, this time from New Zealand. According to the New Zealand Herald:

Aerial pizza delivery may sound futuristic but Domino’s has been given the green light to test New Zealand pizza delivery via drones. The fast food chain has partnered with drone business Flirtey to launch the first commercial drone delivery service in the world, starting later this year.

Importantly, according to the story, “If it is successful the company plans to extend the delivery method to six other markets – Australia, Belgium, France, The Netherlands, Japan and Germany.” That’s right, America is not on the list. In other words, a popular American pizza delivery chain is looking overseas to find the freedom to experiment with new delivery methods. And the reason they are doing so is because of the seemingly endless bureaucratic foot-dragging by federal regulators at the FAA.

Some may scoff and say, ‘Who cares? It’s just pizza!’ Well, even if you don’t care about innovation in the field of food delivery, how do you feel about getting medicines or vital supplies delivered on a more timely and efficient basis in the future? What may start as a seemingly mundane or uninteresting experiment with pizza delivery through the sky could quickly expand to include a wide range of far more important things. But it will never happen unless you give innovators a little breathing room–i.e., “permissionless innovation”–to try new and different ways of doing things.

Incidentally, Flirtey, the drone deliver company that Domino’s partnered with in New Zealand, is also an American-based company. On the company’s website, the firm notes that: “Drones can be operated commercially in a growing number of countries. We’re in discussions with regulators all around the world, and we’re helping to shape the regulations and systems that will make drone delivery the most effective, personal and frictionless delivery method in the market.”

That’s just another indication of the reality that global innovation arbitrage is at work today. If the U.S. puts it head in the sand and lets bureaucrats continue to slow the pace of progress, America’s next generation of great innovators will increasingly look offshore in search of patches of freedom across the planet where they can try out their exciting new products and services.

BTW, I wrote all about this in Chapter 3 of my Permissionless Innovation book. And here’s some additional Mercatus research on the topic.

Additional  Reading

]]> https://techliberation.com/2016/08/25/global-innovation-arbitrage-drone-delivery-edition/feed/ 2 76076 Global Innovation Arbitrage: Driverless Cars Edition https://techliberation.com/2016/08/22/global-innovation-arbitrage-driverless-cars-edition/ https://techliberation.com/2016/08/22/global-innovation-arbitrage-driverless-cars-edition/#comments Mon, 22 Aug 2016 19:34:42 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=76074

In previous essays here I have discussed the rise of “global innovation arbitrage” for genetic testing, drones, and the sharing economy. I argued that: “Capital moves like quicksilver around the globe today as investors and entrepreneurs look for more hospitable tax and regulatory environments. The same is increasingly true for innovation. Innovators can, and increasingly will, move to those countries and continents that provide a legal and regulatory environment more hospitable to entrepreneurial activity.” I’ve been working on a longer paper about this with Samuel Hammond, and in doing research on the issue, we keep finding interesting examples of this phenomenon.

The latest example comes from a terrific new essay (“Humans: Unsafe at Any Speed“) about driverless car technology by Wall Street Journal technology columnist L. Gordon Crovitz. He cites some important recent efforts by Ford and Google and he notes that they and other innovators will need to be given more flexible regulatory treatment if we want these life-saving technologies on the road as soon as possible. “The prospect of mass-producing cars without steering wheels or pedals means U.S. regulators will either allow these innovations on American roads or cede to Europe and Asia the testing grounds for self-driving technologies,” Crovitz observes. “By investing in autonomous vehicles, Ford and Google are presuming regulators will have to allow the new technologies, which are developing faster even than optimists imagined when Google started working on self-driving cars in 2009.” 

Alas, regulators at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration are more likely to continue to embrace a heavy-handed and highly precautionary regulatory approach instead of the sort of “permissionless innovation” approach to policy that could help make driverless cars a reality sooner rather than later. If regulators continue to take that path, it could influence the competitive standing of the U.S. in the race for global supremacy in this arena.

Crovitz cites a recent essay by innovation consultant Chunka Mui’s on this point: “The appropriate first-mover unit of innovation is not the car, or even the car company. It is the nation.” Mui uses the example of Singapore, where “the lead government agency [is] working to enhance Singapore’s position as a global business center” and has been inviting self-driving car developers to work with the island nation to avoid what Mui describes as “the tangled web of competition, policy fights, regulatory hurdles and entrenched interests governing the pace of driverless-car development and deployment in the U.S.”

That’s global innovation arbitrage in a nutshell and it would be a real shame if America was on the losing end of this competition. To make sure we’re not, Crovitz notes that U.S. policymakers need to avoid overly-precautionary “pre-market-approval steps” that “would give bureaucrats the power to pick which technologies can develop and which are banned. If that happens,” he notes, “the winner in the race to the next revolution in transportation is likelier to be Singapore than Detroit or Silicon Valley.”

Too true. Let’s hope that policymakers are listening before it’s too late.

 

Additional Reading:

]]> https://techliberation.com/2016/08/22/global-innovation-arbitrage-driverless-cars-edition/feed/ 1 76074 CFTC’s Giancarlo on Permissionless Innovation for the Blockchain https://techliberation.com/2016/04/01/cftcs-giancarlo-on-permissionless-innovation-for-the-blockchain/ https://techliberation.com/2016/04/01/cftcs-giancarlo-on-permissionless-innovation-for-the-blockchain/#comments Fri, 01 Apr 2016 16:02:43 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=76010

Christopher Giancarlo
U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Commissioner J. Christopher Giancarlo delivered an amazing address this week before the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation 2016 Blockchain Symposium. The title of his speech was “Regulators and the Blockchain: First, Do No Harm,” and it will go down as the definitive early statement about how policymakers can apply a principled, innovation-enhancing policy paradigm to distributed ledger technology (DLT) or “blockchain” applications.

“The potential applications of this technology are being widely imagined and explored in ways that will benefit market participants, consumers and governments alike,” Giancarlo noted in his address. But in order for that to happen, he said, we have to get policy right. “It is time again to remind regulators to ‘do no harm,'” he argued, and he continued on to note that

The United States’ global leadership in technological innovation of the Internet was built hand-in-hand with its enlightened “do no harm” regulatory framework. Yet, when the Internet developed in the mid-1990s, none of us could have imagined its capabilities that we take for granted today. Fortunately, policymakers had the foresight to create a regulatory environment that served as a catalyst rather than a choke point for innovation. Thanks to their forethought and restraint, Internet-based applications have revolutionized nearly every aspect of human life, created millions of jobs and increased productivity and consumer choice. Regulators must show that same forethought and restraint now [for the blockchain].

What Giancarlo is referring to is the approach that the U.S. government adopted toward the Internet and digital networks in the mid-1990s. You can think of this vision as “permissionless innovation.” As I explain in my recent book of the same title, permissionless innovation refers to the notion that we should generally be free to experiment and learn new and better ways of doing things through ongoing trial-and-error.

How did U.S. policymakers make permissionless innovation the cornerstone of Internet policy during the mid-1990s? In my book, I highlight several key policy decisions, but the most crucial moment came with the Clinton Administration’s 1997 publication of Framework for Global Electronic Commerce in July 1997.  As I have noted here many times before, the document was a succinct and principled vision statement that made the idea of permissionless innovation the cornerstone of Internet policy for America. The five principles at the heart of this beautiful Framework were:

1. The private sector should lead. The Internet should develop as a market driven arena not a regulated industry. Even where collective action is necessary, governments should encourage industry self-regulation and private sector leadership where possible. 2. Governments should avoid undue restrictions on electronic commerce. In general, parties should be able to enter into legitimate agreements to buy and sell products and services across the Internet with minimal government involvement or intervention. Governments should refrain from imposing new and unnecessary regulations, bureaucratic procedures or new taxes and tariffs on commercial activities that take place via the Internet. 3. Where governmental involvement is needed, its aim should be to support and enforce a predictable, minimalist, consistent and simple legal environment for commerce. Where government intervention is necessary, its role should be to ensure competition, protect intellectual property and privacy, prevent fraud, foster transparency, and facilitate dispute resolution, not to regulate. 4. Governments should recognize the unique qualities of the Internet. The genius and explosive success of the Internet can be attributed in part to its decentralized nature and to its tradition of bottom-up governance. Accordingly, the regulatory frameworks established over the past 60 years for telecommunication, radio and television may not fit the Internet. Existing laws and regulations that may hinder electronic commerce should be reviewed and revised or eliminated to reflect the needs of the new electronic age. 5. Electronic commerce on the Internet should be facilitated on a global basis. The Internet is a global marketplace. The legal framework supporting commercial transactions should be consistent and predictable regardless of the jurisdiction in which a particular buyer and seller reside.

It was and remains a near-perfect vision for how emerging technologies should be governed because, as I note in my book, it “gave innovators the green light to let their minds run wild and experiment with an endless array of exciting new devices and services.”

Commissioner Giancarlo agrees, noting of the  Framework that, “This model is well-recognized as the enlightened regulatory underpinning of the Internet that brought about profound changes to human society. … During the period of this “do no harm” regulatory framework, a massive amount of investment was made in the Internet’s infrastructure. It yielded a rapid expansion in access that supported swift deployment and mass adoption of Internet-based technologies.” And countless new exciting systems, devices, and applications came about, which none of us could have anticipated until we let people experiment freely.

By extension, we should apply the “do no harm” / permissionless innovation policy paradigm more broadly, Giancarlo says.

‘Do no harm’ was unquestionably the right approach to development of the Internet. Similarly, “do no harm” is the right approach for DLT. Once again, the private sector must lead and regulators must avoid impeding innovation and investment and provide a predictable, consistent and straightforward legal environment. Protracted regulatory uncertainty or an uncoordinated regulatory approach must be avoided, as should rigid application of existing rules designed for a bygone technological era. . . . I believe that innovators and investors should not have to seek government’s permission, only its forbearance, to develop DLT so they can do the work necessary to address the increased operational complexity and capital consumption of modern financial market regulation.

And if America fails to adopt this approach for the Blockchain, it could be disastrous. “Without such a “do no harm” approach,” Giancarlo predicts, “financial service and technology firms will be left trying to navigate a complex regulatory environment, where multiple agencies have their own rule frameworks, issues and concerns.” And that led Giancarlo to touch upon an issue I have discussed here many times before: The growing reality of a world of “global innovation arbitrage.” As I noted in an essay on that topic, “Capital moves like quicksilver around the globe today as investors and entrepreneurs look for more hospitable tax and regulatory environments. The same is increasingly true for innovation. Innovators can, and increasingly will, move to those countries and continents that provide a legal and regulatory environment more hospitable to entrepreneurial activity.”

This is why it is so crucial that policymakers set the right tone for innovation for blockchain-based technologies and applications. If they don’t, innovators would seek out more hospitable legal environments in which they can innovate without prior restraint. As he ellaborates:

It is therefore critical for regulators to come together to adopt a principles-based approach to DLT regulation that is flexible enough so innovators do not fear unwitting infractions of an uncertain regulatory environment. Some regulators have already openly acknowledged the need for light-touch oversight. For instance, the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has committed to regulatory forbearance on DLT development for the foreseeable future in an effort to give innovators “space” to develop and improve the technology. The FCA is even going one step further and engaging in discussions with the industry to determine whether DLT could meet the FCA’s own needs. Similarly, a few weeks ago, Masamichi Kono, Vice Minister for International Affairs at the Japan Financial Services Agency, stated that regulators must take a “pragmatic and flexible approach” to regulation of new technologies so not to stifle innovation. I have no doubt that the FCA’s intention to give DLT innovators “space” to innovate will be good for DLT research and development. I also suspect that it will be good for the UK’s burgeoning FinTech industry and the jobs it creates across the Atlantic. U.S. lawmakers concerned about the rapid loss of jobs in the U.S. financial service industry, especially in the New York City area, should similarly look to provide “space” to U.S. DLT innovation and entrepreneurship and the well-paying American jobs that will surely follow.

That is exactly right. I just hope other policymakers are listening to this wisdom. The future of blockchain-based innovation depends upon it. America should follow Commissioner Giancarlo’s wise call to adopt permissionless innovation as the policy default for this exciting technology.

 

Additional Reading:

]]> https://techliberation.com/2016/04/01/cftcs-giancarlo-on-permissionless-innovation-for-the-blockchain/feed/ 1 76010 New a16z Podcast on Making the Case for Permissionless Innovation https://techliberation.com/2015/09/20/new-a16z-podcast-on-making-the-case-for-permissionless-innovation/ https://techliberation.com/2015/09/20/new-a16z-podcast-on-making-the-case-for-permissionless-innovation/#comments Sun, 20 Sep 2015 23:12:29 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=75744

Last week while I was visiting the Silicon Valley area, it was my pleasure to visit the venture capital firm of Andreessen Horowitz. While I was there, Sonal Chokshi was kind enough to invite me on the a16z podcast, which was focused on “Making the Case for Permissionless Innovation.” We had a great discussion on a wide range of disruptive technology policy issues (robotics, drones, driverless cars, medical technology, Internet of Things, crypto, etc.) and also talked about how innovators should approach Washington and public policymakers more generally. Our 23-minute conversation follows:

And for more reading on permissionless innovation more generally, see my book page.

]]> https://techliberation.com/2015/09/20/new-a16z-podcast-on-making-the-case-for-permissionless-innovation/feed/ 1 75744 New Paper Surveying Growth Projections for the Internet of Things  https://techliberation.com/2015/06/15/new-paper-surveying-growth-projections-for-the-internet-of-things/ https://techliberation.com/2015/06/15/new-paper-surveying-growth-projections-for-the-internet-of-things/#respond Mon, 15 Jun 2015 19:16:15 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=75587

The “Internet of Things” (IoT) is already growing at a breakneck pace and is expected to continue to accelerate rapidly. In a short new paper (“Projecting the Growth and Economic Impact of the Internet of Things“) that I’ve just released with my Mercatus Center colleague Andrea Castillo, we provide a brief explanation of IoT technologies before describing the current projections of the economic and technological impacts that IoT could have on society. In addition to creating massive gains for consumers, IoT is projected to provide dramatic improvements in manufacturing, health care, energy, transportation, retail services, government, and general economic growth. Take a look at our paper if you’re interested, and you might also want to check out my 118-page law review article, “The Internet of Things and Wearable Technology: Addressing Privacy and Security Concerns without Derailing Innovation” as well as my recent congressional testimony on the policy issues surrounding the IoT.)

IoT-projections

 

]]> https://techliberation.com/2015/06/15/new-paper-surveying-growth-projections-for-the-internet-of-things/feed/ 0 75587 Mercatus Filing to FAA on Small Drones https://techliberation.com/2015/04/24/mercatus-filing-to-faa-on-small-drones/ https://techliberation.com/2015/04/24/mercatus-filing-to-faa-on-small-drones/#comments Fri, 24 Apr 2015 18:46:09 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=75531

Today, Eli Dourado, Ryan Hagemann and I filed comments with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in its proceeding on the “Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems” (i.e. small private drones). In this filing, we begin by arguing that just as “permissionless innovation” has been the primary driver of entrepreneurialism and economic growth in many sectors of the economy over the past decade, that same model can and should guide policy decisions in other sectors, including the nation’s airspace. “While safety-related considerations can merit some precautionary policies,” we argue, “it is important that those regulations leave ample space for unpredictable innovation opportunities.”

We continue on in our filing to note that  “while the FAA’s NPRM is accompanied by a regulatory evaluation that includes benefit-cost analysis, the analysis does not meet the standard required by Executive Order 12866. In particular, it fails to consider all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives.” After that, we itemize the good and the bad of the FAA propose with an eye toward how the agency can maximize innovation opportunities. We conclude by noting:

 The FAA must carefully consider the potential effect of UASs on the US economy. If it does not, innovation and technological advancement in the commercial UAS space will find a home elsewhere in the world. Many of the most innovative UAS advances are already happening abroad, not in the United States. If the United States is to be a leader in the development of UAS technologies, the FAA must open the American skies to innovation.

You can read our entire 9-page filing here.

___________________________

Additional  Reading

]]> https://techliberation.com/2015/04/24/mercatus-filing-to-faa-on-small-drones/feed/ 1 75531 What Cory Booker Gets about Innovation Policy https://techliberation.com/2015/02/16/what-cory-booker-gets-about-innovation-policy/ https://techliberation.com/2015/02/16/what-cory-booker-gets-about-innovation-policy/#comments Mon, 16 Feb 2015 15:32:43 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=75460

Cory BookerLast Wednesday, it was my great pleasure to testify at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing entitled, “The Connected World: Examining the Internet of Things.” The hearing focused “on how devices… will be made smarter and more dynamic through Internet technologies. Government agencies like the Federal Trade Commission, however, are already considering possible changes to the law that could have the unintended consequence of slowing innovation.”

But the session went well beyond the Internet of Things and became a much more wide-ranging discussion about how America can maintain its global leadership for the next-generation of Internet-enabled, data-driven innovation. On both sides of the aisle at last week’s hearing, one Senator after another made impassioned remarks about the enormous innovation opportunities that were out there. While doing so, they highlighted not just the opportunities emanating out of the IoT and wearable device space, but also many other areas, such as connected cars, commercial drones, and next-generation spectrum.

I was impressed by the energy and nonpartisan vision that the Senators brought to these issues, but I wanted to single out the passionate statement that Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) delivered when it came his turn to speak because he very eloquently articulated what’s at stake in the battle for global innovation supremacy in the modern economy. (Sen. Booker’s remarks were not published, but you can watch them starting at the 1:34:00 mark of the hearing video.)

Embrace the Opportunity

First, Sen. Booker stressed the enormous opportunity with the Internet of Things. “ This is a phenomenal opportunity for a bipartisan, profoundly patriotic approach to an issue that can explode our economy. I think that there are trillions of dollars, creating countless jobs, improving quality of life, [and] democratizing our society,” he said. “We can’t even imagine the future that this portends of, and we should be embracing that.”

Sen. Booker has it exactly right. And for more details about the enormous innovation opportunities associated with the Internet of Things, see Section 2 of my new law review article, “The Internet of Things and Wearable Technology Addressing Privacy and Security Concerns without Derailing Innovation,” which provides concrete evidence.

Protect America’s Competitive Advantage in the Innovation Age

Second, Sen. Booker highlighted the importance of getting our policy vision right to achieve those opportunities. He noted that “a lot of my concerns are what my Republican colleagues also echoed, which is we should be doing everything possible to encourage this and nothing to restrict it.”

“ America right now is the net exporter of technology and innovation in the globe, and we can’t lose that advantage,” he said and “we should continue to be the global innovators on these areas.” He continued on to say:

And so, from copyright issues, security issues, privacy issues… all of these things are worthy of us wrestling and grappling with, but to me we cannot stop human innovation and we can’t give advantages in human innovation to other nations that we don’t have. America should continue to lead.

This is something I have been writing actively about now for many years and I agree with Sen. Booker that America needs to get our policy vision right to ensure we don’t lose ground in the international competition to see who will lead the next wave of Internet-enabled innovation. As I noted in my testimony, “If America hopes to be a global leader in the Internet of Things, as it has been for the Internet more generally over the past two decades, then we first have to get public policy right. America took a commanding lead in the digital economy because, in the mid-1990s, Congress and the Clinton administration crafted a nonpartisan vision for the Internet that protected “permissionless innovation”—the idea that experimentation with new technologies and business models should generally be permitted without prior approval.”

Meanwhile, as I documented in my longer essay, “Why Permissionless Innovation Matters: Why does economic growth occur in some societies & not in others?” our international rivals languished on this front because they strapped their tech sectors with layers of regulatory red tape that thwarted digital innovation.

Reject Fear-Based Policymaking

Third, and perhaps most importantly, Sen. Booker stressed how essential it was that we reject a fear-based approach to public policymaking. As he noted at the hearing about these new information technologies, “ there’s a lot of legitimate fears, but in the same way of every technological era, there must have been incredible fears.”

He cited, for example, the rise of air travel and the onset of humans taking flight. Sen. Booker correctly noted that while that must have been quite jarring at first, we quickly came to realize the benefits of that new innovation. The same will be true for new technologies such as the Internet of Things, connected cars, and private drones, Booker argued. In each case, some early fears about these technologies could lead to overly-precautionary approach to policy. “ But for us to do anything to inhibit that leap in humanity to me seems unfortunate,” he said.

Once again, the Senator has it exactly right. As I noted in my law review article on “Technopanics, Threat Inflation, and the Danger of an Information Technology Precautionary Principle,” as well as my recent essay, “Muddling Through: How We Learn to Cope with Technological Change,” humans have exhibited the uncanny ability to adapt to changes in their environment, bounce back from adversity, and learn to be resilient over time. A great deal of wisdom is born of experience, including experiences that involve risk and the possibility of occasional mistakes and failures while both developing new technologies and learning how to live with them. More often than not, citizens have found ways to adapt to technological change by employing a variety of coping mechanisms, new norms, or other creative fixes.

Booker gets that and understands why we need to be patient to allow that process to unfold once again so that we can enjoy the abundance of riches that will accompany a more innovative economy.

Avoiding Global Innovation Arbitrage

Sen. Booker also highlighted how some existing government legal and regulatory barriers could hold back progress. On the wireless spectrum front he noted that “ the government hoards too much spectrum and there is a need for more spectrum out there. Everything we are talking about,” he argued, “is going to necessitate more spectrum.” Again, 100% correct. Although some spectrum reform proposals (licensed vs. unlicensed, for example) will still prove contentious, we can at least all agree that we have to work together to find ways to open up more spectrum since the coming Internet of Things universe of technologies is going to demand lots of it.

Booker also noted that another area where fear undermines American leadership is the issue of private drone use. He noted that, “ the potential possibilities for drone technology to alleviate burdens on our infrastructure, to empower commerce, innovation, jobs… to really open up unlimited opportunities in this country is pretty incredible to me.”

The problem is that existing government policies, enforced by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), have been holding back progress. And that has had consequences in terms of global competitiveness. “As I watch our government go slow in promulgating rules holding back American innovation,” Booker said, “what happened as a result of that is that innovation has spread to other countries that don’t have these rules (or have) put in place sensible regulations. But now we seeing technology exported from America and going other places.”

Correct again! I wrote about this problem in a recent essay on “global innovation arbitrage,” in which I noted how “Capital moves like quicksilver around the globe today as investors and entrepreneurs look for more hospitable tax and regulatory environments. The same is increasingly true for innovation. Innovators can, and increasingly will, move to those countries and continents that provide a legal and regulatory environment more hospitable to entrepreneurial activity.”

That’s already happening with drone innovation, as I documented in that piece. Evidence suggests that the FAA’s heavy-handed and overly-precautionary approach to drones has encouraged some innovators to flock overseas in search of more hospitable regulatory environment.

Luckily, just this weekend, the FAA finally announced its (much-delayed) rules for private drone operations. (Here’s a summary of those rules.) Unfortunately, the rules are a bit of mixed bag, with some greater leeway being provided for very small drones, but the rules will still be too restrictive to allow for other innovative applications, such as widespread drone delivery (which has Amazon angry, among others.)

Bottom line: if our government doesn’t take a more flexible, light-touch approach to these and other cutting-edge technologies, than some of our most creative minds and companies are going to bolt.

I dealt with all of these innovation policy issues in far more detail in my latest little book Permissionless Innovation: The Continuing Case for Comprehensive Technological Freedom, which I condensed further still into this essay on, “Embracing a Culture of Permissionless Innovation.” But Sen. Booker has offered us an even more concise explanation of just what’s at stake in the battle for innovation leadership in the modern economy. His remarks point the way forward and illustrate, as I have noted before, that innovation policy can and should be a nonpartisan issue.

 

Additional Reading

 

]]> https://techliberation.com/2015/02/16/what-cory-booker-gets-about-innovation-policy/feed/ 3 75460 Permissionless Innovation & Commercial Drones https://techliberation.com/2015/02/04/permissionless-innovation-commercial-drones/ https://techliberation.com/2015/02/04/permissionless-innovation-commercial-drones/#comments Wed, 04 Feb 2015 23:20:57 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=75392

Farhad Manjoo’s latest New York Times column, “Giving the Drone Industry the Leeway to Innovate,” discusses how the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) current regulatory morass continues to thwart many potentially beneficial drone innovations. I particularly appreciated this point:

But perhaps the most interesting applications for drones are the ones we can’t predict. Imposing broad limitations on drone use now would be squashing a promising new area of innovation just as it’s getting started, and before we’ve seen many of the potential uses. “In the 1980s, the Internet was good for some specific military applications, but some of the most important things haven’t really come about until the last decade,” said Michael Perry, a spokesman for DJI [maker of Phantom drones]. . . . He added, “Opening the technology to more people allows for the kind of innovation that nobody can predict.”

That is exactly right and it reflects the general notion of “permissionless innovation” that I have written about extensively here in recent years. As I summarized in a recent essay: “Permissionless innovation refers to the notion that experimentation with new technologies and business models should generally be permitted by default. Unless a compelling case can be made that a new invention or business model will bring serious harm to individuals, innovation should be allowed to continue unabated and problems, if they develop at all, can be addressed later.”

The reason that permissionless innovation is so important is that innovation is more likely in political systems that maximize breathing room for ongoing economic and social experimentation, evolution, and adaptation. We don’t know what the future holds. Only incessant experimentation and trial-and-error can help us achieve new heights of greatness. If, however, we adopt the opposite approach of “precautionary principle”-based reasoning and regulation, then these chances for serendipitous discovery evaporate. As I put it in my recent book, “living in constant fear of worst-case scenarios—and premising public policy upon them—means that best-case scenarios will never come about. When public policy is shaped by precautionary principle reasoning, it poses a serious threat to technological progress, economic entrepreneurialism, social adaptation, and long-run prosperity.”

In this regard, the unprecedented growth of the Internet is a good example of how permissionless innovation can significantly improve consumer welfare and our nation’s competitive status relative to the rest of the world. And this also holds lessons for how we treat commercial drone technologies, as Jerry Brito, Eli Dourado, and I noted when filing comments with the FAA back in April 2013. We argued:

Like the Internet, airspace is a platform for commercial and social innovation. We cannot accurately predict to what uses it will be put when restrictions on commercial use of UASs are lifted. Nevertheless, experience shows that it is vital that innovation and entrepreneurship be allowed to proceed without ex ante barriers imposed by regulators. We therefore urge the FAA not to impose  any prospective restrictions on the use of commercial UASs without clear evidence of actual, not merely hypothesized, harm.

Manjoo builds on that same point in his new Times essay when he notes:

[drone] enthusiasts see almost limitless potential for flying robots. When they fantasize about our drone-addled future, they picture not a single gadget, but a platform — a new class of general-purpose computer, as important as the PC or the smartphone, that may be put to use in a wide variety of ways. They talk about applications in construction, firefighting, monitoring and repairing infrastructure, agriculture, search and response, Internet and communications services, logistics and delivery, filmmaking and wildlife preservation, among other uses.

If only the folks at the FAA and in Congress saw things this way. We need to open up the skies to the amazing innovative potential of commercial drone technology, especially before the rest of the world seizes the opportunity to jump into the lead on this front.

___________________________

Additional  Reading

]]> https://techliberation.com/2015/02/04/permissionless-innovation-commercial-drones/feed/ 5 75392 A Nonpartisan Policy Vision for the Internet of Things https://techliberation.com/2014/12/11/a-nonpartisan-policy-vision-for-the-internet-of-things/ https://techliberation.com/2014/12/11/a-nonpartisan-policy-vision-for-the-internet-of-things/#comments Thu, 11 Dec 2014 20:07:11 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=75076

What sort of public policy vision should govern the Internet of Things? I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about that question in essays here over the past year, as well as in a new white paper (“The Internet of Things and Wearable Technology: Addressing Privacy and Security Concerns without Derailing Innovation”) that will be published in the Richmond Journal of Law & Technology early next year.

But I recently heard three policymakers articulate their recommended vision for the Internet of Things (IoT) and I found their approach so inspiring that I wanted to discuss it here in the hopes that it will become the foundation for future policy in this arena.

Last Thursday, it was my pleasure to attend a Center for Data Innovation (CDI) event on “How Can Policymakers Help Build the Internet of Things?” As the title implied, the goal of the event was to discuss how to achieve the vision of a more fully-connected world and, more specifically, how public policymakers can help facilitate that objective. It was a terrific event with many excellent panel discussions and keynote addresses.

Two of those keynotes were delivered by Senators Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.). Below I will offer some highlights from their remarks and then relate them to the vision set forth by Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioner Maureen K. Ohlhausen in some of her recent speeches. I will conclude by discussing how the Ayotte-Fischer-Ohlhausen vision can be seen as the logical extension of the Clinton Administration’s excellent 1997 Framework for Global Electronic Commerce, which proposed a similar policy paradigm for the Internet more generally. This shows how crafting policy for the IoT can and should be a nonpartisan affair.

Sen. Deb Fischer

In her opening remarks at the CDI event last week, Sen. Deb Fischer explained how “the Internet of Things can be a game changer for the U.S. economy and for the American consumer.” “It gives people more information and better tools to analyze data to make more informed choices,” she noted.

After outlining some of the potential benefits associated with the Internet of Things, Sen. Fischer continued on to explain why it is essential we get public policy incentives right first if we hope to unlock the full potential of these new technologies. Specifically, she argued that:

In order for Americans to receive the maximum benefits from increased connectivity, there are two things the government must avoid. First, policymakers can’t bury their heads in the sand and pretend this technological revolution isn’t happening only to wake up years down the road and try to micromanage a fast-changing, dynamic industry. Second, the federal government must also avoid regulation just for the sake of regulation. We need thoughtful, pragmatic responses and narrow solutions to any policy issues that arise. For too long, the only “strategy” in Washington policy-making has been to react to crisis after crisis. We should dive into what this means for U.S. global competitiveness, consumer welfare, and economic opportunity before the public policy challenges overwhelm us, before legislative and executive branches of government – or foreign governments – react without all the facts.

Fischer concluded by noting that, “it’s entirely appropriate for the U.S. government to think about how to modernize its regulatory frameworks, consolidate, renovate, and overhaul obsolete rules. We’re destined to lose to the Chinese or others if the Internet of Things is governed in the United States by rules that pre-date the VCR.”

Sen. Kelly Ayotte

Like Sen. Fischer, Ayotte similarly stressed the many economic opportunities associated with IoT technologies for both consumers and producers alike. [Note: Sen. Ayotte did not publish her remarks on her website, but you can watch her speech from the CDI event beginning around the 17-minute mark of the event video.]

Ayotte also noted that IoT is going to be a major topic for the Senate Commerce Committee and that there will be an upcoming hearing on the issue. She said that the role of the Committee will be to ensure that the various agencies looking into IoT issues are not issuing “conflicting regulatory directives” and “that what is being done makes sense and allows for future innovation that we can’t even anticipate right now.” Among the agencies she cited that are currently looking into IoT issues: FTC (privacy & security), FDA (medical device apps), FCC (wireless issues), FAA (commercial drones), NHTSA (intelligent vehicle technology), NTIA (multistakeholder privacy reviews), as well as state lawmakers and regulatory agencies.

Sen. Ayotte then explained what sort of policy framework America needed to adopt to ensure that the full potential of the Internet of Things could be realized. She framed the choice lawmakers are confronted with as follows:

we as policymakers we can either create an environment that allows that to continue to grow, or one that thwarts that. To stay on the cutting edge, we need to make sure that our regulatory environment is conducive to fostering innovation.” […] “we’re living in the Dark Ages in the ways the some of the regulations have been framed. Companies must be properly incentivized to invest in the future, and government shouldn’t be a deterrent to innovation and job-creation.

Ayotte also stressed that “technology continues to evolve so rapidly there is no one-size-fits-all regulatory approach” that can work for a dynamic environment like this. “If legislation drives technology, the technology will be outdated almost instantly,” and “that is why humility is so important,” she concluded.

The better approach, she argued was to let technology evolve freely in a “permissionless” fashion and then see what problems developed and then address them accordingly. “[A] top-down, preemptive approach is never the best policy” and will only serve to stifle innovation, she argued. “If all regulators looked with some humility at how technology is used and whether we need to regulate or not to regulate, I think innovation would stand to benefit.”

FTC Commissioner Maureen K. Ohlhausen

Fischer and Ayotte’s remarks reflect a vision for the Internet of Things that FTC Commissioner Maureen K. Ohlhausen has articulated in recent months. In fact, Sen. Ayotte specifically cited Ohlhausen in her remarks.

Ohlhausen has actually delivered several excellent speeches on these issues and has become one of the leading public policy thought leaders on the Internet of Things in the United States today. One of her first major speeches on these issues was her October 2013 address entitled, “The Internet of Things and the FTC: Does Innovation Require Intervention?” In that speech, Ohlhausen noted that, “The success of the Internet has in large part been driven by the freedom to experiment with different business models, the best of which have survived and thrived, even in the face of initial unfamiliarity and unease about the impact on consumers and competitors.”

She also issued a wise word of caution to her fellow regulators:

It is . . . vital that government officials, like myself, approach new technologies with a dose of regulatory humility, by working hard to educate ourselves and others about the innovation, understand its effects on consumers and the marketplace, identify benefits and likely harms, and, if harms do arise, consider whether existing laws and regulations are sufficient to address them, before assuming that new rules are required.

In this and other speeches, Ohlhausen has highlighted the various other remedies that already exist when things do go wrong, including FTC enforcement of “unfair and deceptive practices,” common law solutions (torts and class actions), private self-regulation and best practices, social pressure, and so on. (Note: Inspired by Ohlhausen’s approach, I devoted the final section of my big law review article on IoT issues to a deeper exploration of all those “bottom-up” solutions to privacy and security concerns surrounding the IoT and wearable tech.)

The Clinton Administration Vision

These three women have articulated what I regard as the ideal vision for fostering the growth of the Internet of Things. It should be noted, however, that their framework is really just an extension of the Clinton Administration’s outstanding vision for the Internet more generally.

In the 1997 Framework for Global Electronic Commerce, the Clinton Administration outlined its approach toward the Internet and the emerging digital economy. As I’ve noted many times before, the Framework was a succinct and bold market-oriented vision for cyberspace governance that recommended reliance upon civil society, contractual negotiations, voluntary agreements, and ongoing marketplace experiments to solve information age problems. Specifically, it stated that “the private sector should lead [and] the Internet should develop as a market driven arena not a regulated industry.” “[G]overnments should encourage industry self-regulation and private sector leadership where possible” and “avoid undue restrictions on electronic commerce.”

Sen. Ayotte specifically cited those Clinton principles in her speech and said, “I think those words, given twenty years ago at the infancy of the Internet, are today even more relevant as we look at the challenges and the issues that we continue to face as regulators and policymakers.”

I completely agree. This is exactly the sort of vision that we need to keep innovation moving forward to benefit consumers and the economy, and this also illustrates how IoT policy can be a nonpartisan effort.

Why does this matter so much? As I noted in this recent essay, thanks to the Clinton Administration’s bold vision for the Internet:

This policy disposition resulted in an unambiguous green light for a rising generation of creative minds who were eager to explore this new frontier for commerce and communications. . . . The result of this freedom to experiment was an outpouring of innovation. America’s info-tech sectors thrived thanks to permissionless innovation, and they still do today. An annual Booz & Company report on the world’s most innovative companies revealed that 9 of the top 10 most innovative companies are based in the U.S. and that most of them are involved in computing, software, and digital technology.

In other words, America got policy right before and we can get policy right again to ensure we are again global innovation leaders. Patience, flexibility, and forbearance are the key policy virtues that nurture an environment conducive to entrepreneurial creativity, economic progress, and greater consumer choice.

Other policymakers should endorse the vision originally sketched out by the Clinton Administration and now so eloquently embraced and extended by Sen. Fischer, Sen. Ayotte, and Commissioner Ohlhausen. This is the path forward if we hope to realize the full potential of the Internet of Things.

]]> https://techliberation.com/2014/12/11/a-nonpartisan-policy-vision-for-the-internet-of-things/feed/ 3 75076 Global Innovation Arbitrage: Commercial Drones & Sharing Economy Edition https://techliberation.com/2014/12/09/global-innovation-arbitrage-commercial-drones-sharing-economy-edition/ https://techliberation.com/2014/12/09/global-innovation-arbitrage-commercial-drones-sharing-economy-edition/#comments Tue, 09 Dec 2014 21:02:44 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=75060

Capital moves like quicksilver around the globe today as investors and entrepreneurs look for more hospitable tax and regulatory environments. The same is increasingly true for innovation. Innovators can, and increasingly will, move to those countries and continents that provide a legal and regulatory environment more hospitable to entrepreneurial activity. I was reminded of that fact today while reading two different reports about commercial drones and the sharing economy and the global competition to attract investment on both fronts. First, on commercial drone policy, a new Wall Street Journal article notes that:

Amazon.com Inc., which recently began testing delivery drones in the U.K., is warning American officials it plans to move even more of its drone research abroad if it doesn’t get permission to test-fly in the U.S. soon. The statement is the latest sign that the burgeoning drone industry is shifting overseas in response to the Federal Aviation Administration’s cautious approach to regulating unmanned aircraft.

According to the  Journal reporters, Amazon has sent a letter to the FAA warning that, “Without the ability to test outdoors in the United States soon, we will have no choice but to divert even more of our [drone] research and development resources abroad.” And another report in the U.K. Telegraph  notes that other countries are ready and willing to open their skies to the same innovation that the FAA is thwarting in America. Both the UK and Australia have been more welcoming to drone innovators recently. Here’s a report from an Australian newspaper about Google drone services testing there. (For more details, see this excellent piece by Alan McQuinn, a research assistant with the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation: “Commercial Drone Companies Fly Away from FAA Regulations, Go Abroad.”) None of this should be a surprise, as I’ve noted in recent essays and filings. With the FAA adopting such a highly precautionary regulatory approach, innovation has been actively disincentivized. America runs the risk of driving still more private drone innovation offshore in coming months since all signs are that the FAA intends to drag its feet on this front as long as it can, even though Congress has told to agency to take steps to integrate these technologies into national airspace. 

Meanwhile, innovation in the sharing economy is at risk because of incessant bureaucratic meddling at the state and especially the local level across the United States.  My colleagues Matt Mitchell, Christopher Koopman, and I released a new Mercatus Center white paper on these issues yesterday (“The Sharing Economy and Consumer Protection Regulation: The Case for Policy Change“) and argued that most of the rules and regulations holding back the sharing economy are counter-productive and desperately in need of immediate reform. If policymakers don’t take steps to liberalize the layers of red tape that encumber new sharing economy start-ups, it’s possible that some of these companies will also start to look for opportunities offshore. Plenty of countries will be eager to embrace them, which I realized as I was reading through another report recently. The UK’s Department for Business, Innovation & Skills recently published a white paper called, “Unlocking the Sharing Economy,” which discussed how the British government intended to embrace the many innovations that could flow from this space. The preface to the report opened with this telling passage from Rt. Hon. Matthew Hancock, MP and Minister of State for Business, Enterprise, and Energy:

The UK is embracing new, disruptive business models and challenger businesses that increase competition and offer new products and experiences for consumers. Where other countries and cities are closing down consumer choice, and limiting people’s freedom to make better use of their possessions, we are embracing it.

That really says it all, doesn’t it!  If other countries, including the US, don’t clean up their act and create an more welcoming environment for sharing economy innovation, then the UK will be all too happy to invite them to come set up operations there.The offshoring option is just as real in countless other sectors of the modern tech economy. As Marc Andreessen, co-founder of the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, noted in a Politico oped this summer:

Think of it as a sort of “global arbitrage” around permissionless innovation — the freedom to create new technologies without having to ask the powers that be for their blessing. Entrepreneurs can take advantage of the difference between opportunities in different regions, where innovation in a particular domain of interest may be restricted in one region, allowed and encouraged in another, or completely legal in still another.

Similar opportunities for such “global arbitrage” exist for the Internet of Things and wearable tech, intelligent vehicle technology, advanced medical device tech, robotics, Bitcoin, and so on. The links I have embedded here point back to other essays I have written recently about the choice we face in each of these fields, namely, will we embrace “permissionless innovation” or “precautionary principle” thinking. This matters because — as I noted in recent essays (1,2) as well as a book on these issues — economic growth depends upon policymakers promoting the right values when it comes to entrepreneurial activity. “For innovation and growth to blossom, entrepreneurs need a clear green light from policymakers that signals a general acceptance of risk-taking—especially risk-taking that challenges existing business models and traditional ways of doing things,” I noted in a recent essay on the importance of “Embracing a Culture of Permissionless Innovation.” Or, as the great historian of technological progress Joel Mokyr has concluded: “technological progress requires above all tolerance toward the unfamiliar and the eccentric.” To sum up in two words, incentives matter.  “[E]conomic and social institutions have to encourage potential innovators by presenting them with the right incentive structure,” Mokyr notes. Thus, when the economic and social incentive structure discourages risk-taking and experimentation in a given country or even entire continent, we can expect that global innovation arbitrage will accelerate as entrepreneurs look to find more hospitable investment climates.

 

 

Additional Reading:

 

]]> https://techliberation.com/2014/12/09/global-innovation-arbitrage-commercial-drones-sharing-economy-edition/feed/ 1 75060 Problems with Precautionary Principle-Minded Tech Regulation & a Federal Robotics Commission https://techliberation.com/2014/09/22/problems-with-precautionary-principle-minded-tech-regulation-a-federal-robotics-commission/ https://techliberation.com/2014/09/22/problems-with-precautionary-principle-minded-tech-regulation-a-federal-robotics-commission/#comments Mon, 22 Sep 2014 15:55:03 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=74760

If there are two general principles that unify my recent work on technology policy and innovation issues, they would be as follows. To the maximum extent possible:

  1. We should avoid preemptive and precautionary-based regulatory regimes for new innovation. Instead, our policy default should be innovation allowed (or “permissionless innovation”) and innovators should be considered “innocent until proven guilty” (unless, that is, a thorough benefit-cost analysis has been conducted that documents the clear need for immediate preemptive restraints).
  2. We should avoid rigid, “top-down” technology-specific or sector-specific regulatory regimes and/or regulatory agencies and instead opt for a broader array of more flexible, “bottom-up” solutions (education, empowerment, social norms, self-regulation, public pressure, etc.) as well as reliance on existing legal systems and standards (torts, product liability, contracts, property rights, etc.).

I was very interested, therefore, to come across two new essays that make opposing arguments and proposals. The first is this recent Slate oped by John Frank Weaver, “We Need to Pass Legislation on Artificial Intelligence Early and Often.” The second is Ryan Calo’s new Brookings Institution white paper, “The Case for a Federal Robotics Commission.”

Weaver argues that new robot technology “is going to develop fast, almost certainly faster than we can legislate it. That’s why we need to get ahead of it now.” In order to preemptively address concerns about new technologies such as driverless cars or commercial drones, “we need to legislate early and often,” Weaver says. Stated differently, Weaver is proposing “precautionary principle”-based regulation of these technologies. The precautionary principle generally refers to the belief that new innovations should be curtailed or disallowed until their developers can prove that they will not cause any harms to individuals, groups, specific entities, cultural norms, or various existing laws, norms, or traditions.

Calo argues that we need “the establishment of a new federal agency to deal with the novel experiences and harms robotics enables” since there exists “distinct but related challenges that would benefit from being examined and treated together.” These issues, he says, “require special expertise to understand and may require investment and coordination to thrive.

I’ll address both Weaver and Calo’s proposals in turn.

Problems with Precautionary Regulation

Let’s begin with Weaver proposed approach to regulating robotics and autonomous systems.

What Weaver seems to ignore—and which I discuss at greater length in my latest book—is that “precautionary” policy-making typically results in technological stasis and lost opportunities for economic and social progress. As I noted in my book, if we spend all our time living in constant fear of worst-case scenarios—and premising public policy upon such fears—it means that best-case scenarios will never come about. Wisdom and progress are born from experience, including experiences that involve risk and the possibility of occasional mistakes and failures. As the old adage goes, “nothing ventured, nothing gained.”

More concretely, the problem with “permissioning” innovation is that traditional regulatory policies and systems tend to be overly-rigid, bureaucratic, costly, and slow to adapt to new realities. Precautionary-based policies and regulatory systems focus on preemptive remedies that aim to predict the future, and future hypothetical problems that may not ever come about. As a result, preemptive bans or highly restrictive regulatory prescriptions can limit innovations that yield new and better ways of doing things.

Weaver doesn’t bother addressing these issues. He instead advocates regulating “early and often” without stopping to think through the potential costs of doing so. Yet, all regulation has trade-offs and opportunity costs. Before we rush to adopt rules based on knee-jerk negative reactions to new technology, we should conduct comprehensive benefit-cost analysis of the proposals and think carefully about what alternative approaches exist to address whatever problems we have identified.

Incidentally, Weaver also does not acknowledge the contradiction inherent in his thinking when he says robotic technology “is going to develop fast, almost certainly faster than we can legislate it. That’s why we need to get ahead of it now.” Well, if robotic technology is truly developing “faster than we can legislate it,” then “getting out ahead of it” would be seemingly impossible! Unless, that is, he envisions regulating robotic technologies so stringently as to effectively bring new innovation to a grinding halt (or banning altogether).

To be clear, my criticisms should not be read to suggest that zero regulation is the best option. There are plenty of thorny issues that deserve serious policy consideration and perhaps even some preemptive rules. But how potential harms are addressed matters deeply. We should exhaust all other potential nonregulatory remedies first — education, empowerment, transparency, etc. — before resorting to preemptive controls on new forms of innovation. In other words, ex post (or after the fact) solutions should generally trump ex ante (preemptive) controls.

I’ll say more on this point in the conclusion since my response addresses general failings in Ryan Calo’s Federal Robotics Commission proposal, to which we now turn.

Problems with a Federal Robotics Commission

Moving on to Calo, it is important to clarify what he is proposing because he is careful not to overstate his case in favor of a new agency for robotics. He elaborates as follows:

“The institution I have in mind would not “regulate” robotics in the sense of fashioning rules regarding their use, at least not in any initial incarnation. Rather, the agency would advise on issues at all levels—state and federal, domestic and foreign, civil and criminal—that touch upon the unique aspects of robotics and artificial intelligence and the novel human experiences these technologies generate. The alternative, I fear, is that we will continue to address robotics policy questions piecemeal, perhaps indefinitely, with increasingly poor outcomes and slow accrual of knowledge. Meanwhile, other nations that are investing more heavily in robotics and, specifically, in developing a legal and policy infrastructure for emerging technology, will leapfrog the U.S. in innovation for the first time since the creation of steam power.”

Here are some of my concerns with Calo’s proposed Federal Robotics Commission.

Will It Really Just Be an Advisory Body?

First, Calo claims he doesn’t want a formal regulatory agency, but something more akin to a super-advisory body. He does, however, sneak in that disclaimer that he doesn’t envision it to be regulatory “at least not in any initial incarnation.” Perhaps, then, he is suggesting that more formal regulatory controls would be in the cards down the road. It remains unclear.

Regardless, I think it is a bit disingenuous to propose the formation of a new governmental body like this and pretend that it will not someday very soon come to possess sweeping regulatory powers over these technologies. Now, you may well feel that that is a good thing. But I fear that Calo is playing a bit of game here by asking the reader to imagine his new creation would merely stick to an advisory role.

Regulatory creep is real. There just aren’t too many examples of agencies being created solely for their advisory expertise and then not also getting into the business of regulating the technology or topic that is included in that agency’s name. And in light of some of Calo’s past writing and advocacy, I can’t help but think he is actually hoping that the agency comes to take on a greater regulatory role over time. Regardless, I think we can bank on that happening and I that there are reasons to worry about it for reasons noted above and which I will elaborate on below.

Incidentally, if Calo is really more interested in furthering just this expert advisory capacity, there are plenty of other entities (including non-governmental bodies) that could play that role. How about the National Science Foundation, for example? Or how about a multi-stakeholder body consisting of many different experts and institutions? I could go on, but you get the point. A single point of action is also a single point of failure. I don’t want just one big robotics bureaucracy making policy or even advising. I’d prefer a more decentralized approach, and one that doesn’t carry a (potential) big regulatory club in its hand.

Public Choice / Regulatory Capture Problems

Second, Calo underestimates the public choice problems of creating a sector-specific or technology-specific agency just for robotics. To his credit, he does admit that, “agencies have their problems, of course. They can be inefficient and are subject to capture by those they regulate or other special interests.” He also notes he has criticized other agencies for various failings. But he does not say anything more on this point.

Let’s be clear. There exists a long and lamentable history of sector-specific regulators being “captured” by the entities they regulate. To read the ugly reality, see my compendium, “Regulatory Capture: What the Experts Have Found.” That piece documents what leading academics of all political stripes have had to say about this problem over the past century. No one ever summarized the nature and gravity of this problem better than the great Alfred Kahn in his masterpiece, The Economics of Regulation: Principles and Institutions (1971):

“When a commission is responsible for the performance of an industry, it is under never completely escapable pressure to protect the health of the companies it regulates, to assure a desirable performance by relying on those monopolistic chosen instruments and its own controls rather than on the unplanned and unplannable forces of competition. [. . . ] Responsible for the continued provision and improvement of service, [the regulatory commission] comes increasingly and understandably to identify the interest of the public with that of the existing companies on whom it must rely to deliver goods.” (pgs. 12, 46)

The history of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is highly instructive in this regard and was documented in a 66-page law review article I penned with Brent Skorup entitled, “A History of Cronyism and Capture in the Information Technology Sector,” (Journal of Technology Law & Policy, Vol. 18, 2013). Again, it doesn’t make for pleasant reading. Time and time again, instead of serving the “public interest,” the FCC served private interests. The entire history of video marketplace regulation is one of the most sickening examples to consider since there have almost eight decades worth of case studies of the broadcast industry using regulation as a club to beat back new entry, competition, and innovation. [Skorup and I have another paper discussing that specific history and how to go about reversing it.] This history is important because, in the early days of the Commission, many proponents thought the FCC would be exactly the sort of “expert” independent agency that Calo envisions his Federal Robotics Commission would be. Needless to say, things did not turn out so well.

But the FCC isn’t the only guilty offender in this regard. Go read the history about how airlines so effectively cartelized their industry following World War II with the help of the Civil Aeronautics Board. Thankfully, President Jimmy Carter appointed Alfred Kahn to clean things up in the 1970s. Kahn, a life-long Democrat, came to realize that the problem of capture was so insidious and inescapable that abolition of the agency was the only realistic solution to make sure consumer welfare would improve. As a result, he and various other Democrats in the Carter Administration and in Congress worked together to sunset the agency and its hideously protectionist, anti-consumer policies. (Also, please read this amazing 1973 law review article on “Economic Regulation vs. Competition,” by Mark Green and Ralph Nader if you need even more proof of why this is a such a problem.)

In other words, the problem of regulatory capture is not something one can casually dismiss. The problem is still very real and deserves more consideration before we casually propose creating new agencies, even “advisory” agencies. At a minimum, when proposing new agencies, you need to get serious about what sort of institutional constraints you might consider putting in place to make sure that history does not repeat itself. Because if you don’t, various large, well-heeled, and politically-connected robotics companies could come to capture any new “Federal Robotics Commission” in very short order.

Can We Clean Up Old Messes Before Building More Bureaucracies?

Third, speaking of agencies, if it is the case that the alphabet soup collection of regulatory agencies we already have in place are not capable of handling “robotics policy” right now, can we talk about reforming them (or perhaps even getting rid of a few of them) first? Why must we just pile yet another sector-specific or technology-specific regulator on top of the many that already exist? That’s just a recipe for more red tape and potential regulatory capture. Unless you believe there is value in creating bureaucracy for the sake of creating bureaucracy, there is no excuse for not phasing out agencies that failed in their original mission, or whose mission is now obsolete, for whatever reason. This is a fundamental “good government” issue that politicians and academics of all stripes should agree on.

Calo indirectly addresses this point by noting that “we have agencies devoted to technologies already and it would be odd and anomalous to think we are done creating them.” Curiously, however, he spends no time talking about those agencies or asking whether they have done a good job. Again, the heart of Calo’s argument comes down the assertion that another specialized, technology-specific “expert” agency is needed because there are “novel” issues associated with robotics. Well, if it is true, as Calo suggests, that we have been down this path before (and we have), and if you believe our economy or society has been made better off for it, then you need to prove it. Because the objection to creating another regulatory bureaucracy is not simply based on distaste for Big Government; it comes down to the simple questions: (1) Do these things work; and (2) Is there a better alternative?

This is where Calo’s proposal falls short. There is no effort to prove that technocratic or “scientific” bureaucracies, on net, are worth their expense (to taxpayers) or cost (to society, innovation, etc.) when compared to alternatives. Of course, I suspect this is where Calo and I might part ways regarding what metrics we would use to gauge success. I’ll save that discussion for another day and shift to what I regard as the far more serious deficiency of Calo’s proposal.

Do We Become Global Innovation Leaders Through Bureaucratic Direction?

Fourth, and most importantly, Calo does not offer any evidence to prove his contention that we need a sector-specific or technology-specific agency for robotics in order to develop or maintain America’s competitive edge in this field. Moreover, he does not acknowledge how his proposal might have the exact opposite result. Let me spend some time on this point because this is what I find most problematic about his proposal.

In his latest Brookings essay and his earlier writing about robotics, Calo keeps suggesting that we need a specialized federal agency for robotics to avoid “poor outcomes” due to the lack of “a legal and policy infrastructure for emerging technology.” He even warns us that other countries who are looking into robotics policy and regulation more seriously “will leapfrog the U.S. in innovation for the first time since the creation of steam power.”

Well, on that point, I must ask: Did America need a Federal Steam Agency to become a leader in that field? Because unless I missed something in history class, steam power developed fairly rapidly in this country without any centralized bureaucratic direction. Or how about a more recent example: Did America need a Federal Computer Commission or Federal Internet Commission to obtain or maintain a global edge in computing, the Internet, or the Digital Economy?

To the contrary, we took the EXACT OPPOSITE approach. It’s not just that no new agencies were formed to guide the development of computing or the Internet in this country. It’s that our government made a clear policy choice to break with the past by rejecting top-down, command-and-control regulation by unelected bureaucrats in some shadowy Beltway agency.

Incidentally, it was Democrats who accomplished this. While many Republicans today love to crack wise-ass comments about Al Gore and the Internet while simultaneously imagining themselves to be the great defenders of Internet freedom, the reality is that we have the Clinton Administration and one its most liberal members—Ira Magaziner—to thank for the most blessedly “light-touch,” market-oriented innovation policy that the world has ever seen.

What did Magaziner and the Clinton Administration do? They crafted the amazing 1997 Framework for Global Electronic Commerce, a statement of the Administration’s principles and policy objectives toward the Internet and the emerging digital economy. It recommended reliance upon civil society, contractual negotiations, voluntary agreements, and ongoing marketplace experiments to solve information age problems. First, “the private sector should lead. The Internet should develop as a market driven arena not a regulated industry,” the Framework recommended. “Even where collective action is necessary, governments should encourage industry self-regulation and private sector leadership where possible.” Second, “governments should avoid undue restrictions on electronic commerce” and “parties should be able to enter into legitimate agreements to buy and sell products and services across the Internet with minimal government involvement or intervention.”

I’ve argued elsewhere that the Clinton Administration’s Framework, “remains the most succinct articulation of a pro-freedom, innovation-oriented vision for cyberspace ever penned.” Of course, this followed the Administration’s earlier move to allow the full commercialization of the Internet, which was even more important. The policy disposition they established with these decisions resulted in an unambiguous green light for a rising generation of creative minds who were eager to explore this new frontier for commerce and communications. And to reiterate,they did it without any new bureaucracy.

If You Regulate “Robotics,” You End Up Regulating Computing & Networking

Incidentally, I do not see how we could create a new Federal Robotics Commission without it also becoming a de facto Federal Computing Commission. Robotics and the many technologies and industries it already includes — driverless cars, commercial drones, Internet of Things, etc. — is becoming a hot policy topic, and proposals for regulation are already flying. These robotic technologies are developing on top of the building blocks of the Information Revolution: microprocessors, wireless networks, sensors, “big data,” etc.

Thus, I share Cory Doctorow’s skepticism about how one could logically separate “robotics” from these other technologies and sectors for regulatory purposes:

I am skeptical that “robot law” can be effectively separated from software law in general. … For the life of me, I can’t figure out a legal principle that would apply to the robot that wouldn’t be useful for the computer (and vice versa).

In his Brookings paper, Calo responded to Doctorow’s concern as follows:

the difference between a computer and a robot has largely to do with the latter’s embodiment. Robots do not just sense, process, and relay data. Robots are organized to act upon the world physically, or at least directly. This turns out to have strong repercussions at law, and to pose unique challenges to law and to legal institutions that computers and the Internet did not.

I find this fairly unconvincing. Just because robotic technologies have a physical embodiment does not mean their impact on society is all that more profound than computing, the Internet, and digital technologies. Consider all the hand-wringing going on today in cybersecurity circles about how hacking, malware, or various other types of digital attacks could take down entire systems or economies. I’m not saying I buy all that “technopanic” talk (and here are about three dozens of my essays arguing the contrary), but the theoretical ramifications are nonetheless on par with dystopian scenarios about robotics.

The Alternative Approach

Of course, it certainly may be the case that some worst-case scenarios are worth worrying about in both cases—for robotics and computing, that is. Still, is a Federal Robotics Commission or a Federal Computing Commission really the sensible way to address those issues?

To the contrary, this is why we have a Legislative Branch! So many of the problems of our modern era of dysfunctional government are rooted in an unwise delegation of authority to administrative agencies. Far too often, congressional lawmakers delegate broad, ambiguous authority to agencies instead of facing up to the hard issues themselves. This results in waste, bloat, inefficiencies, and an endless passing of the buck.

There may very well be some serious issues raised by robotics and AI that we cannot ignore, and which may even require a little preemptive, precautionary policy. And the same goes for general computing and the Internet. But that is not a good reason to just create new bureaucracies in the hope that some set of mythical technocratic philosopher kings will ride in to save the day with their supposed greater “expertise” about these matters. Either you believe in democracy or you don’t. Running around calling for agencies and unelected bureaucrats to make all the hard choices means that “the people” have even less of a say in these matters.

Moreover, there are many other methods of dealing with robotics and the potential problems robotics might create than through the creation of new bureaucracy. The common law already handles many of the problems that both Calo and Weaver are worried about. To the extent robotic systems are involved in accidents that harm individuals or their property, product liability law will kick in.

On this point, I strongly recommend another new Brookings publication. John Villasenor’s outstanding April white paper, “Products Liability and Driverless Cars: Issues and Guiding Principles for Legislation,” correctly argues that,

“when confronted with new, often complex, questions involving products liability, courts have generally gotten things right. … Products liability law has been highly adaptive to the many new technologies that have emerged in recent decades, and it will be quite capable of adapting to emerging autonomous vehicle technologies as the need arises.”

Thus, instead of trying to micro-manage the development of robotic technologies in an attempt to plan for every hypothetical risk scenario, policymakers should be patient while the common law evolves and liability norms adjust. Traditionally, the common law has dealt with products liability and accident compensation in an evolutionary way through a variety of mechanisms, including strict liability, negligence, design defects law, failure to warn, breach of warranty, and so on. There is no reason to think the common law will not adapt to new technological realities, including robotic technologies. (I address these and other “bottom-up” solutions in my new book.)

In the meantime, let’s exercise some humility and restraint here and avoid heavy-handed precautionary regulatory regimes or the creation of new technocratic bureaucracies. And let’s not forget that many solutions to the problems created by new robotic technologies will develop spontaneously and organically over time as individuals and institutions learn to cope and “muddle through,” as they have many times before.

Additional Reading

]]> https://techliberation.com/2014/09/22/problems-with-precautionary-principle-minded-tech-regulation-a-federal-robotics-commission/feed/ 2 74760 Jack Schinasi on global privacy regulation https://techliberation.com/2014/01/21/schinasi/ https://techliberation.com/2014/01/21/schinasi/#respond Tue, 21 Jan 2014 15:01:15 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=74128

Jack Schinasi discusses his recent working paper, Practicing Privacy Online: Examining Data Protection Regulations Through Google’s Global Expansion published in the Columbia Journal of Transnational Law. Schinasi takes an in-depth look at how online privacy laws differ across the world’s biggest Internet markets — specifically the United States, the European Union and China. Schinasi discusses how we exchange data for services and whether users are aware they’re making this exchange. And, if not, should intermediaries like Google be mandated to make its data tracking more apparent? Or should we better educate Internet users about data sharing and privacy? Schinasi also covers whether privacy laws currently in place in the US and EU are effective, what types of privacy concerns necessitate regulation in these markets, and whether we’ll see China take online privacy more seriously in the future.

Download

Related Links

]]> https://techliberation.com/2014/01/21/schinasi/feed/ 0 74128 New Paper on Wu’s “Separations Principle” & the War on Vertical Integration in the Tech Economy https://techliberation.com/2012/10/16/new-paper-on-wus-separations-principle-the-war-on-vertical-integration-in-the-tech-economy/ https://techliberation.com/2012/10/16/new-paper-on-wus-separations-principle-the-war-on-vertical-integration-in-the-tech-economy/#respond Tue, 16 Oct 2012 20:29:53 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=42606

[UPDATE 4/30/13: This article was subsequently published in Volume 65, Issues 2 of the Federal Communications Law Journal in April 2013. The links below now point to the final FCLJ version.]

The Mercatus Center at George Mason University has just released a new paper by Brent Skorup and me entitled, “Uncreative Destruction: The War on Vertical Integration in the Information Economy.”  Brent, who is the research director for the Information Economy Project at the George Mason University School of Law, and I have been working on this paper since the Spring and we are looking forward to getting it published in a law review shortly. The paper focuses on Tim Wu’s “separations principle” for the digital economy, something I’ve spent some time critiquing here in the past. Here’s the introduction from the 44-page paper that Brent and I just released:

Are information sectors sufficiently different from other sectors of the economy such that more stringent antitrust standards should be applied to them preemptively? Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu responds in the affirmative in his book The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires. Having successfully pushed net-neutrality regulation into the policy spotlight, Wu has turned his attention to what he regards as excessive market concentration and threats to free speech throughout the entire information economy.To support his call for increased antitrust intervention, Wu explains his view of competition in the information economy—a view that deviates substantially from current mainstream antitrust theory. First, Wu contends that “information monopolies” are pervasive in the information economy. Wu’s “monopolists” include Facebook, Apple, Google, and even Twitter. In The Master Switch and essays like “In the Grip of the New Monopolists,” Wu argues that these so-called monopolies are increasing their market power and require more aggressive oversight and regulation.Second, Wu argues that traditional antitrust analysis is not sufficient for information systems because they carry speech. He claims, “Information industries… can never be properly understood as ‘normal’ industries,”and traditional forms of regulation, including antitrust enforcement, “are clearly inadequate for the regulation of information industries.”Wu believes that because information industries “traffic in forms of individual expression” and are “fundamental to democracy,” they should be subject to greater regulatory treatment.Third, in contrast to current competition law’s focus on horizontal relationships, Wu desires a reinvigorated regulatory enforcement that addresses “the corrupting effects of vertically integrated power” in the information sectors.He is particularly concerned about private threats to free speech arising from such vertical integration.The solution, he says, is preventing vertical mergers in the information economy and the mandatory divestiture of vertically integrated companies. To implement this, Wu proposes a Separations Principle for the information economy, which would segregate information providers into three buckets, which we have labeled information creators, information distributors, and hardware makers.This article outlines Wu’s separations proposal, explains why his fears regarding vertical relationships should be rejected by regulatory and antitrust policymakers, and illustrates the legal and practical problems his Separations Principle poses. Wu justifies his Separations Principle by citing monopolies and market power in the information economy. He also advocates using U.S. antitrust authorities to enforce his Principle. We argue that the antitrust harms he fears are not present, and we highlight scholarship on the accepted benefits of vertically integrated firms. We show that Wu’s remedies are policy preferences wrapped in the language of competition law. In fact, the information economy is largely competitive and does not warrant interventionist regulatory enforcement. Since much of American economic vitality flows from the information economy and technology, policymakers should reject a radical antitrust remedy like Wu’s preemptive Separations Principle.

The paper can be downloaded from the Mercatus website, SSRN, or Scribd.

]]> https://techliberation.com/2012/10/16/new-paper-on-wus-separations-principle-the-war-on-vertical-integration-in-the-tech-economy/feed/ 0 42606 Book Review: Access Controlled: The Shaping of Power, Rights, and Rule in Cyberspace https://techliberation.com/2010/06/08/book-review-access-controlled-the-shaping-of-power-rights-and-rule-in-cyberspace/ https://techliberation.com/2010/06/08/book-review-access-controlled-the-shaping-of-power-rights-and-rule-in-cyberspace/#comments Wed, 09 Jun 2010 01:02:46 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=29369

Faithful readers know of my geeky love for tech policy books. I read lots of ’em. There’s a steady stream of Amazon.com boxes that piles up on my doorstop some days because my mailman can’t fit them all in my mailbox.  But I go pretty hard on all the books I review. It’s rare for me pen a glowing review. Occasionally, however, a book will come along that I think is both worthy of your time and which demands a place on your bookshelf because it is such an indispensable resource.  Access Controlled: The Shaping of Power, Rights, and Rule in Cyberspace is one of those books.

Smartly organized and edited by Ronald J. Deibert, John G. Palfrey, Rafal Rohozinski, and Jonathan Zittrain, Access Controlled is essential reading for anyone studying the methods governments are using globally to stifle online expression and dissent. As I noted of their previous edition, Access Denied: The Practice and Policy of Global Internet Filtering, there is simply no other resource out there like this; it should be required reading in every cyberlaw or information policy program.

The book, which is a project of the OpenNet Initiative (ONI), is divided into two parts. Part 1 of the book includes six chapters on “Theory and Analysis.”  They are terrifically informative essays, and the editors have made them all available online here (I’ve listed them down below with links embedded). The beefy second part of the book provides a whopping 480 pages(!) of detailed regional and country-by-country overviews of the global state of online speech controls and discuss the long-term ramifications of increasing government meddling with online networks.

In their interesting chapter on “Control and Subversion in Russian Cyberspace,” Deibert and Rohozinski create a useful taxonomy to illustrate the three general types of speech and information controls that states are deploying today. What I find most interesting is how, throughout the book, various authors document the increasing movement away from “first generation controls,” which are epitomized by “Great Firewall of China”-like filtering methods, and toward second- and third-generation controls, which are more refined and difficult to monitor. Here’s how Deibert and Rohozinski define those three classes (or “generations”) of controls:

  • First-generation controls focus on denying access to specific Internet resources by directly blocking access to servers, domains, keywords, and IP addresses. This type of filtering is typically achieved by the use of specialized software or by implementing instructions manually into routers at key Internet choke points. First-generation filtering is found throughout the world, in particular among authoritarian countries, and is the phenomenon targeted for monitoring by the ONI’s methodology. In some countries, compliance with first-generation filtering is checked manually by security forces, who physically police cybercafes and ISPs. (p. 22)
  • Second-generation controls aim to create a legal and normative environment and technical capabilities that enable state actors to deny access to information resources as and when needed, while reducing the possibility of blowback or discovery. Second-generation controls have an overt and a covert track. The overt track aims to legalize content controls by specifying the conditions under which access can be denied. Instruments here include the doctrine of information security as well as the application of existent laws, such as slander and defamation, to the online environment. The covert track establishes procedures and technical capabilities that allow content controls to be applied ‘‘just in time,’’ when the information being targeted has the highest value (e.g., during elections or public demonstrations), and to be applied in ways that assure plausible deniability. (p. 24)
  • Unlike the first two generations of content controls, third-generation controls take a highly sophisticated, multidimensional approach to enhancing state control over national cyberspace and building capabilities for competing in informational space with potential adversaries and competitors. The key characteristic of third-generation controls is that the focus is less on denying access than successfully competing with potential threats through effective counter-information campaigns that overwhelm, discredit, or demoralize opponents. Third-generation controls also focus on the active use of surveillance and data mining as means to confuse and entrap opponents. (p. 27)

Again, the country-by-country discussions contained in Part 2 of the book document how several nations are moving toward those more sophisticated second- and third-generation information control efforts, although it appears that CIS states are on the cutting edge so far. As Deibert and Rohozinski note in their opening overview chapter: “the center of gravity of practices aimed at managing cyberspace has shifted subtly from policies and practices aimed at denying access to content to methods that seek to normalize control and the exercise of power in cyberspace through a variety of means.” (p. 6)  They also note that, just in the short time since their previous volume was published (in 2008):

a sea change has occurred in the policies and practices of Internet controls. States no longer fear pariah status by openly declaring their intent to regulate and control cyberspace. The convenient rubric of terrorism, child pornography, and cyber-security has contributed to a growing expectation that states should enforce order in cyberspace, including policing unwanted content. (p. 4)

I don’t agree with all the conclusions in the book, of course. In particular, I don’t share the somewhat lugubrious outlook most of the contributors seem to hold toward the long-term prospects for “technologies of freedom” relative to “technologies of control.” I think it’s vital to put things in some historical context in this regard. It’s important to recall that, as a communications medium, the Net is still quite young.  So, is the Net really more susceptible to State control and manipulation than previous communications technologies and platforms?  I’m not so sure, although it’s hard to find a metric to compare them in an analytically rigorous fashion. However, I’m still quite bullish on the prospect for the “technologies of freedom” that are already out there (and those yet to be developed) to help people evade many of the technologies of control being utilized by States across the globe today.

The contributors in Access Controlled don’t really come to any definitive conclusion on this issue, but some of them seem to imply that the Net is more easily manipulated than past technologies. For example, in Chapter 3, Hal Roberts and John Palfrey speak of the Internet as “surveillance-ready technology.” (p. 35).  It’s certainly true that the State has access to more data about its citizens than in the past, but it’s also true that we have more information about the State than ever before, too!  And, again, we also have access to more of those “technologies of freedom” than ever before to at least try to fight back. Compare, for example, the plight of a dissident in a Cold War-era Eastern Bloc communist state to a dissident in China or Iran today. Which one had a better chance of getting their words (or audio and video) out to the local or global community?  But let me be clear about something: I am not one of those quixotic utopians who thinks that the whole world is going to magically become more democratic and free overnight because of the existence of blogs, mobile phones, wireless networks, SMS, Twitter, YouTube, encryption, proxy servers, etc.  Nonetheless, aren’t we citizens of the modern world at least a little better off for having such technologies at our potential disposal?

Moreover, what about the scale and volume problem that would-be censors increasingly face?  Again, let’s remember how young the Net is and how many people aren’t using it aggressively (or at all) yet. The challenge of bottling-up information — or even tracking / monitoring it — is going to grow exponentially more difficult as more people get online, networks expand, digital technologies fall in cost and grow more ubiquitous, and the overall volume of data flows continues to expand.  What sort of armies of censors and surveillance officers are going to be needed going forward to keep up with this pace of change?  Ethan Zuckerman’s chapter on “Intermediary Censorship” in Access Controlled discusses one answer that many nation-states are turning to in an effort to solve that problem: Make the middleman do it. Deputizing the middleman has been used in many contexts before, of course, but the problem for the State is that (a) the middlemen typically resent doing that sort of censoring / surveillance and (b) it is only going to grow more costly and convoluted for those middlemen to carry out the will of the State as the scale and volume problems identified above manifest themselves.

Of course, one could argue that the censoring & surveillance technologies are going to continue to grow more robust, too, and that the middlemen will always fall in line with the State’s desires if the penalties for non-compliance are steep enough.  But I can’t believe that’s how it will play out over the long haul.  At some point, something’s got to give. The technological arms race between the State and its citizens will continue to escalate, but I remain optimistic that we will live not in an “access controlled” world, but more like a “access-sorta-controlled-but-with-lots-of-holes-in-it” kind of world.

Anyway, these are not major reservations that should keep you from reading Access Controlled. Indeed, it may have been for the best that the editors and contributors chose not to go down this line of inquiry since it would have made a long book even longer and forced the contributors to divert from their generally objective positions.

I have only two other little nitpicks with the Access Controlled. First, I do not understand why the editors decided to dump the excellent old chapter from Access Denied on “Tools and Technologies of Net Filtering,” which contained some very useful schematics explaining how technologies of control work. [You can see what I mean here.]  I used to recommend that chapter to students and journalists all the time as the first stop in their investigation of online censorship issues. I hope the editors decide to update that chapter and include it in the next version of the book.  Second, I was quite surprised there wasn’t more discussion of HerdictWeb in the book. Herdict, which I have praised here in the past, “seeks to present a real-time picture of Web site accessibility and inaccessibility… by crowdsourcing data from individuals around the world.”  I think I only saw one mention of Herdict in Access Controlled.  I thought it would figure more prominently in this version of the book.

Those small quibbles aside, I want to congratulate all the editors and contributors to the marvelous volume.  Access Controlled is an indispensable resource that I can wholeheartedly endorse as a “must-have” for your info-tech policy bookshelf.  Buy it now.

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

]]> https://techliberation.com/2010/06/08/book-review-access-controlled-the-shaping-of-power-rights-and-rule-in-cyberspace/feed/ 10 29369 Hillary Clinton’s Historic Speech on Global Internet Freedom https://techliberation.com/2010/01/21/hillary-clintons-historic-speech-on-global-internet-freedom/ https://techliberation.com/2010/01/21/hillary-clintons-historic-speech-on-global-internet-freedom/#comments Thu, 21 Jan 2010 19:51:04 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=25210

This morning at the Newseum in Washington, DC, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton delivered remarks on Internet freedom and the future of global free speech and expression. [Transcript is here + video.] It will go down as a historic speech in the field of Internet policy since she drew a bold line in the cyber-sand regarding exactly where the United States stands on global online freedom. Clinton’s answer was unequivocal: “Both the American people and nations that censor the Internet should understand that our government is committed to helping promote Internet freedom.” “The Internet can serve as a great equalizer,” she argued. “By providing people with access to knowledge and potential markets, networks can create opportunities where none exist.”

Unfortunately, however, “the same networks that help organize movements for freedom… can also be hijacked by governments to crush dissent and deny human rights.”  Echoing Winston Churchill’s famous “iron curtain” speech, Sec. Clinton argued that “With the spread of these restrictive practices, a new information curtain is descending across much of the world.”  She noted that virtual walls are replacing traditional walls in many nations as repressive regimes seek to squash the liberties of their citizenry.  That’s why the Administration’s bold stand in favor of online freedom is so essential.

Importantly, Sec. Clinton made it clear that the Obama Administration is ready to commit significant resources to this effort. She said that, over the next year, the State Department plans to work with others to establish a standing effort to promote technology and will invite technologists to help advance the cause through a new “innovation competition” that will promote circumvention technologies and other technologies of freedom. Sec. Clinton also challenged private companies to stand up to censorship globally and challenge foreign governments when they demand controls on the free flow of information or digital technology.

That is particularly important because Secretary Clinton’s speech comes on the heels of the recent news that Google and at least 30 other Internet companies were the victims of cyberattacks in China, which raises profound questions about the future of online freedom and cybersecurity. Sec. Clinton’s remarks will make it clear to online operators that the U.S. government stands prepared to back them up when they challenge the censorial policies of repressive foreign regimes.

It’s also worth noting that, back in October, Secretary Clinton took a bold stand on global religious defamation policies, which are becoming a growing international concern from a free speech perspective. I praised her for that speech here and noted how important it was that Administration officials put issues such as freedom of religious worship and freedom of speech and expression front and center in future foreign diplomacy efforts. With today’s speech, Sec. Clinton and the Obama Administration have again risen to that challenge by making it clear that these issues will now be part of future diplomatic efforts and discussions.

At one point she joked that somewhere in the world a foreign government official was trying to censor her speech as she delivered it! But she’s right: Plenty of foreign government are still aggressively attempting to censor the Net and to repress digital technologies every second of the day. To put things in perspective, just yesterday, the OpenNet Initiative (ONI) reported that more than half a billion Internet users are being filtered worldwide. And if you want a country-by-country synopsis of just how bad things are, check out the amazing report, Access Denied: The Practice and Policy of Global Internet Filtering, which is compiled by several scholars involved in the ONI project.

To understand the profound (and somewhat ironical) historical significance of Sec. Clinton’s speech today, you need to remember that less than 15 years ago in this country we had a heated debate over whether American citizens should even be allowed to use encryption technology, or if the government should “hold the keys” to such technologies. Luckily, the “Clipper Chip” wars ended when Hillary’s husband and his Administration basically gave up in its efforts to pursue it further. Moreover, I can’t help but recall what Mrs. Clinton said after the White House sex scandal erupted back in 1998 and the details spread rapidly across the Internet: “We are all going to have to rethink how we deal with [the Internet], because there are all these competing values,” she said. “Without any kind of editing function or gatekeeping function, what does it mean to have the right to defend your reputation?”  It seems like Mrs. Clinton has come a long way, so much so that she is now defending technologies — and is apparently willing to even subsidize technologies — that will allow citizens to evade “gatekeepers” of all sorts.

I also appreciated Sec. Clinton’s quip that “once you’re on the internet, you don’t need to be a tycoon or a rock star to have a huge impact on society.”  She repeatedly argued in her speech that the Internet has empowered every man, woman, and child to be heard and to make a difference in this world.  Amen.  But those opportunities for each of us to make a difference can only be realized if governments worldwide are willing to let them happen. I’ve always generally agreed with John Gilmore’s famous quip that “the Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.”  Nonetheless, I’m not a quixotic utopian when it comes to these things. I’m enough of a realist to understand that if governments put enough effort into the task, they can quash networks and silence a great deal of expression.  However, it’s a far more difficult undertaking today than it was in the past. The sheer volume and scope of online activity alone makes it an enormous undertaking.

Could we be on the verge of “the end of censorship” as I have wondered here before? Probably not any time soon, but thanks to the bold vision and steps that Secretary Clinton and Obama Administration announced today, we are a little bit closer.

Additional Reading / Listening:

]]> https://techliberation.com/2010/01/21/hillary-clintons-historic-speech-on-global-internet-freedom/feed/ 137 25210 Wireless Innovation is Alive & Well: Two New Reports Set the Record Straight https://techliberation.com/2009/10/11/wireless-innovation-is-alive-well/ https://techliberation.com/2009/10/11/wireless-innovation-is-alive-well/#comments Sun, 11 Oct 2009 20:45:49 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=22291

The smell of high-tech regulation is increasingly in the air these days and many lawmakers and some activist groups now have the mobile marketplace in their regulatory cross-hairs. Critics make a variety of claims about the wireless market supposedly lacking competition, choice, innovation, or reasonable pricing. Consequently, they want to wrap America’s wireless sector in a sea of red tape.   Two important new studies thoroughly debunk these assertions and set the record straight regarding the state of wireless competition and innovation in the U.S. today. These reports are must-reading for Washington policymakers and FCC officials who are currently contemplating regulatory action.

First, Gerald Faulhaber and Dave Farber have a new report out entitled “Innovation in the Wireless Ecosystem: A Customer-Centric Framework.”  Here’s what Faulhaber and Farber find:

the three segments of the wireless marketplace (applications, devices, and core network) have exhibited very substantial innovation and investment since its inception. Perhaps more interesting, innovation in each segment is highly dependent upon innovation in the other segments. For example, new applications depend upon both advances in device hardware capabilities and advances in spectral efficiency of the core network to provide the network capacity to serve those applications. Further, we find that the three segments of the industry are also highly competitive. There are many players in each segment, each of which aggressively seeks out customers through new technology and new business methods. The results of this competition are manifest: (i) firms are driven to innovate and invest in order to win in the competitive marketplace; (ii) new business models have emerged that give customers more choice; and (iii) firms have opened new areas such as wireless broadband and laptop wireless in order to expand their strategic options.

They continue on to address the policy issues in play here and discuss the “consumer-centric” approach they recommend that the FCC adopt:

Having found that all three segments are highly competitive, we ask, where is the market failure? If none, then the principle of customer-centric applies: let customers make the key decisions regarding which products, services, open vs. managed business models, net neutrality, et al. will survive in the marketplace. While there is no shortage of pundits, advocates, lobbyists and academics advising the FCC that it, rather than customers, should be making these decisions and advising the FCC what those decisions should be, a customer-centric FCC must leave these decisions to customers in a competitive marketplace. Should the FCC decide to preempt customers and make choices for them, it follows as does night from day that the result will be (i) less customer choice, and therefore reduced customer well-being; (ii) higher costs for producers and therefore customers; (iii) lower incentives to invest and innovate, harming customers, producers and the American economy. In this case, economics and technology are on the same page: economists advise intervention only in the case of demonstrated market failure, and then only if there is evidence that the intervention will do more good than harm. The technologist’s advice is more pithy and down to earth: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!

Amen to that.  Let’s hope our lawmakers are listening.

Second, Everett Ehrlich, Jeffrey Eisenach, and Wayne Leighton have a terrific new paper out entitled “The Impact of Regulation on Innovation and Choice in Wireless Communications,” which reaches similar conclusions to those Faulhaber and Farber found in their report. Here’s the executive summary from the Ehrlich-Eisenach-Leighton report:

Proposals to increase regulation of mobile wireless services, for example, by applying “net neutrality” regulation, are often based on claims that such regulation would enhance innovation and increase consumer choice. In fact, they would have the opposite effect. The business practices that would be banned by such regulation are efficient mechanisms for spreading and reducing risk, lowering transactions costs, and enhancing marketing activities, all of which contribute to innovation and choice. Moreover, product differentiation increases competition and thus contributes both directly and indirectly to consumer choice. While some types of exclusive agreements and other “discriminatory” practices can theoretically harm competition, the precondition for such harm to occur – i.e., market power in one or more of the affected markets – generally is not present in wireless markets. Hence, the proposed regulations cannot be justified on grounds of market failure. Rather than increasing innovation and consumer choice, as promised, they would severely disrupt the wireless sector’s highly successful business model and significantly reduce innovation and consumer choice.

Like the Faulhaber-Farber paper, the Ehrlich-Eisenach-Leighton paper examines the major segments of the wireless marketplace — applications, devices, and networks — and shows them all to be vigorously competitive and experiencing significant innovation. Some of the following tables and charts help to illustrate this.

This first table shows how concentration ratios for the U.S. market (as measured by HHI) are among the lowest in the world.

Intl Wireless HHI Ratios

The next two charts show that U.S. carriers have the lowest revenue per minute (60% lower than the average OECD country) even though average minutes per use are more than twice the amount of the next highest ranked country (Canada).

Wireless Rev per min globally

Wireless Minutes of use globally

Finally, this final chart from their report offers a snapshot of mobile Internet penetration in 16 countries showing the U.S. on top: Mobile Net pen rate globally

Incidentally, the Faulhaber-Farber study also does a nice job listing the various mobile application stores out there today:

Device Manufacturer App Stores Apple’s App Store BlackBerry’s App World Palm’s App Catalog Nokia’s Ovi Store Samsung’s Application Store Sony’s PlayNow arena LG’s Application Store

Software Developers Google’s Android Market Microsoft’s Windows Mobile

Carriers AT&T’s MEdia Mall Verizon Wireless’ Tools & Applications Sprint’s Software Store US Cellular’s easyedge Cellular South’s Discover Center Cricket’s Downloads

Independent Stores Handango GetJar

And the Ehrlich-Eisenach-Leighton paper provides some addition perspective on innovation in the handset and applications space:

On the metrics that seem to be of greatest concern to regulation advocates – choice and innovation – the data also show the industry is performing well. For example, CTIA reports there are more than 630 different wireless handsets and devices available in the U.S., compared with only 147 in the United Kingdom, and notes that many of the most advanced handsets introduced in recent months have been launched in the U.S., including (among others) the iPhone 3G, the Google G1, and the Blackberry Storm. Amazon’s highly popular Kindle was also launched in the U.S. with connectivity provided by Sprint – while its European launch was delayed for a full year by Amazon’s inability to reach agreement with a mobile carrier there. As noted above, the number and variety of available applications is increasing rapidly: In addition to the Apple Apps Store, application downloads are now available from the Android Market (Google), the Palm Software Store, Blackberry App World and the Nokia Ovi Store, offering a total of more than 60,000 different applications. On July 14, 2009 Apple announced that more than 1.5 billion applications had been downloaded from its iPhone App Store since its launch in July 2008.

Actually, that number is even higher now.  As I noted here recently, in just a little over a year, Apple reports there’s been 2 billion downloads of over 85,000 apps from over 125,000 developers.  It’s just stunning when you think about it.

I encourage everyone to read both reports cover-to-cover.  They provide a comprehensive look at the reality on the ground — or in the air, as the case may be — in America’s mobile marketplace.

]]> https://techliberation.com/2009/10/11/wireless-innovation-is-alive-well/feed/ 20 22291 Video from my Second Life Discussion about Government’s Place in Virtual Worlds https://techliberation.com/2009/10/09/video-of-my-second-life-discussion-about-governments-place-in-virtual-worlds/ https://techliberation.com/2009/10/09/video-of-my-second-life-discussion-about-governments-place-in-virtual-worlds/#comments Fri, 09 Oct 2009 14:48:39 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=22402

I really enjoyed my Second Life appearance on “Government’s Place in Virtual Worlds and Online Communities,” which was hosted by Metanomics.  You can watch the entire segment on the Metanomics site.  But the folks at Metanomics have also posted 6 clips from the show at YouTube that highlight some of the topics we discussed.  Here’s the list of clips and the videos:

Part 1: Are the Feds about to Regulate Second Life & Virtual Worlds?

http://www.youtube.com/v/gbirOVrZ0bQ&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_profilepage&fs=1

Part 2: Global Communities, Local Values, Internet Governance & The Dangers of “Harmonization”

http://www.youtube.com/v/Ks62FvoOWh8&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_profilepage&fs=1

Part 3:  Virtual Child Pornography & Our Virtual Reality Future

http://www.youtube.com/v/Fvmc0bo6MFc&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_profilepage&fs=1

Part 4: Why Speech Controls & Privacy Regulations are Two Sides of the Same Coin

http://www.youtube.com/v/gSCgZE85U9E&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_profilepage&fs=1

Part 5: Privacy, Advertising, User Empowerment, and the “Free” Internet

http://www.youtube.com/v/yvb59cIjYkU&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_profilepage&fs=1

Part 6: Virtual World Self-Governance and a “Utopia of Utopias”

http://www.youtube.com/v/H4qEcfCCFCE&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_profilepage&fs=1

Finally, here’s some of the background material I referenced during the show:

]]> https://techliberation.com/2009/10/09/video-of-my-second-life-discussion-about-governments-place-in-virtual-worlds/feed/ 12 22402 Herdict Launches; Will Help Us Track Global Censorship Efforts https://techliberation.com/2009/02/25/herdict-launches-will-help-us-track-global-censorship-efforts/ https://techliberation.com/2009/02/25/herdict-launches-will-help-us-track-global-censorship-efforts/#comments Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:42:08 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=17049

Harvard’s Jonathan Zittrain has launched an interesting new project called “HerdictWeb,” which “seeks to gain insight into what users around the world are experiencing in terms of web accessibility; or in other words, determine the herdict.”  It’s a useful tool for determining whether governments are blocking certain websites for whatever reason.  Here’s Zittrain’s sock puppet video with all the details!

http://www.youtube.com/v/NggzBHSXdCo&hl=en&fs=1

The website is quite slick and very user-friendly, and they’ve even created a downloadable Firefox button that will automatically check site accessibility while you’re surfing the Net.

The information gathered from this effort will be useful for the OpenNet Initiative that Zittrain and John Palfrey co-created (with others from Univ. of Toronto, Oxford Univ., and Univ. of Cambridge) and wrote about in their excellent book, Access Denied: The Practice and Policy of Global Internet Filtering, which was one of my favorite technology policy books of the past year.  The data collected will give them, and us, a fuller picture of just how widespread global filtering and censorship efforts really are.  I encourage you to take a look and spread the word, especially to those in foreign countries who could probably use it more than us. (Of course, their governments will likely block Herdict once the word gets around!)

]]> https://techliberation.com/2009/02/25/herdict-launches-will-help-us-track-global-censorship-efforts/feed/ 15 17049 ICANN’s Revised gTLD Proposal Still Comes Up Short https://techliberation.com/2009/02/20/icanns-revised-gtld-proposal-still-comes-up-short/ https://techliberation.com/2009/02/20/icanns-revised-gtld-proposal-still-comes-up-short/#comments Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:37:41 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=16917

ICANN has just released a second draft of its Applicant Guidebook, which would guide the creation of new generic topmore generic top-level domains (gTLDs) such as .BLOG, .NYC or .BMW. As ICANN itself declared (PDF), “New gTLDs will bring about the biggest change in the Internet since its inception nearly 40 years ago.”  PFF Adjunct Fellow Michael Palage and former ICANN Board member addressed the key problems with ICANN’s original proposal in his  paper ICANN’s “Go/ No-Go” Decision Concerning New gTLDs (PDF & embedded below), released earlier this week.

ICANN deserves credit for its detailed analysis of the many comments on the original draft which Mike summarized back in December.  ICANN also deserved credit for addressing two strong concerns of the global Internet community in response to the first draft:

  • ICANN has removed its proposed 5% global domain name tax on all registry services, something Mike explains in greater detail in his “Go/No-Go” paper.
  • ICANN has commissioned a badly-needed economic study on the dynamics of the domain name system “in broad.” But such a study must address how the fees ICANN collects from specific user communities relate to the actual costs of the services ICANN provides. The study should also consider why gTLDs should continue to provide such a disproportionate percentage of ICANN’s funding—currently 90%—given increasing competition between gTLDs and ccTLDs (e.g., the increasing use of .CN in China instead of .COM).

These concerns are part of a broader debate:  Will ICANN abide by its mandate to justify its fees based on recovering the costs of services associated with those fees, or will ICANN be free to continue “leveraging its monopoly over an essential facility of the Internet ( i.e., recommending additions to the Internet’s Root A Server) to charge whatever fees it wants?”  If, as Mike has discussed, ICANN walks away from its existing contractual relationship with the Department of Commerce and claims “fee simple absolute” ownership of the domain name system, who will enforce such a cost-recovery mandate?  

But ICANN simply “kicked the can down the road on the biggest concern”: how to minimize abusive domain name registrations ( e.g., cybersquatting, typosquatting, phishing, etc.) and reduce their impact on consumers. ICANN seems only to have made a vague promise to engage in additional outreach and consultation on this problem.  But Mike has proposed a number of potential solutions that are narrowly tailored to protect brand holders while respecting the fair use rights of other, including: 

  • A Rebuttable Reserve Names List that would minimize the need for defensive registrations of marks that have been subject to abusive registrations by freezing registration of domain names (e.g., DELTA.AIR) that precisely correspond to those marks (e.g., Delta Airlines’ “Delta” trademark)  for the 60 days leading up to the opening of a new TLD (e.g., .AIR)—although anyone can rebut this presumption upon making a fair use showing under existing UDRP principles.
  • An Expedited Domain Suspension Policy, either  as a new policy, or an amendment to the existing UDRP, that would provide a faster and more cost-effective remedy for abusive domain name registrations on an ongoing basis, but only for marks that have been registered with a national trademark authority (or the equivalent thereof).
  • A Uniform Proxy Registration Policy governing the use of proxy services that substitute their own contact information for the registration’s information in the Whois database; such baseline practices and safeguards would reduce abuse that could harm legitimate users while preserving the option of proxy registration for privacy-sensitive users.

Washington Internet Daily (subscription-only) reports that:

ICANN is also rethinking its timeline for launching the gTLD application process, it said. There will be a third draft guidebook, making it unlikely applications will be accepted before December, it said. The new draft leaves provisions on four major issues – security and stability, malicious misconduct, trademark protection and demand/economic analysis of the need for new gTLDs – unchanged pending further discussion, ICANN said. Comments are due April 13. 

PFF wil continue to respond to ICANN’s call for comment to promote responsible expansion of the domain name space.  Here’s Mike’s paper (click on the rectangle-in-rectangle button at the top right to maximize the iPaper viewer):

http://d.scribd.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=12648605&access_key=key-11xxzxu87s9brnr9wnr2&page=1&version=1&viewMode=list]]> https://techliberation.com/2009/02/20/icanns-revised-gtld-proposal-still-comes-up-short/feed/ 5 16917