Daniel Castro

In the absence of a comprehensive federal law, a handful of large states have passed or begun to enact data privacy legislation. More states are likely to pass similar laws in the coming years, which would create a patchwork of different and sometimes conflicting state privacy laws regulating the commercial collection and use of personal data.

Technological innovation has long been and will continue to be critically important to per-capita income growth, economic competitiveness, and national security. So it is important to examine President-elect Joe Biden’s policy agenda through that lens. This report compiles information from the president-elect’s campaign website and policy documents, from the Democratic Party platform, and from media accounts of statements he has made.

The report begins with an overview of each candidate’s general philosophy on technology, innovation, and trade policy, and then compares the candidates’ policy positions across 10 specific issue areas:

• Innovation and Research and Development (R&D)
• Internet and Digital Economy
• Broadband and Telecommunications
• Education and Skills
• Taxes
• Regulation
• Trade
• Advanced Manufacturing
• Life Sciences and Biotechnology
• Clean Energy Innovation

The candidates’ positions on broadband:

The general openness of the Internet has generated tremendous economic and social value, giving users the freedom to connect, speak, innovate, and share content without restrictions. Unfortunately, many countries have in recent years enacted policies that undermine this openness. At the same time the Internet has never been fully open. Governments have long blocked illicit and dangerous material such as terrorist propaganda, pirated content, and malware. Too little openness limits the economic and social value of the Internet. Too much openness allows harmful activity.

Given that the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has fallen short of expectations, policymakers in other countries have an opportunity to do better, rather than repeat Europe’s mistakes. Five lessons to learn:

There is a growing chorus of voices calling for national data privacy legislation in the United States. Not surprisingly, stakeholders have offered competing visions for what such a law should look like. Designing data privacy legislation involves a complex process that must address a wide array of legal and regulatory issues.

Only 29 percent of Americans agree the US government should prohibit political bias in online services such as Facebook and Google, according to a new survey from the Center for Data Innovation. Moreover, public support for a government prohibition of political bias online drops even further when respondents consider the potential impact of such rules. Only 21 percent agree the US government should prohibit political bias online if it would create a worse user experience—and that drops to just 19 percent if it would limit free speech.

Google, Facebook, and Twitter have no incentive to inject bias in their platforms, because consumers across the political spectrum use social media and discriminating against any of them could drive people away. Consumers would be substantially worse off if social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter were broken up. Their value to consumers derives in no small part from the fact that they allow people to communicate with their friends and families with a single click.

This report looks at the way that the US print media has covered technology over the past 30 years, examining the claims that a typical reader of national newspapers is likely to have seen during that time.

The findings show that coverage of technology in the 1980s and early 1990s was largely favorable, with a heavy focus on the economic and military advantages afforded by advancing technologies. In the late 1980s, in particular, there was a notable focus on the economic opportunities afforded by the developing technology sector and its offerings. However, that tone has gradually shifted over the years, with more articles highlighting the potential ill effects of technology: its displacement of face-to-face interaction, its role in environmental degradation, its threat to employment, and its failure to live up to some of the promises made on its behalf. The findings also indicate that positive and negative claims are more likely to be associated with certain segments of society than others. Claims about the potentials of technology and their associated benefits are more likely to come out of the private sector, while claims about the potential problems are more likely to come from actors in civil society and government.

One way to accelerate development and adoption of the Internet of Things is for the US federal government to be an early adopter. However, in addition to being an early adopter, the US government has a significant opportunity to support private-sector efforts at building the Internet of Things through other activities, including programs to provide technical resources; strengthen cybersecurity; develop industry-friendly regulations; ensure spectrum availability; support research, development, and demonstration; and coordinate stakeholders. Many of these programs are underway, although they often lack the coordination and scale necessary to support the Internet of Things as completely as possible. The purpose of this report is to shine a light on these activities, so policymakers have a better understanding of what is being done today and where gaps exist.