My latest Forbes column is a celebration of 47 U.S.C. §230, otherwise known as “Section 230.” Sec. 230 turns 15 years old this year and I argue that this important law has “helped foster the abundance of informational riches that lies at our fingertips today” and has served as “the foundation of our Internet freedoms.”  Sadly, however, few people have even heard of it. Worse yet, as I note in my essay, this important law is under attack from various academics and organizations who want it modified to address a variety of online problems. But, as I note:

If the threat of punishing liability is increased, the chilling effect on the free exchange of views and information would likely be quite profound. Many site administrators would immediately start removing massive amounts of content to avoid liability. More simply, they might just shut down any interactive features on their sites or limit service in other ways.

Head over to Forbes to read the rest. And here’s a graphic I put together illustrating all the new fault lines in the war against Sec. 230. It will be included in a new paper on the issue that I am wrapping up right now.

Like Milton, I’m very worried about the political vulnerabilities that might arise if the wireless sector grows more concentrated. Still, I think it’s a big mistake to legitimize one repressive incarnation of coercive state power (antitrust intervention) to reduce the likelihood that another incarnation (information control) will intensify. This approach is not only defeatist, as Hance argues, but it also requires a tactical assessment that rests on several dubious assumptions.

First, Milton overestimates the marginal risk that the AT&T – T-Mobile deal will pave the way for an information control regime. The wireless market isn’t static; the disappearance of T-Mobile as an independent entity (which may well occur regardless of whether this deal goes through) hardly means we’re forever “doomed” to live with 3 nationwide wireless players. With major spectrum auctions likely on the horizon, and the possibility of existing spectrum holdings being combined in creative ways, the eventual emergence of one or more nationwide wireless competitors is quite possible — especially if, as skeptics of the AT&T – T-Mobile deal often argue, the wireless market underperforms in the years following the acquisition.

More importantly, network operators, like almost all Internet gatekeepers, face mounting pressure from their users not to facilitate censorship, surveillance, and repression. Case in point: AT&T is a leading member of the Digital Due Process coalition (to which I also belong) that’s urging Congress to substantially strengthen the 1986 federal statute that governs law enforcement access to private electronic communications. Consider that AT&T’s position on this major issue is officially at odds with the official position of the same Justice Department that’s currently reviewing the AT&T – T-Mobile deal. Would a docile, subservient network operator challenge its state overseers so publicly?

Or take Google. Arguably, it’s an enormously important gatekeeper — in many respects, it’s an even greater “chokepoint” than any single network operator — but the firm has held strong against substantial pressures from the U.S. government to facilitate censorship and surveillance. (See, e.g.: Google’s successful 2006 challenge to a Justice Department request seeking search query logs; Google’s recent refusal to remove DUI apps from its Android market; Google’s widely noted hesitance toward censoring search results absent a lawfully issued takedown request; Google’s 2010 joint amicus brief urging a federal district court to reject a Justice Department subpoena seeking to compel Yahoo! to disclose the contents of a user’s opened emails).

I could go on. The point is that large network operators are often willing to vigorously resist — both in private and in public — governmental demands that they facilitate information control. Working in cahoots with unpopular governmental actors is terrible PR; some major players seem to think it’s bad for business, too.

It’s often overlooked that antitrust intervention deprives us of beneficial competitive reactions to business deals — even deals that, viewed in isolation, appear to be “harmful.” The consequence of the AT&T – T-Mobile deal won’t simply be the two companies operating as a single entity; the deal will also force rivals to respond in unforeseeable ways that will tend to benefit consumers and fuel innovation. As Hance reminds us, this virtuous cycle of Schumpeterian creative destruction is fundamental to the long-term evolution of markets. When government blocks proposed business arrangements, it contributes to stasis — and static markets tend to be much easier to regulate and control than relatively dynamic markets.

To be sure, if the combination of AT&T and T-Mobile exacerbates political pressures for imposing a network information control regime, we cyber-libertarians should fight back vigorously. Turning to antitrust intervention to keep markets relatively unconcentrated — and, hence, more difficult to regulate — is a mistake.

If you welcome the growing pressures for regulating business arrangements in the high-tech sector, an emboldened antitrust regime is just what the doctor ordered.

In the latest example of big government run amok, several politicians think they ought to be in charge of which applications you should be able to install on your smartphone.

On March 22, four U.S. Senators sent a letter to Apple, Google, and Research in Motion urging the companies to disable access to mobile device applications that enable users to locate DUI checkpoints in real time. Unsurprisingly, in their zeal to score political points, the Senators—Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Frank Lautenberg, and Tom Udall—got it dead wrong.

Had the Senators done some basic fact-checking before firing off their missive, they would have realized that the apps they targeted actually  enhance the effectiveness of DUI checkpoints while reducing their intrusiveness. And had the Senators glanced at the Constitution – you know, that document they swore an oath to support and defend – they would have seen that sobriety checkpoint apps are almost certainly protected by the First Amendment.

While Apple has stayed mum on the issue so far, Research in Motion quickly yanked the apps in question. This is understandable; perhaps RIM doesn’t wish to incur the wrath of powerful politicians who are notorious for making a public spectacle of going after companies that have the temerity to stand up for what is right.

Google has refused to pull the DUI checkpoint finder apps from the Android app store, reports Digital Trends. Google’s steadfastness on this matter reflects well on its stated commitment to free expression and openness. Not that Google’s track record is perfect on this front – it’s made mistakes from time to time – but it’s certainly a cut above several of its competitors when it comes to defending Internet freedom.

Advance Publicity & DUI Checkpoints

Trying to keep the locations of DUI checkpoints secret is bad public policy. Contrary to the Senators’ assertion that “applications that alert users to DUI checkpoints” are “harmful to public safety,” there is zero evidence that publicizing sobriety checkpoints contributes to drunk driving accidents.

If anything, advance publicity actually  saves lives. DUI checkpoints aren’t primarily about catching drunk drivers, but about deterring drunk driving in the first place. When drivers know that police have set up checkpoints nearby, they’re likely to think twice about getting behind the wheel. Instead, they might hail a cab or catch a ride from a sober friend.

The California Supreme Court recognized in Ingersoll v. Palmer that DUI checkpoints are designed to deter drunk driving:

The stated goals of several law enforcement agencies explicitly point to deterrence as a primary objective of the checkpoint program. The Burlingame manual described the objectives of its program, noting the historical use of roving patrols as the principal law enforcement response to the drunk driving problem… Two major goals of the checkpoint as stated in the manual were to increase public awareness of the seriousness of the problem and to increase the perceived risk of apprehension.

The  Ingersoll court further stated with regard to the checkpoints that, “advance publicity is important to the maintenance of a constitutionally permissible sobriety checkpoint. Publicity both reduces the intrusiveness of the stop and increases the deterrent effect of the roadblock.”

California is not alone in focusing on the deterrent effect of DUI checkpoints. In 1990, shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of certain kinds of DUI checkpoints in Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published a document (PDF) laying out guidelines for police in conducting sobriety checkpoints. NHTSA’s model sobriety checkpoint guidelines include the following section:

C. ADVANCE NOTIFICATION 1. For the purpose of public information and education, this agency will announce to the media that checkpoints will be conducted. 2. This agency will encourage media interest in the sobriety checkpoint program to enhance public perception of aggressive enforcement, to heighten the deterrent effect and to assure protection of constitutional rights.

Indeed, police departments routinely publicize information about DUI checkpoints in local newspapers and other media outlets. Many police officers think such publicity is beneficial to law enforcement. Take Indiana State Police Sgt. Dave Burstein, who brushed off the Senators’ concerns about DUI checkpoint apps, saying to local news affiliate WXIN-TV, “Let everybody know they’re there because the whole idea is to get voluntary compliance.”

Regulation Through Intimidation

The Senators’ letter isn’t just uninformed and irresponsible, it’s also arrogant – a prime example of regulation through intimidation. When politicians want to dictate behavior but know they cannot lawfully legislate or regulate it, a widely favored tactic is to demonize the target by sending a threatening letter accompanied by a vitriolic press release. When that doesn’t get the job done, politicians hold congressional hearings to publicly rake the alleged wrongdoers over the coals. This reprehensible strategy has long been used to suppress constitutionally protected speech in ways that, if legislated, would almost certainly be overturned by courts on First Amendment grounds. As former U.S. Senator Paul Simon warned in 2003:

I have no problem with holding hearings and putting on pressure. But the problem with holding hearings and putting on pressure is that most of the members have no sensitivity on the First Amendment…The only oath we take says that we promise to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The domestic enemies of the Constitution are often on the floor of the House and the Senate.

In a free society, it is unacceptable for a handful of Senators to attempt to dictate mobile app store decisions without a floor vote or any judicial oversight. Lawmakers’ function is to make laws, not exploit their bully pulpit to try to coerce private businesses into doing their bidding. If voters let these politicians get away with going after DUI checkpoint apps, which politically unpopular apps will be next? A ban on apps that locate abortion clinics? A ban on apps that locate handgun dealers? It’s a scary slippery slope, as ACT’s Morgan Reed reminds us.

If Reid, Schumer, Lautenberg, and Udall want to examine a serious threat to public safety, they should look in the mirror. Meanwhile, they should leave mobile app stores alone. The Washington Times nailed it in a recent editorial:

Real drunk drivers deserve severe punishment, but the best way to catch them is to respect the Fourth Amendment. Instead of having cops stand around behind barricades interrogating soccer moms, have them patrol the streets looking for evidence of impaired driving. It works. In the meantime, high-tech companies ought to email these senators a free Constitution app for their smart phones.

Amen.

That will be the subject of a Cato on Campus session this afternoon entitled: “The Internet and Social Media: Tools of Freedom or Tools of Oppression?” Watch live online at the link starting at 3:30 p.m., or attend in person. A reception follows.

The delight that so many felt to see protesters in Iran using social media has given way to delight about the use of Facebook to organize for freedom in Egypt. But this serial enthusiasm omits that the “Twitter revolution” in Iran did not succeed. The fiercest skeptics even suggest that the Tweeting during Iran’s suppressed uprising was mostly Iranian ex-pats goosing excitable westerners and not any organizing force within Iran itself. Coming to terms with the Internet, dictatorships are learning to use it for surveillance and control, possibly with help from American tech companies.

So is the cause of freedom better off with the Internet? Or is social media a shiny bauble that distracts from the long, heavy slog of liberating the people of the world?

Joining the discussion will be Chris Preble, Director of Foreign Policy Studies at Cato; Alex Howard, Government 2.0 Correspondent for O’Reilly Media; and Tim Karr, Campaign Director at Free Press. More info here.

Chalk up another victim to unwarranted political intimidation by state attorneys general. On Friday evening, Craigslist, which has long been under intense pressure to crack down on sex crimes, replaced its adult services section in the U.S. with a black censor bar. This move comes on the heels of a scathing letter sent to Craigslist by seventeen state AGs insinuating that Craigslist is culpable for the “victimization of children.” While the state attorneys general are likely celebrating victory this holiday weekend, all they’ve really done is to stifle free speech online and complicate efforts by law enforcement authorities to go after the real bad guys — you know, the ones who are forcing kids into sex slavery.

This isn’t the first time states have publicly attacked Craigslist for its involvement in sex crimes. Various AGs been trying to intimidate the site into eliminating avenues of adult content for years, as Alex Harris and Jim Harper have chronicled on these pages. In response to state AGs’ relentless saber-rattling, Craigslist made several major changes last year aimed at curbing illegal postings. The site shut down its notorious “erotic services” section and began charging $10 for every posting made to the adult services section. Craigslist even began manually screening all posts submitted to the adult services section. Since May 2009, over 700,000 postings have been rejected.

Apparently none of these concessions were enough for state AGs, always eager to score political points. Despite the safeguards Craigslist implemented last year, users continued to use the site in the commission of sex crimes. This is hardly surprising; given the sheer volume of user submissions and the increasingly complex measures taken by criminals to obfuscate their unlawful solicitations, some illegal postings are bound to circumvent any filtering regime. Now that Craigslist has censored its adult services section, former users of the section will invariably flock to other sites, as has happened every single time a major Bittorrent site has been taken offline or crippled by litigation. Craigslist is just one of many, many websites on the Internet that’s frequented by criminals, after all. From popular sites like Google and Yahoo! to small blogs that accept user comments, nearly any site that allows user submissions can be used to break the law.

Such websites generally aren’t legally liable for crimes committed by their users, as courts across the country have held time and time again (1,2,3,4). That’s because when Congress overhauled America’s telecom laws in 1996, it enacted the Communications Decency Act, which grants “providers” of “interactive computer service” immunity from state criminal prosecution for illegal content posted by users. Thus, while prosecutors can and do pursue criminal charges against individuals who post illegal content to Craigslist, they can’t go after Craigslist itself, as long as the site complies with enforceable governmental requests and promptly removes content it knows to be illegal.

This legal provision, known as Section 230, has been crucial to the growth of the Internet as we know it. As Adam Thierer aptly put it last year, it’s the “cornerstone of Internet Freedom.” Section 230 has enabled website operators to offer an array of incredible user-driven offerings without fear of being sued or jailed for their users’ unlawful actions. Without it, “Web 2.0” sites like YouTube, Digg, and Reddit might never have gotten off the ground. Monitoring user submissions can be enormously burdensome, especially for smaller sites like WashingtonWatch.com, a popular user-centric site operated and owned by the Cato Institute’s Jim Harper. Were these sites liable for the content of their users’ postings, they likely wouldn’t even accept them in the first place.

Congress established this protection in order to “to maintain the robust nature of Internet communication and, accordingly, to keep government interference in the medium to a minimum,” as the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded in its forceful 1997 opinion in Zeran v. America Online, Inc. In their assault on Craigslist, state attorneys general ignore Congress’s clear intent in establishing Section 230 — to keep government’s hands off the Internet.

To be sure, Section 230 does have a downside, as Craigslist itself has underscored time and time again. Illegal user postings can result in tragedy, as was the case for AK and MC, two girls who took out ads in The Washington Post and The San Francisco Chronicle last month recounting their experiences as victims of sex crimes facilitated through Craigslist. Despite Section 230’s flaws, however, the alternative is far worse.

Many, if not most, postings on Craigslist’s adult services section were perfectly legal, and until Friday thousands of individuals relied on the section to find consenting adults with whom to fulfill their intimate desires. In pressuring Craigslist to censor the section, state AGs have essentially stifled the free speech rights of thousands of individuals. Criminals will simply migrate to even shadier websites, further hindering efforts by law enforcement to put child sex traffickers behind bars.

It’s 2010, and nearly 5 billion devices worldwide are now connected to the Internet — a freely accessible, unfiltered, unauthenticated worldwide network. As long as such a network exists, it’s all but inevitable that it will have a seedy underbelly. Law enforcement officials should investigate sex crimes against children committed using the Internet and aggressively prosecute suspected child sex traffickers. Trying to intimidate interactive websites like Craigslist, however, is the wrong approach.

Earlier this week, The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart summed up the debate over net neutrality by stating, “On one side [are] those who want the marketplace to remain a wide open market of ideas, and on the other side [is] a larger group who have no idea what net neutrality means.”

Stewart may have been joking, but he was right about one thing – many folks are confused about what net neutrality actually is and what it would mean for Internet users.

That’s why I decided to enter the America’s Got Net video contest, sponsored by the Open Internet Coalition, a pro-net neutrality trade association.  In a short video entitled, “The Open Internet and Lessons from the Ma Bell Era,” I explain how mandating net neutrality would endanger the networks of tomorrow and insulate entrenched firms from competition. Enjoy!

By Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka

Short but very important essay here from Santa Clara University Law School Prof. Eric Goldman about calls to alter Sec. 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) to address concerns about online harassment. Generally speaking, Sec. 230 immunizes online intermediaries from punishing liability for the content that travels over their networks / services. Specifically, Sec. 230 stipulates that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” In other words: Don’t shoot the messenger!

As we’ve noted here before, it is probably not an overstatement to think of Sec. 230 as the very cornerstone of Internet Freedom, since it makes possible an online “utopia for utopias,” to borrow a phrase from our favorite modern political philosopher, the late Robert Nozick. Without Sec. 230, intermediaries would likely be forced to shut down many avenues of communication and would have to become deputized conduct and morality police for every cyber-street corner.

Goldman, America’s leading expert on Sec. 230-related jurisprudence, correctly notes that, “Frequently, § 230’s critics do not attack the immunization generally, but instead advocate a new limited exception for their pet concern.” He’s got that right. Indeed, we are increasingly hearing calls from numerous quarters these days to “tweak 230” for one pet concern after another. We’ve illustrated some of those concerns in this exhibit.

Deputization of the Middleman http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf Regulatory advocates can be found for each of these issues who like to see the protections afforded by Sec. 230 scaled back by Congress or he courts. But Goldman rightly warns:

By Berin Szoka & Adam Thierer

We learned from The Wall Street Journal yesterday that “Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski gets a little peeved when people suggests that he wants to regulate the Internet.” He told a group of Journal reporters and editors today that: “I don’t see any circumstances where we’d take steps to regulate the Internet itself,” and “I’ve been clear repeatedly that we’re not going to regulate the Internet.”

We’re thankful to hear Chairman Julius Genachowski to make that promise. We’ll certainly hold him to it. But you will pardon us if we remain skeptical (and, in advance, if you hear a constant stream of “I told you so” from us in the months and years to come). If the Chairman is “peeved” at the suggestion that the FCC might be angling to extend its reach to include the Internet and new media platforms and content, perhaps he should start taking a closer look at what his own agency is doing—and think about the precedents he’s setting for future Chairmen who might not share his professed commitment not to regulate the ‘net. Allow us to cite just a few examples:

Net Neutrality Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

We’re certainly aware of the argument that the FCC’s proposed net neutrality regime is not tantamount to Internet regulation—but we just don’t buy it. Not for one minute.

First, Chairman Genachowski seems to believe that “the Internet” is entirely distinct from the physical infrastructure that brings “cyberspace” to our homes, offices and mobile devices. The WSJ notes, “when pressed, [Genachowski] admitted he was referring to regulating Internet content rather than regulating Internet lines.” OK, so let’s just make sure we have this straight: The FCC is going to enshrine in law the principle that “gatekeepers” that control the “bottleneck” of broadband service can only be checked by having the government enforce “neutrality” principles in the same basic model of “common carrier” regulation that once applied to canals, railroads, the telegraph and telephone. But when it comes to accusations of “gatekeeper” power at the content/services/applications “layers” of the Internet, the FCC is just going to step back and let markets sort things out? Sorry, we’re just not buying it.

Chairman Genachowski may sincerely believe that a clear, bright line can be drawn between the “infrastructure layer” (which he’s certainly going to regulate) and what he likes to think of as “the Internet” (which he promises not to regulate). But as we warned last October, the day after the FCC launched this NPRM:

The promise made yesterday by the FCC—to only apply neutrality principles to the infrastructure layer of the Net—is hollow and will ultimately prove unenforceable. The reality is that regulation always spreads. The march of regulation can sometimes be glacial, but it is, sadly, almost inevitable: Regulatory regimes grow but almost never contract… The basic premise of neutrality regulation is already being proposed for other layers of the Internet….  whatever the FCC might say today, any large online intermediary with a popular platform potentially faces the threat of “network neutrality” mandates—because every platform is essentially a “network,” too. We’re not just talking about “search neutrality” (Google as well as Microsoft) but also about “device neutrality” (mobile handsets), “app neutrality” (Apple’s iTunes store, Facebook’s developers and Google’s Android mobile OS) and so on for social networking, email, instant messaging, online advertising, etc.

We explained how the intellectual foundations for this regulatory creep have already been laid by groups like Free Press and Public Knowledge and law professors like Columbia’s Tim Wu (father of “Net Neutrality”), Harvard’s Jonathan Zittrain (father of “API/device Neutrality”), and Seton Hall’s Frank Pasquale (father of “Search Neutrality”). Joining this intellectual vanguard of Internet regulation is George Washington law school professor Dawn Nunziato, whose new book, Virtual Freedom: Net Neutrality and Free Speech in the Internet Age, is a veritable manifesto for expansive neutrality regulation (especially of Google)—and how the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law…”) should be twisted not just to allow such regulation of speech platforms, but to require it! Even Wu, whose work blazed a trail for these others, is pretty clear about the breadth of his original vision for “neutrality” regulation, as his popular Net Neutrality FAQ makes clear:

The promotion of network neutrality is no different than the challenge of promoting fair evolutionary competition in any privately owned environment, whether a telephone network, operating system, or even a retail store. Government regulation in such contexts invariably tries to help ensure that the short-term interests of the owner do not prevent the best products or applications becoming available to end-users.

Zittrain, Pasquale, and Nunziato don’t pull any punches either: They don’t shy away from flirting with nebulous neutrality definitions and wide-ranging government powers to regulate. So we don’t have to imagine what the “slippery slope” might look like: There are plenty of very smart and highly influential legal academics out there hard at work sketching out precisely where the path Chairman Genachowski has started us down will ultimately lead.

It’s no less clear why we’ll wind up marching down that path, no matter what the current FCC leadership intends.

1. The current net neutrality rulemaking sets a profoundly dangerous legal precedent of essentially unlimited claims of “ancillary jurisdiction”: As our friends at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (who have a soft spot for net neutrality in theory) put it, “If ‘ancillary jurisdiction’ is enough for net neutrality regulations (something we might like) today, it could just as easily be invoked tomorrow for any other Internet regulation that the FCC dreams up (including things we won’t like).” Our PFF colleague Barbara Esbin carefully dissected this issue for the Commission in her recent filing in this proceeding.
2. As explained above, the general regulatory principle of controlling “gatekeepers” doesn’t end with infrastructure.
3. As EFF notes, “Experience shows that the FCC is particularly vulnerable to regulatory capture.”
4. Now that FCC has opened the door to micro-managing online business practices in the name of “neutrality,” the companies that have made America the leader in the Digital Revolution are already turning on each other in a dangerous game of brinksmanship, escalating demands for regulation and playing right into the hands of those who want to bring the entire high-tech sector under the thumb of government—under an Orwellian conception of “Internet Freedom” that makes corporations the real “Big Brother,” and government, our savior.

This strategy of political escalation will thus quickly steamroll over whatever promises made today to narrowly cabin the principle of neutrality regulation—and end in “Mutually Assured Destruction.” That’s why we referred to the day the FCC started down this path back in September as “The Day Internet Freedom Died.”

If that title sounds melodramatic, take a step back and consider that, back in 1996, Congress decided to enshrine in law the principle that the Internet is different from traditional media: Apart from an ill-considered effort to censor online indecency and obscenity (which was quickly struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional) and the enforcement of intellectual property and criminal laws, Congress decided to take a purely laissez-faire approach to the Internet.  As Barbara reminded the Commission in her net neutrality filing, “Section 230(b)(2) flatly declares that it is the policy of the United States ― to preserve the vibrant competitive free market that presently exits for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation.”

So Chairman Genachowski’s decision to revert to the common carrier model of the railroad era marks a fundamental break with the approach Congress decided we would take to the Internet. The DC Circuit will likely soon rule that the FCC has vastly overstepped its authority in trying to set Internet policy without any clear grant of authority from Congress to do so.

Wireless Innovation & Investment Notice of Inquiry

In fact, the same kind of thinking is already being extended by this FCC in a number of other arenas using a flurry of innocuous-seeming “Notices of Inquiry.” While these notices purport only to ask questions, they either:

1. Foreshadow where the Commission intends to go in proposing new regulations based on its nearly limitless conception of its own regulatory authority;
2. Are intended to pressure Congress to give the agency more statutory authority; or
3. Are intended to intimidate industry into “playing ball” so the FCC won’t actually have to stick its neck out by trying to write rules to regulate Internet activities that are clearly beyond its existing authority and might well be unconstitutional even if Congress ever did expand that authority.

Exhibit A is the language in the Commission’s August 2009 Wireless Innovation and Investment Notice of Inquiry, (paragraph 60, pg. 21) that suggests the FCC is angling to become the Federal Cloud Commission:

As other approaches, such as cloud computing, evolve, will established standards or de facto standards become more important to the applications development process? For example, can a dominant cloud computing position raise the same competitive issues that are now being discussed in the context of network neutrality? Will it be necessary to modify the existing balance between regulatory and market forces to promote further innovation in the development and deployment of new applications and services?

Good morning, Google!  Hello, Facebook! Is anyone out there in the cloud listening to the rumbling thunder of federal regulation? What began as academic theory in a law school ivory tower is coming soon to a regulatory agency near you! But wait… there’s more!

National Broadband Plan Public Notice #21 (Cloud Computing)

Last November, as part of the Commission’s ongoing effort to develop a National Broadband Plan, the FCC released a request for information “on data portability and its relationship to broadband.”  (NBP Public Notice #21) “The Commission seeks tailored comment on broadband and portability of data and their relation to cloud computing, transparency, identity, and privacy,” the notice says.  Here was the second item on the list of things the Commission said it was investigating (p. 2):

When considering the portability of data, we also consider the processes through which data are moved. In this context, we seek comment on how to identify and understand cloud computing as a model for technology provisioning…. What types of cloud computing exist (e.g., public, hybrid, and internal) and what are the legal and regulatory implications of their use? … To what extent are consumers protected by industry self-regulation (e.g., the Cloud Computing Manifesto), and to what extent might additional protections be needed? … What specific privacy concerns are there with user data and cloud computing? What precautions should government agencies take to prevent disclosure of personal information when providing data? Is the use of cloud computing a net positive to the environment? Are there specific studies that quantify the environmental impact of cloud computing?

We suppose some might claim there’s nothing wrong with the FCC looking into these issues, and that the agency’s interest in cloud computing is entirely benign. (Never mind the fact that the Federal Trade Commission already enforces the privacy policies of cloud computing providers and is looking hard at online privacy.)  Seeing all these open-ended questions about something so obviously beyond the scope of the FCC’s authority just makes the potential for—and perhaps even inevitability of—regulatory creep hard to miss.  Eventually, when a regulatory agency asks enough questions, especially the sort of questions highlighted above… well, to paraphrase Master Yoda:

Open-ended inquiries about new regulations are the path to the Dark side. Inquiries lead to agency oversight. Agency oversight leads to regulation. Regulation leads to suffering for innovators and consumers alike.

Again, we’re not just inventing bogeymen here. It’s quite clear that regulatory advocates want to take neutrality regulation into “the Cloud.” As Jason Lanier, author of the popular book You Are Not a Gadget summarizes one of his key themes:

While there is a lot of talk about networks and emergence from the top American technologists, in truth, most of them are hoping to thrive by controlling the network that everyone else is forced to pass through. Everyone wants to be a “Lord of a Computing Cloud.”

In Lanier’s dystopia of techno-feudalism, the Lords oppressing the poor digital “peasants” certainly aren’t just those running broadband service providers. It’s the Google, Facebooks, and Twitters of the world. It’s similar to the “sharecropper” concern raised by Nick Carr in his book The Big Switch. Complaints like those will only grow in the years to come, and few will buy—or even pause to remember—the distinction Chairman Genachowski seems to stand on now between infrastructure and “the Internet.”

National Broadband Plan Public Notice #29 (Privacy)

The “Recovery Act” passed in January 2009 tasked the FCC with formulating “a detailed strategy for achieving affordability of such service and maximum utilization of broadband infrastructure and service by the public.” The FCC seized this as an opportunity to solicit suggestions as to how regulate the use and collection of data by the private sector on the grounds that concerns about privacy might somehow be slowing broadband adoption.

Chairman Genachowski’s flurry of open-ended inquiries about new regulation are clearly intended to give a bully pulpit to regulatory advocates to demand that the FCC issue the very sort of Internet regulations the Chairman purports to abhor (or that Congress give the agency authority to do so). But most of these notices at least appear to be objective requests for comments written independently of the groups the Commission seems so eager to hear beg for Internet regulation. But in this case, the Commission dispensed with that tedious formality and just outsourced the writing of the inquiry itself to one of the outside groups clamoring the loudest for data regulation in the name of “privacy”: our friends at the Center for Democracy & Technology, with whom PFF has worked closely on many free speech issues in the past.

CDT is on to something when they write that “Consumers will not embrace broadband if they have a sense that everything they do online will be watched by government officials.” We’ll join with them in the fight to protect consumers’ privacy from the Real Big Brother—government!—but once again, as with net neutrality, advocates of regulation see government as the protector of our digital liberties (if only we can forever make sure noble civil-libertarians are in charge of the regulatory apparatus of the state!). So CDT has it exactly backwards when they say: “Consumer privacy concerns encompass not only what companies do with their data, but also the extent to which the government accesses it.” And instead of just suggesting that the FCC’s National Broadband Plan include a recommendation that Congress clean up the antiquated laws intended to limit government surveillance, CDT pushes for sweeping regulations that would affect the ability of most online services and sites to collect and use the data they need to improve their services, innovate, and maybe even try to make some money on advertising to support all the free content and services they give away.

Thus, instead of focusing on the clear harm from government, the FCC’s outsourced inquiry goes after online operators as “privacy proxies” for concerns about government action. At least Congress actually asked for the FCC’s recommendations in this case, unlike all the other inquiries the agency has launched sua sponte. But as Berin noted in his comments on this inquiry, the Recovery Act allowed the FCC to “recommend only those policies that it concludes will, on net, help achieve “affordability” and ‘maximum utilization’ of broadband.” That means the Commission would actually have to consider the many trade-offs inherent in the private sector use of data before recommending regulation: If the Internet ecosystem is impoverished by government intervention, however well-intentioned it may be, users will have that much less reason to adopt and “utilize broadband.” So the FCC would have a lot of cost-benefit analysis to do before it could actually make the kinds of regulatory recommendations CDT wants. And we suspect that, on the whole, that analysis wouldn’t turn out the way CDT thinks it would.

Child Safe Viewing Act Notice of Inquiry

In a somewhat similar vein, Congress last year asked the agency to examine how well parental control technologies work to allow parents to filter objectionable content online. So while the FCC may have had, for once, the authority to ask broad questions, it’s startling just how broad those questions were. The Commission obviously has no authority over video games or virtual worlds, online video distribution networks or video hosting sites, mobile web content, MP3 players or iPods, P2P networks, VCRs or DVD players, PVRs or TiVo, Internet filters, safe search tools, laptops, and so on. And yet, all these things (and much more) were mentioned in the Commission’s Child Safe Viewing Act Notice of Inquiry.

The proceeding raises the prospect of what Adam has called “convergence era content regulation” since it opens the doors to FCC meddling on a number of new fronts in the name of “protecting children.” Although the Commission’s final report to Congress stopped short of calling for an substantive expansion of the agency’s content regulatory regime, it teed up another proceeding, discussed next. (And if Congress hasn’t moved more quickly to grant the FCC new power in this area, it’s probably because they’re busy trying to figure out how to get around a line of First Amendment cases that consistently require government regulation to yield to “less restrictive” alternatives like parental control tools and education.)

Empowering Parents & Protecting Children Notice of Inquiry

This wide-ranging inquiry reads like the ultimate “fishing expedition” by a regulatory agency—fishing for new jurisdictional authority to regulate, that is!  The questions asked are too broad, far-flung and various to catalog here (we’ll have a big filing coming in the matter soon), but the Commission asks about extending to Internet media the model of the 1990 Children’s Television Act, which imposes “public interest” obligations on broadcasters and cable operators to offer “education” content while also strictly limiting how much advertising may be shown during children’s TV. The Commission also alludes, ominously, to the V-chip model for requiring universal ratings for television and hints that it would really like for “current laws [to] be updated to reflect this convergence and to keep pace with changes in technology” (¶ 41).

The Commission mentions only in passing at the very end of the Inquiry that it “has varying degrees of statutory authority with respect to different media. We ask commenters, in proposing any action, to discuss the source and extent of the Commission’s authority to take the action, or whether new legislation would be needed to authorize such action” (¶ 58). Translation: “Uh, yeah… so… we know we don’t have a statutory leg to stand on here, but we think it’d be really cool if we did, so let’s just all, you know, kinda brainstorm about what kind of regulation we could be imposing here and what kind of law we’d need get Congress to pass to make it all legal. Or if you have any creative ideas on how we could get away with just making up the jurisdiction thing on our own, that’d be even better!”

YouTube, you’re first on the list of targets for the kind of online video regulation the FCC is hinting at here—and none too subtly. But why stop there? The FCC’s laundry list of complaints aren’t limited just to video, but could apply to essentially all online media. But this is all in the name of “protecting the children,” and Chairman Genachowski doesn’t want to regulate the Internet, so we really don’t need to worry—right?

Future of Media Notice of Inquiry

Most recently, in late January, the Commission launched the ambitiously-named “Examination of the Future of Media and Information Needs of Communities in a Digital Age.” The FCC asks a number of good questions about how government could get out of the way of media struggling to reinvent themselves in the digital era by scrapping outdated regulations. The inquiry also tips its hat to the vital importance of advertising in supporting media. But it’s otherwise pretty bad news as a harbinger of a “Chill Wind” for the future of a free press in this country, as Ken Ferree, PFF’s former president and current board member noted.

In particular, the Commission comes right out with a “trial balloon” about imposing public interest obligations on online operators—the very thing it hinted at slightly more delicately in the “Empowering Parents” inquiry mentioned above:

Broadcasters have certain public interest obligations, including that they provide programming responsive to the needs and issues of their communities and comply with the Commission’s children’s programming requirements. Cable and satellite operators have their own responsibilities…  Should such obligations be applied to a broader range of media or technology companies, or be limited in scope?

OK, so we’re not going to “regulate” online content operators; we’re just going to impose “public interest” obligations on them to provide certain kinds of content preferred by politicians. Right… and if Google News or YouTube don’t do enough to “serve the public interest,” what then? Will the Federal Search Commission take away Google’s search license or cloud computing license?

Of course, we don’t mean to suggest that even the “Federal Cloud Commission” would ever be so unsubtle as to create a formal licensing system when they can probably achieve the same ends with far less obvious regulation. But how is this all going to work, exactly? Again, this is exactly the kind of hopelessly vague regulatory morass Congress had in mind when it declared that the federal government would avoid “fettering” the “vibrant competitive free market … for the Internet and other interactive computer services” with regulation.

The FCC goes on to revive the kinds of broad net neutrality ideas discussed above in asking:

How would policies related to “open Internet” or “universal broadband” or other FCC policies about communications infrastructure affect the likelihood that the Internet will meet the information needs of communities? Are there search engine practices that might positively or negatively affect web-based efforts to provide news or information?

In other words, “Tell us why and precisely how we should start regulating search engines in order to help ‘save  news.'” Google, here’s looking at you, kid! You want to keep your search license, dontcha? Well, just do what the nice men from Washington want and there won’t be any trouble.

Finally, the Commission opens the door to the noxious proposal for a “public option” for media, which Adam has lambasted. Here’s what the Commission says:

In general, what categories of journalism are most in jeopardy in the digital era? What categories are likely to flourish? While much is still to be determined as media companies test various business models and payment approaches in the coming years, based on what is known now, are there news and information needs that commercial market mechanisms alone are unlikely to serve adequately?

Don’t worry, it’s not as if government will exercise control over the media companies it funds if the media-socialist fantasies of the neo-Marxist Robert McChesney and his ironically-named “Free Press” group actually come true. Nope, government’s just here to help!

We’d all do well to remember that subsidies always come with strings attached—namely, regulation. That’s the Golden Rule: “He who has the gold, makes the rules!”

Conclusion

Chairman Genachowski, with all due respect, if you don’t like people suggesting that the FCC may be positioning itself to regulate the Internet and digital media platforms, then you might want to take a careful look at what your agency has been doing. You should think hard both about the precedents that will be set by “neutrality” regulation for online content and services, and also about the quasi-regulatory effect that your agency’s flurry of open-ended inquiries will have on the operators you claim not to want to regulate.

What will future Chairmen do with these precedents? What will emerge from every “Pandora’s Box” you’ve opened with each new sweeping inquiry? The answer, we fear, is an endless parade of new Internet regulations—and the death by a thousand cuts of real Internet freedom.

WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

So declared the Party in George Orwell’s classic novel  1984. The corruption of language with a constant theme of Orwell’s work, most notably his 1946 essay “Politics and the English Language.” So Orwell would not have been surprised to see the term “Internet Freedom” captured by those who advocate an increased role for government (i.e., Big Brother) online. Nor would Orwell had been surprised to see these advocates claim Orwell for themselves, insisting that opponents of government regulation are the ones corrupting language. There is perhaps no better example of this than MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow’s comments in an interview with Boing Boing’s Xeni Jardin about the divisive issue of “Net Neutrality” regulations:

Rachel Maddow [dripping with sarcasm]:  Sen. McCain’s bill, as you mentioned, is actually called the  “Internet Freedom Act of 2009,” and he’s deriding the government effort to keep telecoms from walling off the Internet as “government intrusion” and “trying to regulate the Internet.” What that means is that he’s picked better branding, he’s picked better names.  It doesn’t really relate the facts of what he’s doing. I’m wondering if it’s too late for a rebranding of the other side here. We need to get better about talking about this, because the language seems sort of corrupt at this point.

What makes Maddow’s comments so stunning is not her view that corporate America, rather than government, is the real enemy of freedom. That view is simply part of the long-regnant political orthodoxy. No, what’s stunning is that she actually thinks that her side is losing the “war of words” just because Sen. McCain had the gall to use the term “Internet Freedom” as a rallying-cry for the outdated, bourgeois notion that “freedom” means the absence of coercion by the one entity that can enforce its commands at the point of a gun and call it “justice”: that coldest of all cold monsters, the State. That’s precisely what “liberalism” used to be about until people like Rachel appropriated that word and words like “liberty” and “freedom” as slogans for control. Xeni Jardin picks up where Rachel left off by appropriating the concept of rights, too:

Xeni Jardin: the Internet really is a basic right, it’s a necessity,such a fundamental way for communicating and accessing information now.  Telecoms shouldn’t be able to throttle, to block, to slow down our access to something that might not be in their corporate interests.

This is pure, unadulterated cyber-socialism: Rights become not the sacred defense of the individual, but a positive assertion of entitlement to a vaguely defined principle of access: by guaranteeing this access through ever-expanding “neutrality regulation”, government gains unlimited control over the Internet itself.

As Adam Thierer and I have warned, that way lies madness: Inviting the government to regulate online content and services in the name of “neutrality” (or “privacy” or any of the many “glittering generalities” ending in “-y” Orwell would have denounced) would be the death of real Internet Freedom, which requires a strict “Separation of Web and State.”

If you want to see this bastardization of the language of “freedom” in action, watch the video. Just as nauseating is the way that McCain and is “disdainfully dismissed” as a corporate whore because he’s—GASP!—received donations from the telecom industry. Obviously, he must only be committing these thought crimes because evil enemies of the People’s Revolution paid him to do so! (Of course, donations may to politicians that support increased regulation of the Internet don’t corrupt them because their intentions are pure! Anyone can support any cause they like with donations so long as the cause is the right one, as determined by the People’s Revolutionary Guard.)

by Berin Szoka & Adam Thierer, Progress Snapshot 5.11 (PDF)

Ten years ago, Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman lamented the “Business Community’s Suicidal Impulse:” the persistent propensity to persecute one’s competitors through regulation or the threat thereof. Friedman asked: “Is it really in the self-interest of Silicon Valley to set the government on Microsoft?” After yesterday’s FCC vote’s to open a formal “Net Neutrality” rule-making, we must ask whether the high-tech industry—or consumers—will benefit from inviting government regulation of the Internet under the mantra of “neutrality.”

The hatred directed at Microsoft in the 1990s has more recently been focused on the industry that has brought broadband to Americans’ homes (Internet Service Providers) and the company that has done more than any other to make the web useful (Google). Both have been attacked for exercising supposed “gatekeeper” control over the Internet in one fashion or another. They are now turning their guns on each other—the first strikes in what threatens to become an all-out, thermonuclear war in the tech industry over increasingly broad neutrality mandates. Unless we find a way to achieve “Digital Détente,” the consequences of this increasing regulatory brinkmanship will be “mutually assured destruction” (MAD) for industry and consumers.

New Fronts in the Neutrality Wars

The FCC’s proposed rules would apply to all broadband providers, including wireless, but not to Google or many other players operating in other layers of the Net who favor such broadband-specific rules. With this rulemaking looming, AT&T came after Google with letters to the FCC in late September and then another last week accusing the company of violating neutrality principles in their business practices and arguing that any neutrality rules that apply to ISPs should apply equally to Google’s panoply of popular services. In particular, AT&T accused Google of “search engine bias,” suggesting that only government-enforced neutrality mandates could protect consumers from Google’s supposed “monopolist” control.

The promise made yesterday by the FCC—to only apply neutrality principles to the infrastructure layer of the Net—is hollow and will ultimately prove unenforceable. The reality is that regulation always spreads. The march of regulation can sometimes be glacial, but it is, sadly, almost inevitable: Regulatory regimes grow but almost never contract. Indeed, in some ways, the prediction we made just three weeks ago is already coming true: The basic premise of neutrality regulation is already being proposed for other layers of the Internet—and not just by AT&T in retaliation. One need not agree with all of AT&T’s accusations to recognize that, whatever the FCC might say today, any large online intermediary with a popular platform potentially faces the threat of “network neutrality” mandates—because every platform is essentially a “network,” too. We’re not just talking about “search neutrality” (Google as well as Microsoft) but also about “device neutrality” (mobile handsets), “app neutrality” (Apple’s iTunes store, Facebook’s developers and Google’s Android mobile OS) and so on for social networking, email, instant messaging, online advertising, etc.

An open letter sent to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski this week by 28 founders and CEOs of leading application providers—including Amazon, Google, Facebook, Netflix, Craigslist, Sony and Twitter—speaks generally about the need for the FCC to enforce a “guarantee of neutral, nondiscriminatory access by users.” While many of these signatories may have in mind ISPs as the network “gatekeepers” that need to be reined in by the FCC, the more successful among them are likely to find this letter used against them in the future—perhaps even by co-signatories—to advance a broad conception of what the government must do to ensure “openness” and “access” for platforms at all layers of the Internet.

Dumb Networks, Dumb Devices

The intellectual foundations for this regulatory creep have already been laid by groups like Free Press and Public Knowledge and law professors like Columbia’s Tim Wu, Harvard’s Jonathan Zittrain and Seton Hall’s Frank Pasquale. As originally conceived by Tim Wu in 2003, “network neutrality” is not unique to broadband networks: “the basic economic problem found in the network neutrality debate (a form of ‘platform exclusion’ or ‘vertical foreclosure’) can be found in many other markets.” Indeed, Wu’s popular Net Neutrality FAQ declares:

The promotion of network neutrality is no different than the challenge of promoting fair evolutionary competition in any privately owned environment, whether a telephone network, operating system, or even a retail store. Government regulation in such contexts invariably tries to help ensure that the short-term interests of the owner do not prevent the best products or applications becoming available to end-users.

Zittrain picked up where Wu left off in The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It—attacking, as the enemies of innovation, not ISPs but the supposedly “closed” platforms of Apple, TiVo and Microsoft’s Xbox. Zittrain warns that:

If there is a present worldwide threat to neutrality in the movement of bits, it comes not from restrictions on traditional Internet access that can be evaded using generative PCs, but from enhancements to traditional and emerging appliancized services that are not open to third-party tinkering.

Zittrain’s general solution is “API [Applications Programming Interface] neutrality:” If you create a platform (whether hardware or software) and begin allowing third-party contributions (“generativity”), you will lose all control over devices or applications that can run on that platform.

Those who offer open APIs on the Net in an attempt to harness the generative cycle ought to remain application-neutral after their efforts have succeeded, so all those who built on top of their interface can continue to do so on equal terms…. [N]etwork neutrality ought to be applied to the new platforms of Web services that, in turn, depend on Internet connectivity to function.

Clearly, if Zittrain and his allies have their way, the sort of neutrality mandates envisioned by the FCC or some Congressmen for ISPs will eventually cover companies such as Apple, Google, Facebook, Myspace, Twitter and Amazon—all singled out by Zittrain in a New York Times op-ed in July:

If the market settles into a handful of gated cloud communities whose proprietors control the availability of new code, the time may come to ensure that their platforms do not discriminate. Such a demand could take many forms, from an outright regulatory requirement to a more subtle set of incentives — tax breaks or liability relief — that nudge companies to maintain the kind of openness that earlier allowed them a level playing field on which they could lure users from competing, mighty incumbents.

Frank Pasquale agrees on the need to restrain all “the dominant players at all layers of online life,” but focuses on his demand for a Federal Search Commission to control supposedly “biased” search results. While the FCC wrings its hands over “managed services” offered by ISPs, search engines are increasingly offering their own value-added services by “blending” algorithmically-derived results with special features like maps, videos, books or music depending on what the search term suggests the user is interested in. “Artificially” ensuring that these features appear on the first page of search results is clearly non-neutral, and necessarily involves search engines making ”managed” decisions as to whose features to include. Yet such features also clearly benefit users—dramatically improving the usefulness of search engines and helping to sustain struggling business models like music retailing.

But one need not resort to the works of “ivory tower” academics to see the slippery slope we’re already tumbling down with the infinitely elastic principle of “neutrality.” The prospect of the FCC gradually transforming into a “Federal Information Commission” becomes more apparent when one reads the Wireless Innovation and Investment Notice of Inquiry recently released by the FCC:

As other approaches, such as cloud computing, evolve, will established standards or de facto standards become more important to the applications development process? For example, can a dominant cloud computing position raise the same competitive issues that are now being discussed in the context of network neutrality? Will it be necessary to modify the existing balance between regulatory and market forces to promote further innovation in the development and deployment of new applications and services?

One can imagine how some might use such language to accuse Google of being in “a dominant cloud computing position” such that “the context of network neutrality” will be applied to cloud service (like Google Voice) to “modify the existing balance between regulatory and market forces” through regulation. Indeed, that’s precisely what AT&T has suggested in recent letters (September 25 ^th and October 14 ^th) to the FCC.

AT&T’s partner Apple has already been the subject of such attacks for its decision to block the Google Voice app earlier this summer. The incident marked the beginning of open warfare between Google and AT&T/Apple. The FCC quickly jumped into the mix, first questioning how Apple manages its iTunes apps store for the iPhone, then questioning how Google runs its free Voice application. What legal authority the FCC has over either service is far from clear, but Apple seems to have gotten the message: It recently approved the Spotify music streaming app for the iPhone, which could be a serious competitive threat to the iTunes music store. This small incident highlights how easily regulators can impose their will through informal mechanisms like open-ended investigations even without clear authority to issue rules or bring enforcement actions. Yet none dare call it what it is: regulatory blackmail.

The Inevitability of Regulatory Capture

No doubt, other industry players will cheer on such regulatory harassment of the titans of tech—and maybe even demand more of it. Regulatory creep is driven by more than the self-interests of every bureaucracy to expand its own mission, budget and staff. As the Electronic Frontier Foundation has noted, “Experience shows that the FCC is particularly vulnerable to regulatory capture.” While lobbyists play an important role in defending business from government, all too many businesses naively look at government as a beast that can be tamed, trained, and turned to one’s own advantage, and often try to use the expanding regulatory apparatus to their own advantage or simply throw their competitors under the bus to save themselves. The result is a Hobbesian regulatory “war of all against all” within industry.

As Professor Alfred E. Kahn explained in his 2-volume opus, The Economics of Regulation, all regulation—however high-minded—is inevitably captured by special interests because:

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.

If Internet regulation follows the same course as other industries, the FCC and/or lawmakers will eventually indulge calls by all sides to bring more providers and technologies “into the regulatory fold.” Clearly, this process has already begun. Even before rules are on the books, the companies that have made America the leader in the Digital Revolution are turning on each other in a dangerous game of brinksmanship, escalating demands for regulation and playing right into the hands of those who want to bring the entire high-tech sector under the thumb of government—under an Orwellian conception of “Internet Freedom” that makes corporations the real Big Brother, and government, our savior.

Toward a Less MAD World: Digital Détente

Sincere defenders of real Internet Freedom—that is, freedom from government techno-meddling—recognize that there will always be disputes over how companies deal with each other online across all layers of the Internet. The question is not whether we need a technical coordinating mechanism for handling such disputes. Someone should mediate conflicts over alleged deviations from abstract neutrality principles. But should that arbitrator be an inherently political body like FCC? Or should we instead look to truly independent, apolitical arbitrators like the Internet Engineering Task Force or collaborative efforts like the Network Neutrality Squad? Such alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and fora need not have the power of law to be effective: The weight of their expert opinion, based on careful investigation of the facts, would likely resolve most disputes, because companies have strong reputational incentives to comply with reasoned rulings by truly neutral experts. And the white hot spotlight of public attention has a way of disciplining marketplace behavior as well.

Government would still have a role to play, of course, in enforcing antitrust laws where anticompetitive harm to consumers can be proven, and in enforcing the promises companies make to consumers. Ultimately, however, certain business models and technologies require non-neutral treatment, and the best remedy for concerns about non-neutrality is competition itself: In the high-tech sector more than any other, disruptive innovation makes it difficult for even the most successful companies to stay on top forever. Competitive entry—or even the threat of new entry—provides a powerful check on the power of so-called “gatekeepers,” but even more important is the prospect that today’s leaders will be tomorrow’s laggards: There’s little reason to think Google (search and advertising), Apple (smart phones and music) and Facebook (social networking) won’t someday find themselves playing catch-up, just as IBM (computers), Microsoft (desktop software and search), Friendster and MySpace (social networking), and Yahoo! and AOL (web portals) have had to do.

“Digital Détente” would require that all parties concede something and work constructively toward a more “peaceful” ( i.e., less regulatory) resolution. And yet, no Internet company wants to disarm unilaterally, foreswearing politics as a continuation of competition by other means. Only through multilateral disarmament could they break out of the current cycle of regulatory one-upmanship: If the companies in the Internet ecosystem could form a united front against increased government regulation and in favor of removing existing regulatory obstacles to competition, they could all return to their core competencies of creativity and innovation.

The alternative is a regulatory “nuclear winter”: high-tech titans turning their political fire on each other, catching innocent third parties in the cross-fire and bringing a dark cloud of government regulation over the entire Internet. Such increased regulation would stifle investment and innovation throughout the Internet ecosystem. Thus, it is consumers who will ultimately suffer most from the tech industry’s suicidal impulse, as their choices and digital lives are impoverished. For their sake, we hope all industry players will step back from the brink to avoid such high-tech mutually assured destruction.

Forbes.com has just published an editorial that Berin Szoka and I penned about yesterday’s net neutrality announcement from the FCC.

The Day Internet Freedom Died

by Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka

There was a time, not so long ago, when the term “Internet Freedom” actually meant what it implied: a cyberspace free from over-zealous legislators and bureaucrats. For a few brief, beautiful moments in the Internet’s history (from the mid-90s to the early 2000s), a majority of Netizens and cyber-policy pundits alike all rallied around the flag of “Hands Off the Net!” From censorship efforts, encryption controls, online taxes, privacy mandates and infrastructure regulations, there was a general consensus as to how much authority government should have over cyber-life and our cyber-liberties. Simply put, there was a “presumption of liberty” in all cyber-matters.

Those days are now gone; the presumption of online liberty is giving way to a presumption of regulation. A massive assault on real Internet freedom has been gathering steam for years and has finally come to a head. Ironically, victory for those who carry the banner of “Internet Freedom” would mean nothing less than the death of that freedom.

We refer to the gradual but certain movement to have the federal government impose “neutrality” regulation for all Internet actors and activities—and in particular, to yesterday’s announcement by Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski that new rules will be floated shortly. “But wait,” you say, “You’re mixing things up! All that’s being talked about right now is the application of ‘simple net neutrality,’ regulations for the infrastructure layer of the net.” You might even claim regulations are not really regulation but pro-freedom principles to keep the net “free and open.”

Such thinking is terribly short-sighted. Here is the reality: Because of the steps being taken in Washington right now, real Internet Freedom—for all Internet operators and consumers, and for economic and speech rights alike—is about to start dying a death by a thousand regulatory cuts. Policymakers and activists groups are ramping up the FCC’s regulatory machine for a massive assault on cyber-liberty. This assault rests on the supposed superiority of common carriage regulation and “public interest” mandates over not just free markets and property rights, but over general individual liberties and freedom of speech in particular. Stated differently, cyber-collectivism is back in vogue—and it’s coming very soon to a computer near you!

“Net Neutrality” proponents insist, however, that only regulation can save us from nefarious corporate schemers out to quash our rights and destroy all innovation. Over the last decade, a cabal of activist-minded cyber-law professors have successfully turned the world of Internet policy upside down by persuading an entire generation of law students, policymakers, and a number of large Internet companies that “Internet Freedom” means the very opposite of what it used to mean. Borrowing tactics that would have made Orwell proud, they have convinced many in the public and the policymaking community that the old Internet Freedom is slavery, in that we are all just tools of Corporate Big Brother. Thus, they offer us a new Internet Freedom: Neutrality über alles! Their freedom, as in Orwell’s Oceania, is not a freedom from the State, but a gleaming utopia that can only be created by the State.

We see the triumph of this thinking with Chairman Genachowski’s proclamation that, “This is not about government regulation of the Internet. It’s about fair rules of the road for companies that control access to the Internet. We will do as much as we need to do, and no more, to ensure that the Internet remains an unfettered platform for competition, creativity and entrepreneurial activity.”

Yet, no matter how vociferously the proponents of FCC-enforced “neutrality” insist that it is not regulation they seek, the reality is that the steps they counsel would put the FCC in the driver’s seat for a host of Internet economic and social issues. Internet companies and technologies will come to be regulated like crusty old “common carriers” and broadcast stations that must serve some amorphous “public interest.”

But as the FCC’s long history of meddling in media and communications markets makes clear, micro-management of dynamic markets is a recipe for economic stagnation, strangled innovation, and speech controls. And the path to regulation does not end with infrastructure providers. The specter of neutrality haunts not just today’s Internet service providers but also all high-tech innovators, like Google, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft and their descendents. Although the FCC’s original mandate was mostly to deal with spectrum “interference”—something that could have been, and actually was being, dealt with using property rights—the agency quickly expanded its mission: Broadcast regulation metastasized into government control over speech, innovation, campaign advertising and a “fairness doctrine” for news coverage. Likewise, Net Neutrality mandates will give rise to neutrality mandates for other areas.

The slope is slippery and we’re already heading down it: The push for “Wireless Neutrality” is already well under way and the FCC is currently investigating Apple’s rejection of the Google Voice application for the iPhone. Thus, “Net Neutrality” leads to “Device Neutrality” and “Application Neutrality,” but the same rationale would apply equally to any circumstance in which access to a communications platform is supposedly limited to a few “gatekeepers.” Some academics have already proposed a “Federal Search Commission” to deal with accusations of “search bias.” At the end of the day, we’ll need a full-blown Federal Information Commission with a Search Bureau, a Cloud Computing Division and several other ministries to micro-manage the many flavors of neutrality regulation.

The path back toward real Internet freedom lies in restoring the presumption of liberty enshrined in the First Amendment, which is not a sword with which the government can ensure fairness, diversity or openness, but a shield against government meddling in media, communications and online markets.

Caroline Kennedy has abruptly dropped her bid for Hillary Clinton’s Senate seat.  Her father, of course, probably ties with Andrew Mellon and Ronald Reagan as one of the greatest supply-side tax-cutters of all time.  The economic boom JFK unleashed probably makes up for whatever damage—personal or national—done by the Kennedy clan over the years.  

But whatever one thinks of Caroline in particular or the Kennedys in general, her departure from the “race” to succeed Clinton may go down in history as a catastrophe for Internet freedom, since it likely means that NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo will take the seat.  

Cuomo has cast himself as a hero fighting to protect children by strong-arming ISPs into shutting down Usenets, as Ryan has explained.  Jim correctly points out the “shake down” nature of Cuomo’s operation.  And Adam has explained that this is all part of a broader assault on online free speech.  While few are willing to discuss this taboo subject, it’s fair to ask whether the “solutions” Cuomo are really the most effective way to deal with the scourge of child pornography. 

I’ll bet good money that if Cuomo makes it into the Senate, he’ll continue this fight on a broader scale—perhaps by pushing for legislation to mandate network-level filtering a la Cleanfeed.

Update: Gov. Paterson has decided to appoint Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand to this seat rather than Cuomo. That’s the good news.  The bad news is that this bully is still Attorney General of the Empire State.  I have no doubt he’ll continue his war on free speech in his current position.

Important article in the New York Times yesterday in which Brian Stelter wondered if, in the wake of the Lori Drew verdict this week, “Is lying about one’s identity on the Internet now a crime?” It’s still unclear if the case will have such profound ramifications, but it has many quite worried. Stelter quotes occasional TLF contributor Andrew Grossman, who is Senior Legal Policy Analyst at the Heritage Foundation. Andrew penned an outstanding paper on the case for Heritage in mid-September: “The MySpace Suicide: A Case Study in Overcriminalization.” He summarized the paper and the important issues at stake in the case in this post for the TLF: “Go to Jail for Online Anonymity: The End of Internet Freedom?”  Make sure you read them. I wholeheartedly agree with the concerns Andrew outlines in those essays.

You’ll also want to check out Orin Kerr’s analysis of the case over at the Volohk Consipiracy as well as his tounge-and-cheek piece today about changing the blog’s Terms of Service in light of the decision. I’ve been more focused recently on the threat posed to online anonymity by mandatory online age verification, but this case could have equally important ramifications.

As TLF readers may know, I took over in July as Chairman of the Board of the Space Frontier Foundation.  As I explained in my recent interview on The Space Show, SFF has been the leading citizens’ advocacy group for space commercialization since 1988.  Dedicated to promoting Princeton physicist Gerard O’Neill‘s vision of space settlement, as described in his 1976 masterpiece The High Frontier, the Foundation has always argued that “space is a place, not a program.”

We sent out the following press release on October 28, calling for a major transformation of the U.S. government’s space program by which the U.S. government would buy commercial transportation to the International Space Station.  We’ll have more to say about this in the coming weeks.

Space Frontier Foundation Finds Funding Source for COTS-D

The Space Frontier Foundation today called upon Presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain to invest the $2 billion in new funds they have promised to NASA for reducing the “Gap” in U.S. human spaceflight (after the Space Shuttle is retired in 2010) to spur innovation and competition in America.

Foundation Chairman Berin Szoka said “It’s time that our national leaders give American entrepreneurs a shot at closing this gap. Let’s take the two billion dollars in the candidates’ plans and fund up to five winners of COTS-D.”

The NASA Authorization Act of 2008, recently signed into law by the President, directs NASA to “issue a notice of intent [by mid-April 2009] … to enter into a funded, competitively awarded Space Act Agreement with two or more commercial entities’ for transporting humans to the ISS”-the “Capability D” of NASA’s Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program (or COTS-D for short). But that directive is not yet funded.

Szoka continued, “Let’s have an American competition in space – to create good jobs, fuel innovation, and close the gap more quickly. With private funds matching government’s investment, we can dramatically leverage the $2 billion to produce breakthroughs in a new American industry – commercial orbital human spaceflight.”

By investing in several different approaches, the government will win no matter who wins this new race, and also benefit from the resulting price competition.

Many American companies, including Boeing, PlanetSpace, SpaceDev, SpaceX, and t/Space have each previously submitted credible COTS-D proposals to NASA. Each of these firms has reached the semi-finals of one of the previous NASA COTS competitions. Increasing funding for COTS by $2 billion would allow NASA to fund all five of these promising companies’ proposals with COTS agreements, and in so doing, build redundancy into the human spaceflight capability available to NASA and other customers.

“It’s popular in Washington to use ‘The Gap’ to cynically justify continued funding of an expensive jobs program,” concluded the Foundation’s co-founder, Bob Werb. “We’re using ‘The Gap’ to advocate a policy that will bridge a gap that matters much more: the chasm between a dying government Human spaceflight monopoly and an emerging, free and competitive marketplace that can open the space frontier to everyone.”

The Federal Circuit significantly limited the patentability of software and business methods today.  Mike Masnick at TechDirt summarizes the holding of the case as follows:

the court has said that there’s a two-pronged test to determine whether a software of business method process patent is valid: (1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing. In other words, pure software or business method patents that are neither tied to a specific machine nor change something into a different state are not patentable.

I’m sure several of my TLF colleagues will have a great deal to say about this.   Tim Lee has already written about this on Ars Technica:

The Bilski decision, then, is a clear signal that the pendulum has begun to swing back toward tighter limits on software and business patents. However, it remains to be seen how far the court will go in this direction. Bilski was a relatively easy case. The applicant made little effort to hide the fact that he was seeking to patent a mental process, something the Supreme Court has clearly said is not allowed. Therefore, the Federal Circuit’s rejection of this patent doesn’t tell us how it will rule when confronted with software or business method patents that are tied more directly to a physical machine or a transformation of matter. And indeed, the Federal Circuit reiterated that some software and business method patents are valid, so we are unlikely to return to the near-prohibition on such patents that prevailed until the early 1980s.

Thoughts?

Debates about online privacy often seem to assume relatively homogeneous privacy preferences among Internet users.  But the reality is that users vary widely, with many people demonstrating that they just don’t care who sees what they do, post or say online.   Attitudes vary from application to application, of course, but that’s precisely the point:  While many reflexively talk about the “importance of privacy” as if a monolith of users held a single opinion, no clear consensus exists for all users, all applications and all situations.  

If a picture is worth a thousand words, this picture makes the point brilliantly—showing:

locations where [Flickr] users are more likely to post their photos as “public,” which is the default setting, in green. Places where Flickr users are more likely to put privacy controls on their photos show up in red.

Of course, geography is just one dimension across which users may vary in their attitudes about privacy, but the map makes the basic point about variation very well.  Seeing what users actually do in real life says a lot more about their preferences than merely polling them about what they think they care about in the abstract—as my colleagues Solveig Singleton and Jim Harper argued brilliantly in their 2001 paper With A Grain of Salt: What Consumer Privacy Surveys Don’t Tell Us (SSRN).