Posts Tagged ‘ Internet ’

« Older Entries

A Better Approach to Textbook Adoptions

Tuesday, November 9th, 2010
Joy Hakim


Joy Hakim, author of A History of US, published by Oxford University Press, and of The Story of Science, copublished by the Smithsonian and the National Science Teachers Association Press. Freedom: A History of US, a 16-part PBS special, was based on her writings.

by Joy Hakim

Until October, Texas owned the textbook debate. The Texas Board of Education, preparing last year for a book adoption, seemed determined to put a political spin into American history books Texas schoolchildren will be reading. That raised hackles and not just in Texas. A headline in England’s Guardian blared, “Texas school board rewrites US history with lessons promoting God and guns.”

Time and cool heads prevailed and the new Texas standards, adopted in August, are not much different from those in other states. The textbook hoopla calmed down. And then, last month, a Williamsburg, Virginia mother (who happens to be a history professor) noticed that her son’s 4th grade schoolbook was—well, outrageous. It stated that thousands of African Americans fought for the South during the Civil War, many led by Stonewall Jackson. This is not a view held by most historians.

The author of the book defended her work, claiming that she did her research on the Internet, where her source for information was the Sons of Confederate Veterans.  This created a bit of brouhaha. Pulitzer Prize-winning historian James McPherson of Princeton University commented, “These Confederate heritage groups have been making this claim for years as a way of purging their cause of its association with slavery.”

Virginia has what is supposed to be a rigorous adoption system, books with agendas aren’t supposed to get through the process. This book was called “accurate and unbiased” by a committee tasked to read it. Virginia school districts, having spent a lot of money on the book, are now pulling it from classrooms.

Textbook nightmares are nothing new in the school world, and they are not unique to Virginia and Texas. But purchasing policies there, and in 20 other “adoption” states, determine content in textbooks for schools throughout the nation. Those books, routinely dull, are often error-ridden and biased. Actually the adoption process began with bias as a goal. After the Civil War, southern leaders didn’t want their children reading a northern version of that conflict. They set up their own school standards and the publishing industry complied with different books for Southern and Northern markets.

Today, in school districts in all 50 states, adoptions are usually a winner-take-all affair that leads to giant sales and huge profits for a few publishers. Those publishers spend their efforts—not on creating good books—but on promotion, gifts, and fancy presentations. Think of the power of lobbyists; textbook salespeople perfect lobby-like outreach to teachers and administrators.

This is not a minor affair: books are the intellectual meat and potatoes we feed our children. Shabby textbooks make a difference. They don’t have to be. Here are some suggestions:

  • Have closed adoptions. No salespeople allowed. Let books and other teaching materials speak for themselves to teachers and committees. Don’t limit choices to books from textbook houses. Have librarians share their expertise. Let a subcommittee of children read the choices and submit their thoughts. If a book doesn’t work for its potential readers, it shouldn’t be adopted. And call in experts: historians to comment on social studies texts, scientists on science texts.
  • If possible, do away with whole city adoptions.  The big bucks are just too tempting for those driven by bottom-line issues. Besides, given our diverse population, it doesn’t work for every fourth grade teacher in Los Angeles or Richmond to be forced to teach from the same history text. Have schools or even individual teachers pick books from a broad vetted list. Let some teachers, who can make a case for their decisions, pick volumes not on the list. Teaching U.S. history, or any subject, with good bookstore books, rather than texts, makes sense if a teacher wants to go that route. If we are to attract and hold sophisticated teachers we need to treat them as professionals rather than cogs in a bureaucratic wheel. Letting teachers choose their own books would not only support them and benefit kids, it might bring real competition to the schoolbook industry.

Some of our greatest thinkers have written books for children. Henry Steele Commager’s story of the Constitution is hard to top. Physicist Stephen Hawking is the author (along with his daughter Lucy) of a terrific physics adventure that is perfect for third graders. Why aren’t books like these read routinely in our schools?

Yes, the money-management folks will talk about the savings from mass purchases, an argument that doesn’t hold up. Most standard textbooks are outrageously overpriced.  Today’s massive adoptions bring billions of dollars in annual income to a few big publishers whose goal, as with most businesses, is to make money. Educating children is a minor consideration. Trade (bookstore) books are generally inexpensive.

How about assessments? Can they deal with a variety of books rather than one text? No problem if we assess ideas and what is usually the small number of essential facts that support those ideas. Currently our tests are shallow, dull, limited, and limiting. Detach them from specific textbooks and canned lesson plans and they can begin to test critical thinking tied to broad knowledge.

Some current conventional wisdom says the textbook issue has been solved. Books are out; technology is in. But, so far, online texts are aimed at test preparation, not deep thinking.  They promote skimming and browsing, not analytical reading. There’s a bigger issue here. We are giving up on whole book reading, which means losing our literary heritage as well as our national legacy. Right now, most schoolchildren have little access to what was once a shared body of heroes, villains, stories, and values.

As for our science scores, a recent study ranked us 48th internationally. “48th is not a good place,” said the New York Times. While hands on labs are exciting, without a story their concepts rarely stick. Only one state mandates science history. Ask your children: Who is Linus Pauling? How did we discover the atom? Chances are they won’t know.

Meanwhile, the current round of educational criticism is focusing on villainous unions and low performing teachers. Hardly anyone has looked in depth at factory-like education schools, administrator-heavy school systems, or the mental junk food we feed our children. All this is deeply discouraging to the good (and often great) teachers in our schools.

Photo credit: Judy Baxter

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Daily Fix, Issues, New Schools for the 21st Century | 1 Comment »

Waiting for Election Night

Tuesday, October 12th, 2010
Ed Kilgore


Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.

by Ed Kilgore

Three weeks out from Election Day, it’s increasingly unlikely that any news event, economic development, or overall party message is going to have a major effect on the outcome.  Yes, long-planned GOTV efforts—beginning with early voters—will come to fruition, and actual events, including candidate debates, could swing close individual races.  But to an extent that would depress most candidates (who naturally tend to think their fate is in their own hands), a lot of what we are doing now is trying to predict results that are pre-ordained, and even anticipating some of the post-election debates within the two parties.

The exceptions to this predestination rule are close statewide races, for two reasons.  First, statewide candidates simply get greater exposure, if not from ads then from media coverage.  And second, gubernatorial candidates are affected to some extent by their own political dynamics, particularly if they belong to the party in power at the state level, and thus represent the “wrong track.”

The implications of the first factor are explained by PPP’s Tom Jensen in a post about Democratic prospects in House and Senate races:

I think Democrats are going to lose the House, with Republicans quite possibly picking up a lot  more seats than they even need for a majority. At the same time I think Democrats will hold  onto the Senate and that it may be by a larger margin than people are expecting, with the party perhaps holding onto its seats in places like Illinois, Colorado, Nevada, and West Virginia where the party lucked out because the GOP nominated weak candidates.

That’s a reminder that candidates matter- but they matter a lot more in Senate elections where voters really get to know them than in House elections that are much more likely to be  determined by the national tide. We’ve seen time and again in Senate races this year that the better voters get to know the Republican candidates the less they like them. But unfortunately for Democrats I don’t know that voters ever get to know the House candidates well enough for that same effect to occur.

Jensen’s point reflects past experience, as well.  In 1972, 1984, and 1990, one party made gains in one chamber of Congress while losing seats in the other.  The most famous example was in 1972, when despite the Nixon landslide over McGovern, Democrats actually gained two net Senate seats.  And even where one party has made gains in both Houses, they haven’t always been congruent in size or sweep (e.g., 1982, when the two parties broke even in the Senate even as Democrats gained 27 seats in the House).

The ideological sorting-out of the two parties may have reduced the likelihood of such variable results, insofar as ticket-splitting has become less common, particularly in congressional races.  But the higher profile of statewide races does give candidates greater opportunities to make news—or make costly mistakes—and down-the-stretch financial advantages can have a greater impact as well.

Having said all that, the precise results to be expected on November 2 remain unpredictable, not so much because of candidate behavior, but simply because an unusually large number of races are competitive.  This is particularly true in the House.  As Nate Silver explained at some length in a post on his own and others’ projections of House results:

According to just about every objective and subjective indicator, then, the number of  competitive House districts is roughly twice as high as in recent years. This is why the margin of  error on our House forecast is very wide. If the polling is off by just a little in one direction or another, it could have profound consequences for the number of seats that Republicans are likely to gain. Likewise, there are a great number of districts in which both parties have viable   candidates who could over perform or underperform the trends present in the national environment.

Why are so many races competitive? That could merit an article on its own. I suspect much of the reason is that the deterioration in the political environment for Democrats was evident  quite early in the cycle — certainly by around August or September of last year — leaving both parties with plenty of time to prepare. The fact that the Internet has made fundraising much less burdensome, and allowed name recognition to be built through a variety of “nontraditional” means, may also play a role.

With more seats in play, the odds of missing the exact post-election count go up quite a bit.  Cutting in the other direction is the fact that there is a lot more public polling data available than in the past, so projections are less likely to depend entirely on past performance or some sort of vague, thumb-on-the-scales estimates of national trends.

As Election Day approaches, the likelihood of major surprises will naturally go down.  But there are more than enough razor-close races to ensure considerable mystery on Election Night.

Photo credit: Andrew Bossi

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Daily Fix, Political Memo | 2 Comments »

Internet Wars: A Who’s Who Guide

Thursday, October 7th, 2010
Steve Norton


Steve Norton is communications director at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation and a former journalist and speechwriter.

by Steve Norton

Back in the day, there were no protesters outside corporate headquarters in Silicon Valley, no one had a position on net neutrality because no one knew what is was, and technology journalists were breathlessly trying to keep pace with new technologies and companies instead of holding forth on civil rights and liberties or network engineering protocols.

But ten or 15 years in the life of the Internet is a long time.  The Internet is the transformative phenomenon of our time and its role in our lives raises serious questions about who the Internet “belongs” to, whether it is used for good or ill, what are its technological limits, and what role government has as arbiter of its future.  The debates on these and other questions has become passionate and shrill, generating more heat than light at times.  A person trying to follow the debate might need a field guide to sort through the wide array of groups and their philosophical or economic orientation.  Allow me to offer up this breakdown, the details of which are spelled out in “Who’s Who in Internet Politics: A Taxonomy of Information Technology Policy,” a new report from the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.

In the report, ITIF lays out the following eight categories:

Cyber-Libertarians – Think of them as the original “netizens” and purists who believe the Internet should be governed solely  by its users that and “information wants to be free.”  Privacy and piracy will take care of themselves by the individuals who make up the organic and living Internet and not by government. Groups include the Free Software Foundation and the Electronic Frontier Foundation

Social Engineers – Mostly liberal, they see a lot of good in the Internet as an education and communications tool but they worry about the “digital divide,” privacy, net neutrality, and a concentration of power by both government and major corporations.  These issues could erode the Internet’s capacity to be a tool for good for all.  Among groups are the Benton Foundation, Center for Democracy and Technology, Center for Digital Democracy, Civil Rights Forum on Communication Policy, Consumer Project on Technology, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Free Press, Media Access Project, and Public Knowledge, and scholars such as Columbia’s Tim Wu, MIT Media Laboratory’s David Reed, academics at Harvard’s Berkman Center (among them Larry Lessig and Yochai Benkler).

Free Marketers – Unleash the entrepreneurs! This group views the digital revolution as the great third wave of economic innovation in human history and a dynamic and liberating force that the government should mostly keep out of it. Groups include the Cato Institute, the Mercatus Center, the Pacific Research Institute, the Phoenix Center, the Progress & Freedom Foundation, and the Technology Policy Institute.

Moderates – Unabashedly pro-IT, they see the Internet as this era’s driving force for both economic growth and social progress and they believe a light touch from government is useful in helping the Internet reach its potential.  “Do no harm” to limit to IT innovations but also “actively do good” is their mantra. Examples of moderates include the Center for Advanced Studies in Science and Technology Policy, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, ITIF, and the Stilwell Center.

Moral Conservatives – These groups see the Internet as an often smutty and dangerous place teeming with pornographers, gamblers, child molesters, terrorists that only government can keep at bay. They pushed for passage of the Communications Decency Act and Child Online Protection Act, Internet filtering in libraries, and worked to push legislation to ban online gambling.  Examples are groups like the Christian Coalition and Focus on the Family, and around the world with countries like Indonesia, Thailand, Saudi Arabia and other religiously conservative nations that seek to limit activity on the Internet.

Old Economy Regulators – This group believes the Internet should be regulated in the same way that government regulates everything else. Otherwise, you have chaos and inequities.  Examples of this group include law enforcement officials seeking to limit use of encryption and other innovative technologies, veterans of the telecom regulatory wars that preceded the breakup of Ma Bell, legal analysts working for social engineering think tanks, as well as government officials seeking to impose restrictive regulatory frameworks on broadband.

Tech Companies & Trade Associations – Software and communications giants, Internet start-ups, and the groups that represent them, these tech interests tend to believe that regulation can be both advantageous and detrimental, depending on their particular business model.  They also advocate policies that are good for the technology industry or the economy in general. Examples include IBM, AT&T, and Hewlett Packard, Cisco Systems and Microsoft, and recent phenomena in the market such as Google and Facebook, as well as trade associations like the Information Technology Industry Council and the Association for Competitive Technology. They delve into trade, tax, regulatory, and other public policy issues from a bottom-line perspective rather than a philosophical basis.

Bricks-and-Mortars – This group includes the companies, professional groups, and unions that use the Internet but also see it eroding the old-economy and face-to-face business transactions and they struggle to hold back the tide. These include both producers and distributors and middlemen (such as retailers, car dealers, wine wholesalers, pharmacies, optometrists, real estate agents, or unions representing workers in these industries). The long running battle over taxing Internet sales illustrates their struggle.

Of course, individual groups defy rigid characterization.  For example, Moral Conservatives might find themselves on the same side of an issue as Social Engineers.  Also, consensus is often elusive in trade associations as member companies often have complicated interrelationships or niches in the market.  However, whether you lean more toward advancing the interests of the individual or society as whole, see government regulation as generally useful or harmful, or are wary of the Internet’s influence or enthusiastic about it is useful to understanding where various groups stand.  You might need Venn diagrams to fully understand the Internet policy landscape when surveying issues such as piracy, net neutrality, intellectual property rights, and Internet sales taxes.  (An unusual pursuit, to be sure.)

One common theme in all these groups is that they almost certainly believe they are advocating sound policies and doing the right thing for individuals and for society – as incomprehensible as that might seem to those from an opposing organization.  In some cases, their passion for their beliefs makes for a good sound bite in a news story.  The societal destruction by a government that is scheming to implant chips in our heads is an easier story to sell than an explanation of how packets are sorted on broadband networks. And this is dangerous.

Internet and technology debate is being politicized and degraded.  And misguided and ill-informed debates lead to misguided and ill-informed policies. We have enough of people vehemently opposing bills they haven’t read or crafting policy from bumper stickers and making caricatures of opponents.   The Internet’s transformation is really just beginning so people in government, the media, and the public at large need to refine and update their understanding of the philosophical issues, the players, the economic realities, and societal issues as stake.  Wherever you come down on a range of tech policies – whether you carry placards outside of Facebook’s offices or decide to get an engineering degree to figure out net neutrality – it is essential to understand the political and policy landscape that didn’t exist just 20 years ago.  And now you have a map.

Photo credit: Stefan

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in A New Framework for Growth and Equity, Daily Fix, Issues | No Comments »

9/11, Nine Years Later: The Internet, the Koran, and the Need for Vocal Moderates

Friday, September 10th, 2010
Rachel Kleinfeld


Rachel Kleinfeld is the CEO of the Truman National Security Project.

by Rachel Kleinfeld

On September 11, 2001, I had just arrived in Bucharest for dissertation research. I was conducting an interview when the planes hit. As I ran around the city, trying to find a television with news in English to learn what was happening, a Turkish worker noticed my Jewish visage, stopped me in the street, and told me that the Jews had done it. The conspiracy theory only gained ground. A week later, as I walked to Bucharest’s old synagogue for Rosh Hashana services, I was harassed for the terrorist attack multiple times by passers-by.

Again it is Rosh Hashana, and again, September 11 looms – this time, with the backdrop of Koran-burning and anger at plans for a mosque.  As we step into a new year, I wonder what, if anything, has been learned. Prejudice against Muslims has grown in America.  We even have our own bin Laden – a Florida pastor who has decided that God wants him to burn the holy book of the Islamic “infidels.”

Did I just say that – comparing a pastor ekeing out a living selling furniture on e-bay, to the mastermind terrorist?  Yes. The pastor knows that his act will bring about the deaths of scores, if not hundreds or thousands, in sectarian violence from Afghanistan to Africa. The ripple effects will be felt in violence against Christian missionaries who have lived among the Afghan people for decades. It will be seen in violence against Christian communities living along the violent belt that marks the split between Christian and Muslim Africa. And it will be felt by the innocent Muslims who are caught in the inevitable backlash.

Twenty years ago, this would not have happened. A pastor leading a flock of fifty could indeed have decided to burn Korans – but no one would have known, outside, perhaps, of his townspeople. The internet’s ability to super-empower individuals, to spread YouTube videos to millions instantaneously, to fan the flames of a 24 hour news cycle hungry for controversy, has allowed a single man with the tiniest of pulpits to receive direct messages from the President of the United States and the General in charge of a distant theater of war. It is the same phenomenon that allowed Osama bin Laden to gain an international following while camped in Sudan, Afghanistan, and the borderlands of Pakistan.

The new media reality is not something we yet know how to handle. How can a country be responsible for every action of every person within its borders – when a single ideologue can catch fire and affect the deepest fibers of our foreign policy?  How can our leaders communicate when the same words are heard in radically different ways by voters at home and listeners abroad – and yet both listen to the same speeches?

But at least we, as a foreign policy community, are talking about what to do in this new media reality. There are other cultural shifts we are not acknowledging. One of the most significant is that we are living through another period of worldwide religious revival. Across all major religions, numbers are growing, and intensity of belief is deepening. The anomie and confusion of modern life pushes some to slow food and organic gardening, others to deepen their faith and intensify their search for a higher order. The effects of this spiritual revival are being felt in country after country, from America to Turkey. This deepening of faith causes fights within religions as much as between them. Ironically, if there is a clash of civilizations, Jones, the Florida pastor, and bin Laden would actually have more in common than the moderates within both Islam and Christianity.

But there is a crucial difference. Christian pastors from around the world have denounced Jones, loudly. He has received personal calls from the heads of other Christian groups—as well as the head of the former church he founded in Germany –  asking him not to desecrate the Koran. Our countries’ political leaders have spoken against his actions in the most public of fora – and so have those within his faith. There are terrific Muslim organizations that also condemn violence within their religion. They need to be helped by those within their faith. They need to be joined by politicians and others within Islam, who are the only ones with standing to effectively speak against the violence in their own ranks. The difference in tone and denunciation between Jones and bin Laden is striking – and disturbing, nine years after 9/11.

As a Jew, I have my own tribe, my own faith and beliefs. But as a Jew with a particularly Jewish-looking mug, I know enough to be worried by increasing religiosity that is married to increasing intolerance. The internet is super-empowering the world’s most intolerant leaders, and as the current religious revival continues, this trend is only going to get worse. It is going to continue to be a particular problem in Islam, until moderates feel strongly enough to speak out just as unequivocally and publicly as Christians are condemning Jones. It’s time we, as a foreign policy community, look this reality in the eye, and address it directly.

Photo credit: rutty’s photostream

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in A Progressive Security Strategy, Daily Fix, Issues | 1 Comment »

Lieberman’s Cyber Bill Causes Consternation Among Dems

Monday, June 21st, 2010
Jim Arkedis


Jim Arkedis is the director of PPI's National Security Project.

by Jim Arkedis

Late last week, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) unveiled a draft bill that seems to be causing some anxiety among progressives.

Certain provisions in the bill seem to be reasonable – like creating a National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications and an Office for Cyber Policy — and should strengthen American defenses in an increasingly vulnerable climate (particularly as the China cyber threat is on the upswing). But others have split Democrats.

There seem to be three camps — civil libertarians, Democrats on the Hill working on the cyber issue and the White House.

Civil libertarians are concerned about this provision of the bill, which would provide the president with the power to declare a national cyber emergency and essentially compel owners of critical cyber infrastructure to subjugate themselves to the president’s direction. In other words, civil libertarians are making the case that with an emergency declaration, the president could close the Internet.

Lieberman has tried to explain the provision, saying “the government should never take over the Internet.” But his explaination fails to bridge the gap between a complete “taking over” and an ill-defined and vague emergency provision that his bill provides for.

But cyber-congressmen (a term I’m laying claim to) have come out in support of Lieberman’s bill:

In an unusual show of bipartisanship, two prominent senior members of the House panel — California Democrat Jane Harman and New York Republican Peter King — announced plans to co-sponsor and introduce a companion bill in the House to S. 3480, introduced last week by Senators Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.), Susan Collins (R.-Maine) and Tom Carper (D.-Del.).

“I agree with Mr. King that the Lieberman-Collins bill is excellent,” declared Harman, adding, “I do plan to co-sponsor the bill with him…I think it is an excellent effort. I’m sure it will change as it goes through the legislative process, but I do think it will be good to work with our counterparts in the Senate on this, as we worked with our counterparts in the Senate on the Safe Ports act.”

While supporting tough cyber legislation is certainly laudable, questions of motivation hang in the air. Is support for the bill born of a desire to seek genuine bipartisan compromise, an attempt to pass major legislation that members are responsible for in an election year, or because of the reported overtures to cyber-business? Or all three? Or something different?

Then there’s the White House. Deputy Under Secretary for the National Protection and Programs Directorate for the Department of Homeland Security (there’s a mouthful) Philip Reitinger testified that:

[T]he administration’s review of the bill, which was released last week, is incomplete and could not give a timeline on when this would be done. He mentioned that revisions of the bill should be aware that the president already has certain emergency powers and care should be taken to avoid overlapping the law.

As such, the bill was declined the Obama administration’s endorsement in the hearing. Instead, the deputy suggested that the current Section 706 of Communications Act should be used as a foundation for revisions in the law, as opposed to the creation of a new one.

That part in bold is the upshot — no matter what the support or concerns are, the bill won’t become law unless the administration fully supports it. At this point, that’s unlikely without significant revision.

Photo Credits: Tsakshaug’s Photostream

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in A Progressive Security Strategy, Daily Fix | 1 Comment »

After Comcast, What’s Next for Net Neutrality?

Wednesday, June 2nd, 2010
Richard Bennett


Richard Bennett is a research fellow at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, specializing in broadband networking and Internet policy. He has a 30-year background in network engineering and standards.

by Richard Bennett

Congress is gearing up to reopen the Communications Act of 1934 in order to come up with what it hopes will be a better way to make sure as much information flows through the Internet as possible and in a manner fair to consumers, service providers and other stakeholders. During a panel discussion co-sponsored by the Free State Foundation and the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, it was clear that the coming debate on the future of America’s Internet policy in general and its net neutrality policy in particular will continue to be a lively one.

Congress has effectively advised the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) not to reclassify Internet edge networks –- cable, DSL, FTTx and wireless –- under Title II of the Communications Act. A majority of House members signed letters last week to that effect, and while these letters don’t have the force of law, they’re certainly significant statements of congressional sentiment. The FCC is, after all, a creature of Congress that isn’t entitled to operate outside the scope of its statutory authority, regardless of how noble its motives may be or how urgent the problems it seeks to address are.

The paramount questions for the immediate future concern the shape of Internet policy, and most of the answers must come from Congress. Jim Cicconi of AT&T and moderator Rob Atkinson of ITIF pointed out that the net neutrality debate has sucked the oxygen out of the room on Internet policy for the past five years. Instead of developing plans for national purposes of the Internet and ensuring that it reaches all Americans at reasonable speeds and prices, the policy community has struggled with questions about packet discrimination and “reasonable network management.” While we’ve been obsessing over how to differentiate good network operator behavior from bad, other nations have leapt ahead of us in broadband speed, adoption, or both. Even after the unveiling of a National Broadband Plan, the public debate continues to focus too much on hypothetical anti-consumer behavior by network operators and service providers.

Five years ago, panelist Randy May of the Free State Foundation developed a model law for the Internet called the “Digital Age Communications Act” (DACA) that sought to update the 1934 Communications Act that governs the FCC. Under the DACA framework, regulators can only take action on incidents in which a broadband provider was enforcing policies harmful to consumers in non-competitive markets. The virtue of DACA is its simplicity – it forswears technical prejudgment of particular management practices – but it has attracted criticism from those who find it too strict as well as from those who find it too permissive; it’s not clear why a market power test is relevant once a given practice has been found to harm consumers, for example. Questions of this sort must ultimately be addressed by Congress, as they pertain to the policy space and aren’t simply matters of regulation.

Professor James Speta of Northwestern warned that the “Title II with forbearance” approach to Internet regulation proposed by FCC chairman Julius Genachowski is inherently unstable. (Under this idea, Title II would apply to the Internet, except for the parts of Title II that don’t.) Obviously, the reclassification itself raises troubling legal issues, and is certain to cause litigation. As the outcome of the litigation is uncertain, it would likely take years to resolve its status. The forbearance process is a second source of instability, because regulations can be imposed and withdrawn so easily as matters of forbearance. While the FCC’s proposed “Third Way” built on reclassification and forbearance appears to offer a short cut to an Internet regulation framework, its expeditious character is probably more an illusion than a reality.

A number of panelists addressed the question of what to do while we’re waiting for Congress to draft an Internet policy. Eric Klinker, CEO of BitTorrent, Inc., pointed out that industry deals with questions of Internet management through self-regulatory and other cooperative efforts. BitTorrent, Inc. was not a party to the complaint against Comcast dealt with by the previous FCC – its competitor Vuze, Inc. filed the petition. BitTorrent took a very different approach, meeting with the Comcast network operations team to determine the nature of the problem that motivated them to actively manage parts of the network as they did and to map out a better solution. Rather than seeking regulatory relief, BitTorrent developed a better protocol, uTP, which yields to interactive applications but saturates network links when no other applications are active. BitTorrent improved the Internet in a way that no regulatory action can.

The self-regulatory systems that have emerged from the broadband and Internet markets organically have been largely effective, but they may need to be supplemented with more active government involvement in the future. Whether this happens, and if so, how it happens, are likely to be the subject of debate in the near future — but that debate should take place in the Congress, not at the FCC.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in A New Framework for Growth and Equity, Daily Fix | No Comments »

The Facebook Kerfuffle

Monday, May 3rd, 2010
Elbert Ventura


Elbert Ventura is the managing editor of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas. He formerly served as the managing editor of the Progressive Policy Institute.

by Elbert Ventura

With our limitless capacity for outrage these days, it’s always nice to read a sober and reasonable take on the kerfuffle du jour. Today, it’s ITIF’s Daniel Castro’s memo on the Facebook privacy imbroglio.

For those who missed it, the world’s most popular social networking site has come under fire for its recent changes to its privacy policy. In the crosshairs are two new innovations: instant personalization and social plugins. Instant personalization is a pilot program that allows a few partners — Yelp, Microsoft Docs, and Pandora, to date — to use data from a Facebook user’s personal profile to customize their experience on their site. The latter enables websites to place a Facebook widget on a page, which would allow users to click on a “Like” button or post a comment that would automatically show up on a user’s Facebook feed. In both cases, users have to opt out of the service if they don’t wish to use it.

The changes predictably sparked an uproar from Facebook users and privacy advocates. The indignation even swept through the halls of Congress, with lawmakers registering their displeasure. But as Castro reminds us, it’s all much ado about not much:

Many Internet companies clearly intend to continue to find innovative ways to use personal data to deliver products and services to their customers. While Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg may or may not “believe in privacy”, it is clear that Facebook thinks that companies should respond to changing social norms on privacy and that the overall trend is towards more sharing and openness of personal data. So going forward, no Facebook user (or privacy fundamentalist) can continue to use the service without admitting that the benefits of using the website outweigh any reservation the user has about sharing his or her personal data. As the saying goes, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”

Certainly some users may still object to this tradeoff. But if you don’t like it, don’t use it. Facebook is neither a right nor a necessity. Moreover, it is a free tool that individuals can use in exchange for online advertising. In fact, one high-profile Facebook user, the German Consumer Protection Minister Ilse Aigner, has already threatened to close down her Facebook profile in protest of Facebook’s new privacy policies. Users that feel this way about Facebook’s changes should vote with their mouse and click their way to greener pastures. Companies respond to market forces and consumer demands, and if enough users object to the privacy policy of Facebook, these individuals should be able to find a start-up willing to provide a privacy-rich social networking experience.

Castro doesn’t weigh in on whether Facebook did, in fact, violate its stated privacy policy, leaving that question to the Federal Trade Commission and noting that any organization that deviates from its policy should be held liable.

But the outcry that greeted the revelation that a corporation might use valuable consumer information for its benefit is a real Capt. Renault moment. My guess is that after the fuss dies down, most users will stay on Facebook, recognizing that the benefits of using it outstrip the risks and inconveniences. If the scandal makes people more informed and vigilant about personal data and privacy — both online and off- — then all the better.

Of course, online privacy remains a big, unresolved issue, and we need to continue to press government to update our laws to protect consumers in a fast-evolving information environment. But, as Castro points out, the next time Facebook changes its privacy policy, “let’s not act like this is a national emergency.” We consumers actually have a lot more power than we think we have.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in A New Framework for Growth and Equity, Daily Fix | 1 Comment »

Will the FCC Go Nuclear?

Wednesday, April 7th, 2010
Mike Derham


Mike Derham is chair of PPI's Innovative Economy Project.

by Mike Derham

The D.C. Circuit Court ruled yesterday (PDF) that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) doesn’t have authority over the Internet. Back in 2007, Comcast was filtering the Internet connections of users who were suspected of using file-sharing programs and eating up a lot more bandwidth than expected. The FCC told Comcast to cut it out, under the concept of net neutrality, which required that all packets of data sent over the Internet be treated equally. Comcast challenged the FCC’s right to do that, and yesterday the court agreed with the Philly-based company.

The FCC had argued that it had the right under the authority given to it by Title I of the Communications Act of 1934, which established the FCC. According to the FCC’s argument, Title I empowered the commission to regulate Internet connectivity as an “ancillary” authority, even though it wasn’t explicitly charged to do so by Congress in the act (which, after all, was passed more than half a century before the World Wide Web was launched). The D.C. Circuit Court said no, Title I does not give the FCC that authority. While the decision can be appealed to the Supreme Court, which could reverse the ruling, even proponents of a strong net neutrality role for the FCC admit the decision is pretty solid.

While the case is technically a “win” for Comcast (their challenge was upheld) some observers say it could turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory. Now the FCC could claim authority to regulate Internet communication under its Title II powers. Regulating the Internet under Title II, which covers “common carriers,” would require Internet service providers (ISPs) to adhere to net neutrality as a common carrier requirement. This means that physical providers of an Internet connection to your house (in other words, traditional phone and cable companies that have evolved into ISPs) would be limited in their ability to manage the information going over their networks — unable to prioritize some data over other data — much as phone companies have no control over whom you talk to over your phone line.

This is apocalyptically referred to as “the nuclear option,” as it would result in a radical change in how telecommunications firms view Internet connectivity. Title II would require them to behave more like utilities. Proponents of this idea say its potential upside would be increased competition in services provided over that connection. Critics, including the ISPs themselves, say the potential downside is that ISPs could lose a big incentive (profit maximization) to invest in our residential broadband connections, which are lagging behind other countries like South Korea.

In its own discussions of a National Broadband Plan, the FCC has avoided the Title I vs Title II debate. However, with this ruling, the appeals court has forced the commission’s hand. The best solution for the FCC could be to go before Congress for clarification of its role in regulating the internet. As our friend Brian Wingfield points out, it’ll be a tech lobbying fight, but the FCC would have a better chance with a Democratic Congress than it’s likely to have in the courts.

The appeals court has ruled that the FCC lacks the authority to regulate Internet, but it may also lack the ability. The communications sector is changing rapidly. Some ISPs are acquiring content creators, and others are providing mobile services only previously seen in Dick Tracy cartoons. The FCC was established to regulate what was then regarded as a “natural” telephone monopoly. What’s needed is either an FCC with a dramatically transformed mandate or — maybe better — a new entity dedicated to protecting the environment for continuous innovation on the Internet.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in A New Framework for Growth and Equity, Daily Fix | No Comments »

Breaking Up Is Hard to Do, Even for Intel Geeks

Friday, March 26th, 2010
Jim Arkedis


Jim Arkedis is the director of PPI's National Security Project.

by Jim Arkedis

I’d like to think Noah Shachtman started to think seriously about his latest policy proposal around the time he wrote this policy memo for PPI in January. But it’s more likely he had been chewing over the idea – articulated in the current issue of Wired magazine — to break up the National Security Agency (NSA) far earlier.

It’s a fairly daring proposal on the surface because, after all, even those of us who have worked in the intelligence community don’t have a great handle on what makes the NSA tick. Dissemination of intelligence products is so tightly controlled — even within the intelligence community — that we at NCIS would sometimes wonder (jokingly) if the NSA was actually on our side.

Here’s the gist:

NSA headquarters — the “Puzzle Palace” — in Fort Meade, Maryland, is actually home to two different agencies under one roof. There’s the signals-intelligence directorate, the Big Brothers who, it is said, can tap into any electronic communication. And there’s the information-assurance directorate, the cybersecurity nerds who make sure our government’s computers and telecommunications systems are hacker- and eavesdropper-free. In other words, there’s a locked-down spy division and a relatively open geek division. The problem is, their goals are often in opposition. One team wants to exploit software holes; the other wants to repair them. This has created a conflict — especially when it comes to working with outsiders in need of the NSA’s assistance. Fortunately, there’s a relatively simple solution: We should break up the NSA.

Noah advocates essentially splitting the offense (signals intelligence) from the defense (information assurance). Think of it in football terms: O and D can peacefully co-exist under a head coach in the NFL because they’re both working against a different team. But in the cyberwars, it’s unclear who the other team is, and the NSA runs the risk of putting its O and D on the field against one another.

To alleviate this problem, Shachtman wants to create a new Cyber Security Agency with the information assurance directorate. He believes the new CSA would be more trusted and thus able to coordinate better with outside cyber stakeholders. The directorates already have separate budgets and oversight, so it shouldn’t be all that painful.

That sounds about right to me.  However, I should note that Noah’s piece doesn’t elaborate on the drawbacks of this approach. Is that because they’re aren’t any, or because we wouldn’t know them until it’s too late? That’s worth looking into.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in A Progressive Security Strategy, Daily Fix | No Comments »

Ooh, They Have the Internet on Computers Now

Thursday, March 25th, 2010
Mike Derham


Mike Derham is chair of PPI's Innovative Economy Project.

by Mike Derham

Tom Tauke, chief lobbyist at Verizon, spoke yesterday in a speech designed to take a fresh start on governance of the Internet. His comments got some coverage as challenging the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) role in regulating broadband communication. The FCC’s broadband powers may be decided in a court ruling expected this spring — following oral arguments in January — on a Comcast challenge to the FCC’s oversight of Internet service providers on constitutional grounds.

But it’s worth pointing out that many of the statutes covering internet communications are woefully out of date. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), the main law against hackers, passed in 1984. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), the main law covering online privacy, was enacted in 1986. These laws were written when faxes were still cutting edge. While the behemoth PATRIOT Act included some fine-tuning of these laws, they still envision a last-millennium Internet. The CFAA treats hacking my desktop computer with the same penalties as hacking a Microsoft data center. ECPA requires Gmail to treat emails I have stored from six months ago — writing about the start of the baseball playoffs last season — differently from this month’s emails on spring training.

Tauke’s suggestion that the FCC should evolve into more of an enforcement body is worth discussing. But regardless of who oversees the Internet, getting new laws to bring it into the 21st century should be a top priority.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in A New Framework for Growth and Equity, Clean Energy and Modern Infrastructure, Daily Fix | 1 Comment »

Google vs. China

Wednesday, March 24th, 2010
Jim Arkedis


Jim Arkedis is the director of PPI's National Security Project.

by Jim Arkedis

If you need a pet story to follow over the next year, Google and China is it. The issues at hand — freedom, human rights, censorship, and the almighty dollar — define, in a microcosm, China’s internal struggle to shape a coherent, enduring image on the world stage. Can China have its cake and eat it too — censorship and repression on one hand, and Western companies that help foster economic growth on the other? The long-term fallout from this story could set precedent for decades to come.

Here’s a quick recap: Google, whose slogan is “Don’t Be Evil”,  January revealed that it — along with 22 other companies– was the victim of a cyberattack sponsored by Beijing. As part of China’s intrusion, the Google email accounts of prominent human rights activists were hacked. Here was the company’s conclusion at the time, from Google’s blog:

These attacks and the surveillance they have uncovered — combined with the attempts over the past year to further limit free speech on the web — have led us to conclude that we should review the feasibility of our business operations in China. We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China.

After some additional research, the hammer just dropped yesterday:

We also made clear that these attacks and the surveillance they uncovered — combined with attempts over the last year to further limit free speech on the web in China including the persistent blocking of websites such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Google Docs and Blogger — had led us to conclude that we could no longer continue censoring our results on Google.cn.

So earlier today we stopped censoring our search services — Google Search, Google News, and Google Images — on Google.cn. Users visiting Google.cn are now being redirected to Google.com.hk, where we are offering uncensored search in simplified Chinese, specifically designed for users in mainland China and delivered via our servers in Hong Kong. Users in Hong Kong will continue to receive their existing uncensored, traditional Chinese service, also from Google.com.hk.

It is highly likely that Beijing will attempt to censor Google.com.hk, and their efforts will likely test the limits of what has become known as the Great Firewall of China. Unfortunately, I’m not enough of a tech-geek to know how feasible this is, but we’ll soon find out.

But the precedents that Google’s move sets will be far-reaching, and define American internet companies’ role in China for years. Will American corporations join Google, or attempt to replace it? Secretary of State Clinton spoke passionately that American businesses’ refusal “to support politically motivated censorship will become a trademark characteristic of American technology companies. It should be part of our national brand.” But is it too tempting for Yahoo.cn (which exists) and Bing.cn (which doesn’t… yet) to vacuum up the market share Google’s departure leaves hanging out there? And what about slightly more ambiguous cases, like Amazon.cn, which aren’t in the search engine business, but do exist and do provide Chinese with access to information?

And what would be necessary for Beijing to give way? Is there a conceivable scenario under which China might eventually permit unfettered searches of its internet content? And does this spat extend to companies beyond the information sector? Should it? Will the Obama adminstration bring pressure to bear on U.S. companies to, in turn, help pressure Beijing? Will non-information sector American companies abandon China in a mass protest against censorship? It is difficult to imagine any scenario where a major non-censored U.S. corporation forsakes its access to a market of 1.3 billion people, right? But Google’s decision is astounding and could create waves.

Photo credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/shekharsahu/ / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in A Progressive Security Strategy, Daily Fix | No Comments »

Hey, President Obama: What Are You Doing for Nowruz 1389?

Wednesday, March 17th, 2010
Jim Arkedis


Jim Arkedis is the director of PPI's National Security Project.

by Jim Arkedis

Nowruz is Iran’s new year, celebrated every spring. You may recall that last year, President Obama scored a ton of points from just about all quarters by sending this personalized Nowruz video message directed straight at Iran’s people. It was a great move that bypassed any formal communication with the mullahs in Tehran and successfully engaged Iranians on a personal level. From last year’s video:

You, too, have a choice.  The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations.  You have that right — but it comes with real responsibilities, and that place cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization.  And the measure of that greatness is not the capacity to destroy, it is your demonstrated ability to build and create.

This year’s Nowruz (#1389 if you’re scoring by the Persian calendar) takes place on March 20th. And suffice it to say that some things have changed since then: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stole an election last June from Mir Hossein Mousavi, which triggered millions-strong, largely peaceful (on the civilian side, anyway) demonstrations in Tehran over several weeks. The mullahs actually remain fairly divided lot, but since the Revolutionary Guards hold the balance of power in Iran, the status quo will reign for the time being. However, the protests continue to flare up, but with diminishing strength, on every subsequent public holiday or event. Their potency has been contained in large part because the Ayatollah learned the importance of crushing momentum from the country’s experience in 1979.

This raises the question: After a tumultuous year in American-Iranian “relations” that has seen the Obama administration change tack from guarded optimism of dialogue to renewed talk of targeted sanctions, what (if anything) will the administration do this Nowruz? With Tehran’s crackdown on social media and internet freedom, it might be more difficult to get a similarly successful message through. But it’s worth a try, given the negligible price of recording a three-minute message from the Oval Office.

If he does record something, part of the president’s Nowruz goodwill message to Iranians should focus on expanding Internet access in Iran, which began in earnest earlier this month when the White House lifted restrictions for the first time on U.S. companies exporting online software like chat and data-sharing programs. That’s an incredibly important step, and has been generally described as a win-win-win for Iranians, companies and American diplomatic efforts. But lifting restrictions is just one side of the equation — actively promoting this kind of software in Iran should follow next.

Photo credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/arasmus/ / CC BY 2.0

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in A Progressive Security Strategy, Daily Fix | 1 Comment »

« Older Entries