Disqus - Latest Comments for bradencox

Re: Google “Spy-Fi” Privacy Regulation: An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind

bradencox — Mon, 10 Jan 2011 16:30:41 -0000

It's being dismissive through trivialization, particularly in the beginning when the G asserted only data fragments were collected b/c their WiFi equipment automatically changes channels roughly five times a second. It's the perception that they weren't taking it seriously from the beginning, probably b/c they in fact did not know the extent of the issue at the time, but still I fear it's tarnished the rest of the industry even if not related to online marketing, for instance.

Re: Thierer Joining Mercatus Center’s Technology Policy Program

bradencox — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 16:46:01 -0000

Congrats!

Re: PFF Closes Doors after 17-Year Run

bradencox — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 18:21:30 -0000

As we say at the NetChoice blog, PFF was our tech policy BFF. http://blog.netchoice.org/2...

It's not goodbye, it's see you later.

Re: Online Safety and Technology Working Group (OSTWG) Final Report Released

bradencox — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 17:25:01 -0000

Again and again child safety experts get together.
Again and again education (not regulation) is a primary solution for online safety.
Yet policymakers have largely ignored that recommendation.
Will this time be any different? Let's hope so.

Re: Facebook is not too big to fail

bradencox — Thu, 27 May 2010 09:58:05 -0000

Hi Jerry, you’re absolutely right! It should be the market, not regulators, that punish (or reward) Facebook. Unfortunately that’s not the view of the “professional privacy critics” referenced by Steve. In today’s regulatory climate, a business failure equals a market failure, bringing calls for government regulation.

There are times when an issue rises to such a level that one company becomes the symbol, the torchbearer, for that issue. As pro-regulatory forces converge around that company and use it as not just one example, but THE example, for why government regulation is needed – well, that puts pro-market advocates at a disadvantage. Speak up for the company and risk being called a “shill” – or defend market forces and appear insensitive to the current situation.

Facebook is such a torchbearer (or piñata?) for privacy. But there’s also another approach – admit a company did something wrong but still defend either the market when consumers react or the company when it takes corrective action. You take the first approach; Steve’s approach is the later. Neither should be confused with defending a company out of blind adherence to free market ideology.

I do think Facebook’s social plugin and instant personalization features are (or at least have the potential to be) innovative, but consumers will ultimately decide that one – unless there’s a privacy law that prevents them (and other online innovators) from going forward.

Re: Shameless Self-Promotion: Vote for Me for DC Bar Computer & Telecom Section!

bradencox — Wed, 19 May 2010 09:02:44 -0000

Thanks for the endorsement Berin! If elected we would serve our constituencies well, and with three unique hats -- your think tank, my association, and Grace's in-house corporate.

Re: Sen. Chuck Schumer’s letter to Mark Zuckerberg on Facebook privacy

bradencox — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 21:01:52 -0000

It is helpful to remember that Facebook is a new model of business. When consumers select a car or television they don’t opt-in to every component. Similarly, Facebook delivers a service that by default provides an invaluable, and free, tool for users. However, unlike with almost any other product, Facebook users can personalize their experience to exact tolerances.

Consumers have the ability to fine tune their preferences on Facebook and, ultimately vote with their mice if they don’t like the product.

Re: Misdirected Blame on Internet Companies for Failures in International Affairs & China

bradencox — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 12:57:00 -0000

Thanks for the comment and the clarification, Cynthia. Private and public sector cooperation is critical for international endeavors, but particularly when it is information and communications related. Americans strongly associate free speech as a fundamental right, but most societies do not. And while American companies are of course expected to follow the laws of other lands and cooperate with foreign authorities, we also don't want them to be co-conspirators. But it's an uncomfortable line to draw sometimes.

Re: NetChoice Comments to FCC — Age Verification Ain’t Going to Protect No Kids

bradencox — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 12:23:56 -0000

I pointedly agree wholeheartedly that there's no FCC jurisdiction :)

Re: Beyond Privacy Policies to Policy Prescription: The New Unfairness Doctrine at the FTC

bradencox — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:19:15 -0000

thanks, i'll give it a read

Re: Making A Federal Case out of Facebook’s Customer Relations

bradencox — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 20:34:55 -0000

Weren't all Facebook users prompted to review the changes? And users could change the settings at that time (back to original) too? I know I was prompted to review before I could use Facebook again. I saw this process as being highly transparent -- there's no smoke and mirrors here.

Re: Facebook Privacy Controls Change & EPIC’s FTC Complaint

bradencox — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:29:45 -0000

EPIC, CDD, CFA and their ilk deserve to lose credibility with this complaint. They are rapidly becoming the PETA's of the privacy world, pulling publicity stunts (though FTC complaints aren't as whacko as saying that forcing kids to eat meat is akin to child abuse!) but lacking real substance and evidence of harm. This complaint is just another vehicle for these groups to rehash tired lines of rhetoric.

What Facebook did was the gold standard of consumer choice and control, yet they are still lambasted. Users were prompted to revisit their privacy settings. Facebook made some recommended changes based on where it sees its service going. Users (like me) could change these if they wanted.

Forcing Facebook or any other online site to maintain original settings into perpetuity is information lock-in and an innovation killer. These sites will experiment with how users publish and share information. If they go too far, their customers will leave--which is the best check on privacy compared to any law or regulation.

Re: Who’s Going Mobile (on the Internet)?

bradencox — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:35:57 -0000

Good question. If you're on-the-job an employer will have a computer for you to use, but if you're an entrepreneur then you'll need your own and I don't think a cell phone would suffice. But I think the study was more focused on residential consumer use, not on home businesses.

Re: Who’s Going Mobile (on the Internet)?

bradencox — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:30:21 -0000

I haven't seen the study posted yet online, but I'll add a link once I see it.

Re: “Free” Isn’t Worth Reading, But It’s Worth Discussing

bradencox — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:55:44 -0000

I think Westlaw and Lexis are great examples, precisely because they ARE from government sources! As any attorney will tell you, even in today's world where statutes and many cases are available online from federal and state sources, Westlaw and Lexis are indispensable. There are a lot of value-add services (commentary, shepardizing, etc.) that turn "free" into "fee" when it targets a niche audience (in this case, lawyers). It's the serving smaller markets point that in his New Yorker article Gladwell makes about pharmaceuticals.

Re: Amazon Threatens to Leave the Affiliate Tax Jungle in North Carolina

bradencox — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:15:50 -0000

It's the giant suck-in. NC would like to claim that because you use affiliate ads with NC businesses, then you must collect sales tax on everything sold to NC residents. It's very broad assertion of authority for a relatively small activity.

Re: Preserving Resale Rights and Promoting Transparency for Event Tickets

bradencox — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:38:26 -0000

Ryan, your right to put faith into the marketplace. But we can't let companies get away with doublespeak -- calling something "convenient" when it really isn't, saying we're fighting "scalping" but really just trying to dry up competitors in a secondary market. It may be legal, and it may be the market working. But it isn't the market working to the benefit of most fans!

An interesting fundamental issue here is whether a ticket is purely a license, or is it something more? If only a license, promoters and venues can create a lot of restrictions (as do the ski resorts in mbhweiss's comment, though it sounds like they had legislative help). But does the license extend to limits on resale? Should it? What burns me up is that a lot of times these venues are publicly financed and subsidized -- and now they're telling me I can't give my ticket to a friend if suddenly work gets in the way?

Re: Avoiding an Internet Sales Tax Cartel: Why Congress Must Protect Interstate Commerce & Reject the SSTP

bradencox — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 16:21:28 -0000

Sales taxes do hurt sellers. It's a big (and for now, unconstitutional) burden on remote sellers, particularly small online sellers, to collect and remit sales taxes to the 40+ states with sales taxes, and each of these states have varying definitions, classifications and rates. The states were supposed to simplify to minimize the interstate commerce burden, but they haven't gone far enough.

Re: When Do Online Pay Walls Work?

bradencox — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 14:25:12 -0000

Here's a thought: if we place too much emphasis on "free" are we confining ourselves to merely average? I think it can reasonably be said that content supported by advertising tends to appeal to the general public (the masses), and this is true despite that content can be segmented to different audiences. A continuing tension with free is that the more eyeballs that can be monetized the better for the publisher, and the better for the publisher's consumers (the advertisers). It will always be the case that those with a more critical need (and the means) will pay for specialized, often better content.

Re: Libertarians, Free Software, and Government Contracting

bradencox — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 18:07:25 -0000

Tim, thanks for your post. We're all mostly in agreement here that there's no "one best way" and that we don't need politicians to mandate the needs of government IT departments. This is not a libertarian perspective, just one that acknowledges the need for case-by-case cost/benefit analysis in procurement.

However, I do think that the "lock-in" argument used by open source proponents has been overstated. In the government space, I'd bet that 90%+ of software procured is work for hire projects and not off the shelf. When it's work for hire, the risk of vendor lock-in exists no matter what the license, because those that help build the software can have an advantage servicing and upgrading it. So how do governments and other customers deal with this? Escrow the source code. Or put in the RFP a requirement for the source code. For certain projects access to source code might be critical, for others, perhaps not so much. No blanket rule should exist, particularly one that's driven through political channels.

I respectfully disagree with those that think open source should be required in government as a matter of "principle." This line of thinking fails because it falsely assumes there's a defining principle within open source that does not or cannot exist with more proprietary forms of software. Again, if an agency puts out an RFP and wants access to the source code, it can place this in it's request. If it needs to ensure access to documents by its citizens, there are a number of ways it can do so. There's just no one size fits all.

Re: Pilot Program to Improve Patent Litigation

bradencox — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 19:04:31 -0000

Daniel, thanks for your detailed comment. I agree that the Pilot Program is just one piece to the overall patent reform puzzle. I'm not too familiar with the rules concerning special masters (only the controversy that can be sparked by certain high profile cases) but the idea sounds intriguing.

Re: Sun’s McNealy Wants to Rain on Proprietary Software

bradencox — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 18:59:07 -0000

Agreed.

Re: Sun’s McNealy Wants to Rain on Proprietary Software

bradencox — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 18:58:36 -0000

Don, we're on the same page I think. A competitive bidding processes should be driven by costs and features, not rhetoric from lobbyists or executives from companies that stand to profit (either Rent-A-Center or Sun). That's why McNealy's advocacy for mandates--requirements on government itself--struck me as very wrong...why should the government a priori place limits on itself as to the type of license that accompanies a product?

Re: Internet Safety Technical Task Force releases final report

bradencox — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:12:44 -0000

Great post, Adam. And congrats to all the hard work you exerted in the task force. For me, the findings show that social networking and content companies are already doing quite a lot to keep minors safe on their sites. They also show online threats from adults are not the only danger -- that youth-on-youth and offline conduct are also critical aspects of child safety. Awareness, education, and parental involvement are crucial to ensuring the online safety of our children.

I'm happy that the report concludes that most kids respond appropriately to online safety threats, but of course there are still at-risk kids out there. Online companies will continue to help at-risk kids by implementing their own solutions, observing industry practices, and working with law enforcement.

Re: Lessig on Building a Better Bureaucrat

bradencox — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 14:05:54 -0000

Wayne Crews and I proposed a pragmatic plan to strip most functions from the FCC in a paper we wrote a few years ago. In Communications without Commissions, we say the FCC of the near future should focus solely on spectrum, getting spectrum into the marketplace and resolving interference disputes. Three steps for reform:

1. Restrict FCC jurisdiction so that it can't regulate IP-based services
2. Eliminate economic regulation and divest social policy goals
3. Restructure the FCC and Reform Spectrum

We're at a pivotal time now, and policymakers should not perpetuate and generate new rationalizations for FCC oversight of communications. It's time for a true reformer.