Readers of this blog are an educated, connected and inquisitive bunch. And, we appreciate your visits here. Therefore, I only think it fair to extend a special invite from time to time to you.
For those of you in the Bay Area, on December 12, there will be an excellent panel on the many Big privacy issues of the day. The panel features some of the most important Chief Privacy Officers in the business
The panel will be moderated by Dr. Moira Gunn, host of NPR's Tech Nation, and feature the CPOs from Sun Microsystems, the State of California, Agilent and Intuit. (And very likely one or two other special guests).
All the big issues will be hit. Legislation, social networking's impact, electronic health care records, international harmonization. You name it. And, if you come, you can ask about your favorite privacy issue.
Who:
*Jim Allen, Chief Privacy Officer, Agilent
*Michelle Dennedy, Chief Privacy Officer, Sun Microsystems
*Dr. Moira Gunn, Host of NPR's Tech Nation
*Barbara Lawler, Chief Privacy Officer, Intuit
*Joanne McNabb, CIPP/G, Chief, California Office of Privacy Protection
*Additional panelists to be confirmed
Where:
Sun's Menlo Park, CA campus
10 Network Circle, Menlo Park, CA 94025
When:
Wednesday, December 12
10:30am – 11:00am Arrival and informal discussion
11:00am – 12:15pm Panel
12:15pm – 1:30pm Lunch and 1:1 conversations with CPOs
***Please RSVP ASAP to me***
SPACE WILL BE LIMITED, and I may have to cut off 463's invites at some point.
There's an interesting survey out from TechPresident that grades Democratic candidates on their tech policy savvy (Who Will Be America's First tech President? Grading the Democrats). Six questions ranged from support for net neutrality to support for high speed connectivity everywhere in the US. We're surprised that Edwards finished first as when you talk to a lot of policy experts in the tech industry, they are concerned he's gotten way too protectionist when it comes to trade and some other key issues.
Here's the grades of the top three:
Edwards = A-
Obama = A-
Clinton = B-
But our take when you talk to folks in Silicon Valley and other innovation centers, this is a race between Hillary and Obama for the hearts and minds of the tech community. What do you think?
Jon Healey at the LA Times is amused by the RIAA's musicFirst's jab at the NAB on the issue of whether music concerns should be paid by radio stations when they play their songs. (You, of course, remember that little Web casting debate). The stunt:
That's the question that Declan ("Iconoclast") McCullagh asks privacy activist "concerns" with the Googe/DoubleClick dealio. And, while it may ruin my rep to openly agree with Declan twice in in two weeks, the man has a point:
...(privacy advocates) are trying to convince government regulators to, essentially, make up new laws as they go along. If federal merger law needs to be rewritten to include reviews of data collection and use practices, that's a job for our elected representatives in the U.S. Congress, not unelected bureaucrats. Congress seems highly engaged in the topic; there's no danger of it going neglected. If a review of merging firms' data use practices is useful, let's have that debate in the open instead of behind closed doors at the FTC.
I'm not alone in thinking that trying to push new data-use regulations though the backdoor may not be entirely wise (or even, perhaps, legal). FTC Commissioner Jon Leibowitz, a Democrat, said earlier this month that "our analysis of the merger has got to be about competition and potential competition. It can't be about privacy per se."
Now, it would be pretty easy to dismiss activist opposition as a timely opportunistic chance to get some press, raise some funds and point out their real concerns with the deal (however flawed from a antitrust perspective).
However, that doesn't really explain why leading members of Congress like the chair and ranking member of the Senate Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Consumer Rights are raising the privacy flag. Says a press release from Senators Herb Kohl and Orrin Hatch:
On a related matter, the Senators raise another concern about this proposed merger that many have voiced regarding consumer privacy. Given the enormous quantity of information that Google and DoubleClick collect regarding web users’ preferences, “this deal raises fundamental consumer privacy concerns worth of serious scrutiny.”
In an earlier column, Declan wondered why some Republicans, who are generally merger friendly, are popping out of the woodwork to take shots at the Google/DoubleClick bid. He gave two reasons. One, is that Republicans are given many donations by telecom firms and Google has done the bad deed of being a leader in the Net Neutrality fight. The other reason is that Googlers give waaay more to Democrats than Republicans.
Maybe. Perhaps.
But, doesn't anyone else also see a straight line from Microsoft success ---> Microsoft antitrust lawsuit ---> Microsoft hires 30 million lobbyists, pays them a lot and develops extremely good relationships with Republicans while they are in power ---> Google success ---> Google dabbles in DC and hires mostly Democrats ---> Google buys the company that Microsoft wants to buy ---> Microsoft hits button and activates campaign against Google deal ---> select Republican congressional members begin getting concerned about Internet privacy?
I don't know. I'm probably totally missing something here. DC is way too subtle for me.
David McGuire in Rio -- Well that was entertaining. I'm sitting in the lobby of the Windsor Barra hotel in Rio de Janeiro, and all around me (iPhone photo from my balcony above), the detritus of the Second Annual Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is being disassembled and packed away. (Ed note: Detritus? WTF, who is this McGuire guy?)
Hard to draw any real conclusions out of the event and that's probably a good thing. In one of the final sessions of the day, Vint Cerf, one of the fathers of the Internet, remarked on what made the IGF a good thing.
"It's a non-negotiating climate. Sometimes people disagree, and that's ok."
I certainly can't put it any better than that. In the end, those who had concerns about the current state of Internet governance were heard, as were those opposed to wholesale changes. Companies, advocates and governments were able to collaborate and share best practices, and no chairs were
thrown. Mission accomplished.
If there was any worrisome note in the whole thing, it came toward the end, when one of the Russian delegates announced his intention to ask the UN to create a special working group charged with transitioning control of ICANN to a multinational bureaucracy.
That would obviously be a nightmare scenario, but he's got a tough row to hoe, and it seems unlikely the UN would want to reopen this can of worms so soon after the conclusion of the controversial two-year process that created the IGF.
For the most part, the IGF stayed true to its original purpose. As long as it keeps to that path, it will be remain a unique and worthwhile component of the global Internet governance discussion.
There has been lots of reaction to the Barack Obama "innovation agenda" that announced to coincide with the presidential candidate's visit to the Google campus yesterday (video above). (Here are some: VentureBeat, TechCrunch, a TechPresident review of opinions, Wired, and, of course, Google's Policy Blog.)
Not surprisingly, most of the commentary focused on Obama's net neutrality position and his call for an administration CTO that oversees a massive push for government transparency. But, there is plenty of other stuff in the position paper to chew on. Some of it is smart. Some of it deserves second thoughts and redrafting.
Namely:
Obama says: On the Internet, Obama will require that parents have the option of receiving parental controls software that not only blocks objectionable Internet content but also prevents children from revealing personal
information through their home computer.
I say: Hmmmm. Who is paying for this software? This sounds somewhat like the Australian proposal that mandates that all Australians have free access to Internet filters. Somehow I didn't see John Howard and Barack Obama seeing eye to eye like this. And, on the second point, what type of "revealing information" won't be allowed? Information necessary to create a social networking page? Very vague and a potential slippery slope here.
Obama says: "(Let's make) government data available online in universally accessible formats to allow citizens to make use of that data to comment, derive value, and take action in their own communities."
I say: Wow. What was that groaning sound that I just heard come from Redmond? Sun Microsystems, IBM. Google, Red Hat, librarians, academics, etc, etc, have been fighting Microsoft's dominating installed base of their proprietary formats in governments that amounts to a taxpayer funded software tax every time the 800-pound gorilla exacts licensing revenue from governments. The trouble is that governments see the barrier of exiting the Microsoft world too steep and the cycle of the software tax continues. But, Obama hit on something significant (however subtly) when he called for "universally accessible formats" like open document format (ODF) to give citizens access to their government data. This is important because if a proprietary format fades away, you won't be able to access documents on it. Data on ODF will last forever.
Obama says: Barack Obama will invest $10 billion a year over the next five years to move the U.S. health care system to broad adoption of standards-based electronic health information systems, including electronic health records. He will also phase in requirements for full implementation of health IT and commit the necessary federal resources to make it happen.
I say: Amen. This is a big deal, and just hope that this isn't only mentioned in front of geeky audiences. I hope it plays a major role in big debates on health care. The Bush Administration has said as much. So has many leaders in Congress. But, the political will hasn't extended far enough beyond platitudes to get enough done on an issue that could be saving lives today.
Obama says: Protect Intellectual Property at Home: Intellectual property is to the digital age what physical goods were to the industrial age. Barack Obama believes we need to update and reform our copyright and patent systems to promote civic discourse, innovation and investment while ensuring that intellectual property owners are fairly treated.
Obama says: Obama will appoint the nation’s first Chief Technology Officer (CTO) to ensure that our government and all its agencies have the right infrastructure, policies and services for the 21st century. The CTO will ensure the safety of our networks and will lead an interagency effort, working with chief technology and chief information officers of each of the federal agencies, to ensure that they use best-in-class technologies and share best practices.
I say: A month or so ago the question of whether the next president should have a CTO came up in a work conversation among a diverse group of tech policy folks. We all agreed that the title is nice, but you would need to establish and delineate real power for it. Of course, the best way to do this would be to create a cabinet position for technology and innovation. People rolled their eyes at this until it was reminded to them that we do have a Secretary of Agriculture. What industry is more important to the next 100 years of the United States?
Overall, the complete position paper is impressive and is clearly full of thought from people well experienced in tech policy. Hilary Clinton's innovation agenda is well-considered, too. However it reads much like many innovation agendas that have preceded it by smart people on both sides of the aisle. I can't agree with everything in the Obama piece, but have to give credit to the creativity and desire to drive at new ideas.
Dave joins relatively new 463 additions Katie Hallen, who is our emerging rock-star-in-residence and who brings great experience as a former Congressional reporter and Silicon Valley PR whiz, and Stephanie Tackach, who after earning a college degree full of honors made the post-graduate journey from New Jersey to DC to satisfy her quest to work in tech policy. (Needless to say, when I was a college grad, there pretty much was no such thing as tech policy.)
At least I assume it's lovely. No matter where you go in the world, all hotel conference facilities look alike. I could be sitting in Arlington for all I know (I realize your hearts bleed for me).
I'm down here with 463's Jim Hock and 2,000 of our closest friends for the second annual Internet Governance Forum where the issue du jour -- if the media reports are to be believed -- is "U.S. control of the Internet." Never mind that the UN bickered about this very topic for two years when they were supposed to be discussing ways to increase technology resources in developing nations (an important topic that still hasn't received enough attention) we apparently need to bicker about it some more.
Now if the IGF stays true to its original vision -- an open forum where government, industry and public interest voices from around the word can speak and be heard on issues critical to Internet development -- there's absolutely nothing wrong with these discussions (though they do get a trifle repetitive). The problem is that some governments are simply not content with the Internet Governance Forum being a "forum." They want it to be a decision-making body and are engaged in all sorts of behind the scenes shenanigans aimed at pushing the IGF in that direction.
The flashpoint is likely to be Thursday, during the "Taking Stock and Way Forward" session meant to wrap up the themes of the conference. That's where we're most likely to see advocates of greater government control push for some sort of negotiated document meant to spin some sort of "findings" or "conclusions" from this whirlpool of opinions. That would be bad news from Brazil.
Today the San Jose Mercury News completed an excellent series on the current cybercrime state-of-affairs, and the picture they paint isn't pretty. The problems are getting worse, it's costing us billions and, yet, there (still) is basically no governmental leadership to do much about it.
Worst of all, I would assume that most readers of this blog are now doing a collective palms-up shoulder shrug as you say, "What's new?"
From today's piece:
Since the outbreak of a cybercrime epidemic that has cost the American economy billions of dollars, the federal government has failed to respond with enough resources, attention and determination to combat the cyberthreat, a Mercury News investigation reveals.
"The U.S. government has not devoted the leadership and energy that this issue needs," said Paul Kurtz, a former administration homeland and cybersecurity adviser. "It's been neglected."
Even as the White House asked last week for $154 million toward a new cybersecurity initiative expected to reach billions of dollars over the next several years, security experts complain the administration remains too focused on the risks of online espionage and information warfare, overlooking the international criminals who are stealing a fortune through the Internet.
"They're still not taking cybercrime seriously enough," said former administration cybersecurity adviser Marcus Sachs, now at Verizon Communications, reflecting the views of several former White House officials.
Congress has either failed to pass bills or sent ineffective legislation to the president. Agencies have shied away from imposing regulations. Leaders have not bothered to make sure computer users understand the problem - if the officials themselves even comprehend the threats.
"Overall, I was amazed at the lack of knowledge, not only among presidential staff, but at the Cabinet level, and the Senate and House," McAfee Chief Executive Dave DeWalt said after meeting in the summer with senators, Congress members and Cabinet secretaries about information security.
The threats aren't easily grasped: U.S. Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, whose district includes much of Silicon Valley, is one of Capitol Hill's most Internet-savvy legislators. Yet even Lofgren, when asked in August if she knew what a botnet is, responded only with, "Sort of." Her spokesman said most other members of Congress likely could not even make that claim.
Okay, it doesn't have the same ring as the old Gore & Doerr in '04 buttons from 1.0 ago. (And, I wish I could have found mine today so I could scan it). But, at least today's version of the partnership is more than symbolic. In the form of a well-written Fortune piece, it was announced that the former Veep and current Nobel Prize winner is joining Doerr's storied venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers as a full-fledged partner working on greentech investments.
And for this blog, one particularly relevant blurb...
Doerr says Kleiner will hire more experts, but insists that the ability to vet and assist entrepreneurs is more important for venture capitalists than industry experience. And the green field is something of, well, a green field. "You can't hire an expert in the recombinant-DNA industry when there isn't one," he says, making a reference to the similar problem Kleiner successfully faced when it backed Genentech in the 1970s.
Gore can certainly help in this arena by, for example, introducing Kleiner people to top atmospheric scientists or government decision-makers. Policy and politics, his specialties, will have a huge impact on the business of clean technology.
Previous coverage of KP and greentech here and here.
The opinions on postings are of individual 463 Communications partners and employees. They do not necessarily represent the opinions of 463 Communications, the firm, or our clients. Comments will remain posted at the sole discretion of 463.
