Op-Ed

[Commentary] Democrats -- and much of the “liberal” media Trump frequently attacks -- continue to obsess over clumsy Russian efforts to interfere with our elections as the challenge of our times to American democracy. But they could pay more attention to this ongoing assault on two of our most precious rights, enshrined in the Constitution and fundamental to the functioning of any free Republic: the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of expression and the Fifth Amendment’s protections against government taking of private property without due process of law.

[Commentary] If you think Facebook’s “Cambridge Analytica problem” is bad, just wait until Comcast and Verizon are able to do the same thing. Facebook isn’t the only company that amasses troves of data about people and leaves it vulnerable to exploitation and misuse.

[Commentary] The inescapable, overwhelming and disorienting flurry of activity of news, which has become the new normal since President Donald Trump’s inauguration, begs two simple but profound questions: Can democracy survive information overload? And can it survive a president who knows how to use the resulting chaos to dodge democratic accountability?

After examining Russia’s 2014 disinformation campaign in Ukraine, we found that Russian propaganda has very uneven effects. Whether it sways individuals to vote for pro-Russian candidates — or backfires, and makes them less likely to do so — depends on the political predispositions of the target audience.

[Commentary]  The headlines about the trade wars being touched off by President Donald Trump’s new tariffs may telegraph plenty of bombast and shots fired, but the most consequential war being waged today is a quieter sort of conflict: It’s the new Cold War over data protection. While the Facebook/Cambridge Analytica crisis currently burns as the latest, hottest flare-up in this simmering conflict, tensions may increase even more on May 25, 2018, when the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation comes into effect. Combatants in the new Cold War are fighting over the currency of t

[Commentary] Cisco Systems Vice President Jeffrey Campbell highlighted that paid prioritization is “one of the most misunderstood issues” in the telecom policy space. There's a growing realization that prioritization can play a positive role in network traffic management. But to understand why, we need to get beyond the “fast lanes, slow lanes” metaphor that has too often dominated the net neutrality debate. All internet traffic on a network moves at the same speed — the speed at which the electrons propagate on the wire.

[Commentary] What matters is not whether internet companies “deserve” our private information but why we as consumers do not have meaningful ways to protect that data from being siphoned for sale in the first place. The American government has done little to help us in this regard. The Federal Trade Commission merely requires internet companies to have a privacy policy available for consumers to see. A company can change that policy whenever it wants as long as it says it is doing so.

[Commentary] I declined to renew my contract as Fox News’s strategic analyst because of the network’s propagandizing for the Trump administration. Today’s Fox prime-time lineup preaches paranoia, attacking processes and institutions vital to our republic and challenging the rule of law. As Fox’s assault on our constitutional order intensified, spearheaded by its after-dinner demagogues, I had no choice but to leave. My error was waiting so long to walk away.

[Op-ed] National debates too often miss the reality on the ground in Alaska, and that reality is at the forefront of my mind when I’m considering the current debate about Net Neutrality. I strongly support a free and open internet and agree with those concerned about internet service providers prioritizing one website’s traffic over another’s or throttling access to certain content. I also believe and prefer Congress, not an executive agency like the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), should legislate protections for the internet.

[Op-ed] Publicly owned broadband networks exist for one purpose: to give the most people the best service at the lowest possible prices. They do this because they know it benefits their residents’ quality of life and incomes. Verizon, Comcast and other big internet providers don’t like localities encroaching on their business, and they have gone to court to stop public broadband networks from being established. They have lost these cases, but defending them costs governments time and money.