Policy Wonkery

I was saddened by an article I first read on SlashDot that seemed to acquire little media attention.  Recently, a high court determined that the government has the right to revert something in the public domain back to private ownership, reversing a ruling from a lower court. (A wonderful discussion of this issue was written up in TechDirt.)

My frustration lies with implication that the government can claim eminent domain and take private property as long as it serves a “public use”.  Just today I read in the New York Times that the state of New York is taking several blocks in Harlem to resell to Columbia University.  While eminent domain can certainly have beneficial outcomes, it evokes a rage in property holders, even though they’ve been compensated. Reflecting on this, I realize I have a right to be angry, too:  I have not (yet) been compensated for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

I want my money as a collective owner of the public domain.  The black and white movies, classic books and photos that we collectively owned were stolen.  If the government sees a “public use” in taking from the public domain, or ruling in favor of those who take from the public, I’m fine with that. I just want to be compensated.

In the lawsuit against “illegal music downloader” Joel Tenenbaum, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) claimed that each act of infringement, or song, was worth $22,500.  Since the RIAA has already gone through all the trouble of determining the worth of a song, the rest is easy. Now, to exercise the totally legal right to remove private property from the public domain for “public use,” the RIAA follow the government’s model and compensate the American public for every work they remove from the public domain. Looking just at the music collection, that’s about $22,500 x 300 million (Americans), or $6,750,000,000,000.00 per song.

Now maybe instead of paying what you owe, the RIAA can let the 15% of Americans who admit to piracy (a felony) just put it on their tab. Seems like a fair deal to me.

Note: This is just a modest proposal. Of course copyright reform would also be acceptable…

Loved this TED Talk by the well-known new media adviser Clay Shirky. He discusses the importance of Generative Technology and how it leads to both LOLCats and Ushahidi.



The new economics of user generated content requires an understanding of both economic and social incentives. I’m currently reading Yochai Benkler’s The Wealth of Networks, a text that underscores the huge implications these sorts of new incentives bear for tech policy.

In the fight to liberate government data, Washington, DC is a leader. The current Chief Information Officer (CIO) of the US, Vivek Kundra, was recruited from his position as the CIO of DC for doing an awesome job. One of his more successful projects was starting Apps for Democracy. This national apps contest challenged the private and civic sectors to build applications and tools off of government data.

I bring up Apps for Democracy because last week at Digital Capital Week — the so called SXSW of the mid-atlantic — I listened to Bryan Sivak (who filled Kundra’s shoes as DC’s new CIO) speak about how the DC’s local government is opening up even more public data. Now you can access information on the municipal run Circulator buses. (The metro and other bus systems are run under the transportation authority WMATA.)  Check out the Chief Technology Officer’s labs page here to see the data for yourself.

Looking at this page, I was reminded about the transformative role Google has played in making transit data public. Having helped design common (open) technological standards, Google empowered developers to build Android and iPhone Apps, mash-ups, and of course improved Google Maps.

The DC government provides Circulator data in three different formats: KML, GTFS, and CSV. A KML file is the file format used for Google Earth, originally invented by Keyhole, Inc. (which was purchased by Google in 2004).  GTFS or General Transit Feed Specification format was originally called the Google Transit Feed Specification and only went public in 2008. CSV files in the transit database provide additional information and weekly updates with GPS data points of every city bus every 15 seconds.

Google’s specifications have made releasing transit information easier than ever before, and both (the KML and GTFS) are essentially open file formats. The Open Geospatial Consortium has given its seal of approval to KML, and GTFS was released with open-source editing tools.

Transit data is essential public information that empowers anyone armed with wifi or a smart phone to control their travel from beginning to end: knowing when and where to arrive for transit and how long it will take to get to a destination gives a person an incredible amount of agency.  Although I’d like to see more file formats like OSM for Open Street Map or more information like the GPS located CSV data, the important thing is to just get the data out there. And for all its successes, there’s a lot more DC could be doing on this end. Last week techPresident reported that London is setting up its own apps challenge — and that they  released all of their transit data.  Liberating this data is a global challenge, but one we can be active in. Check out the GTFS exchange website to see if you should be contacting your local transit authority.

There’s been a lot of discussion this past week on cybersecurity.  A lot of this relates to Richard Clark’s latest book Cyber War: The Next Threat to National Security and What to Do about It. While it is easy to come to the consensus that cyberwar is indeed a real threat, it is more difficult to identify what the solutions are.

There are two ways of achieving better security from a macro scale: different networks or more secure networks.  If for example, we build networks to operate our nuclear weapons, electricity, satellite navigation, etc. so that they are completely disconnected from the Internet, then we achieve security…unless foreign intelligence agencies have agents physically on the ground.  Alternatively, we could just build really secure systems. I imagine these would involve limiting user privileges and developing incredibly complex passwords.

There is obviously a trade-off between these systems, but it’s helpful to be able to conceive of cybersecurity in this mindset.  For example, while separating a system from the Internet is one way of being “different;” another is to simply use an alternate  operating system.  The reason that Mac computers get less viruses has a lot to do with their being different. This is also the reason behind a new, seperate opperating system called Kylin, developed by the Chinese governemnt. A report released by the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission claimed the intent of this OS was for security reasons (though there is little evidence to support this claim).

In his book, Richard Clark takes a strong anti-Microsoft stance, focusing particularly on the issue of Pentagon technology acquisition. Not only does Microsoft not claim that their OS is incredibly secure, it’s also what almost everybody else has.  As hackers focus their attention on large scale operations, Microsoft (and particularly old Windows) computers are easy targets.

And yet, I don’t know if I can be an advocate for “different” systems.  Metcalfe’s Law suggests that the more systems we have interacting together, the more valuable the system is. Why wouldn’t this apply to the Internet? It’s certainly an issue that technologists and policy wonks should reflect on.

A new Internet power structure is being developed by some heavy hitters in the American telecom industry.  The creation of the Broadband Internet Technical Advisory Group (BITAG or TAG) was announced today by Adjunct Professor Dale Hatfield (see picture) of the University of Colorado at Boulder.  Professor Hatfield has been called on to facilitate TAG, which he described as “a neutral, expert technical forum [to] promote a greater consensus around technical practices within the Internet community.” As the former Chief of the Office of Engineering and Technology and before that Chief Technologist at the Federal Communications Commission, Professor Hatfield is well respected in the field.

What does this new group mean for the tech sector?  Before it becomes active, it’s difficult to know definitively what TAG’s roll will be, however we can already answer some important questions:

1. What kind of policies does Dale Hatfield endorse?
2. Who are the initial sponsors of TAG?
3. Who outside of the committee is endorsing TAG?

The answers to questions one and three are for another blogpost. Dale Hatfield’s bio didn’t provide any immediate insights for me into his policy leanings.  While Leslie Daigle of the Internet Society is quoted in the PRwire endorsing TAG, we’ll probably have to wait on other endorsements in the months ahead for a real answer to question one. For now, let’s focus on the second question: Who are the initial sponsors of TAG?

I want to look at the founding members of TAG to try and pose a conjecture about what type of policies they might endorse. From this, we can also infer how powerful is their collective voice.  The list of founding members — 10 in all — is full of big names: AT&T, Inc., Cisco Systems, Inc., Comcast Corporation, DISH Network, L.L.C., EchoStar Corporation, Google, Inc., Intel Corporation, Level 3 Communications, LLC, Microsoft Corporation, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon.

My first observation is that this list of players is seriously tilted towards “the tubes“  and away from content — no surprise considering this is a broadband group.



I just hope that we can resolve Net-Neutrality before this group starts having a larger voice.  While the above graph might be able to bring these players into lockstep on Net-Neutrality (as each would benefit from charging content creators for access) the committee is otherwise surprisingly diverse.  I consider Verizon to be a half-cable and half-telephone company — see my excel file here.

Bringing together companies from telephone, cable, and satellite seems promising because it’s important that these traditional competitors can find common standards and consensus.  Thankfully, while currently occupied by major players, the committee is committed to “diverse membership” and experts from other companies, non-profit groups, academics, and the Internet community will be invited to participate.

If Leslie Daigle hadn’t endorsed Professor Hatfield and TAG, I might be more concerned. As it stands, the Internet Society (ISOC) provides an open and diverse forum for discussing these issues amongst experts — essentially, they’ve been doing what TAG proposes to do, only ISOC’s been in the game for 18 years. Hopefully these two forums will help focus the discussion around broadband and provide consensus based solutions, rather than proving themselves redundant.

Today, Peter Orzag, head of the OMB, gave a critical speech that claimed that government agencies should make deep cuts across the board.  While I won’t conjecture about how realistic these plans are, I will say that I was very excited about the focus of his speech. Orzag firmly stated that “closing the IT gap is perhaps the single most important step we can take in creating a more efficient and responsive government.”  I could not agree more.

He then broke down how far behind government has fallen, stating,

Both the public and private sectors productivity growth were matched through 1987. But the private sector’s growth rose by 1.5 percent annually through 1995, while the public sector grew by only 0.4 percent per year. As the private sector’s productivity took off again after 1995, the public sector lagged behind.

Amusingly, Orzag followed this statement by noting that he can’t provide recent statistics because the Bureau of Labor Statistics stopped collecting these statistics due to budget cuts.  This seems to demonstrate the disconnect between budget cuts and efficiency. Thankfully, we’ve known for years that technology is responsible for increases in productivity.  But even more important than the gains from new technology is the productivity gained when lots of people know how to use it.

While Orzag emphasizes physical technology (i.e., old computers), I am equally concerned that federal workers have their hands tied by the usage of technology. The federal government is only very slowly beginning to use social networking to its full advantage. Concerns over privacy, messaging, and security are holding federal employees back. A great example of this stoppage lies with an intern at the EPA who posted on a private blog about the benefits of vegetarianism.  She was attacked by officials at the Department of Agriculture and those in the meat industry.  Speaking as a blogger and as a citizen, I think the real step toward “closing the IT gap” needs to include the creation of a political environment that both promotes government transparency and empowers government workers to use the web without fear.

Many of us twenty-somethings remember the early 1990s as a time when the collective political establishment seemed to be censoring music, television, video games, and the internet for the sake of “the children.”  While it was frustrating to experience this period as a kid, parents were empowered by it, and the fear-mongering really only went so far.

Thankfully in 2010, with the internet revolution in full pace and over a decade of evidence-based study, concerns for America’s children can be more rationally addressed. The Online Safety and Technology Working Group, created by congressional law, has been operating under the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) for the past 15 months to release today its 148 page report titled “Youth Safety on a Living Internet.”

Not surprisingly, the type of large scale problems identified by the report are cyberbullying and sexting — problems that we’ve had with children for generations (i.e., bullying and sex).  That’s not to say that we shouldn’t try to address these issues.  Interestingly, the study mentions that concurrent with the rise in Internet bullying is a drop in physical bullying, down to 15% of students in 2008 from 22% in 2003.

Of course, the paper also discusses the continual problems of child pornography and adult predators.  These issues are put in perceptive: evidence suggests that sexual assault is still most likely caused by someone who knows the child targeted.  The report does a pretty good job establishing that how we interact online should be very similar to how we act in person:  So, parents have a role in educating their children about the danger signs, which are basically the same online as they are in the park.

Although I was concerned about the report’s emphasis on data retention — 1 of the 4 subcommittees established was dedicated to it — thankfully, OSTWG suggests that we assess the 2008 PROTECT Our Children Act before making data retention mandatory. The Working Group also made some promising strides with their suggestions for ongoing technological innovation, which give parents more control, and their recommended changes for how we teach net literacy.

While I’m a far way off from having children of my own, when I do I’ll probably fit into the camp that might not let their children watch television, but will let them have complete internet access.  Kids learn more through generative communication than mass broadcasting.

Today I attended a conference hosted by Public Knowledge titled, “Toward a Sustainable Spectrum Policy: Rethinking Federal Spectrum.”  There were two panels.  The first addressed a Public Knowledge white paper on developing a Federal Spectrum Secondary Market.  The Second discussed how to improve Federal Spectrum Management.

Since I should probably read the white paper before I provide my opinion, I’m going to address the second panel.  As tends to happen in this circle, the discussion shifted from the subject of spectrum management to the best way of liberating spectrum from government use. It should be no  surprise that this line of thought brings together the strange alliance of telco giants, like Verizon who are interested in their slice of the spectrum, and grizzled techies who see the opportunity to get more unlicensed spectrum.  Meanwhile, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), the government agency that allocates spectrum, is concerned that it doesn’t have the resources, political capital, know-how, or clearance to go toe-to-toe with DOD, FAA, or the NOAA and demand greater efficiency.

So the question becomes how do you empower NTIA so that its efficiently assigning federal spectrum? A number of market and non-market recommendations arose.

• Kathleen Ham from T-Mobile called for market mechanisms like a fee for use, which would result in agencies “valuing” their spectrum.
• Gregory Rose, an economic consultant, argued that market mechanisms undervalue public goods and that NTIA needs more authority.
• Marc MacCarthy, a Georgetown professor, explained that shadow pricing might be sufficient to wake up agencies to inefficiencies.
• Kathleen Ham came back to emphasize that inefficiency is partially based on equipment: if an agency uses an old analog system, they’re going to be inefficient. We need a fund for upgrading these systems.

I’m a supporter of developing hybrid systems.  First, I think that Marc MacCarthy’s shadow pricing idea is great, although I think Gregory Rose is totally right that pricing estimates will undervalue the public good, , particularly if based on the market estimates. How do you value accurate weather data, or plane navigation data, etc.?  I think that market mechanisms are fine as long as government sets the price.  Fines should be based on the efficiency of spectrum use, not the amount of spectrum.  Fees could be allocated to government or agency specific accounts to raise money for upgrades.

Spectrum allocation is, thankfully, wonkey enough that these issues of market mechanisms and regulation aren’t politicized (yet?).  There are certainly lots of opportunities for bipartisan consensus and pulling together a number of good ideas.

(For a quick gander at the spectrum we’re talking about and who owns it see this nifty infographic. Note: the frequency allocations depicts the spectrum as of 2003.)

So this is probably pretty obvious, but I just made the connection that the 7 subway extension in New York City which extends from Times Square to the Javits Convention Center and Hudson Yards is just blocks away from the future end of the High Line.

I don’t know if my readers are familiar with the High Line, but its an abandoned elevated rail that goes up the western side of chelsea and the meatpacking district.  I’ve walked the first extension that extends to the Gallery District.  This is a great model for urban park development, it rewards pedestrian traffic, develops community through a public space, and if it wraps around Hudson Yards, will have easy metro accessibility.

Having walked the park this past Easter, I’d highly recommend that you check it out sooner. However, if you have to wait the 7 subway extension is scheduled to be done by 2013 and the high line should get within a couple blocks of there by the winter of 2010-2011. In infrastructure terms two years is like next week, hence my excitement.

Phase 1 was pulled off so elegantly, I just have to hope that the city government pulls off the development in Hudson Yards right.  Ideally, next time I go, I’d rather not take a cab to go for a walk.

You can support the park by checking out  the Friends of the High Line’s website.

I just listened to an NPR interview with Kevin Bankston a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Freedom Foundation discussing ECPA, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.  The short segment did a wonderful job identifying the  ridiculousness of existing government policy for accessing out online content.  ECPA, the principal law responsible for guiding government policy on electronic privacy was passed in 1986.  The Digital Due Process coalition (DDP), which includes in addition to EFF, Google, AOL, the ACLU and others.

• Type: Emails contents, online docs, private web 2.0 hosting.
• Presently: There’s a patchwork of laws that justify getting your content without a warrant
• Ideally: Search warrant issued based on probable cause.

Principal 2: Access to Mobile Location Data

• Type: Any mobile data
• Presently: Ambiguous legal framework, requiring either subpoena or a warrant
• Ideally: Search warrant  issued based on probable cause.

Principal 3:  Access to Transactional Data

• Type: Dialed number information, IP address, Internet port, email to and from,
• Presently: Court required to issue order if prosecutor says it is relevant to the case.
• Ideally: A judicial finding that law enforcement has offered specific and articulable facts demonstrating on  reasonable grounds that the information is relevant and material.

Principal 4: Access to Subscriber Identifying Data and Stored Transactional Information

• Type: Name, address, call or session records, length of service and type of service, and method of payment.
• Presently: Its relatively easy for law enforcement to get large data sets to “fish” for answers.
• Ideally: Identifiable information ie. phone number or IP address, subpoena sufficient unless the “government sought records about groups.

Principals 1 and 2, are those policies most in need of reform, as they’re concerned with the content of online communications and should be changes to clearly require a warrant.  Establishing the distinction between content, and identifiable or interaction data is important for developing a consistent policy.  This enables users to put more faith that their privacy is respected online, and provides the justice system with consistent reasonable policies to follow.

This blog will keep abreast of the DDP coalition, and hopefully legislation to reform the ECPA.