Can The Government Really Walk The Line Of Regulating The Internet Without Screwing It Up?
from the questions-to-ask dept
Recently, when I wrote about new moves by the federal government to gain more regulatory control over the internet, I mentioned our discussion from a couple months ago of a presentation by Lawrence Strickling, the head of the National Telecommunications and Information Agency (a division of the Department of Commerce), who tried to make the case that the government has a role in regulating the internet. As I noted at the time, if you read his full speech (and not just some of the hysterical coverage about it), it sounded as if he was really noting that the US already regulates many aspects of the internet, and the government needs to figure out the proper policies for handling those aspects.It appears that he's now building on that earlier speech. He recently gave another speech on the same topic, which he refers to as "Internet Policy 3.0." And, once again, I understand the fine line that he's trying to thread, but I worry about what it means in practice. He points out that the role of the government shouldn't be heavy-handed, but as a way of making sure that people continue to trust the internet. He points to Section 230 of the CDA as an example of "good legislation" that has been very important to the success of the internet, and talks about using that as a model of the type of legislation that the feds should have.
All of that sounds good -- and I'm sure his heart (and his mind) are in the right place on this... but the details still scare me to death. As in his earlier speech, he lists out areas where he thinks the government has a role to play. And, if you're unfamiliar with the deeper details in any of those areas, it might be hard to disagree. But, as you dig deeper on each one, it gets more and more troubling. Take one area that is near and dear to the hearts of many folks here: copyright. Here's what he has to say about copyright:
Copyright protection: How do we protect against illegal piracy of copyrighted works and intellectual property on the Internet while preserving the rights of users to access lawful content? NTIA and our sister agency at the Department of Commerce, the US Patent and Trademark Office, are beginning a comprehensive consultation process that will help the Administration develop a forward-looking set of policies to address online copyright infringement in a balanced, Internet-savvy manner.Pretty non-descript and bland, and who would disagree with that idea? Well, if you've paid attention to the past history of copyright law, the above paragraph should scare you silly. Every single time that the US has developed new copyright policies, the process has totally been controlled by special interests whose goal have nothing to do with being balanced or internet-savvy -- but about better protecting their own business models and building the walls up higher around them. And, to date, neither the Commerce Department, nor the USPTO, have given the slightest indication that they're interested in changing that. In fact, Strickling's boss has a history of buying into bogus claims from Hollywood.
And that's the real fear on any of these things. The devil is very much in the details, and special interests have a really strong ability to influence the process and the details, so that any "balanced, internet-savvy" plan comes out as anything but that. For all of Strickling's best intentions, opening these things up to new laws really opens them up to abuse by folks who are world-class experts in abusing the system.
Oh, and it should be noted, of course that Strickling's "good example" of Section 230 of the CDA was sort of an accidental by-product of what was left over after the Supreme Court got around to throwing out pretty much all of the awful CDA. It's easy to look in hindsight and say "this is a good law" and "this is a bad law," but it's incredibly difficult in advance. If there were actually a system and process for reviewing laws to see if they ever actually did what was promised, perhaps it would be worthwhile to experiment. But that's not how the government works. Instead, politicians pass laws and just pretend they must do what they claim -- and then unintended consequences are ignored until the problems become big enough that a new bad law takes the old bad law's place.
Yes, that's a cynical view, but it's hard to argue with it when you look at the way the federal government works. So, as idealistic as Strickling may be, his ideas on Internet Policy 3.0 are incredibly scary, because of those unintended consequences that he can't predict.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: lawrence strickling, policy 3.0, regulations, us government
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As usual, arguments ad hominem, nothing about the facts and issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Somewhere in South America (Brazil I think).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Has the US Government not screwed up anything it regulates?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Has the US Government not screwed up anything it regulates?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My Internet, Their Rules
-Dave Weinberger
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How the hell do you regulate the internet? Even China can't get it right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
answer:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Their intent is to screw it up, just like they did public airwaves and the cableco/telco system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can the Government?
If the Government Regulates (Censors) the internet then we will become like China and be forced to buy SSL Pipes with private ports to be able to do anything online. Sound like a new business opportunity.
I quote: 'The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
+100
Yep.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A: The answer is not just no, but HELL NO!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Regulation
So, to sum up my thoughts....NO NO NO!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Regulation
If we put a pig in an airplane it can fly. Or if we created a genetically modified pig with wings.
Better yet, our government can no more effectively regulate the Internet than .... Well, I can't find an appropriate analogy, but the government can't regulate the Internet in the public interest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A more relevant question is, can the government regulate anything without screwing it up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Review cycle
The more I read about the disastrous effects of the unintended consequences of new laws, the more I think it'd be a good idea to require periodic review any new law that Congress passes. Maybe review a law after the first year, then after five years. It might take a Constitutional amendment, but how could it not be a good idea for the government to review the effects of a law to see if it is actually conforming to its original intent?
"But wouldn't that cause gridlock because it would take time away from the Congress to pass new laws?", you ask. And my reply would be "So what?" [In my best Gordon Gecko voice] "Gridlock is good." I think that the less the US government can do, the better off its citizens will be. (Not to mention that you might actually have some real bipartisanship if you knew that any law you passed would be reviewed by the next iteration of Congress.) If Congress can't pass a bunch of new stupid laws because they have to spend time reviewing all of the old stupid laws, then I'm just fine with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Review cycle
"but how could it not be a good idea for the government to review the effects of a law to see if it is actually conforming to its original intent?"
This system itself would wind up being abused. You assume to know the original intent, the government often says one thing as the original intent but those interested in passing a law intend something entirely different and more nefarious.
"The more I read about the disastrous effects of the unintended consequences"
Unintended consequences is euphemism for intended consequences, and if you are only beginning to see the disastrous effects then you must be very new around here and elsewhere on the net. This is only the tip of the iceberg, governmental corruption and nefarious motives are the rule, not the exception almost no matter where you turn. It's just that the public is mostly kept ignorant, intentionally so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Review cycle
I see your point and I don't discount it altogether, but for the most part, I think that the true unintended consequences outweight the unintented-but-really-intended consequences. "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Review cycle
If Congress were all about doing the right thing for the country, this would be great. They could easily rectify their errors. But as long as they're about political expediency and serving their campaign contributors, it wouldn't have any effect.
Not to mention that it's a moot debate anyway because the people who would put this in place would be Congress, and they certainly don't want anything to do with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not big brother enough already?
After all that happens ... the possibilities are endless to keep the government moving towards absolute control of everything in your life!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Feds couldn't even manage a whorehouse
I'm no businessman, but I think I could run a business, that sold whiskey and sex, profitably.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We all agree!
The answer? Time to build a different kind of communication medium and stay ahead of government. We need a method to communicate which doesn't involve a large expensive infrastructure that can be regulated. The RF spectrum is out and wires is out. Maybe entanglement communication is also out because of the high cost of building such a device. Oh well
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We all agree!
not 1 in 1000 people would understand that without having to look it up ...
That would totally screw up the cable, and telcom providers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We all agree!
I think that any regulation should avoid the requirement of something patented to build a new car or any (almost) required patents should be revoked and given over to the public domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One and the Same
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i hear joe biden came buy
they actually fell over and created a tremor in California
as to fungus i suspect you mean you want to leave your cdrs in the fridge for a month with all the other warm fuzzy things
if you keep your rooms clean , and um er live not in tropical climate then you have nothing to fear, that bacteria can't live in north america ...maybe la and texas ...hrmmmmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: i hear joe biden came buy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
solution to kiddy pron
well heres a job for your army
GO FRAKING INVADE THOSE PLACES
do something FOR THE CHILDREN
does nothing when yo simply cut off the easy access that you know of route that some sicko already has 4 other ways to import it
20 hackers and a elite mortor platoon should do the job at destroying all online facilities that house this sick crap
anything legal as in its 18 or older leave it be
start saying this a lot more and your gonna have these think of the children do no gooders looking like they are protecting those countries that shield and house and condone such sick shit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Governments Can Only Screw Things Up
The only hope is that we start to elect people to political office who truly represent a cross section of American business. We need a butcher, a baker, a candlestick maker, if you will. We need to overthrow the tyranny of the Lawyers' Club.
In the meantime, governement intrusion into, and regulation of, anything at all will only make it suck more than it does already.
What's my proof? Show me ONE, just ONE governement program that actually works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eric F. Vermote - Piracy Expert
[ link to this | view in chronology ]