As the global Internet economy evolves and becomes more interconnected, cross-border policy tensions are rising, as is the need to resolve these tensions and conflicts in ways that continue to spur growth and innovation. To that end, I was honored to be a member of the Atlantic Council’s Task Force on Advancing a Transatlantic Digital Agenda. However, I was one of five members who, at the end of the day, could not have my name listed as endorsing the Task Force report.
First, it’s important to recognize the hard work of the commission members and staff and the significant parts of the report that will make a real contribution to better resolving transatlantic digital tensions. The report comes up with a number of creative and useful proposals, such as creating a new US-EU Digital Council, increasing cooperation with regulators on both sides of the Atlantic, lifting foreign investment caps in the telecom sector, and others. And its broad based support for transatlantic data flows and multi-stakeholderism for Internet governance is needed and welcome.
But there were other proposals and language I cannot support. The report’s discussion of net neutrality
On March 17, the Boulder County Commission directed county staff to map a plan to begin to “phase out” the use of genetically modified (GM) crops on county open space land. This land has been acquired from farmers to preserve and sustain agriculture in the county and leased back to local family farmers. The criteria governing the management of these lands are public, and most reasonable people would find little in them with which to disagree. The guidance from the present commissioners to move towards eliminating GM crops was not part of the enticement previously used to encourage farmers to cooperate with the county in preserving Boulder’s diminishing open space.
The organic industry would like this to be seen as a trend, part of a burgeoning demand for organic food. But according to the Boulder Daily Camera, and in spite of increased organic sales, U.S. Department of Agriculture data show that “organic acreage declined nationally by 10.8 percent from 2008 (4.1 million acres) to 2014 (3.7 million acres). Colorado saw larger declines of 34 percent during that same time, from 153,981 acres in 2008 to 115,116 acres in 2014….
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) hosted the first annual PrivacyCon in January 2016, an event designed to highlight the latest research and trends for consumer privacy and data security. The FTC’s stated goal was to bring together “whitehat researchers, academics, industry representatives, consumer advocates, and government regulators” for a lively discussion of the most recent privacy and security research. Unfortunately, not only did the event not reflect the diversity of perspectives on these issues, but the whole event seemed to be orchestrated to reinforce the FTC’s current regulatory strategy.
First, the “data security” side of this discussion was almost non-existent in the agenda. Of the 19 presentations, only 3 were about security. Given that the FTC has been flexing its regulatory muscle on corporate cybersecurity practices, this was a missed opportunity to delve into important cybersecurity research that could inform future oversight and investigations.
Second, the FTC mostly selected papers that jibed with its current enforcement agenda. As Roslyn Layton, a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, noted recently, of over 80 submissions that the FTC received for PrivacyCon, it selected 19 participants to give presentations with
ITIF‘s latest report—“The Privacy Panic Cycle: A Guide to Public Fears About New Technologies”—analyzes the stages of public fear that accompany new technologies. Fear begins to take hold when privacy advocates make outsized claims about the privacy risks associated with new technologies. Those claims then filter through the news media to policymakers and the public, causing frenzies of consternation before cooler heads prevail, people come to understand and appreciate innovative new products and services, and everyone moves on. This phenomenon has occurred many times—from the portable Kodak Camera in 1888 to the commercial drones of today. And yet, even though the privacy claims made about technology routinely fail to materialize, the cycle continues to repeat itself with many new technologies.
The privacy panic cycle breaks down into four stages:
- In the “Trusting Beginnings” stage, the technology has not been widely deployed and privacy concerns are minimal. This stage ends when privacy fundamentalists, a term coined by the noted privacy researcher Alan Westin, begin raising the alarm creating a “Point of Panic.”
- In the “Rising Panic” stage, the media, policymakers, and others join the privacy fundamentalists in exacerbating
This article was originally published in The Huffington Post. It is co-authored by Val Giddings and Jon Entine
Recently on the Huffington Post we came across a disturbing article – an attack by Jeffrey Smith on two respected university professors who apply a critical eye to the claims made by various advocates alleging dangers to human health linked to genetically modified organisms (GMOs.)
Smith, if you are not familiar with him, heads up a one-man band rabidly anti-GMO organization known as the Institute for Responsible Technology–he and his organization are controversial to say the least, but more on that later.
The subject of the attack piece was co-written by University of Illinois emeritus professor Bruce Chassy and University of Melbourne geneticist David Tribe. It appears on the website of AcademicsReview, an independent non-profit set up by the scholars to address the maelstrom of misinformation that passes for debate on the GMO issue. In one of their most pointed and heavily circulated critiques, Chassy and Tribe examine one of Smith’s two self-published books that supposedly ‘prove’ that GMO foods are reckless and dangerous.
Chassy and Tribe’s critique titled “Yogic Flying
In July 2014, ITIF’s Stephen Ezell testified before the Senate Finance Committee regarding the importance of manufacturing to America’s economy and the role that U.S. trade and technology policy plays in supporting American manufacturing. As part of his testimony, Ezell cited data describing the rapid decline of U.S. manufacturing employment to demonstrate the severity of the challenges faced by America’s manufacturing industries. For the reality is that, particularly since 2000, America’s manufacturing sector has been in a steep decline, with job losses outpacing those in many peer countries.
Following the hearing, Marc Levinson, a Section Research Manager with the Congressional Research Service, produced a report countering some of the data in Ezell’s testimony, and suggesting that there is not a clear cause for alarm regarding employment losses in the American manufacturing sector. However, Levinson’s account does not fully present all of the facts and only succeeds in further muddying this important policy debate.
One critique Levinson makes is charging Ezell with bias in selecting base years, which can have a sizable impact on analytical results. Levinson presents data using the years 1991 to 2000 and then the years from 2001
It doesn’t take long to get the drift of a new report from the Center for Immigration Studies, a non-partisan, anti-immigration think tank. The title basically sums it up: “All Employment Growth Since 2000 Went to Immigrants.” The only question left to the reader is, why they didn’t simply title it “Immigrants stole all of our jobs”?
Perhaps it’s because immigrants didn’t steal our jobs, and the authors have no evidence that they did, but they’re doing their best to insinuate that they do.
Their main findings certainly look surprising at first blush: immigrant employment has increased significantly since 2000, but native employment has not increased at all, despite the fact that native population has increased twice as much as immigrant employment. It seems like a closed case: all the new jobs went to immigrants, therefore we should decrease immigration.
If only it were that simple. As intuitive as it might seem to argue that a job is a job and an unemployed person is an unemployed person, this is not how economies work. The Center makes a mistake common to many casual observers of the labor market: what economists
As an American academic in Europe, I find the claims by some American media about an EU broadband utopia curious. Europeans roundly complain about the quality of their broadband, and, there is no European who would say that the US is falling behind Europe. In fact some of the biggest critics of the EU are the EU leaders themselves. Consider EU Commissioner for Digital Life Neelie Kroes:
The world envied Europe as we pioneered the global mobile industry in the early 1990s (GSM), but [because] our industry often has no home market to sell to (for example, 4G) consumers miss out on latest improvements or their devices lack the networks needed to be enjoyed fully. These problems hurt all sectors and rob Europe of jobs it badly needs. EU companies are not global internet players. . . . 4G/LTE reaches only 26% of the European population. In the US one company alone (Verizon) reaches 90%!
Kroes praises the success of the American broadband mode, noting its ability to drive private investment and innovation. She is increasingly joined by other European leaders who recognize that the European approach is not working.
The federal government has officially shutdown as of midnight, October 1st, 2013 due to Congress’s failure to pass a budget. The 2013 fiscal year ends on September 30th and the government required a new budget to continue operations. The government has been operating on a Continuing Resolution – a CR, or an extension of the previous years budget, since 2012.
While coverage of the shutdown will focus on the political circus that is fueling it and the thousands furloughed from their jobs, it is also important to note that it is directly impacting America’s overall energy innovation capacity. In the short-term, many of the nation’s premier energy innovation institutions will scale-down or shutdown completely, while a few will continue to operate using carryover funds. That means the longer the shutdown drags on, the less research America will produce, and the fewer next-gen energy technologies and fundamental scientific discoveries. In other words, a prolonged shutdown threatens overall U.S. international competitiveness and progress towards a low-carbon advanced energy system.
Specifically, the following energy-related institutions and programs are being directly impacted by the government shutdown:
Impacts on Existing Fossil Fuel
Last week, the Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E) announced support for 33 new projects aimed at developing an affordable and scalable clean energy transportation sector. The projects are the latest round of public investment from ARPA-E in high-risk, high-reward low-carbon energy innovations that could be game-changing in the fight to address climate change. The projects are notable because Washington’s current fragile budget and policy environment – a dangerous combination of sequestration, budget cuts, and an overall negative view of energy innovation – puts ARPA-E’s funding at risk for the next fiscal year.
First, let’s look at the programs. ARPA-E takes investing in new sectors of energy innovation seriously – ARPA-E’s due-diligence includes a small, but dedicated government staff, interaction with industry to understand emerging research problems, and a constant influx of new program managers. Program managers are brought in on three year temporary terms to carry out their investments. ARPA-E’s Deputy Director Cheryl Martin explained this is important because the “three year cycle doesn’t allow us to drink our own cool-aide.” In other words, it prevents stagnation of investments and allows for fresh approaches to energy innovation.