Adam Thierer's Blog, page 107

Filing to FTC Regarding Proposed COPPA Amendments

Filings are due to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) today as part of its review of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) and the COPPA rule that the FTC devised and enforces. I didn't have time to pen as much as I wanted, but I did submit a short filing to the agency in the matter based on some of my previous work both with Berin Szoka and on my own.  Here's the executive summary for my filing:

It goes without saying that the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) is complicated law and rule. When considering the rule and proposals to amend it, it is easy to get lost in the weeds and ignore the bigger picture. That would be a mistake. There are broader, more important questions that need to be asked as part of the Federal Trade Commission's effort to expand this regulatory regime. These questions involve not only the costs of increased regulation for online business interests, but the impact of expanded regulation on market structure, competition, and innovation. More importantly, these questions cut to the core of whether the public (including children) will be served with more and better digital innovations in the future. There is no free lunch. Regulation—even well-intentioned regulation like COPPA—is not a costless exercise. There are profound trade-offs for online content and culture that must always be considered.

Whatever one thinks about the effectiveness or sensibility of the COPPA regulatory model for the Web 1.0 world, it is clear that the regime is being strained by the unforeseen realities of the Web 2.0 world of hyper-ubiquitous connectivity and user-generated content creation and sharing. The digital genie cannot be put back in the bottle.  While COPPA may continue to have a marginal role to play in this rapidly evolving world, that role will likely be increasingly limited by the inherent realities of the information age.

Entire filing can be found on the Mercatus website, on SSRN, or via Scribd [Also embedded below in a Scribd reader.]
[FILING] Comments of Adam Thierer – Mercatus Center – FTC COPPA 2011 Ammendments

Counting our (Tech) Blessings

Tis the season to be thankful for a great number of things — family, health, welfare, etc.  I certainly don't mean to diminish the importance of those other things by suggesting that technological advances are on par with them, but I do think it is worth celebrating just how much better off we are because of the amazing innovations flowing from the information revolution and digital technology.  In my latest Forbes column, I cite ten such advances and couch them in an old fashion "kids-these-days" sort of rant.  My essay is entitled, "10 Things Our Kids Will Never Worry About Thanks to the Information Revolution," and it itemizes some things that today's digital generation will never experience or have to worry about thanks to the modern information revolution. They include: taking a typing class, buying an expensive set of encyclopedias, having to pay someone else to develop photographs, using a payphone or racking up a big "long-distance" bill, and six others.

Incidentally, this little piece has reminded me how Top 10 lists are the equivalent of oped magic and link bait heaven. People have a way of fixating on lists — Top 3, Top 5, Top 10, etc — unlike any other literary or rhetorical device. In fact, with roughly 80,000 views and over 900 retweets, I am quite certain that this is not only my most widely read Forbes column to date, but quite possibly the most widely read thing I have done in 20 years of policy writing.  Therefore, henceforth, every column I pen will be a "Top 10″ list!  No, no, just kidding. But make no doubt about it, that little gimmick works. In fact, 4 of the top 5 columns on Forbes currently are lists.

Some Much-Needed Antitrust Skepticism on Senate Letter Urging FTC Google Investigation

By Geoffrey Manne and Berin Szoka

Back in September, the Senate Judiciary Committee's Antitrust Subcommittee held a hearing on "The Power of Google: Serving Consumers or Threatening Competition?" Given the harsh questioning from the Subcommittee's Chairman Herb Kohl (D-WI) and Ranking Member Mike Lee (R-UT), no one should have been surprised by the letter they sent yesterday to the Federal Trade Commission asking for a "thorough investigation" of the company. At least this time the danger is somewhat limited: by calling for the FTC to investigate Google, the senators are thus urging the agency to do . . . exactly what it's already doing.

So one must wonder about the real aim of the letter. Unfortunately, the goal does not appear to be to offer an objective appraisal of the complex issues intended to be addressed at the hearing. That's disappointing (though hardly surprising) and underscores what we noted at the time of the hearing: There's something backward about seeing a company hauled before a hostile congressional panel and asked to defend itself, rather than its self-appointed prosecutors being asked to defend their case.

Senators Kohl and Lee insist that they take no position on the legality of Google's actions, but their lopsided characterization of the issues in the letter—and the fact that the FTC is already doing what they purport to desire as the sole outcome of the letter!—leaves little room for doubt about their aim: to put political pressure on the FTC not merely to investigate, but to reach a particular conclusion and bring a case in court (or simply to ratchet up public pressure from its bully pulpit).

The five page letter concludes with, literally, three sentences presenting Google's case, one of which reads, in its entirety, "Google strongly denies the arguments of its critics." The derision is palpable—as if only a craven monopolist would deign to actually deny the iron-clad arguments of Google's competitors so painstakingly reproduced by Senators Kohl and Lee in the preceding four pages. This is neither rigorous analysis nor objective reporting on the contents of the Senate's hearing.

While we worry about particularly successful companies being singled out for punishment, we hold no brief for Google in this debate. Instead, in all our writings, we've tried to present a consistently skeptical view about a worrisome trend in antitrust enforcement in high tech markets: error-prone and costly intervention in markets that are ill-understood and fast-moving, to the great detriment of consumers and progress generally. Although our institutions have received financial support from Google among a range of other companies, organizations and individuals, our work is focused on this broad mission; we have no obligation or intention to support any company simply because it finds value in supporting our mission.

We've defended (and one of us has even worked for) Microsoft in the past, and just yesterday, we lamented the fact that the Obama Justice Department and the FCC have effectively blocked Google's arch-rival, AT&T, from buying T-Mobile. Rather than defend any particular company, our goal, to paraphrase Hayek, is to "demonstrate to [regulators] how little they really know about what they imagine they can design"—lest they undermine how competition actually works in the name of defending outdated models of how they think it should work. Unfortunately, the letter from Senators Kohl and Lee does nothing to assuage our concern and suggests instead that crass politics, rather than sensible economics, could determine the outcome of cases like this one—if not in a court of law, then in the court of public opinion and extra-legal intimidation.

To begin with, the letter asserts that "Google faces competition from only one general search engine, Bing," suggesting that only Bing (and it, only ineffectively) could keep Google in check. In essence, the Senators are prejudging an essential question on which any case against Google would turn: market definition. But why would the market not include other tools for information retrieval? Is it not at least worth mentioning that more and more Internet users are finding information and spending time on social networks like Facebook and Twitter, while more and more advertisers are spending their money on these Google competitors? Isn't it clear that search itself is evolving from "ten blue links" into something more social, multi-faceted and interactive?

In a remarkable leap, the senators then identify the specific alleged abuse that Google's alleged market power leads to: search bias. That's remarkable because, other than the breathless claims of disgruntled competitors (given plenty of air time at the September hearing), there is actually no evidence that search bias is, in fact, harmful to consumers—which is what antitrust is concerned with. (Read both sides of this debate in TechFreedom's free ebook, The Next Digital Decade: Essays on the Future of the Internet.)

As our colleague, Josh Wright, has thoroughly demonstrated, this "own-content" bias is actually an infrequent phenomenon and is simply not consistent with an actionable claim of anticompetitive foreclosure. Moreover, among search engines, Google references its own content far less frequently than does Bing (which favors Microsoft content in the first search result when no other search engine does so more than twice as often as Google favors its own content).

Of course, none of this is even hinted at in the Senators' letter, which seems intended to condemn Google for "preferencing" its own content (under the pretense of withholding judgment). It's a little like condemning Target for deigning to use its trucks to supply inventory only to its own stores instead of Wal-Mart's, or, say, condemning a congressman for targeting earmarks for his own state or district. Earmark bias!

In Google's case, the fundamental basis for these claims, according to the letter, is that "Google's business model has changed dramatically in recent years." This is a remarkably candid admission: a company that successfully advances its organization, keeping up with rapidly-shifting technology and mercurial demand, can be condemned—and its business practices adjudged illegal—simply by virtue of the fact that it has, indeed, evolved to offer products it didn't offer before. Never mind that those products didn't previously exist and, in some cases, were in fact invented by that company! How would punishing this serve consumers?

To add insult to injury, the story is "corroborated" by the senators' parroting, without caveats, claims by Google's rivals that they are harmed by Google's favoring its own content, and that "they would not attempt to launch their companies today given GoogIe's current practices." As a general matter, antitrust law treats such self-interested claims of competitors with the skepticism they deserve. You wouldn't know it from reading the letter (nor from reading the transcript from the September hearing), but harm to competitors is not the same thing as harm to consumers or competition more generally (which is what antitrust law cares about). The reason is simple: nothing harms competitors more than effective, vigorous competition. Reasoning backward from harm to competitors to infer anticompetitive conduct is the height of irresponsible antitrust enforcement.

The letter also reports, again with no caveats, claims by the CEOs of Yelp! and Nextag that "75 percent of Yelp!'s web traffic consists of consumers who find its website as a result of Google searches, and . . . 65 percent of Nextag's traffic originates from Google searches," and that losing this much traffic to Google preferencing its own content would be catastrophic. But the letter fails to mention that most searches for brand names on Google are "navigational" rather than "informational." As Google competitor Expedia's CEO recently explained:

The majority of, at least Expedia's, and I believe Hotel.com's traffic that comes from search to our site actually come through people searching for Expedia, for example. So in typing in Expedia in Google or so on, typing in Hotels.com in Google. So of the 25% for Expedia, for example, the majority of that traffic is someone who's already looking for Expedia, and that person is going to find Expedia one way or the other because they are searching for something very specific. (Expedia earnings call, 10/28/10, quoted here).

Indeed, a recently published independent academic study conducted across search engines concluded that 52% of "business queries" (and 72% of organizational queries) were navigational. In other words, most of the Google traffic going to these sites was likely from users who simply typed in "Yelp" or "NextTag" as a convenient way of getting to those sites. Such searches are not diverted (and not even claimed to be diverted) to Google's own sites, and the first search result for the search term "Expedia" will always be expedia.com. Thus, the majority of these searches that are claimed to make up 75% and 65% of the complaining companies' traffic is not in any way threatened by Google's business model, and is completely irrelevant to assessing the effect of Google preferencing its own content.

Furthermore, the letter does not mention Yelp's recent boast that over 40% (and growing) of its searches are now conducted on its mobile app—insulating it from whatever "power" Google might exercise over traditional searches. While generic search may be the default navigational tool for many desktop users, a great many users seem to prefer searching with apps like Yelp's on their mobile devices, further underscoring the complexity of the markets at issue and the problem with the kind of facile market definition on display here.

Moreover, who really knows what anyone might have done in 1999 (Nextag) or 2004 (Yelp)? It is facile and meaningless for the companies to imply that Google's conduct is stifling today the same business models that emerged 7 or 12 years ago, before the ensuing evolution of the market. It would be a shame, in fact, if those same companies were emerging only today, and one shouldn't be surprised in a rapidly evolving marketplace to find that many once-brilliant ideas turn out to be bested by the vagaries of uncertain, innovative markets. Remember, it wasn't so long ago that Yahoo! ruled the "portal market," which morphed into the "search" market "controlled," in turn, by AOL and AltaVista. A static snapshot of the market at any given moment might have inspired the sort of hand-wringing Google inspires today. But the market kept evolving—without government intervention—each time rendering today's tech titans tomorrow's has-beens. Nostalgia and a reflexive preference for the status quo are the worst vices of regulating any evolving market, especially high-tech ones. Estimates that Yelp's upcoming IPO may put the company at a valuation of $1-2 billion should at least make us somewhat skeptical of such claims, anyway.

It is for this reason—the disconnect between the interests of competitors and those of "competition" and the consumers it serves—that it's particularly disingenuous for the letter to identify Tom Barnett only as "the Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust in the administration of President George W. Bush." This is an ostentatious attempt to appeal to Republicans normally skeptical of government meddling, giving him the last word to claim that "the ultimate result of Google's practices will be an Internet with fewer choices for consumers and business, higher prices, and less innovation." (Sen. Lee himself seems to have fallen prey to claims by soi disant conservatives like Rick Rule (also, coincidentally, antitrust attorney to several of Google's complainants) that antitrust meddling is a core part of capitalism—rather than another form of government regulation prone to capture by incumbents and politicization, precisely as Judge Bork warned in the Antitrust Paradox.)

A fairer letter would have noted the far more salient fact that Barnett is counsel for Expedia Inc., a member of the anti-Google Fairsearch coalition, for which he has served as spokesman. As Josh Wright has ably demonstrated, AAG Barnett and counsel-to-Expedia Barnett have wildly divergent views. While AAG Barnett is rightly celebrated as a thoughtful and restrained antitrust expert (indeed, he taught Berin antitrust law!), counsel-to-Expedia Barnett is a faithful and diligent advocate for his client (as well he should be). It is no disrespect to him to say that his client's interests are not necessarily the same as those of the consumers Senators Kohl and Lee purport to represent; it is, however, questionable to hold out his views on this matter as representative of consumer interests.

The letter goes on to highlight mobile search as a particularly problematic arena. Why? Because "Google may, as a condition of access to the Android operating system, require phone manufacturers to install Google as the default search engine." But . . . they haven't actually done that! The mobile phone market is remarkably competitive and ever-shifting. (One can easily imagine this same letter being written to raise pressing, irreversible concerns about Apple's iPhone a year or two ago—just before Google's Android operating system managed to seize the 43% of smart phone operating system share about which this letter is so concerned). Nevertheless, the FTC is urged to "ensure robust competition" in a market marred only by the senators' purely speculative story about what could conceivably happen some day in the future. Is this really a responsible use of antitrust law?

It certainly isn't responsible analysis. The Senators' professed concern for robust competition and protection of the free market is undermined by the letter's uncritical repetition of attacks on Google made by its competitors. At best, this letter is a missed opportunity to fairly present both sides of this complex case. For this reason, as well as the inconvenient fact (oddly completely absent from the letter) that the FTC is, as we noted, already actually investigating Google, we urge Chairman Leibowitz to investigate nothing more pertaining to this letter than the shape of the arc it makes as it flies through the air into his office wastebasket.

TechFreedom Statement on AT&T/T-Mobile Merger Collapse

Today, AT&T announced they had abandoned their planned acquisition of T-Mobile after the DOJ sued to block the deal and the FCC published a report sharply critical of the deal. The following statement can be attributed to TechFreedom Fellows Larry Downes, Geoffrey Manne and Berin Szoka:

Nearly two years ago, the Obama FCC declared a spectrum crisis. But Congress has refused to authorize the agency to reallocate underused spectrum from television broadcasters and government agencies—which would take years anyway.

The AT&T/T-Mobile merger would have eased this crisis and accelerated the deployment of next-generation 4G networks. The government killed the deal based on formalistic and outdated measures of market concentration—even though the FCC's own data show dynamic competition, falling prices, and new entry. The disconnect is jarring.

Those celebrating the deal's collapse will wake up to a sober reality: There is no Plan B for more spectrum. All the hand-wringing about "preserving" competition has only denied consumers a strong 4G LTE competitor to compete with Verizon—and slammed the brakes on continued growth of the mobile marketplace.

Unfortunately, this is just part of a broader pattern of regulators attempting to engineer technology markets they don't understand. The letter sent today by the Senate Antitrust Subcommittee urging the Department of Justice to investigate Google's business practices relies on similar contortions of market definition to conclude that the search market is not competitive. In both cases, regulators are applying 1960s economics to 21st century markets.

Ultimately, it's consumers who will lose from such central planning.

Lady Gaga and the Speed of the Information Age

This amazing video gives a few incredible statistics:

70% of Facebook users live outside the U.S.
550,000 Android devices get activated daily
Twitter registers 300,000 new users daily — Lady Gaga is by far the most popular human being

And my favorite:

35 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute; that's 2100 days of video added for every day in real time

The FCC's Exploding Universal Service Tax

The FCC's universal service tax is officially out of control. The agency announced yesterday that the "universal service contribution factor" for the 1st quarter of 2012 will go up to 17.9%.  This "contribution factor" is a tax imposed on telecom companies that is adjusted on a quarterly basis to accommodate universal service programs. The FCC doesn't like people calling it a tax, but that's exactly what it is. And it just keeps growing and growing. In fact, as the chart below reveals, it has been exploding in recent years. It was in single digits just a few years ago but is now heading toward 20%. And not only is this tax growing more burdensome, but it is completely unsustainable. As the taxable base (traditional interstate telephony) is eroded by new means of communicating, the tax rate will have to grow exponentially or the base will have to be broadened to cover new technologies and services. We should have junked the current carrier-delivered universal service subsidy system years ago and gone with a straight-forward voucher system. A means-tested voucher could have targeted assistance to those who needed it without creating an inefficient, unsustainable hidden tax like we have now. For all the ugly details, I recommend reading all of Jerry Ellig's research on the issue.

Don't Rush Anti-Piracy Bill, Free Market Groups Urge

Yesterday, TechFreedom, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Americans for Job Security, and Americans for Limited Goverment sent a joint letter (pdf) to U.S. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith and Ranking Member John Conyers urging them not to rush deliberations on the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). The Committee is set to hold markup on the bill on Thursday, December 15, less than three days after SOPA's sponsors released a manager's amendment containing major changes to the lengthy bill.

In their letter, the free market groups note that members have yet to hear testimony from experts versed in the bill's implications for cybersecurity, free speech, due process, Internet governance, innovation, and job creation. The letter follows in its entirety:

Dear Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Conyers:

As public interest groups dedicated to free enterprise and property rights, we strongly support legislative efforts to ensure the meaningful protection of copyrights and trademarks. Yet we have also raised serious concerns about the unintended consequences of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), consistent with our general skepticism of all Internet regulation. While we applaud the manager's amendment proposed by Chairman Smith, there simply has not been time to properly evaluate its real-world consequences. Although the proposed changes would indeed improve the bill, they leave several legitimate objections unaddressed. Thus, we urge Members of the Committee not to report the bill to the full House until these concerns have been resolved through further hearings and a second markup.

Enforcing copyrights online is an extremely provocative issue: witness the massive grassroots campaign mounted in recent weeks against so-called "Internet censorship," as allegedly provided for by SOPA. Underlying this opposition to the bill is profound public skepticism about the unintended consequences of enhanced copyright enforcement in terms of collateral damage to legitimate expression and innovation. This skepticism has been galvanized by recent high-profile mistakes involving the improper seizure of innocent websites by federal officials in "Operation In Our Sites."

If SOPA is ultimately enacted, any public perception that Congress failed to carefully balance the competing interests of copyright enforcement, free speech, due process, and Internet freedom will further erode public support not only for Congress, but also for copyright itself. The erosion of public respect for copyright is a primary factor behind the dramatic increase in infringement in recent years. Even a perfect bill cannot cure this cultural problem, to be sure, but ill-considered legislation can exacerbate it. If the widespread conflation of copyright enforcement with censorship is to be dispelled, SOPA must be refined carefully through a transparent process, with ample time for deliberation and consideration of all relevant expertise.

However, since SOPA was introduced in October, the Committee has held just one hearing on the bill. To date, no Internet engineers have testified as to the bill's implications for the Domain Name System (DNS). Rep. Dan Lungren expressed his frustration about the absence of such experts at that hearing, stating that "[i]f we're going to [report SOPA] we ought to at least talk about it. … Saying we're not going to take a position or we're not experts on this is upsetting." Similarly, no law professors have testified as to the bill's constitutional concerns, and no venture capitalists have testified as to how it would impact Internet start-ups at home and abroad. No Internet governance experts or U.S. diplomats have testified as to how our "going it alone" approach to DNS filtering might undermine U.S. efforts to maintain the current multi-stakeholder system of Internet governance as an alternative to control by the ITU or another inter-governmental bureaucracy.

The manager's amendment proposed by Chairman Smith would improve SOPA in important respects. In particular, the proposed changes to section 103 would substantially reduce the likelihood that law-abiding sites based around user-generated content might face adverse judgments in actions brought by private rights holders. The amendment would also exempt most domestic websites from SOPA's private right of action.

Despite this amendment, however, many aspects of the bill remain hotly contested among major technology firms, Internet engineers, legal scholars, and venture capitalists. Critics have noted, among other objections, that section 102 still encompasses a vast range of legitimate foreign websites, and includes domain name remedies that may endanger U.S. policy goals on Internet governance and cybersecurity. Whatever the merits of these concerns, the Committee simply has not spent enough time on this legislation to properly address the complex and important issues at stake.

Although the bill's sponsors have worked to address such concerns through the manager's amendment, that amendment — made public only three days before Thursday's scheduled markup of the bill — is a complex proposal spanning over 14,000 words. It raises a slew of new questions that the Committee cannot, in good faith, resolve in markup without the benefit of expert witnesses. Thus, the Committee will not yet be in a position to report to the entire House a complete legislative proposal based on a thorough factual and legal record.

Therefore, we urge the Committee to schedule further hearings in early 2012 on the bill as amended in Thursday's markup. These hearings should include the kind of experts mentioned above, and be followed by an additional markup scheduled far enough in advance to allow careful consideration of proposed amendments. There is ample time in the legislative calendar to move this legislation to the floor in early 2012, reconcile House and Senate versions, and enact a final bill.

Whatever rogue websites legislation Congress ultimately adopts will profoundly impact the development of the Internet as a vehicle for innovation, expression, and democratization — for better and worse. If the public perceives this copyright legislation to be the product of a hasty and opaque process, respect for copyrights and trademarks will be diminished, not enhanced.

Sincerely,

 

Berin Szoka
TechFreedom

Ryan Radia
Competitive Enterprise Institute

Stephen DeMaura 
Americans for Job Security

William Wilson
Americans for Limited Government

The New SOPA: Now With Slightly Less Awfulness!

On Thursday, the House Judiciary Committee is slated to take up the misleadingly named Stop Online Piracy Act, an Internet censorship bill that will do little to actually stop piracy. In response to an outpouring of opposition from cybersecurity professionals, First Amendment scholars, technology entrepreneurs, and ordinary Internet users, the bill's sponsors have cooked up an amended version that trims or softens a few of the most egregious provisions of the original proposal, bringing it closer to its Senate counterpart, PROTECT-IP. But the fundamental problem with SOPA has never been these details; it's the core idea. The core idea is still to create an Internet blacklist, which means everything I say in this video still holds true.

Let's review the main changes. Three new clarifying clauses have been added up front: the first two make clear that SOPA is not meant to create an affirmative obligation for site owners to monitor user content (good!) or mandate the implementation of technologies as a condition of compliance with the law (also good!). But the underlying incentives created by the statute push strongly in that direction whether or not it's a formal requirement: What else do we imagine sites threatened under this law because of user-uploaded content or links will do to escape liability? A third clause says the bill shouldn't be construed in a way that would impair the security or integrity of the network—which is a bit like slapping a label on a cake stipulating that it shouldn't be construed to make you fat. These are all nice sentiments, but they remind me of the old philosophers' joke: "You've obviously misinterpreted my theory; I didn't intend for it to have any counterexamples!"

The big changes in the section establishing court-ordered blocking of supposed "rogue" sites appear to be intended to respond to the objections of cybersecurity professionals and network engineers, who pointed out that requiring falsification of Domain Name System records to redirect users from banned domains would interfere with a major government-supported initiative to secure the Internet against such hijacking. The updated language explicitly disavows the idea of redirection, removes a hard five-day deadline for compliance, and (crucially) says that any DNS operator (like your ISP) has fully satisfied its obligations under the statute if it simply fails to respond to DNS queries for blacklisted sites.

This is bad for transparency, in both the engineering and democratic senses of that term, insofar as it makes a government block indistinguishable from a technical failure, but it does, in a sense, address the direct conflict with DNSSEC. But as network engineers point out, a well-designed application implementing DNSSEC isn't just going to give up when it doesn't get a valid, cryptographically signed reply: it's going to try other DNS servers (including servers outside US jurisdiction) until it finds one that answers.

There are two possibilities here. The first is that application designers don't design their software properly to implement DNSSEC for fear of liability under the statute's anti-circumvention provisions, which would be a Very Bad Thing. The second is that they're assured they won't be held liable for good design, in which case this whole elaborate censorship process—which was never going to be particularly effective against people who actually want to find pirated content—becomes a truly farcical pantomime, in which nobody running reasonably up-to-date clients even notices the nominal "blocking," beyond a few seconds delay in resolving the "blocked" site. Now, if we've got to have an Internet censorship law, a completely impotent one is surely the best kind, but it becomes a bit mysterious what the point of all this is, beyond providing civil libertarians with a chuckle at the vast amount of money Hollywood has wasted ramming this thing through.

The other big change is to the private right of action, which previously would have allowed any copyright holder to unilaterally compel payment processors and ad networks to cut off sites that it merely accuses of infringement, or enabling infringement, or (in a baffling specimen of tortured language) taking "deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability" that the site would be used for infringement. That last little hate crime against English is mercifully absent from the revised SOPA, and it makes clear that only foreign sites are covered, and a judge is now required to actually issue an order before intermediaries are obligated to sever ties.

Which ultimately goes to show that the original proposal was so profoundly wretched that you can improve it a great deal, and still have a very bad idea. This is still, as many legal scholars have correctly observed, censorship by slightly circuitous economic means. The involvement of a judge should (knock on wood) weed out the most obviously frivolous complaints, but it still makes it far too easy for U.S. corporations to effectively destroy foreign Internet sites based on a one-sided proceeding in U.S. courts.

These changes are somewhat heartening insofar as they evince some legislative interest in addressing the legitimate concerns that have been raised thus far. But the problem with SOPA and PROTECT-IP isn't that they need to be tweaked in order to get the details of an Internet censorship system right. There is no "right" way to do Internet censorship, and the best version of a bad idea remains a bad idea.

NTSB and Electronic Devices: Regulation by Anecdote

The National Transportation Safety Board recommended yesterday that states ban all non-emergency use of portable electronic devices while driving, except for devices that assist the driver in driving (such as GPS). The recommendation followed the NTSB's investigation of a tragic accident in Missouri triggered by a driver who was texting.

Personally I don't see how someone can pay attention to the road while texting. (I'm having a hard enough time paying attention to a conference presentation while I'm typing this!) But the National Transportation Safety Board's recommendation is a classic example of regulatory overreach based on anecdote.  The NTSB wants to use one tired driver's indefensible and extreme texting (which led to horrific results) as an excuse to ban all use of portable electronic devices while driving – including hands-free phone conversations.  Before states act on this recommendation, they should carefully examine systematic evidence – not just anecdotes — to determine whether different uses of handheld devices pose different risks. They should also consider whether bans on some uses would expose drivers to risks greater than the risk the ban would prevent.

On "Creepiness" as the Standard of Review in Privacy Debates

Jim Adler, Chief Privacy Officer and General Manager of Data Systems at Intelius, always has interesting and thoughtful things to say about online privacy debates. I recommend following him on Twitter (@jim_adler). Today, he posted an interesting essay on his blog entitled "Creepy Is As Creepy Does, which begins by noting that "with increasing volume, 'creepy' has snuck its way in to the privacy lexicon and become a mainstay in conversations around online sharing and social networking. How is it possible that we use the same word to describe Frankenstein and Facebook?" Good question. Better question: Why is "creepiness" the standard by which we are judging privacy matters? I posted a comment to his blog post elaborating on that point that I thought I would also post here:

I think we'd be better served by moving privacy deliberations — at least the legal ones — away from "creepiness" and toward a serious discussion about what constitutes actual harm in these contexts.  While there will be plenty of subjective squabbles over the definition of "harm" as it relates to online privacy / reputation, I believe we can be more concrete about it than continuing these silly debates about "creepiness," which could not possibly be any more open-ended and subjective.

Indeed, when harm is reduced to "creepiness" or even "annoyance," credible cost-benefit analysis is virtually impossible since the debate becomes entirely about emotion appeals instead of anything empirical / verifiable.  Thus, we are stuck with "gut-level" debates that are not grounded in any substantive theory of rights or economic analysis. Such an amorphous standard for policy analysis or legal / regulatory action leaves much to the imagination and opens the door to creative theories of harm that (a) may not actually represent true harm at all, and (b) could be exploited by those who ignore the complex trade-offs at work when we attempt to regulation of information flows online.  When we get more serious about defining harms, we also think about the possibility that benefits may exist that must be considered alongside possible costs.

Viewed in this light, we don't need to use the term "creepy" with reference to the actions of News of the World; that was flat-out illegal activity with clear harm coming to certain individuals. And there certainly weren't any benefits associated with NotW's actions. By contrast, subsequent analysis of the Carrier IQ situation has revealed no clear harm and actually plenty of benefits associated with the service that company provides. Yes, I agree more transparency about this and other data collection schemes can help alleviate whatever "creepiness" concerns are out there in the minds of some. But when actual harm to individuals is the standard of review, it doesn't seem like there is anything actionable here or even all that much to worry about.

In sum, "creepiness" is crappy standard by which to judge privacy matters when we are discussion policy perspectives / regulatory solutions. Here's another way to think about it: There are plenty of people we come in contact with in this world that we might describe as "creepy." But would we also describe all of them as harmful? Unlikely. We'd draw a distinction between creepiness and the potentially harmful nature of various individuals and likely reserve judgment on the latter question until we had more evidence. That's the same standard we should use for privacy matters when they are elevated to policy concerns.