IPcentral Weblog
  The DACA Blog

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Yale / CFP's "9.5 Theses for Technology Policy in the Next Administration"
(previous | next)

Susan Crawford points out that the Yale Information Society Project recently posted its "9.5 Theses for Technology Policy in the Next Administration." It's apparently also the theme for the 18th Annual Computers, Freedom, and Privacy Conference (CFP).

What I found intriguing about the list is that (a) protecting free speech doesn't make their radar screen, which seems both sad and puzzling since it will continue to be under attack regardless of who is in charge next year; and, (b) perhaps less surprisingly, much of what they are calling for the next administration to do would involve more regulation of the Internet, broadband networks and media markets. Here's their list and how I would score each item [Note: I am using CAPS below not to scream, but just to differentiate my scoring versus their proposal]:

1. Privacy. Protect human dignity, autonomy, and privacy by providing individuals with control over the collection, use, and distribution of their personal information and medical information. [= MORE REGULATION OF THE NET]

2. Access. Promote high-speed Internet access and increased connectivity for all, through both government and private initiatives, to reduce the digital divide. [= MORE REGULATION, + potential subsidies]

3. Network Neutrality. Legislate against unreasonable discrimination by network providers against particular applications or content to maintain the Internet’s role in fostering innovation, economic growth, and democratic communication. [= MORE REGULATION]

4. Transparency. Preserve accountability and oversight of government functions by strengthening freedom of information and improving electronic access to government deliberations and materials. [=LIMITED REGULATORY IMPACT]

5. Innovation. Restore balance to intellectual property rules and explore alternative incentives to better promote innovation, freedom, access to knowledge, and human development. [UNCLEAR REGULATORY IMPACT]

6. Democracy. Empower individuals to fully participate in government and politics by making electronic voting consistent, reliable, and secure with voter-verifiable paper trails. [=UNCLEAR]

7. Education. Expand effective exceptions and limitations to intellectual property for education to ensure that teachers and students have access to innovative digital teaching techniques and educational resources. [=POSSIBLY LESS REGULATION, BUT AGAIN UNCLEAR]

8. Culture. Ensure that law and technology promote a free, vibrant and democratic culture, fair exchanges between different cultures, and individual rights to create and participate in culture. [=UNCLEAR; DEPENDS HOW INTERPRETED & ENFORCED]

9. Diversity. Limit media concentration and expand media ownership to ensure a diverse marketplace of ideas. [=MORE REGULATION]

9.5 Openness. Support innovation and fair competition by stimulating openness in software, technological standards, Internet governance, and content licensing. [=UNCLEAR, BUT SOUNDS LIKE SOME NEW REGS WOULD BE NEEDED]

In sum, it sounds like if the Yale folks have their way, there's going to be a fair bit more regulating going on in years to come. But it remains to be seen how some of these objectives would be interpreted and enforced. As always, the devil is in the details. I just wish someone would instead offer a 9.5-point "Hands Off the Net" agenda.

posted by Adam Thierer @ 10:26 PM | Generic Rant

Share |

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly


Apparently, control of the program of the CFP conference has fallen into the hands of ideologues who seek to promote their selfish agendas (rather than the public good) via the conference. A good example is the session titled, "Network Neutrality: Beyond the Slogans." The title of the session creates the initial impression that perhaps one would see an unbiased presentation of the issues. However, the description, at http://www.cfp2008.org/wiki/index.php/Network_Neutrality:_Beyond_the_Slogans, contains one-sided and highly biased statements, such as "we have seen major violations of network neutrality" (as if this assertion and any definition of the term were not open to debate) and "debates over network neutrality are often not only contentious, but also unhelpful, if not dishonest" (as if it were a foregone conclusion that those who did not agree with the unnamed author of the description were necessarily dishonest). What's more, while the panelists are not listed, I have not been able to identify a single person who is actually in the business of providing Internet service who is on the panel; rather, all of the panelists I've identified appear to be lobbyists and/or people who take an extreme viewpoint on the topic. This obvious bias does harm to the credibility and reputation of the conference and its organizers.

Posted by: Brett Glass at May 7, 2008 3:26 PM

Post a Comment:

Blog Main
RSS Feed  
Recent Posts
  EFF-PFF Amicus Brief in Schwarzenegger v. EMA Supreme Court Videogame Violence Case
New OECD Study Finds That Improved IPR Protections Benefit Developing Countries
Hubris, Cowardice, File-sharing, and TechDirt
iPhones, DRM, and Doom-Mongers
"Rogue Archivist" Carl Malamud On How to Fix Gov2.0
Coping with Information Overload: Thoughts on Hamlet's BlackBerry by William Powers
How Many Times Has Michael "Dr. Doom" Copps Forecast an Internet Apocalypse?
Google / Verizon Proposal May Be Important Compromise, But Regulatory Trajectory Concerns Many
Two Schools of Internet Pessimism
GAO: Wireless Prices Plummeting; Public Knowledge: We Must Regulate!
Archives by Month
  September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
  - (see all)
Archives by Topic
  - A La Carte
- Add category
- Advertising & Marketing
- Antitrust & Competition Policy
- Appleplectics
- Books & Book Reviews
- Broadband
- Cable
- Campaign Finance Law
- Capitalism
- Capitol Hill
- China
- Commons
- Communications
- Copyright
- Cutting the Video Cord
- Cyber-Security
- Digital Americas
- Digital Europe
- Digital Europe 2006
- Digital TV
- E-commerce
- e-Government & Transparency
- Economics
- Education
- Electricity
- Energy
- Events
- Exaflood
- Free Speech
- Gambling
- General
- Generic Rant
- Global Innovation
- Googlephobia
- Googlephobia
- Human Capital
- Innovation
- Intermediary Deputization & Section 230
- Internet
- Internet Governance
- Internet TV
- Interoperability
- IP
- Local Franchising
- Mass Media
- Media Regulation
- Monetary Policy
- Municipal Ownership
- Net Neutrality
- Neutrality
- Non-PFF Podcasts
- Ongoing Series
- Online Safety & Parental Controls
- Open Source
- PFF Podcasts
- Philosophy / Cyber-Libertarianism
- Privacy
- Privacy Solutions
- Regulation
- Search
- Security
- Software
- Space
- Spectrum
- Sports
- State Policy
- Supreme Court
- Taxes
- The FCC
- The FTC
- The News Frontier
- Think Tanks
- Trade
- Trademark
- Universal Service
- Video Games & Virtual Worlds
- VoIP
- What We're Reading
- Wireless
- Wireline
Archives by Author
PFF Blogosphere Archives
We welcome comments by email - look for a link to the author's email address in the byline of each post. Please let us know if we may publish your remarks.

The Progress & Freedom Foundation