Disqus - Latest Comments for Adam_Thierer

Re: 5 Great Books on Innovation & Technology Policy

Adam Thierer — Sun, 20 Sep 2015 19:06:23 -0000

Thanks, Stewart. That's very kind. But I can't compete with this crowd. These are the real pros. I just preach their gospel !

Re: The Debate over the Sharing Economy: Talking Points & Recommended Reading

Adam Thierer — Wed, 01 Oct 2014 11:40:01 -0000

Thanks BIll! I added it to the list.

Re: Paying for Permissionless Innovation

Adam Thierer — Mon, 04 Aug 2014 08:58:35 -0000

Adam:

You’re absolutely correct in noting that, “The biggest, most
consequential enemy of permissionless innovation in the US is undoubtedly the
FDA.” And, as a method of breaking the outrageous current regulatory logjam the
FDA has created, I can see what you are aiming to accomplish with your “permissionless
premium” proposal.

But let’s transition this conversation away from economics
and into the field of ethics by asking: Why should anyone suffering from a
serious ailment -- especially a highly debilitating or life-threatening disease
-- be required to pay a tax to get around a regulatory regime that denies
humans the freedom to choose their own treatments? All that is really needed
here is a sensible consent regime: The law should simply establish a set of clear
guidelines by which drug or device makers can obtain formal consent for
potentially risky, untested products.

To ask those seeking treatments to pay a Pigovian tax to get
around a regulatory system that unfairly defines them access to things they
would otherwise have the freedom to use or ingest strikes me as adding insult
to (literal!) injury. Moreover, those seeking the untested treatments are likely
already going to be forced to pay a pretty significant market premium for
access to the new drugs or devices anyway. I’m certainly not suggesting that
they should have free access to those new drugs or devices, merely that they
should not be forced to pay a premium to account for an unjust regulatory
regime that they had no hand in creating and which now threatens their health
and happiness.

The freedom to choose what we ingest and how we treat
ourselves strikes me as a fairly fundamental human right that is worth fighting
for without compromise. Give patients better information, educate them about
risks, establish formal consent policies, and then let them decide what’s best
from there.

(Oh, thanks for mentioning my book, Adam! I appreciate it.)

Cheers -- Adam Thierer

Re: Muddling Through: How We Learn to Cope with Technological Change

Adam Thierer — Fri, 20 Jun 2014 09:27:04 -0000

srp...

Thanks for the comment. Ironic that you mention Virginia's book. While I didn't mention it here, it serves as the foundation for my new booklet on "Permissionless Innovation." As you will see by flipping through it, I cite Virginia and her book more than anyone else: http://mercatus.org/permiss...

Also, I have repeatedly noted here that "Future and Its Enemies" is one of my favorite books of all time. In this essay, I named it one of the two best books on tech policy of the past half-century: http://techliberation.com/2...

I just didn't bring it into this discussion because I thought Garreau's "heaven" / "hell" framing made more sense to discuss in this particular context.

Cheers -- Adam Thierer

Re: Network Non-Duplication and Syndicated Exclusivity Rules Are Fundamental to Local Television

Adam Thierer — Mon, 19 May 2014 15:27:37 -0000

Fred...

So, in a nutshell, you argument is essentially that two wrongs make a right. That is, you say: "Regulatory restrictions effectively prevent local TV stations from enforcing broadcast exclusivity agreements through preventative measures and in the courts," and, therefore, "non-duplication and syndication rules balance broadcast regulatory limitations by providing clear mechanisms for TV stations to communicate their contractual rights to MVPDs."

Sorry, but the easier and more principled solution here is not to continue to "regulate up" but it is instead to "deregulate down," by placing all players on more even, less-regulated footing. Brent Skorup & I recently wrote an entire paper about it. [http://mercatus.org/publica...]

Please tell us why we are wrong to want to get rid of all these rules and minimize the role of FCC to get this job done right once and for all. Because I think it makes a lot more sense than preserving and extending the archaic regulatory status quo of the analog era, which is what you seem to be suggesting here. We can enforce private contracts and handle program carriage issues without mountains of red tape. It happens in countless other capitalistic sectors; it can work here, too. Have a little faith in REAL free markets, my friend!

Adam T.

Re: The Beneficial Uses of Private Drones [Video]

Adam Thierer — Tue, 08 Apr 2014 16:44:54 -0000

Also, this presentation by Helen Greiner offers an outlook of what the next 5 years holds for drone development:

http://robohub.org/drone-ou...

Re: The Beneficial Uses of Private Drones [Video]

Adam Thierer — Mon, 07 Apr 2014 15:25:50 -0000

Related to this, make sure to check out this story about how the FAA's regulatory activities threaten this private drone operator's ability to help search-and-rescue efforts:

http://motherboard.vice.com...

Re: On the Line between Technology Ethics vs. Technology Policy

Adam Thierer — Fri, 02 Aug 2013 14:04:22 -0000

Well, without getting too bogged down in a debate about Mill, I think it’s important to separate the man from the particular principle with which he is most widely associated. I certainly am not about to defend every position Mill took (especially some of those found in “Principles of Political Economy”), many of which contradicted his eloquent principle.

Nonetheless, I persist in my belief that Mill’s “one very
simple principle” for “the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion” remains an excellent baseline for deliberations over these or other matters.

In a short essay here four years ago celebrating the 150th
anniversary of “On Liberty,” [http://techliberation.com/2...] I argued that his book and the harm principle in particular, “remains a beautiful articulation of the core principles of human liberty and a just society.” Of course, any “simple” principle will almost by definition be too simple and not provide clear to all of life’s challenging questions -- ethically or politically. But, again, I would argue Mill’s harm principle provides us with the right baseline to begin such deliberations by making it clear that humans should be at liberty to live a life of their own choosing, so long as they do not bring harm to others in doing so. [How we define “harm” in particular tech policy contexts is, of course, another tension here.]

Of course, what is so interesting about Mill is the way --
and this is reflected in the way we both express a certain amount of adoration for him above -- his work influences almost all modern strands of liberalism, broadly defined. Consequently, disciples of Rawls (like you?) and Nozick (like me) can ultimately find much to appreciate and build upon when thinking through how Mill’s simple principle impacts rights, responsibilities, and the contours of justice.

Alas, at some point, we will part ways, and walk down two
separate paths based upon our respective preoccupation with fairness vs. liberty as our ethical and political prime directives. The same things that tore Rawls and Nozick apart will likely tear us apart when debating modern technology ethics and policy issues.

In light of that, you will probably not be surprised to hear
me note that I disagree with your assertion that you are “not sure the harm principle applies to our debate, since we’re talking more about economic policy, not political rights.” Of course, in a Nozickian and modern libertarian theory sense, there is simply no separating the two. They are fundamentally intertwined.

By extension, I have above applied such reasoning to debates
over technology policy in this and many other earlier essays. This is what leads you and others to call into question my allegiance to the harm principle as the over-arching operational baseline for *all* technology policy discussions. Whereas we are probably in accord that the principle should be the default baseline for discussions about social / political rights, we would likely part ways in thinking that the principle should extend to most matters of economic and technological liberty, too.

Is that a fair summation of our differences?

Re: On the Line between Technology Ethics vs. Technology Policy

Adam Thierer — Fri, 02 Aug 2013 10:57:08 -0000

Thanks Patrick. You make some fair points here. Of course, you are correct in noting that "there ought to be an appropriate balance among ethics, policy, and law," but one thing left unsaid (for the most part) in both your original essay and my response is what, exactly, our ideal ethical systems/norms look like. I mentioned my adoration of the Millian harm principle and could have spent an entire essay building on that and what it means for the broader debate here, but I didn't. Had I done so, I suspect it would have made for a far more interesting, but controversial piece (since that approach to ethics/policy has lost a lot of sway in philosophical circles over the past century.) Anyway, let the debate continue!

Re: Book Review: Ronald Deibert’s “Black Code: Inside the Battle for Cyberspace”

Adam Thierer — Wed, 17 Jul 2013 09:18:52 -0000

Thanks. You make a fair point. I suppose I have been a bit too hard on some of the books that I have reviewed here lately (including Milton's and Ron's) based on the lack of a detailed blueprint for moving forward. (Let it be known, however, that I gave both Milton's and Ron's books very high marks and strongly recommended them to readers!)

But I think we are at the point now in the study of cyberlaw/Net policy that highly aspirational statements and abstract policy paradigms--as much as I love them--are just not enough. We need and deserve more details as readers if we are going to invest serious time in books that highlight particular policy problems but then only give us a few pages of mostly theoretical approaches to solving those problems. (And let me just again reiterate that I have wholeheartedly endorsed the general approaches of "denationalized liberalism" and "distributed security" that Milton and Ron set forth in their respective books.)

Of course, I recognize that concrete solutions are not always available to thorny problems such as online security, privacy, copyright, etc., etc. But I guess I still expect to see more effort made by authors to fill in the blanks and give us a clearer map for how we might move forward and address the complex problems they do such a nice job diagnosing in their books.

Re: Asymmetric Warfare on the Internet: Google and Microsoft Challenge Amazon in the Cloud

Adam Thierer — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 16:12:09 -0000

"Internet competition boils down to this: one dimensional dominance is not enough (and often is fleeting)." Amen, brother. And "dynamism" is the right label for the sort of competition we see at work in the information marketplace today. I was just writing about that this weekend:

http://techliberation.com/2...

Re: The Nature of Competition in the Digital Age

Adam Thierer — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 15:56:32 -0000

Yes, fair point. I am sometimes guilty of using the "Schumpeterian" label in a very generic sense without clarifying his own (complicated) views on all these subjects. The better label for the approach I am adopting here is "dynamic competition theory," which has elements of "evolutionary economics," Austrian economics, and Schumpeterian insights.

Back in 2001, Jerry Ellig and Daniel Lin published a wonderful essay entitled, “A Taxonomy of Dynamic Competition Theories,” that appeared in Jerry Ellig's edited collection on "Dynamic Competition and Public Policy: Technology, Innovation, and Antitrust Issues" (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2001). They crafted a taxonomy of dynamic competition theories that explained the similarities and differences between the evolutionary, Austrian, and Schumpeterian worldviews. I've been trying to finish up an eBook in which I build on their synthesis of these dynamic competition theories and attempt to develop a model that explains the daily workings of the digital economy.

But you are right that it is too simplistic to just label this model "Schumpterian" without (a) explaining Schumpeter's own nuanced views on these issues; and (b) identifying the contributions from other dynamic models of competition and innovation.

In this case here, I was building upon the Haucap and Heimeshoff paper, which didn't really get into those differences either. But it remains fruitful ground for further intellectual exploration.

Thanks much for your comment. -- AT

Re: Toward a Technology “Watchful Waiting” Principle

Adam Thierer — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 10:45:39 -0000

I love it. In line with the core principles Wayne Crews & I set forth in our first piece for Cato back in 2001: http://www.cato.org/publica...

Re: Important Cyberlaw & Info-Tech Policy Books (2012 Edition)

Adam Thierer — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:49:23 -0000

Dang... Can't believe I failed to include "Cypherpunks: Freedom and the Future of the Internet" by Julian Assange and Andy Greenberg's "This Machine Kills Secrets: How WikiLeakers, Cypherpunks, and Hacktivists Aim to Free the World's Information." Anyway, I have penciled them in at the bottom of the list. Make sure to read Luke Allnutt's dual book review of them in the WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/artic...

Re: So You Want to Be an Internet Policy Analyst?

Adam Thierer — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 16:13:22 -0000

Thanks, Rebecca. Glad you found it useful. -- AT

Re: So You Want to Be an Internet Policy Analyst?

Adam Thierer — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 16:13:01 -0000

Thanks, I appreciate it! -- AT

Re: Thoughts on Latest FTC COPPA Rule Revisions & Online Child Safety / Privacy

Adam Thierer — Thu, 09 Aug 2012 17:06:42 -0000

These are excellent questions, Jim. I wish I had good answers, but it really is anyone's guess. But the creeping intermediary deputization problem is obviously quite real and growing. Like I said today, even though none of this would technically violate 47 USC 230 (at least as I read it), the thrust of the effort certainly runs counter to the spirit of that important law, which made sure intermediaries were not held liable for every bone-headed move made by third parties using their sites or services.

At some point, creeping deputization could have a substantial economic impact and affect the types of services provided, how many services exist, how much they costs, or all of the above.

Re: The Problem with the “Declaration of Internet Freedom” & the “Digital Bill of Rights”

Adam Thierer — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 14:51:31 -0000

Over at Google+, Derek Slater asks me [https://plus.google.com/u/0...] whether I might be able to find any common ground with these groups when it comes to their Declaration. Here's my response:

______________

Am I willing to "find common ground" with these groups and individuals over these principles? There's no need to try; we already have it: I think they are all great principles. But, in the end, it's all about how these principles are applied. And when the preamble of the Declaration says that the principles apply equally to "communities, industries and countries," then that gives me a bit of heartburn because there exists a world of difference with how a company or community deals with these matters and how countries do.

To be clear: I think there is value to holding companies and communities to most of these standards, but I simply do not want most of them to become *legal* standards. You're not going to keep the Internet truly free by having the government regulate it even more -- even when it is for supposedly noble intentions. And I suspect many of those signatories are open to that more regulatory interpretation of these principles because I have spent the last 15 years fighting many of their efforts to convert (potentially) sensible social and market norms into coercive regulatory standards.

So, here's an easy way to find common ground: Amend each principle of the Declaration to clearly state "free from government regulation" and then ask who among them would agree that is a good idea.

Re: Funding the Future: Advertising’s Role in Sustaining Culture & the Alternatives

Adam Thierer — Thu, 17 May 2012 13:24:02 -0000

Wow, that sound like quite a pitch! You wouldn't happen to work for the DISH marketing department, would you Nathaniel?

If so, good luck getting any subscribers once the content owners cut off the supply of programming!

Re: If You Meet a Censor, Ask Them This One Question

Adam Thierer — Fri, 11 May 2012 09:41:41 -0000

That's very interesting, Andrew. I did not know that. But does the Classification Board undertake any sort of effort to determine how those censors are personally affected by the viewing of the supposedly shocking material while they are serving in that capacity? I understand that this is not an exact science, but it would nonetheless be terrifically interesting to see if any government has conducted psychological evaluations of censors after they have done a stint on the job to see if the exposure to that material has had an adverse impact on them. What I am suggesting above is that it is highly unlikely the material has much of an impact on either the censors or society. I believe humans develop coping mechanisms to assimilate even the most vile and shocking content. In some cases, there's even a cathartic effect, as with the viewing of violent dramas and video games. I wrote more about that here:

http://techliberation.com/2...

and here:

http://techliberation.com/2...

Re: More on Net Neutrality, the Importance of Business Model Experimentation & Pricing Flexibility

Adam Thierer — Thu, 10 May 2012 13:15:06 -0000

This new Ars Technica piece is well worth reading since it also stresses the need for plan and pricing flexibility in the wireless context:

http://arstechnica.com/gadg...

Re: new paper: Technopanics, Threat Inflation & an Info-Tech Precautionary Principle

Adam Thierer — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 08:37:50 -0000

Yes, absolutely Anne. The next step involves getting far more serious about resiliency-based alternatives rooted in smart social norms, media literacy, and digital citizenship ethics efforts. In other words, it would be rooted in all the great work you, Larry, and our other friends have been doing! You are the real experts here, not me, and I just keep pointing people back to what you all have down to show them the more constructive path forward.

Although fear-based tactics will always be with us to some extent, I am confident that our approach can gain more traction because of one simple reason: The fear-based tactics and resulting regulatory proposals almost always fail to achieve the desired results. Our approach, by contrast, offers lessons that last a lifetime and prepare kids and adults alike for the many evolving challenges they will face in our fast-moving information ecosystem.

Cheers -- AT

Re: Let’s Craft the Perfect Internet Policy… No, Wait, It’s Already Been Done!

Adam Thierer — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 08:19:55 -0000

The same principles for ecommerce can guide social policy: Hands Off is Hands Off. We don't need Big Government thugs determining how people run their lives or their businesses online.

Re: Important Cyberlaw & Info-Tech Policy Books (2011 Edition)

Adam Thierer — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 09:50:50 -0000

Thanks Aaron.. I will check this one out as well.

Re: Important Cyberlaw & Info-Tech Policy Books (2011 Edition)

Adam Thierer — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 09:50:33 -0000

I'm still trying to find this book to check it out. Obviously there are lots of copyright-related things published each year, but not all of them have direct ramifications for tech policy / cyberlaw (although most increasingly do!)