Net Neutrality

Net neutrality is a concept that generally argues that internet service providers (ISP) should be neutral in how they grant access to bandwidth to users. In other words, ISPs cannot prioritize certain domains or users over others. The dialogue surrounding net neutrality often involves the question of whether or not the internet should be regulated as a utility, similar to electricity or phone lines. Advocates of net neutrality argue that the internet was founded on a principle of openness and fairness, and therefore, net neutrality must be defended so that major business or greedy ISPs do not disrupt these foundations. Pro-net neutrality groups claim it will maintain a level playing field and ensure quality internet access for everyone. Opponents of net neutrality adopt the notion that government intervention in business, especially one as large and vital to the greater economy as the internet, is dangerous and it stifles competition amongst providers. Additionally, the net neutrality opposition cites that the internet and the broader scope of technology change so rapidly and frequently that it is irresponsible to set up regulations that may be obsolete in only a few years.

 

After researching this topic, I am generally in favor net neutrality. I sympathize with the small tech start up who may not have the resources to compete with tech giants if net neutrality is undervalued. Additionally, many of the justifications for eliminating net neutrality cite the strain it may place on ISPs. While I understand this is a legitimate concern, I feel the greater concern should be for protecting internet companies and startups. There are far fewer ISPs than internet companies. The American economy has always emphasized encouraging small businesses and new innovation, but giving benefits to established ISPs at the cost of hurting startups does the opposite of this. The landscape of competition within the ISP domain versus that of Internet start-ups is much more limited. Setting up an ISP involves gaining control of telecommunications infrastructure, a much more unrealistic task than developing a web application or online retailer.

 

Of course, legitimate consideration must be made to ensure that over regulation does not occur. I would combat this by involving leaders in from both the Internet business world and the ISP world from the start. This would seek to ensure that those with the most vested interests in the matter are prioritized over political gains. Furthermore, I feel that it would be necessary to require that the laws undergo review on a frequent basis. Perhaps every 3 to 5 years the net neutrality regulations would be reviewed so that sweeping changes in the technology sphere could be accounted for if need be. At the core of this issue, I do believe quality internet access will come to be considered as more of a basic amenity. I worry that the word basic “right” may be to strong for this conversation, but I do believe Internet should be considered more like electricity and telephone line than like cable. People today depend on the Internet for so many aspects of our daily lives and providing excellent service to all at a reasonable price will help drive the American economy through the 21^st century.

Response to Observer Letter

Is encryption a fundamental right? No. I feel there is certainly no fundamental right to encryption in this county. If there not a fundamental right to health care, then I feel there certainly is not a fundamental right to encryption. However, I also do not feel the government has the right to demand that make our data vulnerable for the purpose of government investigation. The 4^th amendment grants us the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” and it is generally held that we are more protected from search and seizure as the reasonable expectation of privacy increases. In other words, what you do behind closed doors in your own home is more protected than what you do in the town square. As this relates to encryption, I feel that the more encryption we use and the more private our internet activities are, the less the government should be able to interfere. Furthermore, if it were ever possible to develop a technology that completely locks out the government, I feel that there would be no reason the government could undermine this.

Personally, I am much less concerned about government intervention with encryption than I am with criminal intervention. I know that the government is often much more tied up with criminals and suspected criminals than it is with my personal data. However, criminals and black hat hackers do not possess this sort of prejudice. Some criminals will seek to attack me at any possible opening, and I would prefer to defend against them in the strongest way I can. I think this is less of political issue than it is of a social one. We all want to be secure and retain our privacy and I ultimately do not think the government aims to undermine this. However, their criminal prosecutions cannot succeed at the cost of our everyday privacy.

I think if such a battle between personal privacy and national security were to ever really exist, national security would win the day. Despite this, I’m not sure these forces are at direct odds and I also have faith that the American people place tremendous value on privacy. This leads me to believe that if things ever really got out of hand, we would exercise of civic abilities and right the wrongs of the government.

Letter to Observer

observer letter

The Issue of Patents

Patents are institutional legal protection that was explicitly specified in the United States Constitution with purpose of encouraging scientists, inventors, and artists to pursue their creative endeavors. A patent establishes that a certain person or company has the right to an idea or process because they were the first to come up with it. These legal rights allow the holder to license out their idea and prosecute those who use the idea, typically in a business application, without permission or paying royalties. Ethically and morally, patents seek to prevent the theft of the fruits of one’s hard work, and economically they seek to encourage people to push technology forward by ensuring that profits can be made.

I believe that patents have the right intention but certainly have been abused in business practices and at times, acted counter to their purpose. Despite this, I feel a complete elimination of patents would be overkill. I worry that if patents ceased to exist, many inventors or small business would be slaughtered because larger corporations would have the resources to take their ideas and reproduce them on a massive scale, effectively stealing the advantage from the original inventor. However, something must be done to address the aggressiveness which people guard their patents without really using them. Patent trolls are a perfect example of this, and definitely demonstrate how the current patent system can be abused. This is where we see technology being hindered, such as in the case of the airplane or the steam engine.

I do think there should be patents for software innovations, but I believe there needs to be a higher degree of a scrutiny in determining what is truly a novel software invention. In the This American Life podcast, one search for a general design of software returned around 5,000 results. This is absurd and shows how software patents are being granted far too liberally. I believe this is clearly why we see the issue of patent trolls arise. Almost anyone who has coded before knows that so much of software development involves applying existing principles to a problem at hand. It seems that those who grant patents need to be more aware of this and understand that only breakthroughs in software that are not seen elsewhere should be issued.

Online Advertising and Data Collection

While I am not excited or pleased with the fact that numerous companies and retailers likely have troves of information on my habits and spending patterns, I do not necessarily think it is wrong. The readings on this matter show that companies are not forcefully taking this information from consumers without their consent in a way that a identity thief might break into someone’s house and steal tax documents. Companies gather their data from the purchases that one makes with a credit card or by posting a public status online. To me this is similar to companies analyzing paper receipts or campaign signs on a front lawn – both things that could have been done 50 years ago. I’m not so native to believe these things are completely analogous, but I do not think companies using modern technology to gain a competitive advantage is unjust.

Companies use advanced data mining and machine learning techniques to predict how consumers will act. The New York Times claims, “Almost every major retailer, from grocery chains to investment banks to the U.S. Postal Service, has a ‘predictive analytics’ department devoted to understanding not just consumers’ shopping habits but also their personal habits, so as to more efficiently market to them.” I do not mean to imply that the ends justify the means, but this field of innovative statistics has been pushed forward by the business incentives it provides, and as a result, researchers around the world are applying these same methods to make predictions about health and hazard concerns ranging from epidemic outbreaks to earthquakes. This is surely a positive byproduct that I feel often is completely left out of the conversation.

While I am not going to crusade against internet advertising and mass data collection, I do feel there are some changes that should be made. Firstly, journalistic “sponsored content” is something that I feel is wrong and has no place in online journalism. This marketing concept emerged in response to ad-blockers and low online newspaper subscriptions. This idea is that online reporting sources like the Huffington Post will write pieces that subtly endorse products or companies by nesting references to them in articles. This ruins journalistic integrity and runs counter to the goal of spreading news and information to the largest group of people possible. HBO’s John Oliver reported on this matter and perfectly described how it undermines the trust in a “free and independent press”

The other issue that I feel should be addressed is informing consumers on what is data is collected on them and how it can be shared. The problem arises when people unknowingly are exploited. For example, if Target is collecting information when customers purchase certain goods, it is fine if Target privately holds that information because by buying something at Target, the customer essentially consented to giving Target that information. However, if Target is selling that information to the government or other corporations, they are broadcasting your private actions to parties without your consent. While this is fine distinction to draw, I feel is important one that needs to be addressed.