January 2014

The White House’s Deputy Chief Technology Officer Nick Sinai profiled a handful of small and large Web and mobile startups that were built off open government data during a presentation hosted by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.

One of the most interesting parts of Sinai’s presentation at ITIF’s Data Innovation Day, however, was a shout out to this list compiled by New York University’s GovLab. The list is a preview of a comprehensive study GovLab plans to conduct on companies that are powered in part or in whole by open government data. The 500 companies on the list include some government data-focused startups, such as PopVox, which encourages users to support or oppose congressional legislation, and Procure.io, focused on simplifying government contracting. The list also includes many behemoths, though, that digest government data for only a fraction of their operations. These include Web giants, such as Amazon, Google and Yahoo, as well as more traditional business such as IBM, Warren Buffett’s investment firm Berkshire Hathaway, Mitt Romney’s former employer Bain, the consulting and research firm Deloitte and Consumer Reports.

President Barack Obama asked me to lead a comprehensive review of the way that “big data” will affect the way we live and work; the relationship between government and citizens; and how public and private sectors can spur innovation and maximize the opportunities and free flow of this information while minimizing the risks to privacy.

I will be joined in this effort by Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker, Secretary of Energy Ernie Moniz, the President’s Science Advisor John Holdren, the President’s Economic Advisor Gene Sperling and other senior government officials. We are undergoing a revolution in the way that information about our purchases, our conversations, our social networks, our movements, and even our physical identities are collected, stored, analyzed and used. The immense volume, diversity and potential value of data will have profound implications for privacy, the economy, and public policy. The working group will consider all those issues, and specifically how the present and future state of these technologies might motivate changes in our policies across a range of sectors. When we complete our work, we expect to deliver to the President a report that anticipates future technological trends and frames the key questions that the collection, availability, and use of “big data” raise -- both for our government, and the nation as a whole. It will help identify technological changes to watch, whether those technological changes are addressed by the U.S.’s current policy framework and highlight where further government action, funding, research and consideration may be required.

This is going to be a collaborative effort. The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) will conduct a study to explore in-depth the technological dimensions of the intersection of big data and privacy, which will feed into this broader effort. Our working group will consult with industry, civil liberties groups, technologists, privacy experts, international partners, and other national and local government officials on the significance of and future for these technologies. Finally, we will be working with a number of think tanks, academic institutions, and other organizations around the country as they convene stakeholders to discuss these very issues and questions. Likewise, many abroad are analyzing and responding to the challenge and seizing the opportunity of big data. These discussions will help to inform our study.

While we don’t expect to answer all these questions, or produce a comprehensive new policy in 90 days, we expect this work to serve as the foundation for a robust and forward-looking plan of action. Check back on this blog for updates on how you can get involved in the debate and for status updates on our progress.

[Commentary] Comcast customers are complaining about the poor quality of Netflix streaming during evening hours and wondering what’s going on. Their comments are both a reflection of Comcast’s previous bad behavior -- blocking peer-to-peer (P2P) content on its network back in 2008 -- and evidence of frustration that they can’t get the content they want on the broadband network they pay for. What these consumers may not realize is that their frustration and complaints are actually a key element in negotiations between Comcast and the giants of the Internet. It’s a negotiation playing out with greater frequency as many ISPs (not just Comcast) try to enforce their vision of how the Internet should be paid for, and it’s a vision that Internet content companies don’t share. Some ISPs believe they should be able to charge companies like Google or Netflix -- which send the ISP a large amount of traffic -- a fee for sending that traffic over the ISP’s network.

While this may sound like a network neutrality issue, it’s not. It’s a far more hidden and seemingly capricious problem: It’s a peering dispute. Peering governs how networks directly connect to each other on the Internet, and most people like it because it’s an efficient way to exchange traffic across networks, so providers don’t have to build capacity to every single location in the world. And when it comes to peering disputes the customer always loses, because the customer becomes a pawn in the negotiations between Internet superpowers (or wannabe superpowers).

It's the kind of top-down, one-size-fits-all, heavy-handed regulation that corporate America despises. The exact type of mandate that businesses pay lobby shops millions to tweak and twist into oblivion. Except this time, America's big-box stores are begging Congress to boss them around.

Reeling from high-profile privacy fumbles at Target and Neiman Marcus, retailers are asking Congress to require them to notify customers when shoppers' information has been put at risk. Currently, when firms spill data, they're subject to a patchwork of state rules: 46 states, plus the District of Columbia, have their own privacy-breach notification laws. For a company like Target, which has stores in every state save Vermont, that means a massive compliance struggle. Backers of a unified standard say a federal requirement would not only make companies' lives easier but would also help firms serve their customers better by giving businesses a quick and comprehensive way to address hacks. And with tens of millions of Target and Neiman Marcus customers wondering if their credit cards are about to be used for someone else's shopping spree, the issue has new momentum in an otherwise gridlocked Congress.