May 2012

[Commentary] The best way for Facebook to fend off regulations is to be more transparent about how it uses data and to give users easier controls over privacy settings. The company could be more explicit about its offers of new services in exchange for expanded access to personal information. Above all, letting people determine their own trade-offs is in the spirit of the Internet more than the alterative of one-size-fits-all rulings by regulators or judges. The successful public offering of Facebook means the market is optimistic that Mark Zuckerberg will fend off political pressures. Markets can be naive about the damage that nonmarket forces can cause, but 900 million Facebook users are a constituency large enough that politicians will think twice before unfriending it.

Is Google search an intermediary like the phone company — simply connecting people with the information they seek? Or is Google search a publisher, like a newspaper, which provides only the information that it sees fit and is protected by the First Amendment?

There are good reasons for Google to want to be considered a mere connector; like other Internet companies, it can beg off responsibility for what is transmitted by its users. That is the useful stance when it comes to rebutting claims of copyright infringement or libel. But when the issue is anticompetitive behavior — a charge made by rivals and some businesses — Google has lately been emphasizing that it sees itself as a publisher, and it is appealing for different kinds of protections, in the realm of free speech. How Google has decided to say this is almost as interesting as what is being said. The company hired Eugene Volokh, an influential conservative blogger and a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, to write a paper last month. In it, he argues that Google search results are protected speech.

[Commentary] Internet activists who killed an antipiracy campaign on Capitol Hill in January are back on the virtual warpath against efforts to improve America's cyber defenses. As then, the ferocity of the ire is disconnected from the modesty of the legislation.

Standing in the way of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), however, is the Obama Administration, which came out against CISPA before the House vote, citing supposed shortcomings on privacy protections. Having worked closely with Republicans to write the bill, Rep. Ruppersberger was blindsided by the White House and has said as much. The House passed the bill 248-168, with 42 Democrats defying the Administration's veto threat. The online activists, who don't let facts get in the way of a good campaign, needed no invitation to sound the call to battle. The ACLU, privacy evangelists and tea party libertarian-types are in. Search #CISPA on Twitter to behold the Orwellian future of the National Security Agency prying into your Web affairs. But just because you're paranoid doesn't mean someone's out to get you.

[Commentary] It would seem that Comcast is finally listening to the "noise." So let's keep up the din.

Last week, the company announced it will do away with its anti-competitive and anti-consumer cap on Internet data usage. Instead of threatening to cut off service to anyone exceeding its limits, Comcast now plans to simply charge them more. That's not ideal, but it's an improvement. Because the company hasn't finalized its new policy and because the announced change is apparently in response to an outcry from consumers, activists and competitors, there's reason to believe continued pressure could force it to offer an even better deal to customers. And we deserve it. If it's true that few people bump up against the old caps, then Comcast ought to easily be able to double or even triple the data allotments -- or eliminate them altogether. Meanwhile, treating similar services differently based on who's providing them is ultimately a bad deal for consumers. Comcast pitches its new app as beneficial to its subscribers. They get the ability to watch its streaming video at no additional cost whether in dollars or in deductions from their usage amount. But the move is anti-competitive. Because it gives consumers a strong incentive to use Comcast's no-cost streaming service over Netflix's or Hulu's, it could lead to much less competition. And if Comcast is able to get away with it, there's no telling how many other services it would set up on "private networks." That could leave the Internet looking a lot like cable TV, where companies like Comcast determine the content you can access and the price you'll pay for it. Let's not go there. Let's make some more noise