Five ways legislation has made a mess of technology, plus five problems that desperately need a legal solution.
Anush Yegyazarian, PC World
PC World
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
1:19 AM
Given how much technology affects all parts of our lives these days, it's scary to think about how often Congress gets regulation of tech issues wrong. Sometimes it passes laws, like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), that make things worse. Other times it ignores vital issues such as online privacy, leaving us at the mercy of companies and whatever their privacy policies say this week.
Here's my list of the five technology laws most in need of an overhaul, along with five areas in which, well, there ought to be a law.
Few people argue that copyright shouldn't exist--after all, the creators of the music, art, video, and other content we enjoy should be able to profit from their work and control its distribution. But 1998's Digital Millennium Copyright Act (as well as that same year's Copyright Term Extension Act, which protects copyrights virtually indefinitely) goes too far.
By making it illegal to break the encryption that may protect a work, the DMCA takes away the ability that we used to have before the digital age to freely move around our own content for personal purposes. The law also hinders research into new technologies and prohibits accepted software practices like reverse engineering. Court rulings have mitigated some of these issues, but researchers and consumer advocacy groups both say they can still feelthe chilling effect.
There's another problem: The complex copyright system best serves big corporations, which can hire experts to navigate its myriad rules. But average Joes are creating lots of new content--YouTube videos, podcasts, blogs, and more. Mashups allow people to easily take content created by others, mix it up, and produce something new. Copyright rules are too complex for most amateur creators to apply to their own works, or even to follow as they borrow and remix existing products.
You can argue that the goals--increase security and get a better handle on immigration by instituting a national identity card--are good. The card is supposed to replace your driver's license and would be issued only after a stringent check of your identity and residency status. And data from the cards would be used to create a national database of identity information easily shared across state lines. But 2005's Real ID Act--enacted without debate--has a number of significant flaws.
It mandates that all the identity cards include some technology to make them machine readable so that companies and agencies can easily get at the information they contain. But the act gives only a bare set of guidelines for this technology and doesn't require that all states use the same system. It also neglects to specify even a minimum standard for the security of this highly sensitive information. Each state can choose its own level of security, but since everything is linked, the data is only as safe as the flimsiest system. Nothing in the law specifies how the data will be shared in practice--it may be reasonable, for example, for your bank or employer to have access to your Social Security number and residency status, but should the liquor store clerk who's checking your age have it too?
The IDs are supposed to debut next year, though there are some moves in Congress now to delay the implementation or repeal the act entirely.
Patently Absurd
Ever wonder why each day seems to bring news of another patent-infringement lawsuit? Or why U.S. cell phone networks are so slow? Or why so few cities offer wireless Internet service? The answers lie, at least in part, in these lousy government decisions.
The patent system is broken. Even Congress knows that, andcontroversial effortsto overhaul it are under way. The Patent Office has acrushing backlogof hundreds of thousands of patent review requests, a rigidly defined time limit in which to do those reviews, and little extra time to keep up with the rapidly changing tech field. Is it any wonder thatsilly patentsget approved?
Bad patent grants lead to frivolous lawsuits that can cost millions of dollars even if they're settled early on--and you and I end up footing the bill in the form of higher prices. The throng of pointless patents also makes it hard for companies to find the legitimate ones that they may unknowingly violate. And all the lawsuits create uncertainty for buyers and a veritable nightmare for users of a product embroiled in a patent battle--something devotees ofRIM's BlackBerry devicesknow all too well.
Once upon a time, our government decided that we didn't need a cellular technology standard. The cost of that strategy has been slower networks, spotty coverage, and more limited services than in many other countries.
The United States has four major cellular carriers--AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon--which use two base technologies (GSM/GPRS and CDMA) and at least four upgraded technologies (EDGE, UMTS, EvDO, HSDPA) to handle their users' traffic. Coverage areas vary by vendor because each one has to build its own network, but even users of the same carrier will get different network speeds depending on where they are, since vendors deploy faster technologies in stages.
Because of these competing and incompatible technologies, when you switch carriers you often must get a new phone even if you don't want one. And it's easier for carriers to lock in a popular cell phone model (iPhone, anyone?). Moreover, since hardware makers must create models to support each of these different technologies, their development costs go up as well, and that eventually gets passed on to consumers.
Many European and Asian countries, whose governments have chosen a single cellular technology standard, have services that simply don't exist here or have been slow to debut, such as cellular payment systems (which are made easier by use of a single tech standard) and live TV broadcasts (which require ubiquitous high speeds).
This one varies by region, but it's a bad idea no matter where you are. Certain states, such as Missouri and Pennsylvania, havemade it illegalfor individual cities and towns to offer broadband, video, or wireless services to their residents. Yes, private companies do often provide those services to the cities in question, and such companies may be able to maintain the networks required for these services more cheaply than a government agency. It's also true that not all residents of a given area would want their tax dollars used this way. But why shouldn't local governments compete with their own offerings if that's what the majority of residents want?
If my town wants to offer free or low-cost wireless access with my tax dollars and it can do so efficiently, why shouldn't it? Given the importance of an always-on connection in today's society, and the high value we place on competition, having an extra player willing to step in and offer greater choice--and sometimes the only choice--should be encouraged, not prohibited.
Errors of Omission
It's not just the laws Congress has passed that get us in trouble. Sometimes the problem lies with the major technology issues that our senators and representatives have ignored. On the next few pages are five technology problems desperately in need of a law.
As our world grows ever more connected, the amount of data any one company (or government agency) collects about us also increases, as do thenew threats to your privacy. But outside of a few heavily regulated fields such as the financial and health-care industries, few rules exist to govern the collection, storage, sale, accuracy, and security of that data.
Google knowstremendous amounts about us, and it's only going to learn more as increasing numbers of users sign up for its services and as itsproposed acquisition of advertising firm DoubleClickgives it access to a huge new treasure trove of databases. Nothing but Google's own goodwill can keep the company from storing that data until your grandchildren have kids or selling that data to all and sundry. (Sure, Google's privacy policy promises some protections, but only until the company decides to change its policy.)
GPS services know where you are anytime you have your device on, and could be used to tell how fast you're traveling--a fact your auto-insurance agent would likely want to know. And mobile marketers want access to your location information so they can send you ads for restaurants and shops in your immediate area. Again, no rules exist to spell out what these companies can and can't do with the data they're collecting about you.
We need a comprehensive set of standards for how these different companies handle our data and what they can do with it. We also need laws that allow us to review and challenge data about us, just as we can with financial data now. And we should have a national lawrequiring companies and government agenciesthat collect and store sensitive information to notify us quickly if our data is lost or stolen.
When we buy a song, a video, or any other piece of entertainment, we should be able to move it around to our various devices, take it with us when we travel, and share it within our homes. Such capabilities used to fall under the concept of "fair use," but with the DMCA and Hollywood's fears about peer-to-peer piracy, fair use has come under attack.
Congress should end the debate once and for all, by giving consumers a clear set of guidelines about what they can and cannot do with content they have bought. Andthose rulesshould preserve the commonsense minimum set of rights that we used to have, and not require us to pay every time we want to enjoy our media on a different device. 'Nuff said.
Just Make It Fair
Three priorities for Congress: Keep the Internet a level playing field, make monthly bills from service providers simple to read and dispute, and ensure that electronic voting is secure and free from interference.
This should be a no-brainer: Big companies shouldn't be able to pay to have the data from their Web sites and services travel more quickly along the Internet than those of smaller companies or individual users. But many people in government--most recently the folks at theFederal Trade Commission--don't seem to get the concept.
Allowing unequal service leads to anan Internet imbalancethat ultimately will hurt innovation and competition. And that means we, the consumers, lose out.
There should be a prioritization of traffic, but it should look only at what kind of data is being transferred, not who sent it. Data that requires fast, uninterrupted service, such as streaming video, should get priority, whether that video is ESPN's game highlights or footage of your Hawaiian vacation.
Take a look at your cell phone, telephone, and cable bills. Odds are, you'll spot an item or two that you know little about, or perhaps can't identify at all. Maybe your spouse ordered a new service or your child downloaded a ring tone or game. But the abbreviated jargon on most of these bills makes it hard to know for sure.
That's why consumer groups are mobilizing to get Congress or individual states to set a billing standard so that you know exactly what you're being charged for, andby whom.
That latter point has become increasingly important as cell phone carriers work with third parties to provide customers with services ranging from games to daily jokes. It's too easy to sign up for something--sometimes without even knowing it--and way too hard to figure out how to unsubscribe. Theproblemextends to ISPs and Web services, which often have partnership deals and may share your credit card information when you sign up for special offers.
Congress should require companies that bill you to include a plain-English description of the service you're being charged for, along with a phone number you can use to cancel. That would go a long way toward helping consumers make sure they can control their finances and prevent fraud.
After the fiasco of the Florida presidential election count in 2000, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act in 2002, allocating hundreds of millions of dollars to get states to update their voting systems and, presumably, to reduce errors and fraud. While e-voting machines have certainly made things easier for voters and county officials for the most part, they've also beenplagued by so many identified security problems, and software and deployment errors, that some states (including Florida) are banning them altogether.
One of the chief problems with the machines is that they offer no paper trail to check against electronic tallies if a glitch crops up. If the machine crashes or a discrepancy in voter counts surfaces, you're out of luck. Mandating a paper trail would help to resolve such conflicts when they arise. Some states already demand such verification, but it's important enough that we should have this requirement nationwide. We also need stricter oversight of the machines' software and physical security, so we can be sure that any election-eve patches are legitimate.