April 2011

Myths of the Internet

Professor Shane Greenstein presented a preview of a forthcoming book on the myths of the Internet at the Information Economy Project at George Mason University School of Law. Greenstein’s book will be a history of how the Internet was created and then transitioned from a government run academic research network to the commercial Internet. The lecture presented the history through examining six major myths about the creation of the network. While each myth was rooted in some truth, the reality was much more complex.

The most pervasive myth that Greenstein explored was that the U.S. government funded the Internet to design a network that could survive nuclear war. In reality, according to Greenstein, while the government did want to create a robust new communications network this was not the sole reason.
The other major myth that Greenstein explored was that the Internet led to the death of distance. He found that while it did allow for easier and cheaper communication over long distances however, location still matters. Broadband diffusion has yet to spread equally across the nation making living near an economic center still vital.

The other myths Greenstein explored were:

It was cheap and easy to transition the Internet from government to commercial management.
Government funding accelerated the arrival of the Internet.
Openness made the commercial Internet more innovative.
The commercial Internet is like a highway.

Media landscape in Twitter: A world of new conventions and political diversity

A study of the media landscape of Twitter. The authors use public data on whom follows who to uncover common behavior in media consumption, the relationship between various classes of media, and the diversity of media content which social links may bring. The analysis shows that there is a non-negligible amount of indirect media exposure, either through friends who follow particular media sources, or via retweeted messages. The study shows that the indirect media exposure expands the political diversity of news to which users are exposed to a surprising extent, increasing the range by between 60-98%. These results are valuable because they have not been readily available to traditional media, and they can help predict how we will read news, and how publishers will interact with us in the future.

Databuse: Digital Privacy and the Mosaic

The question of privacy lies at, or just beneath, the surface of a huge range of contemporary policy disputes. It binds together the American debates over such disparate issues as counter-terrorism and surveillance, online pornography, abortion, and targeted advertising. It captures something deep that a free society necessarily values in our individual relations with the state, with companies, and with one another. And yet we see a strange frustration emerging in our debates over privacy, one in which we fret simultaneously that we have too much of it and too little. This tendency is most pronounced in the counter-terrorism arena, where we routinely both demand -- with no apparent irony -- both that authorities do a better job of “connecting the dots” and worry about the privacy impact of data-mining and collection programs designed to connect those dots.

This paper explores the possibility that technology’s advance and the proliferation of personal data in the hands of third parties has left us with a conceptually outmoded debate, whose reliance on the concept of privacy does not usefully guide the public policy questions we face.

The Evolving Privacy Landscape: 30 Years After the OECD Privacy Guidelines

Thirty years ago OECD governments adopted a set of Guidelines governing the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data. Faced with twin concerns about threats to privacy from more intensive use of personal data and the risk to the global economy of restrictions on the flow of information, the OECD produced the first internationally agreed statement of the core privacy protection principles. The Guidelines represent an international consensus on personal data protection in the public and private sectors. They have influenced the development of national legislation and model codes within OECD member countries, and beyond.

This report begins by recalling the development and influence of the Guidelines. It then describes a number of current trends in the processing of personal data and the privacy risks in this evolving environment. It identifies some of the challenges that today’s environment brings for protecting privacy under existing approaches, and highlights a number of current initiatives and innovative approaches to privacy. Particular attention is focused on the impact of the Internet and other technologies, consistent with the issues and priorities highlighted in the 2008 Seoul Ministerial on the Future of the Internet Economy. The report aims to take a broad view of the current landscape for privacy, with a primary focus on economic activities. It does not describe in detail the myriad of initiatives to implement the Privacy Guidelines in OECD countries and beyond.

National Strategies and Policies for Digital Identity Management in OECD Countries

This paper analyses and compares national strategies for digital identity management in OECD countries. These strategies aim to drive innovation for e-government and for the broader Internet economy while remaining consistent with current national identity practices.

For most countries, the overarching objective or vision for the development of a national IdM strategy is the realization of electronic government. In addition to e-government, most countries also aim to foster innovation in the broader Internet economy, either explicitly or implicitly, either immediately or in the longer term. Two countries consider cybersecurity as the fundamental objective for their strategy rather than e-government and/or the development of the broader Internet economy. Although their vision has a different focus, the strategy of these two countries does not fundamentally differ from that of the other countries. Generally, however, innovation, e-government and cybersecurity can be identified in all countries‘ approaches. Variations are essentially related to the level where these dimensions are addressed (vision, strategy or policy). Fostering innovation in the broader Internet economy is a shared objective by a majority of responding countries but is not always explicitly mentioned as such. It can, however, be deduced from key aspects of their strategy and policies.

National IdM strategies aim to benefit businesses, citizens and the government. They are considered a key enabler for innovation in the public and private sectors: as they facilitate the generalization of stronger electronic authentication, they enable higher value services that require a high level of security assurance to be offered. They are also expected to have economic benefits in terms of reducing costs and increasing productivity in the public sector and to foster usability of online services. Increased trust or assurance about identities online – or even bi-directional trust between parties transacting or communicating online – is also highlighted as a key benefit for all participants.

Court Rejects Suit on Network Neutrality Rules

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit rejected as “premature” a lawsuit by Verizon and MetroPCS challenging the Federal Communications Commission’s pending rules aimed at keeping Internet service providers from blocking access to certain Web sites or applications.

While the decision is a first-round victory for the FCC and its chairman, Julius Genachowski, the real battle over the agency’s attempt to regulate broadband providers has barely begun. Several broadband companies, and some consumer advocacy and public interest groups, are likely to return to court this year to challenge aspects of the rules. Edward S. McFadden, a Verizon spokesman, said that the company intended to refile its lawsuit this year.

The Verizon lawsuit was dismissed as premature, the court said, because federal regulations dictate that a challenge to new FCC rules must come within 10 days after a new rule is published in the Federal Register. That publication has not taken place, although the FCC approved its rules in December, because the regulations must be reviewed for compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. That FCC review, which includes a 60-day public comment period, will be completed this month. Then, the Office of Management and Budget will conduct a review, with a 30-day comment period, before the rules are published. Once the regulations are published in the Federal Register, any legal challenge filed in 10 days is entered in a lottery to determine the legal venue. Verizon and MetroPCS tried to sidestep that provision by contending that the rules modified their licenses to operate wireless broadband networks. So, they said, the dispute was a licensing issue, not an appeal of a new rule, a position the court rejected.

White House issues veto threat for repeal of network neutrality rules

The White House on April 4 threatened to veto legislation from House Republicans that would repeal network neutrality regulations.

In a statement of administration policy, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) said the president's advisers would recommend that he not sign a bill scrapping new Internet regulations from the Federal Communications Commission. "If the President is presented with a Resolution of Disapproval that would not safeguard the free and open Internet, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the Resolution," the statement said. Network neutrality was an Obama campaign promise. OMB said scrapping the rules "would undermine a fundamental part of the Nation’s Internet and innovation strategy — an enforceable and effective policy for keeping the Internet free and open."

Skepticism Greets AT&T Theory

One of AT&T's chief justifications for its proposed takeover of rival T-Mobile USA is that the combination would quickly improve network quality and help solve a looming shortage of wireless spectrum in some cities. AT&T executives say the denser cellular network would improve voice calls and data communications in urban areas and speed the construction of its faster fourth-generation data network. But some industry executives and former FCC officials are skeptical the merger is the best way to address AT&T's network needs.

Instead, they say AT&T could add capacity to current cell towers or purchase under-utilized spectrum in a government-led auction, or from other companies. "Putting the two networks together does not create spectrum," said Gerald R. Faulhaber, a former chief economist of the Federal Communications Commission, who has worked as a consultant for AT&T and its rivals. Underlying the debate is the explosive growth of data usage on wireless networks as more Americans purchase smartphones and tablet computers, which allow consumers to more easily surf the Web, watch videos and download applications and games. James Taiclet, chief executive of American Tower Corp., a large independent owner and operator of cell sites, said AT&T and other wireless operators could double the amount of capacity they supply with current spectrum by investing more in new wireless equipment on existing cell towers.

David J. Farber, a former chief technology officer of the FCC and a professor at Carnegie Mellon University, said there are swaths of valuable yet underutilized spectrum being used by the TV industry and the federal government that the government could repurpose for wireless use. AT&T counters that saying the government is moving too slowly, and that if it freed up spectrum today it would take five years before wireless operators could have devices up and running on it. Broadcasters are resisting the proposal, arguing they already gave back a large swath of airwaves when the U.S. switched to digital-only TV broadcasts. They also worry the plan isn't as voluntary as the FCC has advertised.

Breach at Epsilon Exposes Emails

A data breach at one of the world's largest providers of marketing-email services may have enabled unauthorized people to access the names and email addresses for customers of major financial-services, retailing and other companies.

While no financial information was compromised, the major concern is that the emails and names could be used for "phishing," that is, phony emails asking unsuspecting consumers to divulge information such as account numbers, log-ins or Social Security numbers. As a result, companies were warning customers that they don't ask for personal information, like credit-card and Social Security numbers, via email. On April 1, Dallas-based Epsilon, a subsidiary of Alliance Data Systems Corp., said that on March 30, "A subset of Epsilon clients' customer data [was] exposed by an unauthorized entry into Epsilon's email system. "The information that was obtained was limited to email addresses and/or customer names only," the company said, adding that no other information associated with those names was at risk." The company said an investigation is under way.

Communications and Technology subcommittee passes broadband scrutiny bill

A House subcommittee passed a bill April 1 to ensure that unused grant funds for two federal programs tasked with expanding access to broadband services across the country are returned to the US Treasury.

Rep Greg Walden (R-OR), chairman of the Communications and Technology subcommittee, said the legislation clarifies language that requires the programs to give back money awarded to projects that have been canceled. And it institutes a new requirement that would keep Congress in the loop regarding the awards. The bill refers to stimulus funds granted to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, which administers the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program launched two years ago to support the expansion of broadband access to all communities. The legislation also applies to stimulus-funded grants made by the Rural Utility Service’s Broadband Initiatives Program. NTIA chief Lawrence Strickling and RUS administrator Jonathan Adelstein testified at the hearing. Both said that they welcomed the spirit of the bill, but added that its provisions are consistent with the agencies’ standard processes and current U.S. law.

Benton

Search