By Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka
Opt-in mandates may soon be coming to an Internet near you! Rick Boucher, House Energy & Commerce Committee Chairman, is expected to soon introduce the privacy bill he’s been working on behind closed doors for many months. At the heart of the bill is supposed to be a mandate that websites and services obtain opt-in consent prior to collecting information with users—at least if they plan on sharing that information with any third party or doing with it beyond what a narrow safe harbor would allow.
Boucher is apparently trying to strike the right balance between “protecting privacy” and the benefits to users of advertising and data collection. But there may be significant costs to an opt-in regime that are little appreciated by privacy advocates, who tend to think of opt-out as meaningless and opt-in as the ideal of user empowerment. In their new paper “
Opt-in Dystopias,” Google’s Senior Policy Counsel Nicklas Lundblad and Policy Manager Betsy Masiello provide a sophisticated analysis of the dark side of opt-in. They argue that “mandatory opt-in applied across contexts of information collection is poised to have several unintended consequences on social welfare and individual privacy,” specifically:
• Dual cost structure: Opt-in is necessarily a partially informed decision because users lack experience with the service and value it provides until after optingin. Potential costs of the opt-in decision loom larger than potential benefits,
whereas potential benefits of the opt-out decision loom larger than potential costs.
•
Excessive scope: Under an opt-in regime, the provider has an incentive to exaggerate the scope of what he asks for, while under the opt-out regime the provider has an incentive to allow for feature-by-feature opt-out.
•
Desensitisation: If everyone requires opt-in to use services, users will be desensitised to the choice, resulting in automatic opt-in.
•
Balkanisation: The increase in switching costs presented by opt-in decisions is likely to lead to proliferation of walled gardens.
Lundblad and Masiello discuss each of those concerns in great detail, so read the paper for further elaboration. They do a particularly good good walking the reader through the complexity of even defining what we mean by “opt-in,” which is far trickier than most people imagine.
Continue reading →
Check out this amazing map of the “Dogs of War” of online competition created by Gizmodo’s Shane Snow (view full size here):
For all the complaining about these three tech titans, they’re locked in fierce competition with each other. This chart doesn’t even mention other players in the vibrantly competitive online ecosystem, like Facebook, Yahoo!, Twitter, and countless others. Makes you want to go spend a weekend playing an endless game of Risk,
Axis & Allies or Supremacy with your best frenemies, doesn’t it? But of course, the board game analogy only goes so far, because today’s battlelines and players are only a snapshot of a long-term process of dynamic, highly rivalrous competition. But as Adam and I noted in our Forbes.com piece last fall calling for quick approval of Microsoft’s search partnership with Yahoo!:
Alas, regulators seem stuck in the past. European officials in particular seem hell-bent on continuing the antitrust crusade of the ’90s against Microsoft, myopically focused on fading paradigms (desktop operating systems and Web browsers). But instead of narrowly defining high-tech markets based on yesterday’s technologies or market structures, policymakers should embrace the one constant of the Internet economy: dynamic, disruptive and irrepressible change. Continue reading →
Friday, April 16: I’ll be moderating a PFF Capitol Hill briefing on Super-Sizing the FTC & What It Means for the Internet, Media & Advertising. My panel of FTC veterans and observers will discuss the growing powers of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). As I’ve mentioned here and here, financial reform legislation passed by the House and now pending in the Senate would give the FTC sweeping new powers to regulate not just Wall Street, but also unfair or deceptive trade practices across the economy. This could reshape regulation in a wide range of areas, such as privacy, cybersecurity, child safety, child nutrition, etc. The FTC has also asserted expanded authority to regulate “unfair” competition in its lawsuit against Intel. Register here for this 12-2 pm briefing in the Capitol Visitor Center!
Thursday, April 15: I’ll be participating in Capitol Hill briefing on Google’s proposed acquisition of AdMob, a leading in-app mobile ad network, which the FTC appears poised to challenge. (RSVP here.) Geoff Manne has probably done the best job debunking arguments against the deal but, sadly, couldn’t make the panel. ITIF’s Dan Castro will moderate a panel including (besides myself):
- Simon Buckingham, who’s expressed concerns about the deal on his
Appitalism blog and accused Google of leveraging Google’s desktop search dominance into the high-end mobile market”;
- Lillie Coney of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), which never passes up an opportunity to denounce Google on privacy grounds;
- Jonathan Kanter, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, who represented TradeComet.com in their antitrust suit against Google and has also represented Microsoft in the past; and
- Glenn Manishin – Duane Morriss LLP, an antitrust lawyer who’s represented Google.
Tuesday, April 27: We just announced another PFF Briefing: Cable, Broadcast & the First Amendment: Will the Supreme Court End Must-Carry?, 10:00-11:45 a.m at Hogan & Hartson LLP (555 13th Street NW, Washington, DC). Continue reading →
Yesterday, if you paid attention reeeeally carefully (1, 2, 3, 4), you probably figured out the D.C. Circuit had ruled that Congress hadn’t given the Federal Communications Commission power to regulate the Internet and that the FCC couldn’t bootstrap that power from other authority. It was a rare but welcome affirmation that the rule of law might actually pertain in the regulatory area.
But the Open Internet Coalition put out a release containing threat exaggeration to make Dick Cheney blush:
“Today’s DC Circuit decision . . . creates a dangerous situation, one where the health and openness of broadband Internet is being held hostage by the behavior of the major telco and cable providers.”
That’s right. It’s a hostage-taking when consumers and businesses—and not government—hammer out the terms and conditions of Internet access. Inferentially, the organization representing Google, Facebook, eBay, and Twitter believes that Internet users are too stupid and supine to choose the Internet service they want.
What these content companies are really after, of course, is government support in their tug-of-war with the companies that transport Internet content. It’s hard to know which produces the value of the Internet and which should gain the lion’s share of the rewards. Let the market—not lobbying—decide what reward content and transport deserve for their roles in the Internet ecosystem.
As I said of the Open Internet Coalition’s membership on a saltier, but still relentlessly charming, day: “[T]hese companies are losing their way. The leadership of these companies should fire their government relations staffs, disband their contrived advocacy organization, and get back to innovating and competing.”
Ever since he’s been blogging, Scott Cleland’s blogging has been in overdrive. However, anyone willing to look behind the curtain of his latest post will discover that many of the attributes of Scott Cleland are attributes that are shared by the Zodiac Killer.
- First, Scott Cleland, like the Zodiac Killer, has a face. Eyes, nose, mouth—they’re all there. They are alike in this respect—Scott Cleland and the Zodiac Killer are both, unrepentantly, people with faces.
- Second, Scott Cleland, like the Zodiac Killer, speaks English. We know this from his blog posts—which are written in English—the same language the Zodiac killer used during his murderous spree in the San Francisco Bay Area between December 1968 and October 1969.
- Third, delving more deeply into the language of the Zodiac Killer and Scott Cleland, both use articles like “the”; “a”; and “an”. An equal propensity to use prepositions inhabits the writing styles of Scott Cleland and the Zodiac Killer.
- Fourth, like the top suspect in the Zodiac Killer case, DNA evidence does not implicate Scott Cleland. Diabolically, he has done nothing to indicate his participation in these crimes.
(Dropping the imitative send-up) Scott’s recent post implicating Google as similar to China is probably best described as conflation, a logical fallacy in which similarities between two distinct entities collapse them together.
Scott has many similarities to the Zodiac Killer, but lacks the one that matters: he never killed anybody.
Likewise, Google has many similarities with the Chinese government—all organizations do—but it lacks the one that matters: Google makes no claim to exclusive power to initiate force. That is the hallmark of government which is what makes government so dangerous. Related: Unlike China, Google never killed anybody.
In the struggle between Google and China, there is no moral equivalency. China oppresses a billion people. Google enlightens.
I had a long interview this morning with the Christian Science Monitor. Like many of the interviews I’ve had this year, the subject was Google. At the increasingly congested intersection of technology and the law, Google seems to be involved in most of the accidents.
Just to name a few of the more recent pileups, consider the Google books deal, net neutrality and the National Broadband Plan, Viacom’s lawsuit against YouTube for copyright infringement, Google’s very public battle with the nation of China, today’s ruling from the European Court of Justice regarding trademarks, adwords, and counterfeit goods, the convictions of Google executives in Italy over a user-posted video, and the reaction of privacy advocates to the less-than-immaculate conception of Buzz.
In some ways, it should come as no surprise to Google’s legal counsel that the company is involved in increasingly serious matters of regulation and litigation. After all, Google’s corporate goal is the collection, analysis, and distribution of as much of the world’s information as possible, or, as the company puts it,” to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.” That’s a goal it has been wildly successful at in its brief history, whether you measure success by use (91 million searches a day) or market capitalization ($174 billion).
As the world’s economy moves from one based on physical goods to one driven by information flow, the mismatch between industrial law and information behavior has become acute, and Google finds itself a frequent proxy in the conflicts.
Continue reading →
A couple weeks ago the Google Books Settlement fairness hearing took place in New York City, where Judge Denny Chin heard dozens of oral arguments discussing the settlement’s implications for competition, copyright law, and privacy. The settlement raises a number of very challenging legal questions, and Judge Chin’s decision, expected to come down later this spring, is sure to be a page-turner no matter how he rules.
My work on the Google Books Settlement has focused on reader privacy concerns, which have been a major point of contention between Google and civil liberties groups like EFF, ACLU, and CDT. While I agree with these groups that existing legal protections for sensitive user information stored by cloud computing providers are inadequate, I do not believe that reader privacy should factor into the court’s decision on whether to approve or reject the settlement.
I elaborated on reader privacy in an amicus curiae brief I submitted to the court last September. I argued that because Google Books will likely earn a sizable portion of its revenues from advertising, placing strict limits on data collection (as EFF and others have advocated) would undercut Google’s incentive to scan books, ultimately hurting the very authors whom the settlement is supposed to benefit. While the settlement is not free from privacy risks, such concerns aren’t unique to Google Books nor are they any more serious than the risks surrounding popular Web services like Google search and Gmail. Comparing Google Book Search to brick-and-mortar libraries is inapt, and like all cloud computing providers, Google has a strong incentive to safeguard user data and use it only in ways that benefit users and advertisers.
Continue reading →
I’m quoted briefly in a story today in E-Commerce Times (see “Apple’s Patent Attack: This Too May be Overhyped” by Erika Morphy) about the patent lawsuit filed this week by Apple against rival mobile device maker HTC.
Apple, of course, produces the iPhone, while HTC makes Google’s Nexus One and other devices that run on Google’s Android operating system.
So right from the start this case looks less like a simple patent dispute and more like a warning shot over Google’s bow. The two companies are increasingly becoming rivals. In August of last year, Google CEO Eric Schmidt resigned from Apple’s board. Apple CEO Steve Jobs wrote at the time, “Unfortunately, as Google enters more of Apple’s core businesses, with Android and now Chrome OS, Eric’s effectiveness as an Apple Board member will be significantly diminished….” Continue reading →
In interviews last week and this week (see KUOW’s “The Conversation”), I argue that the convictions of three Google executives by an Italian court for “illegal handling of personal data” threaten the future of all hosted content. More than that, I said that the convictions had a disturbing subtext: the on-going effort of the Italian government to intimidate the remaining media outlets in that country it doesn’t already control. (See “Larger Threat is Seen in Google Case” by the New York Times’ Rachel Donadio for the details.)
In Italy and other countries (think of the Twitter revolt following dubious elections in Iran), TCP/IP is quickly becoming the last bastion of a truly free press. In that sense, the objectionable nature of the video in question made Google an easy target for a prosecutor who wanted to give the appearance of defending human dignity rather than threatening a free press.
In a post that was picked up on Saturday by TechMeme, I explained my position in detail:
The case involved a video uploaded to Google Videos (before the acquisition of YouTube) that showed the bullying of a person with disabilities.
Internet commentators were up-in-arms about the conviction, which can’t possibly be reconciled with European law or common sense. The convictions won’t survive appeals, and the government knows that as well as anyone. They neither want to or intend to win this case. If they did, it would mean the end of the Internet in Italy, if nothing else. Still, the case is worth worrying about, for reasons I’ll make clear in a moment.
But let’s consider the merits of the prosecution. Prosecutors bring criminal actions because they want to change behavior—behavior of the defendant and, more important given the limited resources of the government, others like him. What behavior did the government want to change here? Continue reading →
Progress Snapshot 6.6, The Progress & Freedom Foundation (PDF)
Mobile broadband speeds (at the “core” of wireless networks) are about to skyrocket—and revolutionize what we can do on-the-go online (at the “edge”). Consider four recent stories:
- Networks: MobileCrunch notes that Verizon will begin offering 4G mobile broadband service (using Long Term Evolution or LTE) “in up to 60 markets by mid-2012″—at an estimated 5-12 Mbps down and 2-5 Mbps up, LTE would be faster than most wired broadband service.
- Devices: Sprint plans to launch its first 4G phone (using WiMax, a competing standard to LTE) this summer.
- Applications: Google has finally released Google Earth for the Nexus One smartphone on T-Mobile, the first to run Google’s Android 2.1 operating system.
- Content: In November, Google announced that YouTube would begin offering high-definition 1080p video, including on mobile devices.
While the Nexus One may be the first Android phone with a processor powerful enough to crunch the visual awesomeness that is Google Earth, such applications will still chug along on even the best of today’s 3G wireless networks. But combine the ongoing increases in mobile device processing power made possible by Moore’s Law with similar innovation in broadband infrastructure, and everything changes: You can run hugely data-intensive apps that require real-time streaming, from driving directions with all the rich imagery of Google Earth to mobile videoconferencing to virtual world experiences that rival today’s desktop versions to streaming 1080p high-definition video (3.7+ Mbps) to… well, if I knew, I’d be in Silicon Valley launching a next-gen mobile start-up!
This interconnection of infrastructure, devices and applications should remind us that broadband isn’t just about “big dumb pipes”—especially in the mobile environment, where bandwidth is far more scarce (even in 4G) due to spectrum constraints. Network congestion can spoil even the best devices on the best networks. Just ask users in New York City, where AT&T has apparently just stopped selling the iPhone online in order to try to relieve AT&T’s over-taxed network under the staggering bandwidth demands of Williamsburg hipsters, Latter-Day Beatniks from the Village, Chelsea boys, and Upper West Side Charlotte Yorks all streaming an infinite plethora of YouTube videos and so on. Continue reading →
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.
