Adam Thierer's Blog, page 150

Is Tron: Legacy a Comment on the Futility of Techno-Progressivism?

CLU seeks systemic perfection in Tron: Legacy

Note: The following post contains spoilers pertaining to the plot and theme of the film Tron: Legacy.

Near the end of Tron: Legacy, the character CLU (short for Codified Likeness Utility), on the verge of releasing his army of re-purposed computer programs into the brick-and-mortar world to destroy humanity, confronts Kevin Flynn, his creator-turned-nemesis, with a plaintiff, "I did everything you asked."  Flynn, older and wiser than the character we met in 1982's Tron, and his techno-idealism tempered by the realization that to save humanity he must destroy both his physical and virtual self, wistfully answers, "I know."

It's a rather poignant scene that punctuates the film's unique take on technology and humanity. Traditionally in the movies, when technology turns evil, it does so with a will of its own. The Matrix and Terminator films are just two examples. Tron: Legacy, however, upends the idea. CLU, sure enough, turns on his human creator, but not out of rebellion, but to carry out his human-engineered programming.

You see, Flynn programmed CLU to create the "perfect system." In the film, Flynn explains that, as a younger man he thought he could design a technology-based solution that would end war, illness, poverty and hunger and, in a nutshell, make humanity better. But when the Grid—the computer environment Flynn nurtured—actually does something spontaneously, spawning a new life form, so-called isomorphic programs (called isos for short), CLU destroys them. While this act of cybernetic genocide horrifies Flynn, from CLU's perspective, it was nothing but a logical response. The isos, as free and independent entities that did not respond to his command and control, introduced an element of randomness and uncertainty into the Grid that CLU could not abide. They were an obstacle to the systemic perfection he was programmed to create and therefore had to be eliminated.

Maybe it was because I saw Tron: Legacy a few days after reading Peter Berkowitz's superb essay on the rhetoric of Progressivism that I came away with this impression. But I don't think I'm off-base. Here's an excerpt for the essay that's germane to my discussion. When the plot and theme of Tron: Legacy are considered, CLU could easily be substituted for the words progressivism and progressives in the paragraph below:

But progressivism went astray owing to a defect in its basic orientation. It rejected the sound principles of government embodied in the Constitution, because of a critical difference of opinion about human nature. Progressives believed that great improvements in the moral character of humanity and in the scientific understanding of society had rendered the Constitution's scheme of checks and balances–or better its separation, balancing, and blending of power–unnecessary to prevent majority tyranny and the abuse of power by officeholders. Whereas the makers of the American Constitution believed that the imperfections of human nature and the tendency of people to develop competing interests and aims were permanent features of moral and political life, progressives insisted that progress allowed human beings, or at least the most talented and best educated human beings, to rise above these limitations and converge in their understanding of what was true and right. Indeed, according to the progressives the Constitution's obsolete and cumbersome institutional design was a primary hindrance to democratic reforms to which all reasonable people could agree and which upright and impartial administrators would implement. It is a short step from the original progressives' belief that developments in morals and science had obviated reasonable disagreements about law and public policy and dissolved concerns about the impartiality of administrators to the new progressives' belief that in domestic affairs disagreement is indefensible and intolerable.

Still, my opinion was later reinforced by Adam's review of The Net Delusion by Evgeny Morozov, a book that explores the dangers of cyber-utopianism.

I'll leave it to commenters to argue whether I'm reading too much into the film. But to bolster my point, I'll throw out a few final notes.

Flynn and his son Sam are presented as modern archetypical sci-fi movie good guys: the aging, wise techno-hippie and the angry-but-gifted slacker. In fact, the first few minutes of the film had me groaning because it appeared to be setting up the familiar meme of rogue hacker against the big bad corporation. Speaking of the missing-presumed-dead Kevin Flynn, one character recalls his dedication to a network that's "free and open," a loaded phrase to anyone following Internet technology policy these days. Yet by the time the movie gets going, the corporation is insignificant. It's the hippie's and slacker's progressive assumptions that are tested. The "free and open" line, a loaded phrase to anyone following Internet technology policy these days, is used again by CLU as he prepares for world domination—although he means anything but.

Kevin Flynn's rejection of the progressive ideal is central to the film's resolution. He accepts responsibility for his error and pays the price for making it right. Sam and the sole remaining iso, Quorra, escape back to the physical world with the understanding that they can't build "systems" to change humanity, but need to do it as individuals, i.e., by getting their hands dirty (a bit pat, to be sure, but this is still Hollywood).

Tron: Legacy, like the original Tron, is an allegory, and demands it be accepted as such. Computer programs don't have personas. Human bodies cannot be reconstituted into electronic code. The Grid can stand for any third-party structure—government, organized religion, a corporation—that individuals chose to use a proxy for their own ethical obligations. The isos represent the persistent and unruly way the random choices and behavior of millions of human beings undermine even the most well-meaning attempts to centrally manage the direction of human society.

Such a message resonates now, at a time when politically and culturally, progressivism is resurgent. The idea that an institution—particularly a democratic government—can simultaneously realize a philosopher-king's vision of human progress and protect freedom and individual liberty needs a sound critique. In this, maybe Tron: Legacy will begin a trend in pop culture.

Did Antitrust Really Make a Difference in Major High-Tech Cases?

The Technology Policy Institute has released an interesting new study from Robert Crandall and Charles Jackson on "Antitrust in High-Tech Industries," which takes a close look at the impact of antitrust law in the three most high-profile technology cases of the last half century: IBM, AT&T and Microsoft.  Crandall and Jackson conclude:

In each of our three cases, the ultimate source of major changes in the competitive landscape appears to have been innovation and new technology — technology that was apparently not unleashed by the antitrust litigation. In each case, the government did not and probably could not see how technology would develop over time. Therefore, it was difficult for the government to design remedies that would  accelerate competition when this competition developed from new technologies.

I enjoyed the paper and encourage others to read the entire thing.  It's very much in line with what we've written here in the past on the antitrust and high-tech markets.  See, for example, my review of Gary Reback's recent book on antitrust and high-tech markets.  As I noted there, the crucial, 'conflict of visions' issue comes down to an appreciation for dynamic competition and technological evolution over the sort of static competition, fixed-pie mindset that so many antitrust defenders espouse.  Those of us who believe in dynamic competition see markets in a constant state of flux and expect that sub-optimal market developments or configurations are exactly the spark that incentivizes new form of market entry, innovation, technological disruption, price competition, and so on.  But the static competition crowd looks at the same situation and imagines that the only hope is to wheel in the wrecking ball of antitrust regulation since they have little faith that things might change for the better. Moreover, they ignore the profound costs associated with such regulation and litigation.  Crandall and Jackson's paper explains why patience is the better policy.

Spectrum Crisis Amnesia at CES: Same Time Next Year?

For CNET, I posted a long piece describing a full day at CES's Tech Policy Summit largely devoted to spectrum issues.  Conference attendees in several packed sessions heard from FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski and three of the four other FCC Commissioners (Commissioner Copps was absent due to illness), as well as former Congressman Rick Boucher and industry representatives.

The  message was as clear as it is worrisome.  The tremendous popularity of wireless broadband, on view in a remarkable range of new devices and gizmos on display at the Vegas Convention Center, is rapidly outpacing the radio frequencies available to handle the data.

The mobile Internet needs more spectrum, and there isn't any to give it.  The app revolution is in danger of hitting a hard stop, perhaps as soon as 2015.

As the exclusive manager of America's radio waves, only the FCC can reallocate spectrum.  And the good news is that the agency recognizes the crisis as well as its role in solving it.  Chairman Genachowski told the audience that spectrum reform will be the agency's top priority for 2011.

Reading the Chairman's prepared comments, however, I was struck by the sense that I'd heard something similar before.  Perhaps in the very same room.  Perhaps by the very same speaker.

Last year, the Chairman didn't read a prepared statement,but I had taken copious notes.  When I read them over, I realized that both the acute crisis and the basic steps the agency plans to avoid it were nearly identical to what Genachowski described as his priority last year.  That is, his priority for 2010.  Which is now over.

There was no acknowledgment in his comments or in questions from Consumer Electronics Association President Gary Shapiro that none of last year's promises had been kept, and indeed, that this year's promises were pretty much a rerun.  None of the journalists who covered last year and this year's events seemed to notice either.

In the worst possible sense, what happened in Vegas had stayed in Vegas.

It's not as if the FCC wasn't especially busy in the last twelve months.  Shortly after CES, the Commission issued its National Broadband Plan which, among other things, called for an additional 500 Mhz of frequency for mobile Internet to be made available as soon as possible.

But the NBP was never the priority for the FCC last year.  And neither was spectrum.

Instead, the agency devoted itself to completing the Open Internet proceeding begun in October of 2009.  But on the very day Genachowski spoke at CES last year, oral arguments were taking place in the D.C. Circuit on the Comcast case, which the FCC lost badly in May.  Then there was Title II reclassification.  Then the "Third Way" proceeding.  Then the call for more information on wireless and specialized services.  Then the private talks with industry and public interest groups on a compromise.  Then the Verizon-Google proposed legislative framework.  Then Rep. Henry Waxman's draft legislation.  Then the news that the Chairman was calling a vote for the end of December.  Then, finally, the Report and Order approved 3-2 on Dec. 21st.

A busy year indeed.  But in the process of passing rules whose value is doubtful at best, the National Broadband Plan, spectrum reform, clean up of the Universal Service Fund, and pretty much the rest of the Chairman's agenda received little attention.

One measure of that laser-like focus on net neutrality is that the agency appears not to have even begun preparation of a much-needed inventory of existing licenses and allocations.  When Congress failed to pass legislation requiring the inventory, President Obama in June issued directives to NTIA (government allocations) and the FCC (private allocations) to do it anyway.

According to an FCC representative at CES, so far the agency has only gotten as far as redesigning the user interface of its database, to make it possible just to search for a licensee.  When I asked how work on the inventory was progressing and whether there was a timetable for completing it, the answer I got was that the agency would be reporting its progress on an on-going basis.

It's hard to see how much progress is going to be made on finding unused or underutilized spectrum, let alone getting it freed up for mobile broadband Internet, when we don't even know who is holding licenses in the first place.

Spectrum reallocation isn't the only hope, of course.  Technological improvements in mobile devices and infrastructure can make more efficient use of existing spectrum.  Commissioner McDowell, for one, believes that while not the optimal way to solve the crisis, nonetheless anxiety over running out of capacity could inspire creativity and innovation.

But at the same time there's general agreement that current allocations are inefficient, and that government (especially the Department of Defense) and local broadcast television are sitting on a great deal of valuable radio real estate that is simply lying fallow.  The spectrum now being used for new 4G services came largely from the successful transition to digital television, but even still, broadcasters have a lot of remaining spectrum that almost none of them are fully using.  In the decline of over-the-air television, few are likely to ever make use of it.

The FCC would like to host what it calls "voluntary incentive auctions," in essence to create a market for selling off some or all of that underutilized broadcast spectrum.  But the agency doesn't have the authority to do it, and Congress failed to pass Boucher's bill that would have given them that authority.

Now Boucher is a private citizen, and the Republican House is steaming at the FCC over last year's last-minute Open Internet vote.

I hate to sound like a pessimist here, but does anyone have much hope that at next year's CES, we'll hear much about progress in avoiding spectrum seizure?  Or even an acknowledgment that the goals set for the last two years haven't been met, and that perhaps it's time to develop a contingency plan?

Well, I haven't been around this block as many times as a lot of policy experts have.  So maybe I'm just missing the part about how a problem gets solved just by repeating the description of the problem once a year.

Facebook as Identity Provider

It might take Facebook a while to turn identity provision into a revenue opportunity, but if it is a money-maker, it could be a substantial one. Simson Garfinkel has a piece in Technology Review that goes into some of the things Facebook is doing with its "Connect" service.

As security professionals debate whether the Internet needs an "identity layer"—a uniform protocol for authenticating users' identities—a growing number of websites are voting with their code, adopting "Facebook Connect" as a way for anyone with a Facebook account to log into the site at the click of a button.

It's a good, relatively short article, worth a read.

As an online identity provider, Facebook could facilitate secure commerce and communication in a way that's easy and familiar for consumers. That adds value to the Internet ecosystem, and Facebook may be able to extract some of the surplus for itself—perhaps by charging sites and services that are heavy users small amounts per login via Connect. The security challenges of such a system would grow as more sites and services rely on it, of course, and Garfinkel highlights them in an accessible way.

Quibbles are always more interesting, so I'll note that I cocked my head to one side where Garfinkel asks "whether it's a good thing for one company to hold such a position of power." Strange.

Taking "power" in its philosophical sense to mean "a measure of an entity's ability to control its environment, including the behavior of other entities," Facebook Connect gives the company very little power. Separate, per-site logins—or a parallel service that might be created by Google, for example—are near at hand and easy to switch to for anyone who doesn't like Facebook's offering.

Ironically, Garfinkel refers to these identity services as "Internet driver's licenses," inviting a comparison with the power structure in the real-world licensing area. If you want to drive a car legally, there are no alternatives to dealing with the state, so the state can impose onerous conditions on licensing. Drivers' licenses require one to share a great deal of information, they cost a lot of money (relative to Facebook's dollar price of "free"), and switching is not an option if the issuer starts to change the bargain and enroll licensees in a national ID system. Garfinkel himself noted how drivers' licenses enhance state power in a good 1994 Wired article.

In sum, the upsides of an identity marketplace are there, for both consumers and for Facebook. The downsides are relatively small. The "power" exercised by any provider in a marketplace for identity provision is small compared to the alternative of using states as identity providers.

Google "Spy-Fi" Privacy Regulation: An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind

Here at TLF, our privacy discussions often center around such concepts as expectations of privacy, notice and choice, opt-in/out, and the like. These are all important and legitimate of course, but the privacy issue that seems to make news more than any other is Google Spy-Fi, and the defiant attitude Google has against governments. And this has me worried.

Not that I think governments necessarily need to regulate privacy, or that Google's data collection from unsecured hotspots was even illegal. I'm thinking much more practically. People are concerned about privacy, governments are investigating Google to see what data it really collected, and Google seems to be cherry-picking the kinds of information it provides to different authorities. And in this defiant game of chicken, it's the rest of the industry that's the bacon – and I'm afraid we're all slowly being fried.

There's an old adage among practitioners of non-violent resistance that "an eye for an eye" retaliation leaves everyone blind. With yesterday's news that authorities raided Google's Korean office and found massive amounts of personal data, I'm wondering when—not if—bad behavior from the industry leader will result in a black eye for all online companies.

Korea's National Police Agency claims to have found hundreds of thousands of emails, instant messages and other personal data" on Google's hard drives. This is the latest finding similar to a string of other countries like Germany, Canada, Germany, France and the UK.

If it were all just foreign, that would be one thing. But there are 40 U.S. state Attorneys General looking into whether Google violated laws when it captured data transmitted from WiFi networks while its vehicles drove through cities and neighborhoods, taking photos for its Google Maps Street View product. The former leader of the AGs, Connecticut's Richard Blumenthal, is now a Senator in Congress and has already vowed to scrutinize not just Google, but all online industry privacy practices.

This will result in unintended consequences for companies that collect data online. Last year featured numerous Congressional hearings, FTC workshops, and the recently released FTC and Commerce reports on privacy. I can't even keep track of the number of privacy-related conference calls and events I attended.

But Google has a dismissive attitude toward investigations of its data collection. They seem to be saying "trust us, it's not that bad", but then government authorities discover a lot more data than Google confessed to collection. As this is Google—the industry leader in so many areas—this sets a bad precedent for future investigations and for other American companies with data centers overseas. Google should know better.

Even if if it turns out that Google technically did not break any U.S. law, this privacy problem won't go away. All of the negative publicity is enough to spill over to the good guys. And in today's privacy climate, a black eye could turn blind if retribution against Google means regulation of the entire online industry.

The Next Digital Decade Book Launch January 19 in DC

Please join us on January 19, 2011 in Washington, DC for the launch of The Next Digital Decade: Essays on the Future of the Internet, a collection of 31 essays from 26 leading cyber thought leaders, including Tim Wu, Hal Varian, the Hon. Alex Kozinski, Stewart Baker, Jonathan Zittrain, Milton Mueller, Eric Goldman, and Yochai Benkler—as well as the TLF's own Adam Thierer, Larry Downes and Geoff Manne.

This event will feature panel discussions of several of the book's organizing questions:

Internet Optimism, Pessimism & the Future of Online Culture
Internet Exceptionalism & Intermediary Deputization
Who Will Govern the Net in 2020?

The January 19 event will run from 12:30pm to 5:30pm immediately following the State of the Net conference in the same location: the Columbia B room at the Hyatt Regency (400 New Jersey Ave NW, Washington DC). The event will begin with lunch and end with a cocktail reception between 5:30pm and 7:00pm. Admission is free but space is limited so RSVP now!

Registered attendees will receive a free copy of the book, which can be read online or downloaded as a PDF, or purchased in hardcover. Free eBook versions are coming soon. To learn more about the book, check out the foreword and introduction, or the table of contents.

Visit NextDigitalDecade.com for details or follow us on Twitter or Facebook for updates!

The Net Neutrality Fight Goes on…and on

I published an article for CNET late last night on a spirited debate at CES yesterday over the FCC's recently-enacted "open Internet" rules, aka net neutrality.  Panelists from the FCC, Congress, AT&T, Verizon, Google and the Center for Democracy and Technology actually agreed on one point, which is that the neutrality saga has only completed its first chapter.

(The session was the most popular of the day.  Several people were turned away from the packed room, and former Congressman Rick Boucher and FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn almost didn't get in!)

While some panelists believe the next step is more regulation, others promised Congressional and perhaps court challenges aimed at undoing the Commission's "Christmas Surprise."  As I note in the piece, the new Congress, with its Republican majority in the House, has already taken up reversing the rulemaking as a priority.  Rep. Marsha Blackburn has introduced legislation, signed by 60 other members including at least one Democrat, that would make clear the FCC's lack of authority over broadband access.

And Neil Fried, senior counsel to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, promised the overfull audience that the Committee would take up the FCC's "overreaching" as its first tech agenda item.

At the Tech Policy Summit at last year's CES, the neutrality panel featured current and former White House staffers Susan Crawford and Andrew McLaughlin, as well as more outspoken neutrality advocates from public interest groups.

Yesterday's panel, by contrast, had industry representatives from Verizon, AT&T and Google, along with David Sohn of CDT, whose rhetoric was far less fiery than that of his counterparts last year.

So it seems the net neutrality fight is still on, and drawing even bigger audiences.  But at least at CES the White House and the most vocal public interest groups have both gone quiet, at least for now.

Today's sessions include an interview with Chairman Julius Genachowski and a panel featuring the other FCC Commissioners.  Stay tuned for more news.

James Gattuso gets "Tonight Show" media hit!

TLF blogger and Heritage Foundation senior fellow James Gattuso gets his 15 seconds of fame — or at least 9 seconds — in this recent clip that appeared on the "Tonight Show with Jay Leno." Probably not the sort of media impact he was looking for, but I bet he'll take it!

Explain That Intel Monopoly Again?

After a steady relationship that lasted several generations of the Windows operating system, Microsoft has told Intel that it wants to see other chip makers.

In a world where antitrust law was pursued logically, news like this would throw a monkey wrench into the proceedings with which the European Commission has been burdening Intel, starting with 2009's $1.45 billion fine for providing discounts and rebates to its largest customers—a common business practice in any industry—up to the current obstacles the EC is putting in the way of Intel's purchase of McAfee, the maker of security software.

On this side of the Atlantic, the Federal Trade Commission piled on with its own inquiry, although its investigation into Intel's alleged abuse of its sizable market share in PC microprocessors yielded far less: a handful of concessions from Intel, but no fine and no admission of wrongdoing.

It's unknown whether Intel offered Microsoft discounts, rebates or loyalty incentives to use its chips with its latest version of Windows Mobile, the OS Microsoft developed to run on smartphones and tablet PCs. It doesn't seem to matter because, in an announcement that flies in the face of trans-Atlantic claims that Intel has an ironclad grip on OS chip market, Microsoft said it will be buying chips from three (count 'em) other manufacturers: Nvidia, Qualcomm and Texas Instruments.

Microsoft's reasons are simple: these chips, based on a design by yet a fourth company—ARM Holdings—are better suited to portable devices because they use less power and therefore extend battery life, a major factor consumers weigh when choosing a portable device. Intel apparently could not force Microsoft to buy chips it didn't want, and Microsoft had options. This is a functional market.

Nonetheless, I have no illusions that the misguided antitrust attacks on Intel will subside, even as Microsoft's decision points to the chip makers' competitive vulnerability in chips for tablets and smartphones. New tablets that will compete with the iPad are a big story out of the Winter Consumer Electronics Show this week. When we combine this development with the rollout of faster wireless networks, solid state storage and the growing use of cloud-based applications, it's at least arguable that Intel's bread-and-butter–desktop and laptop PCs–are entering the twilight of their utility. Think about this: your laptop's on-board drives (hard disk and DVD) account for much of its weight, consume a hefty portion of power, comprise a significant amount of its retail cost, and are the components most likely to fail. If desktop and laptop sales begin to give way to tablets, the argument about Intel's dominance in the market for PC chips may rapidly become moot.

The lesson once again is that in high-tech, one company may dominate a sector for awhile, but a convergence of trends can dislodge that grip quickly. That's why antitrust proceedings against high-tech firms are counterproductive. The market responds to attempts at dominance faster and more decisively. The U.S. government was prosecuting IBM for monopolizing mainframes long after distributed computing became the norm. Later, it prosecuted Microsoft for monopolizing Web browsers long after they were downloadable for free.  It's given antitrust action, both in the U.S. and Europe, its current ADHD-like character. In a three-year timespan, in addition to Intel, Apple, Google and, most recently, Facebook have been attacked as powerful monopolies that threaten the diversity of the digital economy.  That authorities feel the need to accuse a different company of monopoly every year undermines the underlying charge. At what point do you exclaim, "Aw c'mon!"

Alcohol Liberation Front 12 Happy Hour @ CES in Vegas 1/6

If you happen to be in Vegas today (Thursday, 1/6) for the Consumer Electronics Show (or gambling or… whatever else floats your boat), join myself and fellow TLFers Larry Downes and Wayne Crews for an impromptu "Alcohol Liberation Front" happy hour starting about 5pm at Parasol Up bar at the Wynn Hotel (3131 Las Vegas Blvd).

If you're walking over from the Convention Center (where I'll be till 4 for the Tech Policy Summit), it's just 1.1 miles along the strip (directions). I'll tweet (@BerinSzoka) exactly where we wind up in the bar, or you can ask for the TLF gang at the door or email me (bszoka techfreedom org).

TPS ends at 4pm and there are other event starting at 6, so I figure we'll just wind up there in the 5-6/6:30 range.

RSVP on Facebook & see who's coming!