Please Regulate My Rival – Redux

Oh the irony of today’s headline news about Microsoft filing an antitrust complaint against Google with the European Commission. Clash of the titans! Microsoft’s troubles with the EC have been notorious for years. Now, virtually shut out of the search market – and in my opinion this has something to do with Bing being a truly inferior product – Redmond is turning to these powerful regulators of a huge market segment for help.

Google has become something of a monster in the eCommerce world – basically wanting to own everything, and getting away with a lot of it. A March 21 release from Universum (a consulting firm) showed that a full 25% of recent college grads want to work for Google.  People just like them – because it’s a young company, because Sergey Brin and Larry Page seem like regular guys who hit it big with a big idea, because their playful logo is everywhere cool (except Facebook)… Microsoft and Mr. Gates just don’t give out the same hip vibe – they are past their pinnacle. In fact, they are symbolic of a highly structured, often drudgerous work environment.

I can’t help but wonder if the coolness factor has subliminally played on regulators – or is the market just moving so fast that their legal heads are spinning? In its day, Microsoft tried to do much of the same as Google is doing – albeit with different technologies. Where the U.S. failed to act, the EC put its foot down. Stung, they are now turning the tables. In truth, they are probably right – Google has pushed its empire to the extreme, with no end in sight. In such circumstances, it is interesting to see how those who would otherwise uphold ‘free markets’ think regulation might not be such a bad thing afterall.  This is going to be something to watch!

The Approach of Internet Regulation [and the End of the World as We Know It]

 

The March 2 Communications Summit, put on by the Institute for Policy Innovation, presented some diverse and compelling perspectives on key issues in the Communications industry, particularly relating to government regulation. While I’d expect an anti-regulation stance from the sponsor, they did a credible job of civilly presenting a variety of perspectives in a town known of late for less than civil discourse. 

‘Communications’ in this context means what most of the world now refers to as ‘ICT’ – Information and Communications Technology – but many in the US still think of as ‘telecomm’.  Communications includes the ecosystem of internet-centric businesses, hardware vendors, software vendors, networks, content providers, and the data-gathering and advertising machinery that pervades much of the online world.

Given the aggregation of mountains of personal data about all of us who dwell online, the implications of such data moving freely around the world in nanoseconds, and the increasing incidence of taking content without paying for it [music, movies, etc.], regulation is coming—soon.

Keynote speaker Rick Boucher, Former Chairman of the House Commerce Communications Subcommittee and co-author of draft legislation on internet regulation, prefaced his remarks by stating that net neutrality as an issue is dead. The Senate and President Obama are not going to allow any overturn or spend any more time on it. So, he advocates focusing on what’s feasible at this point.

He predicts real action by Congress, perhaps in as little as a year, on extending privacy rights to internet users. This could include mandating ‘do not track’ options on web sites, providing ‘opt in ‘or ‘opt out’ options for data collection, compelling full disclosure of how your gathered data is collected and used, and variations thereof for certain kinds of data—social security numbers, passport numbers, geo-location info, etc. Boucher likened this movement to other major privacy protection legislation of recent times such as HIPAA and Gramm-Leach-Bliley.

It’s a complex issue that’s going to require hard-wired technical adjustment as well as changes to business practices. The implications for advertisers and aggregators are obvious, but these changes will also extend to other aspects of marketing and communications. Lest corporations fear too much, Boucher also predicts that if/when this is legislated, grievance handling would be managed by the FCC and NOT by allowing individuals to sue companies for a potential breach of their privacy. I suppose I could live with that.

As another of the Summit’s speakers put it, transformational change is when the technology is so pervasive you no longer notice it [like fish not noticing the ocean]. The ever-connected Millenials are certainly there. If privacy concerns prove enough to get even this contentious Congress to agree and act, you can bet the times are a-changing.

how ‘free’ should free be on Facebook?

Yesterday, I received an unsolicited email asking for my activism around Facebook. The email stated that “Whether Facebook likes it or not, they are in the business of human rights and security, so they better start investing in it. And it’s not just repressive regimes that are exploiting Facebook’s security vulnerabilities, identity thieves and hackers steal people’s information off Facebook everyday too.”  The message goes on to call on Facebook to better secure their platform to protect people revolting against dictators – this seems clearly in response to the MidEast situation – and suggest four direct courses of action.

Anonymize. Repressive regimes of the world love Facebook because if an activist wants to use Facebook they have a choice: reveal their identity to their oppressors or be deleted by Facebook (which is exactly what happened to the Egyptian Facebook page “We are all Khaled Said” when its administrators used a false identity).

Secure. Facebook should install HTTPS (as opposed to HTTP) – a simple, cheap, and highly effective security solution – as a default feature across the entire platform, not just as an opt-in for users buried deep in your account settings.

Protect. Facebook needs to recognize that human rights defenders who use their platform require special care. To protect their content, secure their accounts, and appeal wrong decisions, a “concierge service” needs to be set up that can respond quickly to the genuine risk these users face.

Resist. Every day, hundreds of millions of people entrust their private information to Facebook, but its policies detailing how private data will be shared are weak. Facebook should resist overboard requests from governments on either side of the firewall to reveal user information, disclose no more information about their users than is legally required, and inform the user so they can legally respond.

Now in principle, I support these calls to action, and want these protections for people who are speaking out for democracy or a better way of life in their home countries, and for ordinary people who just want their personal information protected –  as a FB user, I’m one of them. But I also know that there are just some things you shouldn’t post online since they might come back at you some day – nothing is really secure.

What unsettled me over this message, enough that it was still with me this morning, was a simple question – is all of this Facebook’s job? Is Facebook in the ‘business of human rights and security?’ Should they be required to set up a ‘concierge service’?  While anonymity is important for democracy seekers fearful of repressive regimes, what about child predators? Some of these suggestions look fairly straightforward, others do not. I’m a bit conflicted here – would welcome others’ thoughts.

Official US Policy on the Internet

I was privileged to be among a couple hundred students and press who attended Hillary Clinton’s on campus speech today about Internet Freedom. After the happenings in Egypt, the new protests in Iran, Yemin and elsewhere, and the whole Wikileaks broohaha, she came forward with a clear, firm policy position on keeping the Internet free. Regardless of what one thinks of Hillary, it was very exciting to be in the room. She is totally in command of her space, polished, poised and on point. A heckler was tackled by police a few feet away from her, yet she never even glanced. In the wake of the Tuscon shootings, I was impressed [although security at today’s venue was tight!].

She referenced 3 key Internet challenges – 1) Achieving libery and security; 2)protecting transparency and confidentiality; and 3) protecting free expression while fostering civility. All of these are obviously timely and are big issues associated with the Internet that are only going to increase. Her point, of course, was that the U.S. was trying to balance all of these.  With regard to Wikileaks, she flat out called it a theft akin to smuggling confidential documents in a briefcase. It was interesting to see her directly address this issue, which caused the State Dept so much embarrassment and trouble. She contended, and in my opinion rightly, that governments need to keep some secrets for good reason – security, safety of those working in risky positions, etc. She also offered that a better answer to ‘offensive’ speech online was more speech – but of the nature to express what’s right, rather than ignoring or brushing what’s wrong under the rug.

Of the many points she made, the speech was obviously a timely policy statement on how the Administration is regarding and approaching Internet Freedom in this incredibly tumultuous time. The fact that such a speech was made by so prominent a person was indicative of the importance of the issue. The State Dept has an enhanced public diplomacy campaign of tweeting in Arabic, with Chinese, Farsi and other languages spoken in internet-repressed areas being added soon. Fascinating stuff.

suddenly, everyone cares about foreign policy?

The crisis in Tunisia and full week of growing mass protests in Egypt have gripped the American public – as well they should.  The images are compelling, the consequences and potential dominoes still unknown, and the cause is something that America has said it wants – democracy in the Middle East. It is coming about in a way that is perhaps surprising, but how else are the masses to get their voices heard in dictatorial, religiously constrained regions beset by poverty?  My readings for one of this week’s classes centered on the often tense dynamic of US Presidential and Congressional foreign policies.  Articles from 8 experts all said that foreign affairs are generally an issue of much less concern to Americans, and just from my own experience I’d have to agree.

Yet history is happening right there on the television, 24×7 – Anderson Cooper has arrived and that makes this an official Big Event in the U.S.  Anything that furthers civil discourse, understanding of other governments and cultures, reveals the consequences [direct or indirect] of U.S. policies and actions, teaches civics and history, and makes us think outside our own comfort zone is, in my opinion, a good thing.

My hope is that some new interest among the millions watching the drama unfold will develop into a greater, enduring awareness. My concern is that once Mubarek is gone, which I believe is inevitable in the very near term, short attention spans will again turn inward.  We as a country have an excellent opportunity to learn and grow from what’s going on, to perhaps better understand what it is really like to live in the challenging conditions of the Middle East.  This is  not the Islamic student uprising of the late 70s.  This is a US-friendly, moderate muslim country struggling with an incredibly difficult internal situation. I hope that more Americans will further open their minds to the bigger world, and bigger problems, that go one outside our borders, but that will affect us politically, economically and morally for perhaps years to come.