The 463: Inside Tech

3Qs with Adam Thierer on the MySpace/AG Child Safety Effort

PFF Senior Fellow Adam Thierer wrote the book on online child protection, so who better to give insight on today's long-awaited MySpace/Attorney General agreement to create protections for kids using the News Corp site.

And, no really, Adam did write the book. (You can download "Parental Controls and Online Child Protection: A Survey of Tools and Methods" here.)

Before we get to the Q&A, here is a brief overview/opinion of the agreement courtesy of NYT's Brad Stone:

Among the dozens of measures MySpace has agreed to take, the social network will let parents submit the e-mail addresses of their children, so the company can prevent anyone from using that address to set up a profile. It will also set the profiles of all 16 and 17-year-olds to private, so only their established online friends can visit their pages - essentially creating a “closed” section for users under age 18.

MySpace also promises to hire a contractor to identify and delete pornographic images on the site. And the company will take charge of an Internet safety technical task force to develop an age and identity verification tools for social networking sites.

Now, to Adam...

Q: Why is today’s AG/MySpace announcement significant? What about this tells you that this will be more substantive than the veritable “blue ribbon committee” that peaks at launch?

The agreement is significant because it represents a sensible step forward in terms of online safety. Indeed, many of the principles in the agreement could form a potential model “code of conduct” that other social networking sites could adopt. That is important because (a) it really could help keep kids safer online; and (b) it will help us avoid the specter of government regulation of the Internet and others forms of digital communication.

The agreement with the AGs is especially notable for what it does not include: age verification mandates. The call for an Internet Safety Technical Task Force to study online safety methods and identity authentication tools is a sensible alternative to the rush to mandate age verification, which some AGs have been advocating vociferously over the past two years.

Hopefully the task force will provide critical examination of the issue and not simply begin with pre-ordained conclusions about the wisdom or effectiveness of online age verification techniques and technologies. At the press conference announcing the agreement, however, Attorneys General Roy Cooper of North Carolina and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut seemed to imply that that the goal of the task force would be to develop and implement a full-blown age verification system for the Internet. “We are going to find and develop online identity authentication tools,” said AG Cooper. And AG Blumenthal reiterated an argument he made ad nauseum last year that, “if we can put a man on the moon,” then we ought to be able to verify the ages of people before they go online.

But it’s just not that simple. As I argued in a lengthy PFF study last year entitled, “Social Networking and Age Verification: Many Hard Questions; No Easy Solutions,” there are no silver bullet age verifications solutions. Online authentication is a complicated, multi-faceted technical issue. And, even assuming we could find a way to make it work, there are many other considerations that must be taken into account, such as the burden it might impose of freedom of speech or individual privacy.

The danger, therefore, is that the AGs have a pre-ordained conclusion and that they will either stack the deck on the task force with age verification advocates or pressure the task force to adopt mandatory age verification without thoroughly studying the issue. Again, that would be a serious mistake and it would also likely give rise to legal challenges.

Q: What other companies are critical to making the Internet Safety Technical Task Force successful? And, as far as you know, was their consideration to having them involved prior to this announcement?

If the task force does go forward, it needs to be a balanced panel of experts and include other social networking players, such as Facebook. This shouldn’t just be a MySpace thing.

Q: While this obviously is targeted towards collaborations with state law enforcement, what do you think the DC impact will be of the Internet Safety Technical Task Force?

Some AGs have tried to get the federal government involved in the effort to regulate social networking sites, but so far nothing has come of that. Ironically, if anyone was going to take the lead in terms of social networking regulation, it should be the federal government—not the states—since the Internet is not a local medium or platform. In fact, that’s one of the reasons why the AGs have wisely not pursued any formal legal action against MySpace thus far; they know it would likely be struck down as an unconstitutional burden on what is clearly interstate commerce.

Of course, the last thing I want is more federal Internet meddling and silly bills like the Deleting Online Predators Act (DOPA) that are completely counter-productive. If the feds get involved at all, it should be in terms of education and awareness building about sensible online safety efforts and parental empowerment tools. They should adopt an “educate first” approach to the issue. But I have a sneaking suspicion that, to the extent they do get involved, they will once again take the “regulate first” approach.

3Qs: Will Rodger, CCIA -- Starting a Fair Fight

Will Rodger is tech policy old school. I remember way back in '97 or so when I would fly out to DC and sit down with Will, the tech policy journalist, to spin yarns about TechNet -- then, the new kid on the block. Will was one of the few DC reporters at the time who actually understood technology and could work his way around a Netscape browser with ease.

After covering many industry fights at a reporter, Will has been directly involved in his fair share of skirmishes since joining the The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA). And, as director of public policy for the group, he has an interesting new battle on his hands that goes directly at some big players.

This week, the CCIA launched its Defend Fair Use initiative with a shot across the bow. The organization that represents Google, Sun Microsystems, Microsoft, Oracle, Yahoo! and others announced:

that it has filed a Federal Trade Commission complaint on behalf of consumers against Major League Baseball, the National Football League, NBC/Universal and several other corporations. CCIA alleges that the named corporations have misled consumers for years, often misrepresenting their rights through deceptive and threatening statements.

Y'know, statements like this:

Here's how the New York Times covered the CCIA's move.

We thought it as good of time as any to drop 3Qs on Will about the Defend Fair Use campaign... (the Qs and responses after the jump...)

3Qs: Mitch Glazier, RIAA Lobbyist

Welcome to a new edition of 3Qs, where we (kind of) famously ask three questions of an interesting person in the tech policy neighborhood.  Our guest today is Mitch Glazier, the RIAA's Senior Vice President of Government Relations and Industry Relations. (In what I fear may be precedent setting, a biography is after the jump).

Let's face it, the RIAA isn't exactly a popular institution outside the Beltway.  However, the RIAA has as much sway as ever in the domains where Glazier is involved.  For that, and because I've got to know Mitch as a thoughtful, self-aware type, I asked him the following three questions...

1) How would you describe the RIAA’s relationship with the technology industry now as compared to the “Napster Years” of 1999-2002?

We’re in a better place.  Like every relationship, it’s complicated and we have definitely matured together.  When you think of what the record companies went through – changing almost every aspect of their business model for digital releases (which, despite legitimate criticism, can never happen overnight), giving up distribution, and gaining legal clarity – the Napster years almost seem like ancient history.  The early years were rocky but the obvious interdependence, the Supreme Court decision in Grokster and the desire of tech companies to get exclusive distribution contracts has forged an understanding that didn’t exist before.  Despite several threats to break up, I think we’re going to make it.

2) What's the single biggest misperception about the RIAA that is commonly held by those active voices in the Internet community (bloggers, media, advocates)?  And, how do you think this will change?

Some will always view RIAA as a monolithic enforcer that wants to stop the technology revolution that is giving music back to the people and harness the digital world so the evil establishment can control it.  Or something like that.  One time after I finished speaking to students at a University a guy with a Linux t-shirt told me I was responsible for killing the Internet and asked me how I felt about it.  All I could say was, “Not too bad.” The truth, of course is that the RIAA is full of some of the most committed, hard-working music lovers you could ever meet who have the tough job of trying to help the industry protect its creative property and adapt to new challenges.  From statutory licensing and music publishing rules to enforcement and First Amendment protection, RIAA has been at the forefront of change that will determine how to keep music an art in which people still want to invest in the digital marketplace.  It’s been great to be in the middle of it, even if it hasn’t felt so great sometimes.

Once the digital transition is more complete and understood, and the debate is sorted out to the satisfaction of consumers, I think the need for a punching bag will fade, the Linux t-shirt will be traded in for a Linux briefcase, and EFF will start running the creative commons.

3)  You guys throw one of the better parties of the year in Washington (the Holiday party).  Ever think about coming out to Silicon Valley and building bridges with free drinks and top-notch music performances?

Now that’s a good idea.  We do know how to throw a good party.  We have been talking about joining with a tech group to hold a discussion in Silicon Valley with music community representatives and tech execs to keep the lines of communication open on policy issues.  Maybe we should end it at the right venue with some great music and a few (meaning several) drinks.  Hell, we might even achieve interoperability.

3Qs: Google DC Spokesperson Adam Kovacevich

We thought we would check in on Adam Kovacevich after his first 100 days or so on the job as Google's DC spokesperson with our second in an ongoing series of three questions with interesting folks in the tech policy neighborhood.

After landing in DC from everyone's favorite California city of Bakersfield via some Massachusetts college, Adam served folks like Senator Joseph Lieberman and California Congressman Cal Dooley. Once he left the Hill, he went on to make a good name for himself in tech policy communications with stints at Dittus Communications and the Information Technology Industry Council.

1) What is the average day of a Google public policy spokesperson like?

Naturally the first thing I do is check this very blog to find out the latest news from our Washington office. After that, I catch up on the three hours' worth of e-mail from my California colleagues that accumulated after I left work the night before. After a mid-morning ritual Googling of myself (that counts as work here, right?), I field phone calls from friends who inevitably want me to remove a really embarrassing link that appears when their name is Googled (sorry, any long-lost pals who are reading this, it's the algorithms). Later I'll make a trip to our office mini-fridge (our version of the famed Google "micro kitchens") and start returning reporters' phone calls on topics ranging from net neutrality to privacy to how political campaigns are using online advertising. To round out the day I might spend some time lounging around on our office beanbag chair.

2) What is the most misunderstood aspect of Google inside the Beltway and what is the plan to change hearts and minds?

Most people in Washington are already pretty familiar with Google's tools and services from having used them, but we're working to educate policymakers about our impact as a company. Take economic growth, for example. Thousands of small businesses throughout the country are using our keyword advertising program, AdWords, to help attract new customers in a cost-effective way. And thousands of our advertising partners - including businesses, bloggers, and individuals -- are earning revenue through Google's syndicated ad network, AdSense. Last year, we paid out $3.3 billion in revenue directly to those partners.

So that's a big message we're trying to convey in Washington - Google isn't just a great search engine; it's also creating economic opportunities for citizens and businesses in every state and congressional district.

3) How does the free food in the DC office compare to what you get at HQ?

This is best answered by offering a side-by-side menu comparison for one day last week:

Mountain View Menu:
Lamb Shanks
Creole Rubbed Pork Tenderloin
Cajun Bay Scallop Vol au Vent
Grilled Polenta Circles
Braised Swiss Chard
Cream of Asparagus Soup with Rock Shrimp
Hazelnut Sablé Cookies

DC Menu:
Cosi Sesame Ginger Chicken Sandwich, with a side o' chips

In short, no comparison.

3Qs: Andrew Noyes, Tech Daily Reporter

       

Welcome to 3Qs -- a new feature at The 463 where we ask three questions of an interesting person in the tech policy neighborhood.

We've turned the tables on our first interviewee.  As a senior writer at the National Journal's Technology Daily, Andrew Noyes (bio) is among the very best reporters covering tech policy.  While maintaining clear-eyed toughness, Andrew brings an enthusiasm to his job that is rare for a breed better known for its hardened cynical types.

Andrew also is the energy behind the NJTD's Tech Daily Dose Blog.  Check it out.

On to the questions:

1) What constantly amazes you as you cover tech policy in DC?

I am continually (and pleasantly) surprised by the extent to which staffers for key members of Congress and committees are steeped in the issues I cover. Intellectual property policy and Internet governance issues can be dense and require serious time and thoughtful consideration. Sometimes I find myself scrambling to keep up with them! I am also amazed by the ferocity and intensity of lobbying efforts that target high-tech and telecommunications topics -- and the creativity with which these campaigns are deployed.

2) Which politicians “get” technology the best?

I hate to name names but here are a few: Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va., Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., Rep. Fred Upton, R- Mich., Rep. Mike Ferguson, R-N.J., Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev.

3) On a scale of 1-10, how would you rate the job that industry in currently doing to communicate its value and positions in DC?  What should the tech industry be doing to better communicate about the benefits that their companies and products bring to society?

The tech sector's bullhorn is loud and unrelenting. If an hour goes by without hearing from an industry rep on a given issue, I immediately call our IT people because my e-mail is clearly on the fritz. The sector does a fantastic job of communicating its message on a variety of issues. The fact that there are more than a half-dozen groups that purportedly speak for the industry in Washington occasionally makes covering my bases difficult -- but it's always better to have a chorus of voices than none at all.