Given the importance of privacy self-help—that is, setting your browser to control what it reveals about you when you surf the Web—I was concerned to hear that Google, among others, had circumvented third-party cookie blocking that is a default setting of Apple’s Safari browser. Jonathan Mayer of Stanford’s Center for Internet and Society published a thorough and highly technical explanation of the problem on Thursday.

The story starts with a flaw in Safari’s cookie blocking. Mayer notes Safari’s treatment of third-party cookies:

Reading Cookies Safari allows third-party domains to read cookies.
Modifying Cookies If an HTTP request to a third-party domain includes a cookie, Safari allows the response to write cookies.
Form Submission If an HTTP request to a third-party domain is caused by the submission of an HTML form, Safari allows the response to write cookies. This component of the policy was removed from WebKit, the open source browser behind Safari, seven months ago by Google engineers. Their rationale is not public; the bug is marked as a security problem. The change has not yet landed in Safari.

Mayer says Google was exploiting this yet-to-be-closed loophole to install third-party cookies, the domain of which Safari would then allow to write cookies. After describing “(relatively) straightforward” cookie synching, Mayer says:

But we noticed a special response at the last step for Safari browsers. … Instead of responding with the “_drt_” cookie, the server sends back a page that includes a form and JavaScript to submit the form (using POST) to its own URL.

Third-party cookie blocking evaded, and users’ preferences frustrated.

Ars Technica has published Google’s response, which doesn’t seem to have gone up on any of its blogs, in full. Google says they created this functionality to deliver better services to their users, but doing so inadvertently allowed Google advertising cookies to be set on the browser.

I don’t know that I’m technically sophisticated enough to register a firm judgement, but it looks to me like Google was faced with an interesting dilemma: They had visitors who were signed in to their service and who had opted to see personalized ads and other content, such as ‘+1’s but those same visitors had set their browsers contrary to those desires. Google chose the route better for Google, defeating the browser-set preferences. That, I think, was a mistake.

I wonder if there isn’t some Occam’s Razor that a Google engineer might have applied at some point in this process, thinking, “Golly, we are really going to great lengths to get around a browser setting. Are we sure we should be doing this?” Maybe it would have been more straightforward to highlight to Safari users that their settings were reducing their enjoyment of Google’s services and ads, and to invite those users to change their settings. This, and urging Apple to fix the browser, would have been more consistent with the company’s credo of non-evil.

Now, to the ideological stuff, of which I can think of two items:

1) There is a battle for control of earth out there—well, a battle over whether third-party cookie blocking is good or bad. Have your way advocates. I think the consuming public—that is, the market—should decide.

2) There is a battle to make a federal case out of every privacy transgression. An advocacy group called Consumer Watchdog (which has been prone to privacy buffoonery in the past) hustled out a complaint to the Federal Trade Commission. I think the injured parties should be compensated in full for their loss and suffering, of which there wasn’t any. De minimis non curat lex, so this is actually just a learning opportunity for Google, for browser authors, and for the public.

Kudos and thanks are due to Jonathan Mayer, as well as ★★★★★ and Ashkan Soltani, for exposing this issue.

In a post here last month on “Two Paradoxes of Privacy Regulation,” I discussed some of the interesting — and to me, troubling — similarities between rising calls for online privacy regulation and ongoing attempts to enact various types of controls on online speech or expression.  In that essay, I argued that while most privacy advocates are First Amendment supporters as it pertains to content regulation, they abandon their free speech values and corresponding constitutional tests when it comes to privacy regulation. When the topic of debate shifts from concerns about potentially objectionable content to the free movement of personal information, personal responsibility and self-regulation become the last option, not the first.  Privacy advocates typically ignore, downplay, or denigrate user-empowerment tools, even though many of those same advocates endorse “self-help” efforts as the superior method of dealing with objectionable speech or media content. In essence, therefore, they are claiming self-help is the right answer in one context, but not the other.  Ironically, therefore, privacy advocates and moral conservatives actually share much in common in that they are using the same playbook to advance their goals:  They are rejecting personal responsibility and user-empowerment tools and techniques in favor or government control for their respective issues.

Keeping that insight in mind, I want to take this comparison a step further and suggest that what really unites these two movements is a general conservatism about how our online lives and online business should be governed.  For the moral conservatives, that instinct is well-understood. They want hold the line against what they believe is a decaying moral order by restricting access to potentially objectionable speech or content — dirty words, violent video games, online porn, or whatever else.   The conservatism of the modern privacy movement is less obvious at first blush.  I suspect that many privacy conservatives would not consider themselves “conservative” at all, and they might even be highly offended at being grouped in with moral conservatives who seek to wield government power to control online speech and expression. Nonetheless, the two groups share a common trait — an innate hostility to the impact of technological / social change within the realm of “rights” or values they care about.  In their respective arenas, they both rejected the evolutionary dynamism of the free marketplace and they long for a return to a simpler and supposedly better time.

For the privacy conservatives, we see this instinct on display in discussions about “targeted advertising” and “behavioral marketing.”   Most privacy regulation advocates want to slow or stop the advancement of online advertising techniques for a variety of reasons.  Some say privacy — however they define it — is an inalienable human right and that data collection and targeted marketing betrays “human dignity.”  Others just despise commercialism and advertising in all its forms and hope to take steps to stop its spread or evolution. Still others say they want regulation to help give users more control over their personal information. Or, some combination of all of the above factors motivates their desire to see advertising and marketing practices curtailed.

On Defining Harm

Privacy conservatives and moral conservatives share another common trait: The struggle to identify or prove a tangible harm exists that justifies government regulation that would foreclose the evolution or markets and/or speech. “Privacy” has long been a controversial, ambiguous term, much like the terms “obscenity” or “indecency” in the speech context. My response in both cases is not that “harm” never exists, but rather that:

1. “harm” is extremely user-specific;
2. such “harms” should not necessarily be elevated to actionable legal / regulatory matters; especially when..
3. the better approach is user-empowerment and personal responsibility instead of collectivized political responsibility for such matters.

Stated differently, precisely because of the eye-of-the-beholder problem we face in both speech and privacy contexts, I believe the better approach is to rely on “household standards” (user-level controls + personal responsibility) instead of “community standards” (government regulation for the entire universe of consumers / users).  Thus, in light of the diverse nature of the citizenry and the importance of the evolution of online markets and speech, freedom should generally trump control.

Journalism provides a good case study for why that should be the general rule.  When it comes to the concerns about what should or should not be aired or reported by journalists, most of us would come down in favor of press freedoms and greater freedom of speech.  We don’t allow concerns about violent media images or salty language to trump the rights of journalists to report on wars, for example.  In a similar sense, we don’t allow privacy rights to trump freedom of speech as it relates to the collection of private facts about individuals by journalists.  Think about it; the job of a good journalist is to be a nosy son-of-a-bitch.  They pry into every corner of the private lives of individuals. They not only get paid to do, but they win awards for doing it well!  The First Amendment generally protects their ability to gather and reveal all this information about individuals and organizations.  Again, speech rights trump privacy rights.  That isn’t always the case, of course, but it is 9 times out of 10.  So, for purposes of our discussion here, the interesting question is: How far would privacy conservatives be willing to go to undermine speech rights since — if enforced aggressively — a privacy “right” would essentially become “a right to stop people from speaking about you” (to borrow the memorable subtitle of a 2000 Eugene Volokh law review article)?

The Case for Transparency, and the Futility of It

Like moral conservatives, privacy conservatives are on their strongest footing in advocating greater transparency.  Before jumping to direct government regulation of speech or content, some moral conservatives are willing to give greater transparency a shot.  For example, they push for content creators to reveal more details about the nature of their products using labels or ratings so that consumers can better understand what they will see or hear. Similarly, before advocating comprehensive Internet regulation, some privacy conservatives at least give lip service to the idea of industry self-regulation and they encourage sites and services to be more transparent about the information they collect about users for advertising / marketing purposes.

Such transparency generally doesn’t restrict innovation and progress. In fact, in some ways, it can help create a more vibrant market if consumers act upon the information they are given.  However, whether we are talking about objectionable media content or privacy-related matters, it doesn’t seem like many consumers are willing to do much to change their behavior once supplied with better product or service information — at least not in the way the regulatory advocates desire. In both cases, moral conservatives and privacy conservatives can’t seem to come to grips with the fact that the world isn’t made of people who share their hostile knee-jerk reaction to these things.

For example, there are some outstanding rating and labeling systems out there for movies and games, and those content descriptors really do give people (especially parents) a good idea of what they can expect to see, hear or play.  But the existence of those ratings and labels doesn’t deter millions upon millions of people from rushing to watch or buy a controversial new movie or video game that many moral conservatives probably find offensive.  Same goes for language.  We can warn people nasty talk is coming, or even channel it to later hours of the day, but a lot of people will still consume it anyway.  Many people probably recoiled upon first hearing a George Carlin monologue back in the 70s.  But while the moral conservatives couldn’t get over it — and still enforce regulations based on one particularly famous Carlin monologue — the rest of the world moved on. In fact, in 2008, Carlin was awarded the Mark Twain Prize for American Humor as one of our country’s most revered satarists.  Society evolved not just to accept, but embrace, Carlin’s wicked wit and even much of his billingsgate.

Similarly, privacy conservatives — who tend to think the multitudes share their general aversion to almost any form of data collection or commercial advertising — often seem mystified that the masses aren’t in open revolt against the likes of Facebook, Google, or online advertising networks.  To hear many privacy regulatory advocates talk, you’d think online advertising innovation should have been frozen in the pop-up ad era.  Some of them still can’t get over the fact that cookies weren’t regulated out of existence a decade ago.  Yet, despite their fundamentalist views about privacy rights and supposed violations of those rights, progress has marched on. Privacy expectations — much like cultural / speech expectations — have evolved. New baselines have emerged. And while there’s an occasional flashpoint over something particularly inflammatory — for speech, think of the Janet Jackson incident or the Grand Theft Auto “Hot Coffee” incident; and for privacy, think Facebook Beacon and Google Buzz — the reality is that most people have adapted to technological and social change.  Stated differently, regardless of what any poll or survey might suggest, citizens have generally rejected the fundamental conservatism of both the moral conservatives on content issues and the privacy conservatives on advertising / marketing issues.

Strange Bedfellow Alliances?

Are formal alliances between privacy conservatives and moral conservatives likely?  I think they are possible, but highly unlikely.  On occasion, some moral conservatives will reach across the aisle and work with Left-leaning groups when it works to their advantage.  A prime example came back in 2003-04 during the media ownership reform debates, when social conservatives like Brent Bozell aligned the Parents Television Council with the radical regulatory group Free Press and its neo-Marxist founder Robert McChesney.  Bozell’s contempt for entertainment companies was so extreme that he was willing to make peace with extremists like Free Press, who are always happy to string up the capitalists in the content community.

But that’s an unusual example.  It’s unlikely we’ll see the extreme poles of moral and privacy conservatism making many alliances because they generally don’t play well together.  That is, most moral conservatives don’t necessarily have a big beef with online advertisers, and few privacy conservatives care about free speech issues (and, to the extent they do care, they probably favor greater First Amendment freedoms).

However, whether they broker formal alliances or not, what should be clear is that moral conservatives and privacy conservatives are unwittingly working together as they both strive to bring greater government control to cyberspace and end evolutionary dynamism in their respective arenas.

When the government tells someone to shut up, we call it censorship and the First Amendment requires the government to defend its regulation. But what if the government just says, “Shhhh… could you please turn that down?” Rep. Anna Eshoo’s Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act (“CALM Act” – HR 1084) would do just that: require the FCC to issue rules that broadcast and cable TV ads:

(1) … shall not be excessively noisy or strident; (2) … shall not be presented at modulation levels substantially higher than the program material that such advertisements accompany; and (3) [their] average maximum loudness…  shall not be substantially higher than the average maximum loudness of the program material that such advertisements accompany.

Now,  I understand where Ms. Eshoo is coming from: I have a very low tolerance for noise in general and for television in particular—and it’s not just about commercials. (I find TV news at least as “noisy” and “strident” as commercials. That’s why I opted-out from the whole TV thing in about 2000. Yup, that’s right: I found better things to do with my time and the supposedly all-powerful “gatekeepers” of Hollywood couldn’t do a damn thing about it. You should try it if you don’t like what’s on TV! To paraphrase Voltaire, “I disapprove of what you say watch,  but I will defend to the death your right to say watch it! You can get most of what’s worth watching on DVD or online anyway.) But do we really need bureaucrats in Washington micromanaging volume levels? Maybe Congressmen would have a little more time to read the bills they vote for if they they weren’t so busy fiddling with everyone else’s remote!

Eshoo’s bill has passed the House Energy & Commerce Committee’s Communications Subcommittee just as the TV industry is completing work on voluntary standards of their own. That’s one “less restrictive” alternative to regulation. What about technological empowerment? If Americans really hate loud commercials so much, why don’t they demand TVs with built-in volume normalization features? But this bill isn’t merely unnecessary, it would also set a disturbing precedent in at least six ways.

First, while it might seem that a regulation could draw clear lines with simple rules here about volume, Cliff Stearns (R-Fl) points out that “it is difficult to regulate volumes, since commercials are produced by a number of studios and companies that use different technologies and volume standards.” But this ambiguity merely increased the potential for selective enforcement, which would exist even where it were possible to craft precise rules.  Because the law makes no distinction about “non-commercial” (i.e., not-for-profit) advertisements, this means a politicized FCC could use volume controls as a weapon against opposing political advertising or other non-profit speech it did not like. Anyone who’s ever lived under a Home Owner’s Association should understand how easily an HOA president with a personal grudge could use hyper-technical rules about what shade of blue you have to paint your own mailbox to harass you. And isn’t “strident” the very adjective most commonly used to write off the arguments of those with whom we disagree?

Second, even though it does not exempt non-commercial ads, the bill does embody a recurrent presumption that it’s ok to regulate advertising in ways we wouldn’t accept for the “show” itself (i.e., non-advertising content). Of course, the show could be “commercial” (which, in First Amendment terms, means it would generally get only “intermediate” scrutiny) while the advertisement could be “non-commercial”—such as a political ad. But even if most ads are commercial, so what? If the government is going to protect us from “noisy or strident” commercials, why not all “noisy or strident” programming? Even the most annoying TV ad is probably less annoying than, say, the James Carvilles of the world debating the Glenn Becks of the world. (Of course, users really bothered by noise, but unwilling to give up TV, would probably much rather have a dynamic market for TVs with volume moderating features than rules that dull the din of commercials alone.)

Third, I’m sure that the government would defend Eshoo’s bill, if signed into law, as a restriction on the “time, place and manner” of speech. Although such restrictions are much easier for the government to defend than most restrictions on speech, the government must still show that the regulation is “narrowly drawn” and “serves a significant government interest.” So… what’s the interest here? I’m a little disturbed by the idea that the government has a “significant interest” in what goes on in the space between Americans, their couches, and the electronic display of their choosing. (If we were talking about non-consensual “second-hand television” like TVs blaring in airports, I might be slightly more sympathetic: It’s awfully hard to escape the sound of TV when you’re stuck at the gate waiting for a flight. But commercials are only marginally more annoying to me than most TV, and airport TVs generally show news anyway—the height of annoyingness. I’d much rather see airports, bars, etc. adopt directional sound technologies so that users can move out of the “blast radius” and into peace and quiet simply by moving over a few seats.)

Fourth, I understand that most users probably do wish that commercials probably weren’t so loud. But, this very fact, combined with the ease with which users can now skip all commercials (36% of U.S. homes have a DVR), creates a pretty powerful incentive for the TV industry to self-regulate the volume level of advertising. “Noisy or strident” advertising is just another example of the “tragedy of the commons” at work: Absent any rules, every individual advertiser has an incentive to jack up the volume in order to attract attention, and doing so will probably work up to a certain point of increased annoyance by the user. But collectively, such ads hurt all advertisers because they increase ad blindness, ad deafness, and/or outright commercial skipping. The same dynamic plays out on the Internet, where flashing, blinking, bouncing, strobing dancing ads really drive users nuts and make them turn to tools like AdBlock Plus and Flashblock—which is why ad networks like Google have policies that implement their own “time, place and manner” rules out of pure self-interest. Such rules are useful and valuable. They benefit advertisers, consumers and the ad network alike, because there exists a basic harmony of interests between them: annoying ads don’t really benefit anyone in the long-term.  Do we really want government bureaucrats making these decisions instead?

Fifth, if the FCC has a “significant” interest in “protecting” us from annoying TV ads, why shouldn’t the F TC protect us from annoying ads online? Here, the problems of government making rules become even more obvious as the medium is far more dynamic. But users already have radical user empowerment tools.

Finally, what about the unintended consequences of such regulation? For example, will intermediaries be responsible for compliance?

Rep. Zack Space (D-Ohio), raised the issue of the impact of the bill on small cable operators. He said that while he was not disputing the need for uniform commercial volume, he said the bill, “perhaps unintentionally” was prejudiced [against] small operators. He pointed out that many of those operators did not insert ads themselves or have “the right to alter national feeds unilaterally, like some of the bigger cable companies.” He said that those operators “simply pass through broadcast signals and have no means of adjusting the volume of commercials on the stream.”

If the FCC were to hold ad-distributor intermediaries liable for the volume-compliance of ad-producers, that could certainly disadvantage small distributors and perhaps even promote consolidation—both horizontal and vertical. But isn’t media consolidation the great evil that “media reformistas” are constantly warning us about?

Wordpress has experienced a major security vulnerability, with a worm making its way around the ‘Net, attacking earlier versions of WordPress. Fortunately, because of the hard work of the Wordpress open source community, the current (2.8.4) and most recent (2.8.3) versions are immune. Yet as with any piece of program, some users haven’t upgraded.  In the case of Wordpress (which we use at the TLF), upgrading can be difficult for sites that rely on plug-ins that aren’t always updated quickly when a new version of WordPress is released.

While my heart goes out to my fellow Wordpress bloggers who may have experienced an attack, I’m just glad that, for once, the message isn’t that somehow we need the government to protect us all from cyber-catastrophes, but, instead, a little good-old-fashioned digital self-help!  From the Wordpress Blog:

WordPress is a community of hundreds of people that read the code every day, audit it, update it, and care enough about keeping your blog safe that we do things like release updates weeks apart from each other even though it makes us look bad, because updating is going to keep your blog safe from the bad guys. I’m not clairvoyant and I can’t predict what schemes spammers, hackers, crackers, and tricksters will come up with with in the future to harm your blog, but I do know for certain that as long as WordPress is around we’ll do everything in our power to make sure the software is safe. We’ve already made upgrading core and plugins a one-click procedure. If we find something broken, we’ll release a fix. Please upgrade, it’s the only way we can help each other.

As with parental controls and privacy, protecting your security online begins at home. Government can help to educate and promote empowerment solutions, and industry certainly has a role to play in both, and communities like Wordpress can offer invaluable support, but at the end of the day, only you can protect yourself online!

What Unites Advocates of Speech Controls & Privacy Regulation? [pdf]

by Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Progress on Point No. 16.19

Anyone who has spent time following debates about speech and privacy regulation comes to recognize the striking parallels between these two policy arenas. In this paper we will highlight the common rhetoric, proposals, and tactics that unite these regulatory movements. Moreover, we will argue that, at root, what often animates calls for regulation of both speech and privacy are two remarkably elitist beliefs:

1. People are too ignorant (or simply too busy) to be trusted to make wise decisions for themselves (or their children); and/or,
2. All or most people share essentially the same values or concerns and, therefore, “community standards” should trump household (or individual) standards.

While our use of the term “elitism” may unduly offend some understandably sensitive to populist demagoguery, our aim here is not to launch a broadside against elitism as Time magazine culture critic William H. Henry once defined it: “The willingness to assert unyieldingly that one idea, contribution or attainment is better than another.”^[1] Rather, our aim here is to critique that elitism which rises to the level of political condescension and legal sanction. We attack not so much the beliefs of some leaders, activists, or intellectuals that they have a better idea of what it in the public’s best interest than the public itself does, but rather the imposition of those beliefs through coercive, top-down mandates.

That sort of elitism—elitism enforced by law—is often the objective of speech and privacy regulatory advocates. Our goal is to identify the common themes that unite these regulatory movements, explain why such political elitism is unwarranted, and make it clear how it threatens individual liberty as well as the future of free and open Internet. As an alternative to this elitist vision, we advocate an empowerment agenda: fostering an environment in which users have the tools and information they need to make decisions for themselves and their families.

I. The Elitism of Speech Regulation

First, consider how those two elitist beliefs identified above are on display when lawmakers or regulatory advocates make efforts to control speech or content.^[2] Calls to regulate free speech are often premised on the belief that something must be done to “protect The Children.”^[3] Personal and parental responsibility ^[4] are regarded as inadequate safeguards ^[5] since some parents will inevitably fall down on the job by not adequately shielding their children’s eyes and ears from potentially objectionable (or supposedly harmful) speech. Therefore, government must regulate content that is indecent, profane, excessively violent, and so on. The definition of those things is then left to unelected bureaucrats and judges to make on our behalf.

But it’s not just about “The Children.” Some regulatory advocates believe that even the choices made by consenting adults must be disregarded because some people fail to understand the supposedly destructive nature of the speech they are consuming. Government must act to protect people from making what some regulatory advocates regard as destructive or even immoral choices that could bring harm to them or their loved ones.

In sum, regulatory advocates are essentially saying that people cannot be trusted or left to their own devices and, therefore, government must intervene and establish a baseline “community standard” on behalf of the entire citizenry to tell them what‘s best for them.^[6] Even if those citizens have tools and information at their disposal to make sensible decisions about objectionable content, that’s not good enough because they might not do the job properly. Government must do it for them!

II. The Elitism of Privacy Regulation

This same mentality motivates calls for privacy regulations. Those who call for government interventions to “protect privacy” often claim that people too willingly surrender personal information about themselves and that they don’t understand the adverse consequences of those actions.^[7] Alternatively, regulatory advocates claim that advertising and marketing efforts are inherently “manipulative” and that people do not realize they are being duped into surrendering personal information or into buying products or services they supposedly don’t need.^[8] Of course, those regulatory advocates rarely pause to explain to us how it is that they were not also duped and manipulated by the same things—again revealing their deeply-rooted elitism! (As discussed below, this makes it clear how the psychological phenomenon of “third-person effect hypothesis” is driving much of this debate.)

“Protecting The Children” is also used as a rhetorical cover for regulation here, but not as often in debates over speech controls.^[9] Instead, regulatory advocates mostly focus on adults who are presumed not to know what is in their own best interest—necessitating paternalistic government intervention on their behalf.

III. Intellectual Schizophrenia on Both the Left & Right

What is particularly interesting about all this is the way these two issues expose a sort of intellectual schizophrenia at work on both the Left and Right of the political spectrum. Left-leaning policymakers and intellectuals typically decry censorship efforts (except where “commercial speech,” “hate speech” and “bias” are at issue), but are quick to rally around proposals to layer privacy regulations on the Internet. The opposite is often true of many on the Right of the political spectrum: They typically declare privacy regulations to be paternalistic and antithetical to free enterprise (or perhaps just erosive of efforts to legislate morality),^[10] but in the next breath advocate controls on content they find objectionable.

Few on either side stop to consider the relationship between speech and privacy. In fact, they are but two sides of the same coin. After all, what is your “right to privacy” but a right to stop me from observing you and speaking about you?^[11] “Protecting privacy,” therefore, typically means restricting speech rights in the process. Advocates of privacy regulation often insist that the use, processing and collection of information are “conduct” unprotected by the First Amendment, but in fact, the First Amendment broadly protects the gathering and distribution of information as part of the process of communication (“speech”).^[12] Similarly, attempts to “clean up” speech or “protect The Children,” often require regulations that would betray the privacy of adults by expanding the role of government, and impose serious burdens on businesses and markets—such as age verification mandates ^[13] or extensive data retention requirements.^[14]

IV. Common Tactics & Regulatory Mechanisms

The two movements also share common political tactics and regulatory approaches. Privacy advocates generally favor “opt-in” mandates as the federal “baseline standard” for any website collecting information about users, especially their browsing habits (regardless of whether the information is “personally identifiable”). In other words, the law would create a property right in such “personal information” (ironically, many advocates of this approach criticize or reject intellectual property.) In a similar vein, many advocates of speech controls push for mandatory parental control tools or restrictive default settings.^[15] That is, if government won’t censor speech outright, regulatory advocates want lawmakers to at least (1) require that media, computing and communications devices be shipped to market with parental controls embedded or included (as proposed in Australia and with China’s “Green Dam” filter),^[16] and possibly, (2) that such controls be defaulted to their most restrictive position—forcing users to opt-out of the controls later if they want to consume media rated above a certain threshold.

More sophisticated advocates of speech controls and privacy regulation will likely argue that their paternalism is less elitist or intrusive because they merely want to “nudge” the public into making “better” decisions. Economist Richard Thaler and legal scholar Cass Sunstein (director of President Obama’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, responsible for analyzing most new federal regulations) popularized this approach with their 2008 book Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Based on behavioral economics studies, they argue that both government and private actors must inevitably make decisions about “choice architecture” and that, by setting defaults, incentives and rules smartly, “choice architects” can and should improve decision-making without blocking, fencing-off or significantly burdening choices.^[17]

In this regard, Sunstein and Thaler’s approach parallels the work of Lawrence Lessig, one of the most influential Internet policy thinkers. Lessig has argued that the “architecture” of “code” (how software is written) “regulates” all online activities and requires government oversight and intervention to keep in check. Otherwise, he warned ominously a decade ago, “Left to itself, cyberspace will become a perfect tool of control.”^[18] Lessig’s hyper-pessimistic predictions have proven unwarranted, however. Far from fostering a world of “perfect control,” code and cyberspace have proven remarkably difficult to regulate, but nonetheless has generally benefited consumers and citizens without centralized direction.^[19] Still, Lessig, Sunstein, and others of this ilk persist in their advocacy of “nudges” of many varieties to impose their will on cyberspace through mandates from above.

But while it might be possible to define “better decisions” and argue that poor choice architecture leads people to choose things they clearly don’t want in contexts like investment decisions and mortgages, how can elites know what other people really want in highly subjective contexts like privacy and speech? Should they rely on opinion polls—the highly subjective results of which depend heavily on “choice architecture” of question-crafting—to guess what the right default should be?^[20] Was the Chinese proposal to mandate deployment of “Green Dam” just a harmless “nudge” because users weren’t barred from uninstalling the filtering software that must accompany their computers (i.e., “opting-out”)? The problem becomes even more difficult where trade-offs among competing values are inevitable. For example, data collection about Internet users raises privacy concerns for some but benefits all, creating more funding for “free” content (i.e., speech) and services users prefer by making more valuable the advertising that supports online publishers. In short, regulations of speech and privacy are likely to be pure paternalism, even when billed as “libertarian paternalism as Thaler and Sunstein label their approach.^[21]

What might be called “regulatory blackmail” is also a time-honored tradition among both advocates of speech controls and privacy regulation. When censorship advocates have previously been impeded by the First Amendment, they have worked behind the scenes with lawmakers or regulatory agencies to use indirect pressure and strong-arming tactics to extract “voluntary concessions” from companies or others.^[22] For example, in 2004, the FCC strong-armed radio giant Clear Channel into agreeing to a “voluntary” consent decree that involved taking Howard Stern off the air.^[23] Similarly, in 2008, XM and Sirius Satellite Radio finally agreed to set aside 4% of their system capacity for use by politically favored racial minorities (a kind of speech control) as a “voluntary condition” of their merger—after the FCC had sat on their application for nearly 16 months.^[24] This race-based preference would have been unconstitutional if the FCC had imposed it directly.^[25] While the FTC has been far less prone to such abuse and actually plays a key role in holding companies to their promises, its current Chairman, Jon Leibowitz, has hung the “regulatory sword of Damocles” over the heads of the online advertising industry, threatening them with a “day of reckoning” if he doesn’t get what he wants from industry self-regulatory efforts.”^[26] The sword could actually fall if the FTC turns self-regulation into the European model of “co-regulation,” where the government steers and industry simply rows.^[27]

V. The Crisis Mentality that Drives Regulation

Speech and privacy regulatory advocates share another trait in common: an affinity for the use of a crisis mentality as a method of spurring political action. In his 1995 book The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy, political philosopher and economist Thomas Sowell formulated a model that he argued drives ideological crusades to expand government power over our lives and economy. “The great ideological crusades of the twentieth-century intellectuals have ranged across the most disparate fields,” noted Sowell. But what they all had in common, he argued, was “their moral exaltation of the anointed above others, who are to have their different views nullified and superseded by the views of the anointed, imposed via the power of government.”^[28] These government-expanding crusades shared several key elements, which Sowell identified as follows:

1. Assertion of a great danger to the whole society, a danger to which the masses of people are oblivious.
2. An urgent need for government action to avert impending catastrophe.
3. A need for government to drastically curtail the dangerous behavior of the many, in response to the prescient conclusions of the few.
4. A disdainful dismissal of arguments to the contrary as either uninformed, irresponsible, or motivated by unworthy purposes.

We see this model at work on a daily basis today with our government’s various efforts to reshape our economy, but the model is equally applicable to debates over speech controls and privacy regulation. In particular, the various “technopanics”^[29] we have witnessed in recent years fit this model. For example, consider how this model plays out in the debate over online social networking:

1. Assertion of a great danger to the whole society [online sexual predators], a danger to which the masses of people are oblivious.
2. An urgent need for government action [such as mandatory online age verification ^[30] or the Deleting Online Predators Act ^[31]] to avert impending catastrophe.
3. A need for government to drastically curtail the dangerous behavior of the many [must stop kids and adults from being online together on same sites], in response to the prescient conclusions of the few [some state Attorneys General].^[32]
4. A disdainful dismissal of arguments to the contrary as either uninformed, irresponsible, or motivated by unworthy purposes [child safety researchers and others are told that their research is meaningless or offbase].^[33]

We also see this model in play in other debates, such as efforts to regulate “excessively violent” video games and television programming.^[34] And consider how this model plays out on the privacy front:

1. Assertion of a great danger to the whole society [amorphous privacy violations], a danger to which the masses of people are oblivious.
2. An urgent need for government action [“baseline federal privacy regulation”] to avert impending catastrophe.
3. A need for government to drastically curtail the dangerous behavior of the many [anyone who shares information online], in response to the prescient conclusions of the few [a handful of privacy advocacy groups].
4. A disdainful dismissal of arguments to the contrary as either uninformed, irresponsible, or motivated by unworthy purposes [any suggestion that privacy concerns are being overblown and that most information-sharing is socially beneficial is dismissed out-of-hand].

Worse yet, regulatory intervention in these cases simply begets more and more intervention to correct the inevitable failures of, or dissatisfaction with, previous interventions.^[35] Thus, the “crisis” cycle never ends.

VI. Third-Person Effect Hypothesis as an Explanation

Something more profound than simple political elitism seems to be at work here, however. A phenomenon psychologists refer to as the “third-person effect hypothesis” can explain many calls for government intervention, especially in the media world.^[36] Simply stated, speech and privacy critics sometimes seem to only see and hear in media or communications what they want to see and hear—or what they don’t want to see or hear. When they encounter perspectives or preferences that are at odds with their own, they are more likely to be concerned about the impact of those things on others throughout society and come to believe that government must “do something” to correct those perspectives. Many people desire regulation because they think it will be good for others, not necessarily for themselves. The regulation they desire has a very specific purpose in mind: “re-tilting” speech or market behavior in their desired direction.

The third-person effect hypothesis was first formulated by W. Phillips Davison in a seminal 1983 article:

In its broadest formulation, this hypothesis predicts that people will tend to overestimate the influence that mass communications have on the attitudes and behavior of others. More specifically, individuals who are members of an audience that is exposed to a persuasive communication (whether or not this communication is intended to be persuasive) will expect the communication to have a greater effect on others than on themselves.^[37]

Davison used this hypothesis to explain how media critics on both the Left and Right seemed to simultaneously find “bias” in the same content or reports when they couldn’t possibly both be correct. In reality, their own personal preferences were biasing their ability to fairly evaluate that content. Davison’s article prompted further research by many other psychologists, social scientists, and public opinion experts to test just how powerful this phenomenon was in explaining calls for censorship and other social phenomena.^[38] In these studies, third-person effect has been shown to be the primary explanation for why many people fear—or even want to ban—various types of speech or expression, including news,^[39] misogynistic rap lyrics,^[40] television violence,^[41] video games,^[42] and pornography.^[43] In each case, the subjects surveyed expressed strong misgivings about allowing others to see or hear too much of the speech or expression in question, but greatly discounted the impact of that speech on themselves. Such studies thus reveal the strong paternalistic instinct behind proposals to regulate speech. As Davison notes:

Insofar as faith and morals are concerned… it is difficult to find a censor who will admit to having been adversely affected by the information whose dissemination is to be prohibited. Even the censor’s friends are usually safe from the pollution. It is the general public that must be protected. Or else, it is youthful members of the general public, or those with impressionable minds.^[44]

It’s easy to see how this same phenomenon is at work in debates about privacy. Regulatory advocates imagine their preferences are “correct” (right for everyone) and that the masses are being duped by external forces beyond their control or comprehension, even though the advocates themselves are somehow immune from the brain-washing and privy to some higher truth that the hoi polloi simply cannot fathom. Again, this is Sowell’s “Vision of the Anointed” at work.

Consider the flare-up in 2004 over the introduction of Gmail, Google’s free email service. At a time when Yahoo! mail (then as now the leading webmail provider) offered customers less than 10 megabytes of email storage, Gmail offered an astounding gigabyte of storage that would grow over time (now over 7 GB). Rather than charging some users for more storage or special features, Google paid for the service by showing advertisements next to each email “contextually” targeted to keywords in that email—a far more profitable form of advertising than “dumb banner” ads previously used by other webmail providers.^[45] Self-appointed (or, to extend Sowell’s framework, “self-anointed”) privacy advocates howled that Google was going to “read users’ email,” and led a crusade to ban such algorithmic contextual targeting.^[46] Thierer responded to these critics by pointing out that the service was purely voluntary and noted:

you don’t speak for me and a lot of other people in this world who will be more than happy to cut this deal with Google. So do us a favor and don’t ask the government to shut down a service just because you don’t like it. Privacy is a subjective condition and your value preferences are not representative of everyone else’s values in our diverse nation. Stop trying to coercively force your values and choices on others. We can decide these things on our own, thank you very much.^[47]

Interestingly, however, the frenzy of hysterical indignation about Gmail was followed by a collective cyber-yawn: Users increasingly understood that algorithms, not humans, were doing the “reading” and that, if they didn’t like it, they didn’t have to use it. Today, nearly 150 million of people around the world use Gmail, and it has a steadily growing share of the webmail market. Even though cyber-consumers have embraced the service, some privacy advocates persist in their effort to shut down Gmail. They appear determined to stop at nothing to impose their will on others—the essence of political elitism—even if that means cutting off free email service for 150 million people!^[48]

A similar debate has played out more recently regarding targeted online advertising in general. Advertising on search engines is, much like Gmail, targeted “contextually” based on search terms entered by users and most advertising on other websites is based on the nature of content on a site or page. But certain data is collected about users as they browse to make that advertising more effective—by measuring its performance, reducing fraud, preventing over-exposure, etc. Some privacy advocates have insisted that industry self-regulation of such practices (even if enforced by the FTC) is inadequate and have called for preemptive regulation. They are even more offended by “behavioral advertising” which allows publishers whose content would have little value as the basis for contextually targeting advertising on their own sites to compete for more highly valued advertising by showing ads to users based on other sites they’ve visited. In both cases, data collection can increase the funding available to publishers to produce more of the content and services preferred by users, thus conferring an enormous indirect benefit on users, but also directly benefits users by increasing the relevance of the advertising they see.^[49] For some of the more extreme advocates of privacy regulation, however, there are no trade-offs, only absolutist “solutions:” To them, privacy is so obviously desirable that they feel at ease in deciding what’s best for everyone else. Such absolutists often respond with righteous indignation and conspiratorial fulmination when challenged to identify the harm against which they’re protecting consumers, while disdainfully dismissing all talk of the benefits of online advertising as self-serving industry propaganda.^[50]

VII. The Principled Alternative: Trust People & Empower Them

There is an alternative to this elitist mentality: freedom and personal responsibility. Individuals should be permitted to live a life of their own, even if they sometimes make mistakes or choices that are at odds with what elites think is best for them. ^[51]

Of course, the world isn’t perfect. In an ideal world, adults would be fully empowered to tailor speech and privacy decisions to their own values and preferences. Specifically, in an ideal world, adults (and parents) would have (1) the information necessary to make informed decisions and (2) the tools and methods necessary to act upon that information. Importantly, those tools and methods would give them the ability to not only block the things they don’t like—objectionable content, annoying ads or the collection of data about them—while also finding the things they want.

Achieving that ideal is likely impossible, but the good news is that we are moving closer to it with each passing day. Citizens have more tools and methods at their disposal than ever before which enable them to make decisions for themselves and their families. And this is true for both parental controls ^[52] and privacy controls.^[53]

Of course, some speech and privacy elitists will argue that we can’t trust empowerment tools ( e.g., filters, rating systems, or other controls) that are created by companies or other affected parties. But rather than trying to enhance those tools and educate users about how to use them, these elitists skip right past user empowerment and channel their energies into regulations that would impose a top-down, one-size-fits all standard on all adults and families—or even into trying to craft the perfect “nudge” that will help users make what elites believe to be the “right” decisions. Of course, these tools can, and should, be improved. Those groups worried about speech/content and privacy issues should focus on how we might drive such protections from the bottom-up by empowering individuals instead of government bureaucrats. The goal in both cases should be a “let-a-thousand-flowers-bloom” approach, which offers diverse tools and strategies for our diverse citizenry.^[54] We need not accept “one-size-fits” all approaches, whether they be regulatory mandates or “nudges,” based on the presumption that elites know best.

Finally, it is vital not to lose sight of what’s ultimately at stake here. If regulatory approaches trump the empowerment agenda we have described, the future of a free and open Internet—indeed, as technology converges, the future of all media—is at risk.^[55] By imposing technological solutions from the top-down that can never keep pace with technological change, regulation necessarily forecloses freedom and innovation.^[56] By contrast, individual empowerment allows innovation to flourish. The better approach across the board is education, not regulation.^[57] Empowerment, not elitism, is the path forward. The digital elite should be leading this effort by developing and promoting technologies of empowerment, not crafting regulatory mandates to force their will upon us.^[58]

#

Adam Thierer is a Senior Fellow with The Progress & Freedom Foundation and the director of its Center for Digital Media Freedom. Berin Szoka  is a Senior Fellow with PFF and the Director of PFF’s Center for Internet Freedom.

[1] . William A. Henry, In Defense of Elitism (1995) at 2-3.

[2] . See Adam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Congress, Content Regulation, and Child Protection: The Expanding Legislative Agenda, Progress Snapshot 4.4, Feb. 2008, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/ps/2008/ps4.4childprotection.html. Like American courts, we use the term “speech” as a broad catch-all for communications, including both actual speaking as well as other forms of transmitting, as well as receiving, information (“content”).

[3] . See generally Adam Thierer, Don’t Scapegoat Media, USA Today, Dec. 4, 2008, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/ps/2008/ps4.24scapegoatmedia.html; Marjorie Heins, Not in Front of the Children, “Indecency,” Censorship, and the Innocence of Youth (2001); Karen Sternheimer, It’s Not the Media: The Truth about Pop Culture’s Influence on Children (2003); Karen Sternheimer, Kids These Days: Facts and Fictions about Today’s Youth (2006).

[4] . See Adam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, FCC Violence Report Concludes that Parenting Doesn’t Work, PFF Blog, Apr. 26, 2007, http://blog.pff.org/archives/2007/04/fcc_violence_re.html.

[5] . See Adam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Sen. Rockefeller Gives Up on Parenting at Senate Violence Hearing, PFF Blog, June 26, 2007, blog.pff.org/archives/2007/06/sen_rockefeller_1.html.

[6] . Adam Thierer, Conservatives, Porn, and “Community Standards,” The Technology Liberation Front, March 2, 2009, http://techliberation.com/2009/03/02/conservatives-porn-and-community-standards.

[7] . Berin Szoka & Adam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Online Advertising & User Privacy: Principles to Guide the Debate, Progress Snapshot 4.19, Sept. 2008, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/ps/2008/ps4.19onlinetargeting.html.

[8] . Jeff Chester, for decades the great gadfly of American advertising, has decried “the system … developed to track each and every one of us and our behavior for one-on-one marketing efforts” as “manipulative, intrusive and un-democratic.” Wendy Melillo, Q&A: Chester Writes the Book on Privacy, Dec. 11, 2007, www.gfem.org/node/227. For instance, Chester and other leading “privacy advocates” ridicule the idea of smart phones as a “liberating technology” and insist that,

Despite the glowing words about customization and personalized service, what marketers and advertisers are increasingly offering consumers is merely the illusion of free choice. Mobile operators offer their various options and services, not on an individual basis, but preconfigured according to segmented demographic profiles.

Center for Digital Democracy and U.S. Public Interest Research Group, Complaint and Request for Inquiry and Injunctive Relief Concerning Unfair and Deceptive Mobile Marketing Practices, Jan. 13, 2009 (emphasis original), www.democraticmedia.org/files/FTCmobile_complaint0109.pdf. See generally Berin Szoka & Adam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Targeted Online Advertising: What’s the Harm & Where Are We Heading?, Progress on Point 16.2, Feb. 2009, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/2009/pop16.2targetonlinead.pdf.

[9] . Berin Szoka & Adam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, COPPA 2.0: The New Battle over Privacy, Age Verification, Online Safety & Free Speech, Progress on Point 16.11, May 2009, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/2009/pop16.11-COPPA-and-age-verification.pdf.

[10] . The Supreme Court has used a “right to privacy” to strike down laws against the use of contraception by married couples, Griswold v Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), and abortion, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

[11] . Eugene Volokh, Freedom of Speech and Information Privacy: The Troubling Implications of a Right to Stop People From Speaking About You, 52 Stanford L. Rev. 1049 (2000), available at www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop7.15freedomofspeech.pdf.

[12] . See , Amicus Brief for Association Of National Advertisers, Cato Institute, Coalition For Healthcare Communication, Pacific Legal Foundation And The Progress & Freedom Foundation In Support Of Appellants, IMS Health v. Sorrell, No. 09-1913-cv(L), 09-2056-cv(CON) (2nd Cir. 2009), available at www.pff.org/issues-pubs/filings/2009/071309-Brief-Amici-Curiae-ANA-et-al-Second-Circuit-(09-1913-cv).pdf.

[13] . See Adam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Social Networking and Age Verification: Many Hard Questions; No Easy Solutions, Progress on Point No. 14.5, March 2007, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/ pops/pop14.8ageverificationtranscript.pdf; www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop14.5ageverification.pdfAdam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Statement Regarding the Internet Safety Technical Task Force’s Final Report to the Attorneys General, Jan. 14, 2008, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/other/090114ISTTFthiererclosingstatement.pdf; Nancy Willard, Why Age and Identity Verification Will Not Work—And is a Really Bad Idea, Jan. 26, 2009, www.csriu.org/PDFs/digitalidnot.pdf; Jeff Schmidt, Online Child Safety: A Security Professional’s Take, The Guardian, Spring 2007, www.jschmidt.org/AgeVerification/Gardian_JSchmidt.pdf.

[14] . Adam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Mandatory Data Retention: How Much is Appropriate, PFF Blog, June 26, 2006, http://blog.pff.org/archives/2006/06/mandatory_data.html

[15] . Adam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, The Perils of Mandatory Parental Controls and Restrictive Defaults, Progress on Point 14.4, Apr. 11, 2008, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/2008/pop15.4defaultdanger.pdf.

[16] . Adam Thierer, China’s Green Dam Filter and the Threat of Rising Global Censorship, PFF Blog, June 17, 2009, http://blog.pff.org/archives/2009/06/chinas_green_dam_filter_and_threat_of_rising_globa.html

[17] . They define choice architecture as follows: “A structure designed by a choice architect(s) to improve the quality of decisions made by homo sapiens. Often invisible, choice architecture is the specific user-friendly shape of an organization’s policy or physical building when homo sapiens come into contact with it. Examples of choice architecture include a voter ballot, a procedure for handling well-meaning people who forget a deadline, or a skyscraper.” Nudge Glossary of Terms, www.nudges.org/glossary.cfm.

[18] . Lawrence Lessig, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace (1999) at 6.

[19] . See Adam Thierer, Code, Pessimism, and the Illusion of “Perfect Control,” Cato Unbound, May 2009, www.cato-unbound.org/2009/05/08/adam-thierer/code-pessimism-and-the-illusion-of-perfect-control

[20] . See Solveig Singleton & Jim Harper, With A Grain of Salt: What Consumer Privacy Surveys Don’t Tell Us, 2001, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=299930.

[21] . As Cato Institute scholar Will Wilkinson has argued, the book’s “agreeably banal doctrine of choice-preserving helpfulness” blurs the lines between paternalism and libertarianism, and thus “the thrust of the conceptual renovation behind the term libertarian paternalism is to empower, not limit, political elites.” Why Opting Out Is No “Third Way,” Reason, October 2008, www.reason.com/news/show/128916.html. See also Adam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Sunstein’s “Libertarian Paternalism” is Really Just Paternalism, PFF Blog, April 7, 2008, http://blog.pff.org/archives/2008/04/sunsteins_liber.html.

[22] . See Robert Corn-Revere, “’Voluntary’ Self-Regulation and the Triumph of Euphemism,” in Rationales & Rationalizations: Regulating the Electronic Media (Robert Corn-Revere, ed., 1997), at 183-208.

[23] . Telecom Policy Report, Commission Settles Indecency Charges, But At What Cost?, June 30, 2004, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PJR/is_25_2/ai_n6091525.

[24] . See Adam Thierer, XM-Sirius, Regulatory Blackmail, and Diversity, June 17, 2008, http://blog.pff.org/archives/2008/06/xmsirius_regula.html.

[25] . See Comments of W. Kenneth Ferree on Implementation of Sirius-XM Merger Condition, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, MB Docket No. 07-57, March 30, 2009, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/filings/2009/033009siriusXMconditionfiling.pdf.

[26] . See Szoka & Adam Thierer, supra note 8 at 3.

[27] . See id. at 2.

[28] . Thomas Sowell, The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy (1995) at 5.

[29] . Alice Marwick, To Catch a Predator? The MySpace Moral Panic, First Monday, Vol. 13, No. 6-2, June 2008, www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2152/1966; Wade Roush, The Moral Panic over Social Networking Sites, Technology Review, Aug. 7, 2006, www.technologyreview.com/communications/17266; Anne Collier, Why Techopanics are Bad, Net Family News, April 23, 2009, www.netfamilynews.org/2009/04/why-technopanics-are-bad.html; Adam Thierer, Parents, Kids & Policymakers in the Digital Age: Safeguarding Against ‘Techno-Panics,’ Inside ALEC, July 2009, at 16-17, www.alec.org/am/pdf/Inside_July09.pdf; Adam Thierer, Progress & Freedom Foundation, Technopanics and the Great Social Networking Scare, PFF Blog, June 10, 2008, http://techliberation.com/2008/07/10/technopanics-and-the-great-social-networking-scare.

[30] . Supra note 13.

[31] . In the 109th Congress, former Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick (R-PA) introduced the Deleting Online Predators Act (DOPA), which proposed a ban on social networking sites in public schools and libraries. DOPA passed the House of Representatives shortly thereafter by a lopsided 410-15 vote, but failed to pass the Senate. The measure was reintroduced just a few weeks into the 110th Congress by Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK), the ranking minority member and former chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee. It was section 2 of a bill that Sen. Stevens sponsored titled the “Protecting Children in the 21st Century Act” (S. 49), but was later removed from the bill. See Declan McCullagh, Chat Rooms Could Face Expulsion, CNet News.com, July 28, 2006, http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6099414.html?part=rss&tag=6099414&subj=news.

[32] . See Emily Steel & Julia Angwin, MySpace Receives More Pressure to Limit Children’s Access to Site, Wall Street Journal, June 23, 2006, online.wsj.com/public/article/SB115102268445288250-YRxkt0rTsyyf1QiQf2EPBYSf7iU_20070624.html; Susan Haigh, Conn. Bill Would Force MySpace Age Check, Yahoo News.com, March 7, 2007, www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17502005.

[33] . See, e.g., Letter of Henry McMaster, Attorney General, South Carolina to Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and Attorney General Roy Cooper Regarding Internet Safety Task Force (“ISTTF”) Report, January 14, 2009, www.scag.gov/newsroom/pdf/2009/internetsafetyreport.pdf

[34] . See Adam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Video Games and “Moral Panic,” PFF Blog, Jan. 23, 2009, http://blog.pff.org/archives/2009/01/video_games_and_moral_panic.html ; Adam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Fact and Fiction in the Debate over Video Game Regulation, Progress Snapshot 13.7, March 2006, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop13.7videogames.pdf.

[35] . “All varieties of interference with the market phenomena not only fail to achieve the ends aimed at by their authors and supporters, but bring about a state of affairs which—from the point of view of their authors’ and advocates’ valuations—is less desirable than the previous state affairs which they were designed to alter. If one wants to correct their manifest unsuitableness and preposterousness by supplementing the first acts of intervention with more and more of such acts, one must go farther and farther until the market economy has been entirely destroyed and socialism has been substituted for it.” Ludwig von Mises, Human Action, at 858 (3rd ed. 1963) (1949).

[36] . See generally Adam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Media Myths: Making Sense of the Debate over Media Ownership (2005) at 119-123, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/books/050610mediamyths.pdf (Explaining how the third-person effect serves as a powerful explanation for the heated backlash that followed an FCC effort to moderately liberalize media ownership rules in 2003-04).

[37] . W. Phillips Davison, The Third-Person Effect in Communication, 47 Public Opinion Quarterly 1, Spring 1983, at 3.

[38] . For the best overview of third-person effect research, see Douglas M. McLeod, Benjamin H. Detenber, and William P. Eveland., Jr., Behind the Third-Person Effect: Differentiating Perceptual Processes for Self and Other, 51 Journal of Communication, Vol. 51, No. 4, 2001, at 678-695.

[39] . Vincent Price, David H. Tewksbury & Li-Ning Huang, Third-person Effects of News Coverage: Orientations Toward Media, Journalism & Mass Communications Quarterly, Vol. 74, at 525-540.

[40] . Douglas M. McLeod, William P. Eveland & Amy I. Nathanson, Support for Censorship of Violent and Misogynic Rap Lyrics: And Analysis of the Third-Person Effect, Communications Research, Vol. 24, 1997, at 153-174.

[41] . Hernando Rojas, Dhavan V. Shah, and Ronald J. Faber, For the Good of Others: Censorship and the Third-Person Effect, International Journal of Public Opinion Research, Vol. 8, 1996, at 163-186.

[42] . James D. Ivory, Addictive, But Not For Me: The Third-Person Effect and Electronic Game Players’ Views Toward the Medium’s Potential for Dependency and Addiction, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, School of Journalism and Mass Communication, Aug. 2002.

[43] . Albert C. Gunther, Overrating the X-rating: The Third-person Perception and Support for Censorship of Pornography, Journal of Communication, Vol. 45, No. 1, 1995, at 27-38

[44] . Supra note 37 at 14. Along these lines, a December 2004 Washington Post article documented the process by which the Parents Television Council, a vociferous censorship advocacy group, screens various television programming. One of the PTC screeners interviewed for the story talked about the societal dangers of various broadcast and cable programs she rates, but then also noted how much she personally enjoys HBO’s “The Sopranos” and “Sex and the City,” as well as ABC’s “Desperate Housewives.” Apparently, in her opinion, what’s good for the goose is not good for the gander! See Bob Thompson, Fighting Indecency, One Bleep at a Time, The Washington Post, Dec. 9, 2004, at C1, www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49907-2004Dec8.html.

[45] . See Chris Anderson, Free: The Future of a Radical Price at 112-118 (2009).

[46] . See Letter from Chris Jay Hoofnagle, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Beth Givens, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, Pam Dixon, World Privacy Forum, to California Attorney General Lockyer, May 3, 2004, http://epic.org/privacy/gmail/agltr5.3.04.html.

[47] . See email from Adam Thierer to Declan McCullaugh on Politech Email discussion group, April 30, 2004, http://lists.jammed.com/politech/2004/04/0083.html (emphasis added).

[48] . See Complaint and Request for Injunction of the Electronic Privacy Information Center against Google, Inc., March 17, 2009, http://epic.org/privacy/cloudcomputing/google/ftc031709.pdf; see also Ryan Radia, Should the FTC Shut Down Gmail and Google Docs Because of an Already-Fixed Bug?, Technology Liberation Front Blog, March 18, 2009, http://techliberation.com/2009/03/18/should-the-ftc-shut-down-gmail-and-google-docs-because-of-an-already-fixed-bug/.

[49] . See Berin Szoka & Mark Adams, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, The Benefits of Online Advertising & the Costs of Regulation, PFF Working Paper, forthcoming.

[50] . Anti-advertising crusader Jeff Chester often resorts to questioning the motives of those who question whether his regulatory prescriptions would actually benefit consumers, see, e.g., http://techliberation.com/2009/06/17/behavioral-advertising-industry-practices-hearing-some-issues-that-need-to-be-discussed/#comment-11698840. See generally Jeff Chester, Digital Destiny: New Media and the Future of Democracy (2007).

[51] . “The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily or mental and spiritual.” John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (Penguin Classics, 1859, 1986) at 72.

[52] . Adam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Parental Controls & Online Child Protection, Special Report, Version 4.0, Summer 2009, www.pff.org/parentalcontrols.

[53] . Adam Thierer, Berin Szoka & Adam Marcus, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Privacy Solutions, PFF Blog, Ongoing Series, http://blog.pff.org/archives/ongoing_series/privacy_solutions.

[54] . Comments of Adam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, In the Matter of Implementation of the Child Save Viewing Act; Examination of Parental Control Technologies for Video or Audio Programming; MB Docket No. 09-26, April 16, 2009, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/filings/2009/041509-%5bFCC-FILING%5d-Adam-Thierer-PFF-re-FCC-Child-Safe-Viewing-Act-NOI-(MB-09-26).pdf.

[55] . See Adam Thierer, FCC v. Fox and the Future of the First Amendment in the Information Age, Engage, Feb. 20, 2009, www.fed-soc.org/doclib/20090216_ThiererEngage101.pdf

[56] . “To act on the belief that we possess the knowledge and the power which enable us to shape the processes of society entirely to our liking, knowledge which in fact we do not possess, is likely to make us do much harm.” Friedrich von Hayek, “The Pretence of Knowledge,” in The Essence of Hayek, (Hoover Inst., 1984), at 276.

[57] . Adam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Two Sensible, Education-Based Legislative Approaches to Online Child safety, Progress Snapshot 3.10, Sept. 2007, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/ps/2007/ps3.10safetyeducationbills.pdf.

[58] . See, e.g., Berin Szoka, Google, CDT, Online Advertising & Preserving Persistent User Choice Across Ad Networks Through Plug-ins, Technology Liberation Front Blog, March 13, 2009, http://techliberation.com/2009/ 03/13/google-cdt-online-advertising-preserving-persistent-user-choice-across-ad-networks-through-plug-ins/.

The proliferation of Web 2.0 social media services has magnified the old problem of cyber-squatting: Every new service represents the possibility that someone else might claim your name, or your organization’s trademark, as a user name before you do! This problem is especially significant where user names correspond to vanity URLs, as with Twitter and, more recently, Facebook.

So I was intrigued to discover that the market is responding to this need: ClaimMyName (CMN) will take care of user registrations on 30 Web 20 services for $329 or on an astounding 300 services for $799. CMN is a “freemium” service offered by DandyID.com, a nifty free service that allows users to organize all their social media profiles for something like 390 services so that buttons for each service can easily be added to an author bio page on a blog, as we’ve done at the TLF. So if I really wanted to make sure that no one else registered http://<WEB2.0service>.com/berinszoka, or /techliberation or /ProgressFreedom, this service would allow me to do so with just a few clicks—at a price of either $10.97/service for thirty or $2.66/service for 300 services.

CMN is essentially a mini-Mark Monitor, the international company famous for protecting trademarks online—except that CMN facilitates self-help by users outside of trademark law: No registration is required; everything is done on a first-come-first-serve basis. Pretty cool.

by Eric Beach & Adam Thierer

In our ongoing “Privacy Solutions Series” we have been outlining various user-empowerment or user “self-help” tools that allow Internet users to better protect their privacy online. These tools and methods form an important part of a layered approach that we believe offers a more effective alternative to government-mandated regulation of online privacy. [See entries 1, 2, 3, 4]  In this installment, we will be exploring CCleaner, a free Windows-based tool created by UK-based software developer Piriform that scrubs you computer’s hard drive and cleans its registry. We’ll describe how CCleaner helps you destroy data and protect your private information.

Whenever you move files to the recycling bin and subsequently purge the recycling bin, the affected files remain on your computer. In other words, deleting files from the recycling bin does not remove them from the computer. The reason for this is important and, in many ways, beneficial. In some respects, many computer file systems work like an old library catalog system. A file is like a catalog card and contains the reference to the actual place on the hard drive where the information contained in the file is stored. When a user deletes a file, the computer does not actually clean all the affected hard drive space. Instead, to extend the analogy, the computer simply removes the card catalog entry that points to the hard drive space where the file is contained and frees up this space for new files. The reason this is usually beneficial is that cleaning the hard drive space occupied by a file can take a while. If you want evidence of this, look no further than the length of time required to reformat a hard drive (reformatting a hard drive actually clears the disk’s contents). The practical implication of the way hard drives work is that when you delete an important memo from your computer, it is not actually gone. Similarly, when you clear your browsing history, it is not gone. The bottom line is that an individual who can access your hard drive (a thief, the government, etc.) could view many or all of the files you deleted.

The solution to this problem is to ensure that when a file is deleted, the space on the hard drive occupied by that file is not simply flagged as available space but is entirely rewritten with unintelligible data. One of the best programs for accomplishing this is CCleaner (which formerly stood for “Crap Cleaner”!)

CCleaner enables you to select a host of potentially sensitive files (e.g., recycling bin, browser history, memory dumps, and cookies) and definitively delete them by writing over them at the root of the file system. In particular, CCleaner enables the user to choose whether files should be entirely overwritten once, thrice (DOD 5220.22-M standard), seven times (NSA standard), or 37 times (Gutmann standard). The end result of this is that users can entirely remove a file from their machines. As an added benefit, CCleaner also allows users to delete files that may not be sensitive in nature, but are not necessary for everyday computer tasks and as a result, their continued presence slows down the computer.

The best part of CCleaner is that it is free, stable, safe, and extremely easy to use. It has won numerous awards and, according to the CCleaner website, the tool has been downloaded an astounding 300 million times.

To download CCLeaner, visit http://www.ccleaner.com or http://download.cnet.com/ccleaner. More information about CCleaner is embedded down below, including a couple of YouTube videos. The most important tip to using CCleaner is ensuring that all files that are deleted from the recycling bin are subsequently overwritten (and therefore cannot be uncovered by someone who later accesses your hard drive).  This feature is not enable by default. To turn it on, do the following: (1) Open CCleaner (2) Click on “Options” from the bar on the left hand side of the program. (3) Click on “Settings”. (4) Click on “Secure file deletion (Slower)”.  The adjoining exhibit shows what that screen looks like.

For more information about CCleaner, please see the following helpful sites:

• CCleaner Help
• CCleaner Documentation
• Wikipedia entry for CCleaner
• CNet Download Center page for CCleaner
• a coupe of YouTube video tutorials follow…

The Progress & Freedom Foundation has just launched the new Center for Internet Freedom.  CIF offers an alternative to the proliferation of advocacy groups calling for government intervention online by offering timely analyses and critiques of proposals that diminish the vital role of free markets, free speech and property rights.  We aim to drive the Internet policy debate in new directions by emphasizing a layered approach of technological innovation, user education, user self-help, industry self-regulation, and the enforcement of existing laws consistent with the First Amendment.  Such an approach is a less restrictive—and generally more effective—alternative to increased regulation.  

Here are some of the issues I’ll be working on as CIF’s Director in conjunction with my esteemed colleagues Adam Thierer, Adam Marcus, and adjunct fellows: 

• Defending online advertising as the lifeblood of online content & services, especially in the “Long Tail”;
• Emphasizing market solutions to problems of privacy protection, especially regarding the use of cookies and packet inspection data;
• Protecting online speech and expression both in the U.S. and abroad;
• Defending Section 230 immunity for Internet intermediaries;
• Opposing online taxation and legal barriers to e-commerce and digital payments, especially at the state and local levels; and
• Ensuring that Internet governance remains transparent and accountable without hampering the evolution of the Internet.

By Berin Szoka & Adam Thierer Progress Snapshot 4.19 (PDF)

Since the fall of 2008, a debate has raged in Washington over “targeted online advertising,” an ominous-sounding shorthand for the customization of Internet ads to match the interests of users.  Not only are these ads more relevant and therefore less annoying to Internet users than untargeted ads, they are more cost-effective to advertisers and more profitable to websites that sell ad space.  While such “smarter” online advertising scares some—prompting comparisons to a corporate “Big Brother” spying on Internet users—it is also expected to fuel the rapid growth of Internet advertising revenues from $21.7 billion in 2007 to $50.3 billion in 2011-an annual growth rate of more than 24%. Since this growing revenue stream ultimately funds the free content and services that Internet users increasingly take for granted, policymakers should think very carefully about what’s really best for consumers before rushing to regulate an industry that has thrived for over a decade under a layered approach that combines technological “self-help” by privacy-wary consumers, consumer education, industry self-regulation, existing state privacy tort laws, and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) enforcement of corporate privacy policies.

In an upcoming PFF Special Report, we will address the many technical, economic, and legal aspects of this complicated policy issue-especially the possibility that regulation may unintentionally thwart market responses to the growing phenomenon of users blocking online ads.

We will also issue a three-part challenge to those who call for regulation of online advertising practices:

1. Identify the harm or market failure that requires government intervention.
2. Prove that there is no less restrictive alternative to regulation.
3. Explain how the benefits of regulation outweigh its costs.

The Online Advertising Market

While there are other forms of targeted advertising based on who you are (“demographic”) or where you are (“locational”), the most important varieties are based on what you’re searching for, seeing or doing online at any particular moment (“contextual”) and the pattern of what you’re searching for, seeing or doing over time (“behavioral”). The bulk of Internet advertising falls into one or both of these last two categories, with behavioral advertising growing rapidly.

Search engines deliver contextual ads on search results pages based on the search keywords entered by a user, while third-party advertising networks (some of which also run search engines) deliver contextual ads on behalf of website operators who sell ad space to the network, with the ads displayed on each page chosen according to keywords on that page. Contextual advertising is far “smarter” than displaying the same “dumb” untargeted banner ads to every user, because the contextual ad uses keywords to “guess” what the user is interested in based on the context of each page. But the purely contextual ad network doesn’t “remember” what the user has looked at in the past, so its insights into what the user would find relevant are very limited, especially for some websites. Online behavioral advertising (OBA) solves this problem and increases the value of advertising space on all websites by targeting ads based on a “profile” of the user created by tracking websites the user has visited—as well as limiting the number of times a user is shown a particular ad.

The Perceived Harm Driving Calls for Regulation

For a decade, the basic technology behind OBA has changed little: When a user visits the typical webpage, they download not only the webpage contents but also a small piece of code that allows the website to distinguish that user’s browser from other browsers (a “cookie”)—without personally identifying the user. Some cookies are required to make sites work properly (“site cookies”) while others (“tracking cookies”) are used by the third party ad network in which that site participates to recognize that browser across multiple sites participating in the ad network, and thus create a “profile” of what the user might be interested in. Even though such profiles themselves are anonymous, many privacy advocates have pointed to four reasons why online profiling is becoming “too invasive:” (i) It is sometimes possible to infer the actual identity of the user; (ii) though all browsers allow users to opt-out of tracking by “cleaning out” their tracking cookies, a website may be able to restore deleted tracking cookies through the use of cookie alternatives such as “Flash cookies”; (iii) certain vulnerabilities in current browser design make it theoretically possible to “sniff” a user’s browsing history, cache or bookmarks; and (iv) the use of “packet inspection” by Internet Service Providers (ISPs) (instead of the use of cookies) to track online browsing amounts to illegal wiretapping.

The other concerns expressed by the advocates of regulation vary significantly. Some fear that browsing profiles could be captured by hackers, somehow associated with personally identifying information, and used for identity theft. These advocates demand limits on data retention as well as data security mandates. Others demand that users have access to their own profiles—a goal inherently in tension with data security. Most share a vague queasiness about “being tracked” and about advertising in general, while downplaying the effectiveness of self-regulation or user self-help.

Perhaps most legitimately, others fear that the real “Big Brother”—the government—will gain access to a “honeypot” of surveillance data that might be associated with individual users. A variety of other solutions have been proposed to what is, for the most part, a poorly defined problem, including a government-run “Do Not Track” registry to make it easier for users to block tracking cookies; mandating opt-in for some or all forms of profiling; and banning completely the collection of tracking data about sensitive subjects, cross-referencing of data sets, and use of packet inspection data for OBA.

The Less Restrictive Means: A Layered Approach

But how should policymakers decide which, if any, of these interventions are really necessary–or would even be effective? Ironically, those who demand immediate OBA regulation to protect user privacy are often the first to insist on less burdensome approaches whenever a policy “problem” involves purely non-commercial speech. For example, emphasizing personal and parental responsibility is often favored as the more sensible approach to dealing with free speech and child protection concerns. But, as Chapman University Law Professor Tom Bell has asked, why not apply the same standard across the board? Why not expect those especially privacy-sensitive users who object to OBA to do something about it? To the extent effective self-help privacy tools exist, they provide a means of solving policy problems that is not only “less restrictive” than government regulation but generally more effective and customizable as well. Why settle for one-size-fits-all solutions of incomplete effectiveness when users can quite easily and effectively manage their own privacy? Indeed, those who advocate personal responsibility and industry self-regulatory approaches to free speech and child protection issues should be advancing the same position with regards to privacy.

Fortunately, a wide variety of self-help tools and “technologies of evasion” are readily available to all users and can easily thwart traditional cookie-based tracking, as well as more sophisticated tracking technologies such as packet inspection. While cookie management tools that allow users to delete their cookies have been standard in browsers for some time, the latest generation of browsers incorporates far more advanced control over what kind of cookies browsers will accept from websites in the first place. Furthermore,  the extensible nature of modern browsers allows any freelance software developer who sees a way to improve a browser to do so by writing an add-on that “plugs in” to the browser using standard programming interfaces designed by each browser developer.  Many such add-ons are wildly popular, but even those users who never install a single one benefit from the acceleration of browser evolution made possible by add-ons.  We will be documenting examples of these tools in our upcoming Special Report and in an ongoing  series of blog essays.

The Benefits of Smarter Advertising

The “free” Internet economy is based on a simple value exchange: Users get access to an ever-expanding collection of content and services at no cost from websites that are able to generate revenue from “eyeballs” on their pages by selling space on their sites to advertisers, usually through ad networks. The smarter that advertising, the more free content and services it can support. This is the same value exchange that has supported free, over-the-air television and radio content for decades. The only difference is technological: Because websites can connect directly with the user, they need not rely on crude profiling tools such as Nielsen ratings.

There are larger economic benefits of smarter online advertising. First, it makes the overall economy more open and competitive by allowing small market entrants to reach consumers with messages about their products. Second, those who attack the use of packet inspection by ISPs for OBA fail to see that it is precisely the kind of “game-changer” that could disrupt Google’s currently dominant market position. Third, the involvement of ISPs in OBA could help defer broadband costs: Even if OBA revenue does not completely subsidize monthly service costs, smarter advertising could at least keep prices in check and potentially lower them significantly going forward.

But smarter advertising isn’t just about selling products or services. It is ultimately about making all kinds of speech more cost-effective. The ability to “target” listeners more narrowly also increases the ability of political and other not-for-profit speakers to communicate their messages. In short, smarter advertising means more voices, more choices, and more speech. The line between “advertising” and “content” is already blurring rapidly, as the technologies used to customize advertising are also used to customize webpages and ad networks themselves are used to deliver content.

The Larger Implications of Potential Regulation

As if reducing the advertising revenue generated by each web ad didn’t do enough to reduce the total amount of funding for free web content and services, government regulation of targeted online advertising could reduce advertising revenues even further by aggravating the problem of adblocking in two ways. First, the less relevant ads are, the more annoying users will find them, and the more likely users are to try to block them. Increased relevance is perhaps the most important remedy for adblocking and the best way to maintain the implicit value exchange that currently supports free Internet content and services

Second, regulation could short-circuit the eternal battle of technological one-upmanship between online advertisers and those users who rely on the technologies of evasion to “opt-out” of seeing ads or being tracked. Such privacy-conscious users are “free-riding” off of those users who don’t opt-out, since (at present) they generally don’t lose access to the free content and services supported by the targeted advertisements that other users do see. The user who blocks tracking, but not ads, is still free-riding off those users who don’t opt-out of tracking. On a large enough scale, such self-help has the potential to disrupt the value exchange of the Internet, just as automatic commercial-skipping has already disrupted the value exchange of television. As with all “Spy v. Spy” battles, this long-term trend is inevitable: As more sophisticated technologies of evasion are incorporated seamlessly into browsers and can be used without significantly degrading the browsing experience, their use will become increasingly mainstream. But ultimately, just as with television commercial-skipping, market forces can and will, if permitted, respond through technological means and the development of new business models. Today’s implicit quid pro quo may become, of necessity, explicit: Websites and ad networks will have to find increasingly creative ways to grant access to certain content and services for users who do not block ads or the tracking that makes ad space more valuable. Policymakers should take care not to ban such technologies or cripple such business models (e.g., through requiring opt-in), which may rely on more sophisticated forms of targeting such as the use of packet inspection data.

As users face an increasingly clear choice between (i) getting content and services for free supported by behavioral advertising and (ii) paying to receive those same services and content without tracking or even without ads altogether, policymakers will finally see whether users are really as bothered by profiling as the advocates of OBA regulation insist. Given the ongoing and widespread replacement of fee- or subscription-supported web business models with ad-supported models, it seems likely that the vast majority of consumers will continue to choose ad-supported models, including profiling.

Conclusion

The questions raised above—about the harm that supposedly requires intervention, the availability of less restrictive means, and the cost/benefit analysis of regulation—are vital considerations for the future of the Internet. Indeed, if smarter online advertising will not fund the Internet’s future, what will? As both the desire for “free” services and content and the need for bandwidth expand, OBA has the potential to offer important new revenue sources that can help support the entire ecosystem of online content creation and service innovation, while also providing a new source of funding for Internet infrastructure and making ads less annoying and more informative. That would certainly seem preferable to increased user fees or other “pay-per-view” pricing models for Internet content and services.

But looming legislative and regulatory action could stop all of that by replacing the current regime—in which the FTC merely enforces industry self-regulatory policies—with one in which the government preemptively dictates how data may be collected and used. The more enlightened approach is a “layered” approach to privacy protection that combines industry self-regulation, enforcement of industry-established privacy policies, consumer education, and user “self-help” solutions. These and other issues will be addressed in greater detail in our upcoming PFF Special Report.

By Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka

Whatever ordinary Americans actually think about online privacy, it remains a hot topic inside the Beltway. While much of that amorphous concern focuses on government surveillance and government access to information about web users, many in Washington have focused on targeted online advertising by private companies as a dire threat to Americans’ privacy — and called for prophylactic government regulation of an industry that is expected to more than double in size to $50.3 billion in 2011 from $21.7 billion last year.

In 1998, when targeted advertising was in its infancy, the FTC proposed four principles as the basis for self-regulation of online data collection: notice, choice, access & security. In 2000, the Commission declared that too few online advertisers adhered to these principles and therefore recommended that Congress mandate their application in legislation that would allow the FTC to issue binding regulations. Subsequent legislative proposals (indexed by CDT by Congress here along with other privacy bills) have languished in Congress ever since. During this time self-regulation of data collection (e.g., the National Advertising Initiative) has matured, the industry has flourished without any clear harm to users and the FTC has returned to its original support for self-regulation over legislation or regulatory mandates.

But over the last year, the advocates of regulation have succeeded in painting a nightmarish picture of all-invasive snooping by online advertisers using more sophisticated techniques of collecting data for targeted advertising. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has responded cautiously by proposing voluntary self-regulatory guidelines intended to address these concerns, because the agency recognizes that this growing revenue stream is funding the explosion of “free” (to the user) online content and services that so many Americans now take for granted, and that more sophisticated targeting produces ads that are more relevant to consumers (and therefore also more profitable to advertisers).

The Hill has responded by holding hearings, sending out angry letters to online advertisers, and demanding that ISPs cease experimenting with a new form of online behavioral advertising (OBA) based on packet inspection. Some in the think tank community have cheered this on, demanding draconian regulation. But before rushing to regulate — and potentially choking the economic engine fueling “free” online content and services — policymakers should be asking whether alternatives to command-and-control regulation can adequately address privacy concerns.

We are in the process of penning a major study on this debate, which will challenge those who are calling for regulation to:

(1) Show us the harm or market failure.

(2) Prove to us that no less restrictive alternative to regulation exists.

(3) Explain to us how the benefits of regulation outweigh the costs.

It is that second point that we would like to focus more on in a series of upcoming (and likely ongoing) blog entries.
Building on the excellent work of our TLF colleague Ryan Radia, we plan to detail the many “technologies of evasion” (i.e, empowerment or user “self-help” tools) that allow web surfers to better protect their privacy online — and especially to defeat tracking for OBA purposes. These tools and methods form an important part of a layered approach that, in our view, provides an effective alternative to government-mandated regulation. Such an approach would also include user education, self-regulatory schemes like the National Advertising Initiative, and FTC enforcement of privacy policies.

Before one can determine the true necessity for government intervention (and, indeed, its constitutionality), one must understand the availability, sophistication and convenience of the technologies of evasion we will describe. In an important 2001 Cato Institute paper, our TLF colleague Tom Bell argues that web surfers must bear some of the responsibility for protecting themselves online, just as they do with regards to potentially objectionable (i.e., “indecent”) online content:

Digital self-help makes unnecessary state action limiting speech that is indecent or harmful to minors. The same argument applies to state action that would limit speech by commercial entities about Internet users. Digital self-help offers more hope of protecting Internet users’ privacy than it does of effectively filtering out unwanted speech, and the availability of such self-help casts doubt on the constitutionality of legislation restricting speech by commercial entities about Internet users. From the more general point of view of policy, moreover, digital self-help offers a better approach to protecting Internet privacy than does state action.

What Bell means is that the digital “self-help” tools that consumers rely on to protect themselves or their children from objectionable content must always confront the subjective problems associated with defining what is indecent or obscene. Thus, even though Internet filtering tools and other parental controls can generally offer a very effective means of blocking access to objectionable content, at the margins there will always be definitional controversies. By contrast, the privacy self-help tools we will describe are much more likely to provide an effective shield because those consumers who are truly sensitive about their online privacy can make far more definitive choices about allowing or disallowing cookies or certain types of personal information from being collected/tracked for targeted advertising purposes.

Finally, Bell correctly notes that “digital self-help” is more likely to be effective than regulatory solutions for a variety of reasons–not least of which is the fact that truly “bad” actors on the Internet are rarely stopped or even discouraged by regulation from doing bad things online where we are talking about the pure exchange of bits (as opposed to purchases or shipments) because they can generally continue their activities from off-shore. In such cases, technical means are the only way of stopping such activities.

We invite you to share examples of technologies of evasion with us as we go along.
And we hope that our TLF colleagues might chime in with entries of their own as they find examples of privacy-enhancing technologies that privacy-conscious web surfers can employ to take privacy in their own hands.

– Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka