DISQUS

I mostly agree, but have never understood this argument:

"As much as it stemmed illegal immigration, a national ID and background check system would send law-abiding American citizens into a bureaucratic identity vortex."

Don't we already have a de facto national ID (albeit a very poor one)? It's called the social security card. As an American citizen, I cannot legally work in my own country without producing this ID card. Glitches in the SSA database already send plenty of law-abiding American citizens into an "identity vortex." It seems like libertarians live in denial on this point. As long as we don't call it a national ID, we don't have one?

They are permitted to spend up to 5% of their budget on this type of lobbying. I would imagine that it doesn't cost very much to draft and send a mass e-mail.

This is really Adam's domain of expertise, but here's an Amicus brief submitted by Sen. McCain in support of COPA:

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/Supreme_Court/bri...

Thanks for this post. How can McCain oppose net neutrality, but simultaneously embrace wireless net neutrality? Isn't this like saying, "I believe the government should take more money out of people's paychecks, but I categorically oppose tax increases."

Let's be honest here. Do you really think McCain has read Wu's piece on wireless Carterfone? Of course not. It is no coincidence that he is receiving tech advice from Meg Whitman (former CEO of eBay/Skype) and Pablo Chavez (senior Google lobbyist and former McCain chief counsel).

McCain opposes "unnecessary" regulation of the Internet, and you proclaim:

"Even a hardened Ron Paul/Bob Taft/Grover Cleveland/Jack Randolph-survivalist/libertarian-crank like me can rally behind that banner."

Really? As James pointed out last week, the FCC currently "does not regulate the Internet or Internet Service Providers." By including "unnecessary," he commits to begin regulating the Internet...as long as its "necessary." This is a loophole any lobbyist can drive a truck through. Defining "necessary" regulation is like defining "reasonable" network management. As long as Meg Whitman and Pablo Chavez are involved, my guess is that "necessary" will mean any regulation that benefits Skype or Google.

Furthermore, did you notice that McCain also released "Ensuring the Personal Security and Privacy of Americans in the Digital Age." Essentially, you can think of it as the McCain manifesto on protecting the children. It reminds us of his staunch support for COPA, and his sponsorship of COPPA. Obama has him beat by a mile on this issue:

"Obama values our First Amendment freedoms and our right to artistic expression and does not view regulation as the answer to these concerns. Instead, an Obama administration will give parents the tools and information they need to control what their children see on television and the Internet in ways fully consistent with the First Amendment."

In Alex's defense, I don't believe he is calling for government action to force his vision on Apple. His opinions appear to be nothing more than the rantings of a frustrated Apple customer. Considering his general affinity for the company and its products, he is doing exactly what he should be doing in a free market--complaining loudly and hoping that the company will listen. If throngs of customers agree with Alex and threaten to switch, the company will change its policies voluntarily.

Don--Microsoft is already attempting to buy its way into the market (this is how the Live Search Cash Back program works).

Wouldn't it be amusing if Google turned around and accused Microsoft of predatory pricing? As you describe it, Microsoft would technically be diverting profits from its software monopoly to offer advertisers "below market" rates.

As Declan posted yesterday, antitrust can be molded to suit just about any purpose...

The lawbreaking you describe does not fit this situation. Aren't all of these examples offenses against the state (or "the people")? Isn't copyright violation a civil offense against a private party?

What if I steal your lawnmower and put a big sign on my lawn that says "HAHAHA I STOLE YOUR LAWNMOWER." You would seem to be arguing that because the lawnmower resides within my walls, you can't sue me to get it back.

This is the argument put forth by YouTube users who infringe Viacom's copyrights. By posting a video, they blatantly advertise their copyright infringement and declare legal sanctuary within YouTube's walls.

Jim,

When the Washington Post referred to Google as "Big Brother," you wrote at length about this faulty analogy:

http://techliberation.com/2008/05/23/headline-w...

How is this analogy different?

J. Edgar Hoover was not the CEO of a private company...

I completely agree that data minimization is needed to prevent the government from tapping vast databases of personal information. However, the Google/Viacom situation concerns a dispute between two private parties, not government data-mining.

Why are you concerned that Viacom could use this information to sue copyright infringers? These users are stealing Viacom's property. Why shouldn't they be sued? Users should know that privacy is not a shield for theft, unless you are arguing that Google customers enjoy some search engine/user confidentiality.

We obviously don't want the legislature micromanaging the font size of text on home pages, but I think you are too cavalier in your treatment of this issue.

On the Internet, privacy is currency. The point of the privacy policy is not to protect a user's privacy, but to disclose how much privacy the user must forfeit to enjoy the service.

To me, a site without an up-front privacy notice implies that the service is "free," when in fact it is not. While the California law may be absurd, existing protections against fraud may apply here. What if a restaurant were to change its prices after you've finished your meal and stick you with a bill much higher than expected?

If you have to use the service before you can access the privacy policy, you've already paid before learning the price.

As you imply in your last sentence, this would seem to apply to all third party transactions. Do you read this to include display ad platforms?

Another important point that I see here:

The NY law enshrines the pay-per-click advertisement model as the established, final, and perfect system for online advertising. Once it is defined and settled as a matter of law that this is how online advertising should be defined, it excludes all other (potentially superior) models.

What about the new Microsoft Live Search CashBack model? If this program proves successful, advertisers will prefer to pay based on the effectiveness of the advertisement (whether the customer actually makes a purchase) vs. pay-per-click. Based on this New York law, would sites that advertise using Microsoft's display ad platform be liable for sales tax, while those using Google/Doubleclick's would not?

I tend to agree with Richard here. Many ad-supported online services appear to be "free" to consumers, even though this isn't the case. Users pay for these services with their privacy. By not disclosing its privacy policy up front, Google is failing to reveal the actual price of its service until after I've already made a purchase (or in this case executed a search).

It is true that a competitive market allows me to choose between several search engines, but Google makes the false and deceptive claim that their service is free (by not posting its privacy policy up front), while all of its competitors disclose their actual prices. How can I possibly shop around for the best service if Google doesn't charge me until after I've consumed the product?

Jim,

This distinction is not as clear-cut as you imply. Under the warrantless wiretap/national security letter model, private companies act as an arm of the government (from a privacy standpoint). It is not a stretch of the imagination to conclude that Google acts as an agent of "Big Brother."

Tim:

As a society, we believe that discrimination based on intrinsic factors beyond our control is wrong. Certainly, you could devise solutions for housing discrimination that leave "the market free to work for the majority of individuals with average or below-average risks." For instance, the government could guarantee the property values in white neighborhoods to insure against the risk that minorities would trigger declines in home prices. We opt instead for a blanket anti-discrimination policy because we believe that racial discrimination is wrong.

As a molecular biologist, I see no difference between genes and race. I have also seen no evidence that GINA will (to quote enigma) "make the market for health care insurance much more disfunctional." No health insurance company currently uses genetic information to assign risk. GINA will simply preserve this status quo in the future. There is simply no evidence to suggest that people's decision to purchase health insurance is based on perceived genetic risk. Most of us already have access to excellent indicators of future health problems: our family history. You can learn a great deal about your chances of developing heart disease, diabetes or cancer by just looking at your relatives. Most states already forbid using family history in underwriting decisions, and the industry has not collapsed.

Most people miss an important point in this debate. GINA will save health insurance companies money. Without GINA, many people will avoid genetic testing due to the threat of discrimination. Once this threat is eliminated, patients will feel more comfortable with the technology, and they will learn a great deal about potential future health risks. Armed with this information, patients and their doctors can discuss changes in behavior which will help mitigate these risks. Because preventative care is infinitely less expensive than disease treatment, the insurers will save a bundle.

This is a vast oversimplification of the debate. If Big Brother can view my library records under the PATRIOT Act, why can't they serve Google with a national security letter and learn everything I've searched for (and don't give me Google's line about how IP addresses don't equate to identity--if Big Brother can serve an NSL on Google, they can do the same with an ISP)?

I don't think its fair to say "let's not confuse the two."

Search engines have a legitimate interest in collecting data to provide good customer service. Most people understand this. What they really fear is that companies are amassing huge databases of personal information (taken without adequate permission or explanation) which could fall into the hands of the government. This is the crux of the privacy debate in the EU. Let's not forget how Yahoo! helped the Chinese government arrest a political dissident.