Tech Policy Podcast

In the “Golden Age of Surveillance,” are limits on government data collection really enough to protect privacy? Is mass surveillance inevitable? In the past, there was a “wall” between intelligence agencies and law enforcement. This separation protected Americans from being prosecuted for crimes unrelated to national security with information swept up in intelligence operations. But, in a post-9/11 world, government is increasingly blurring the lines between the NSA and your local police department. Evan is joined by Jake Laperruque, Privacy Fellow at the Constitution Project. They discuss proposed limitations on how government uses data after they’re collected. Is a chain link fence the sensible alternative to a wall? For more, see Jake’s paper.

WhatsApp has over a billion users worldwide, and the Facebook-owned encrypted messaging app is particularly popular in Brazil, where it’s used by 93% of Internet users. Earlier this month, a Brazilian court shut down the app across the country after the company failed to comply with a court order demanding data related to a drug trafficking investigation. Evan is joined by Javier Pallero, policy analyst in Latin America for Access Now, and his American counterpart, Amie Stepanovich. They discuss WhatsApp’s woes in Brazil and what the shutdowns mean for the broader global debate over encryption.

News broke yesterday that Google will soon face a 3 billion euro fine from the European Commission after 6 years of antitrust investigations from EU regulators. In the past, the EC has accused Google of unfairly promoting its own services in search results at the expense of its competitors. Now, regulators are complaining that Google requires smartphone manufacturers to make Google search the default and pre-install Google apps on phones running its Android operating system. Evan and Berin discuss the merits and implications of the case. Is Google really abusing its dominance in the search and smartphone markets?

The European Union (EU) is an interesting case for tech policy. While individual member states get direction from Brussels, where the EU is headquartered, they also create policies within their own borders. Should technology regulations be harmonized across the EU to create a “Digital Single Market?” Or should EU nations compete over crafting the best policies and attracting the most startups and investment? What can the US learn from this dynamic? Evan is joined by Dominique Lazanski, Public Policy Director at GSMA, an international trade association representing mobile operators. They discuss the latest tech headlines from the EU, their connection to the United States, and what it all means for Internet governance.

The Internet is getting smarter. And as the way we use the Internet is changing, the way we manage its traffic must change too. Evan and AEI Economics Research Associate Evelyn Smith discuss software-defined networking (SDN), it's benefits, and policy implications. How does SDN compare to road traffic? Does net neutrality make broadband “dumb?” For more, see Evelyn's post in Tech Policy Corner.

FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai joins the show to discuss his dissenting vote in the FCC’s approval of the Charter-Time Warner merger. Late last month, the FCC and Department of Justice (DoJ) approved the merger of the sixth and third biggest broadband providers in America. And even though the DoJ determined that the merger will benefit consumers without harming competition, the FCC extorted a series of onerous conditions from the two companies in its review process. For that reason, Republican FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai dissented. Pai discusses his dissent with Evan and Berin. Do the harms of the merger conditions outweigh the benefits? What does this say about the FCC’s process? Is merger review an appropriate avenue for policymaking?

Uber and Lyft have ceased operations in Austin, TX following a failed vote on a referendum to overturn regulations adopted in December by the city council. The regulations restricted where passengers could be picked up and dropped off, required ride-sharing cars to be clearly labeled with company logos, and mandated data reporting and fingerprint background checks. What does this mean for the future of ride-sharing in Austin? Will other cities follow suit? Jared Meyer, a research fellow at the Manhattan Institute, discuss. For more, see Jared’s op-ed in Forbes.

Should innovation require permission? Should entrepreneurs have to get government approval before experimenting with new products and business models? As technology has rapidly evolved over the last several decades, regulators have taken different approaches to creating and adapting rules to keep up. In his book Permissionless Innovation, Adam Thierer, senior research fellow with the Technology Policy Program at the Mercatus Center, examines the conflict between the two main visions for regulating emerging technologies: permissionless innovation and prior restraint. He and Evan discuss the two visions, real world examples of their impact, and what government can do to protect consumers while providing certainty and freedom to innovators. You can get Adam’s book on Amazon.

Is Facebook biased against conservatives? Gizmodo ran a story today based on interviews with former contractors for Facebook, who “curated” the otherwise-machine-generated “Trending Topics” next to the Newsfeed (the real heart of the Facebook experience). They allege that other “curators” implemented their own political bias in writing blurbs about trending stories, excluding conservative themes and publications, and injecting left-of-center stories. Gizmodo acknowledges that no one alleges Facebook management actually directed such bias, but buries this point, which most outraged conservatives have missed. So what’s going on? Is Facebook really out to get the Right? Or is this just independent contractors failing to uphold company policy on a tangential feature of the site? Should Facebook simply do more to enforce its own stated policies of official neutrality? Evan and Berin (of course) discuss.

Taxi monopolies have clashed with ride-sharing companies like Uber and Lyft across the country. But what happens when the clash is between two taxi companies? Ken Leininger, founder of Ken’s Cab, found out the hard way. When he tried to operate his small cab company in Little Rock, AR, he found out that local law protected the city’s taxi monopoly from competition. He and the Institute for Justice (IJ) are suing the city. Evan is joined by Allison Daniel, an attorney for IJ. They discuss the case and its broader implications for competition and consumers. Are mom-and-pop taxi companies the unsung victims of outdated regulation? Is this a new front in the battles over the sharing economy? For more, check out IJ’s case site.

Has the War on Drugs become a war on phones? The Apple v. FBI saga made encryption a household issue, but while that case focused on counter-terrorism, the vast majority of law enforcement confrontations with the tech sector deal with drug investigations. Is the “going dark” problem really an issue of national security? Or is law enforcement just trying to solve more drug crimes by getting into locked phones? Evan and Eli Dourado, director of the Mercatus Center’s Technology Policy Program, discuss how the War on Drugs fuels efforts to undermine encryption and cybersecurity. For more, see Eli’s post in Plain Text.

What role should telephone and other technology companies play in national security and surveillance? Who should be in charge of collecting and storing data about our phone calls? The NSA? Or the companies themselves? In a recent paper, Mieke Eoyang, VP of the National Security Program at Third Way, argues that the telecommunications industry should play a greater role in the shaping and enacting of surveillance policy. She and Evan discuss what that role should be and policy recommendations that would protect privacy and economic interests while still allowing the government to access the information it needs. Can foreign customers of US tech companies trust that their data are protected from mass, indiscriminate surveillance?

You may have seen this story in the news: a child runs up thousands of dollars worth of purchases on her parent’s Apple, Google, or Amazon app store account. In pretty much every case, the companies have been happy to refund the purchases when asked, as parents were clearly unaware of what their children were buying. Nonetheless, the FTC has taken enforcement action against all three companies. While Google and Apple settled, Amazon fought back. Late last month, a federal district court granted the FTC’s motion for summary judgment against Amazon over charges for unauthorized in-app purchases. Evan and Berin discuss the case and its implications. Should the government be involved in product design and user experience? For more, see Geoff Manne’s post in Truth on the Market.

How does one regulate Bitcoin and other virtual currencies? This is question is puzzling many lawmakers and bureaucrats struggling to navigate a new, decentralized industry that’s still in its nascent stage. Isn’t the point of Bitcoin not to be regulated? And who would even have jurisdiction anyway? Evan is joined by Peter Van Valkenburgh, Director of Research at Coin Center, a think tank focused on cryptocurrency issues. They discuss the past, present, and future of Bitcoin regulation.

Over the last few years, bitcoin and other virtual currencies have become increasingly viable alternatives to traditional money. Yet for most people, bitcoin is still a pretty obscure subject. What exactly is bitcoin? How does the blockchain work? Who’s in charge? Where does it derive its value? What does it mean to mine bitcoin? Evan is joined by Michael Bombace, TechFreedom adjunct fellow, who sheds some light on the world of cryptocurrency in today’s episode.

As the demand for mobile data explodes, so does the need for spectrum holders to free up the airwaves for wireless carriers. While free, over-the-air television is still available using an antenna, Americans are much more likely to get their video through cable or Internet streaming. Last month, the FCC began its incentive auction of broadcast spectrum, whereby television stations sell spectrum to the government to then be sold to wireless carriers. Many broadcasters have voiced concerns that the auction may place excessive burdens on television stations that decide remain on the air. Ryan Radia, Associate Director of Technology Studies at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, joins the show.

This week, the Department of Justice approved the merger of Charter and Time Warner Cable, the sixth and third biggest broadband providers in America. If the agency thinks the merger will benefit consumers without harming competition, why is the FCC attaching conditions to the deal? Is this consumer protection? Or regulation by extortion? Evan and Berin discuss. For more, see our statement.

Last week, Uber settled a class-action lawsuit alleging that the company misclassified its drivers as independent contractors rather than employees. While the settlement carries no legal precedent, it does mean that Uber can continue with its current business model while paying out up to $100 million to the plaintiffs — with $25 million alone going to attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan, who has sued several gig-economy companies. The rest will be split among roughly 385,000 drivers in California and Massachusetts who can expect an average of $80 each in winnings. Uber also agreed to increase transparency around its driver ratings and deactivation policies, among other concessions. Jared Meyer, a research fellow at the Manhattan Institute, joins to discuss the settlement and what it means for the gig economy going forward.

The FCC wants to “unlock” the cable box. But shouldn’t the agency be helping to kill the box? The FCC recently proposed rules that would force cable, satellite, and telco video providers to make their programming accessible through third-party apps. Sure, it sounds great in theory, but the proposal poses serious concerns around privacy, piracy, and the way that independent and minority-owned programmers present their content. Moreover, the video industry is already moving away from clunky, costly boxes and offering programming through their own apps on devices like Roku, Apple TV, and Chromecast. Just last week, Comcast announced that its entire X1 interface would be available through an app. In the Golden Age of Television, what exactly is the FCC trying to solve? Is having too many apps and remotes really a national emergency? For more, see our press release and comments, which explains why the FCC’s proposal is doomed to fail in court.

These days, it costs almost nothing to publish information online. So why isn’t more government information available to the public? Taxpayers spend $100 million a year on the Congressional Research Service (CRS), but only Congress gets to decide whether the research gets published. Is that fair? Should the CRS just put it all online? Evan is joined by Kevin Kosar, Senior Fellow at the R Street Institute and a supporter of legislation that would make all CRS reports public. Is there any potential harm to releasing this information? Could more transparency improve citizens’ view of government? For more, see Kevin’s post on Medium.