On this episode of “Tech Policy Weekly,” we’re launching a new format called “Tech Book Corner” that will feature occasional conversations with the authors of important new books about technology policy and the other issues that we debate frequently at the Tech Liberation Front blog.

On this debut episode of Book Corner, we are joined by John Palfrey, a professor of law at Harvard University and the co-director of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard. Along with his Berkman Center colleague Urs Gasser, Prof. Palfrey has recently co-authored Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives, which was published last summer by Basic Books and which you can find out more information about at www.borndigitalbook.com. [Incidentally, I reviewed Born Digital here last October and I also named it one of the most important technology policy books of 2008.]

In our discussion, Prof. Palfrey explains who exactly counts as a “digital native” and tells us why he decided to write a book about them. He discusses why he believes that there has been some overreaction by older generations to fears about this Digital Generation and he argues that we need “to separate what we need to worry about from what’s not so scary” and “what we ought to resist from what we ought to embrace.” He then outlines how we should think about these issues and concerns going forward, and he stresses the importance of “balancing caution with encouragement” as we do so. Finally, he then applies that framework to three specific issues: privacy, child safety, and copyright.

It’s an interesting conversation and you can begin listening to it immediately by downloading the MP3 file here or by just clicking the play button below!

[display_podcast]

Three passages from Obama’s inaugural address stand out as important for the mix of technology policy issues covered here at the TLF.  On technology policy (a non-trivial 5.4% of the address by word count):

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act – not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories…. All this we can do. And all this we will do.

On how to determine whether government intervention is warranted:

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works…. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. 

On regulatory policy:

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control….

So what does all this mean for tech policy?

Clearly, Obama considers subsidies for broadband deployment to be a rhetorical winner.  But in an era of painfully tight budget constraints, the stimulus package unveiled last week includes “only” “$6 billion to promote deployment of high-speed Internet access in unserved and underserved areas… considerably less than the $44 billion requested by Internet advocates”—per the WSJ, which also notes that this corporate welfare would be tied to “open access” (a/k/a “net neutrality”) mandates.  Obama’s even more serious about spending “stimulus” money on health IT.  The stimulus plan includes $20 billion in e-health spending (again, per the WSJ).  I’ll bet that both programs will be dwarfed in size by Obama’s subsidies for “green” energy sources.

Obama’s emphasis on “what works” will no doubt be greeted by many as a welcome return to “reality-based” policy-making.  But even if one attempted to implement this approach free of any “ideological pre-dispositions,” how would one actually evaluate the efficacy of any proposed government intervention?  How often will there be anything remotely resembling a controlled experiment to inform policy-making?  As difficult as it is to predict the unintended consequences of intervention, it’s even more difficult to do so in high-tech sectors of the economy, where the rate of change is particularly rapid.

Is $1,200,000,000,000.00.  That’s the expected 2009 Federal budget deficit.  Since the current Federal debt is estimated at a “mere” $10.6 trillion, this means that we’re expected to add nearly 9% in a single year to a debt accumulated over 233 years (since 1774).  This number also amounts to more than 8% of the U.S. economy. 

So what does this have to do with technology policy?  To start with, this figure comes from Congressional Budget Office estimates, which “don’t account for the huge economic stimulus bill Obama is expected to propose soon to try to jolt the economy.”  So, while the Obama team has talked about big “public works” and “infrastructure” spending (which used to be called, variously, “make-work,” “pork barrel” and “corporate welfare”), there’s sure to be huge pressure not to waste more taxpayer money on top of this staggering figure.  Whatever blame Bush deserves, Obama probably doesn’t want to go down in history as the man who finally caused the U.S. government to default on its unmanageable debt burden.

One certainly could make an argument that the kind of technology-related “infrastructure” stimulus Obama has talked about (e.g., broadband subsidies) would be less of a waste of money than, say, simply building more bridges (as Japan did in the 1990s, its “lost decade”) or other reflexively Keynesian responses.  But even so, I suspect that the total amount of funding made available for such projects won’t be anywhere near enough to satisfy the technology policy Left.  

This could result in increased pressure on the Administration to increase regulation of the technology sector in order to implement tech-leftist ideas about “protecting” users’ privacy, promoting media diversity or “fairness”, mandating net “neutrality,” “opening up” spectrum, etc.  Such  proposals might seem attractive precisely because they generally wouldn’t require increased Federal expenditures other than the cost of hiring more bureaucrats (which means more government employee union jobs anyway—hardly a bad thing for Democrats)—while the economic consequences of such proposals for companies and consumers will probably surely be trivialized.  For example, if the advocates of government control at the so-called “Free Press” can’t get universal broadband, they’ll probably press that much harder to cripple online advertising and traffic management by ISPs, just to name two popular bogeymen.

One might think that a sharp economic decline would cause policy-makers to think twice before undermining the business models that have supported IT innovation and real infrastructure investment.  But one has only to look at the policies of FDR’s first two terms to see how even an amiable, soft-spoken president elected on a mantra of change and “uniting” the nation in a time of crisis could consistently choose to place “Reform” (i.e., increased regulation) over “Recovery” (i.e., the health of the economy)—with devastating economic consequences.

Even if Obama isn’t a fanatic about the ideals of the technology policy Left, it remains to be seen whether he will be able to resist the ideological agenda of Congressional Democrats on technology policy.  I suppose the first indication we’ll have as to whether the Administration will chart a more reasonable course will be whom he appoints to head the FTC and FCC and as CTO.  Since the first two appointments are to independent agencies, Obama will have to choose someone who appreciates how much damage the “Reform” agenda could do—lest he find, as Bush has with the phony-free-marketeer Kevin Martin, that his Chairmen are fair more radical regulators than he is.  Obama’s appointment of Cass Sunstein as head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs is hardly encouraging, for the reasons Adam has noted.

We may also find that the Administration has better things to do than worry about Internet, communications or media policy—and is therefore all too willing to defer to their appointees (as Bush did with Martin).  If that happens, all Obama’s lofty talk of non-partisanship won’t make any difference if his appointees start taking their marching orders from the hardcore advocates of “Reform.”