from the i-have-opinions dept
For those of you who don't know me, I'm director of information policy studies at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C. I work mostly on privacy (including such things as anonymity and the Fourth Amendment), and also on telecom, intellectual property, government transparency (lots of that lately), and protecting the country from counter terrorism.
I'm a native of California and a lawyer. I always take it as a compliment when people who talk to me figure out the first one and have no idea about the second. On my Twitter feed, I sometimes share glimpses of the pageant that unfolds weekend nights, late, on D.C.'s buses.
I have opinions. I want less coercion in our society.
We're all agreed on opposing private violence such as rape and murder, but a lot of people indulge public violence too easily. Some people are OK with state violence visited on innocent foreign people because it might make us safer here. It won't, but no matter because the violence is remote in distance (I guess that's their thinking).
Some people are OK with economic regulation, taxation, and redistribution of wealth for a similar reason: The state violence behind it is conceptually remote. I want less of that, too—a truly peaceful society built on cooperation.
I was listening to "Screaming at a Wall" by Minor Threat when I wrote those last bits. Perhaps that's a metaphor for what I do much of the time. It's very hard to reach people with a possible insight at a moment when they're receptive to it.
What You're Dealing With When You Go to Congress
Hands down, my favorite post of the week goes after Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) for his technical ignorance. I like Louie Gohmert. I think he's funny. He's a real character. And, I mean, his name sounds like "Gomer."
But I sure wouldn't want him governing me.
The colloquy featured in the post is very similar to one I had with a senator after I testified in the Senate Commerce Committee a few years ago. 'How are my searches giving my email over to the spammers?' That kinda stuff. Oh lord.
It was a Republican doing the asking that time, too. But congressional ignorance is a bipartisan problem—sometimes on matters even more basic.
I think a lot of people believe so strongly in democracy that they apply their ideal vision of Congress when they think about what Congress and the government might do. The reality is very different.
It's not that all members of Congress are gomers. They and their staffs are very smart, very dedicated people. But they haven't got the knowledge to organize a society as large, diverse, and open as ours.
Mike says at the end that we need better politicians. There are better, but the system that runs society better than we could ourselves? It does not exist.
Don't Trust the Cloud
I hang my head in shame for all the people who have jumped on the "cloud" bandwagon, and the post expressing skepticism about Google's new "Keep" service in light of Google Reader's demise expresses an important dimension of #cloudfail.
It's absolutely true that "cloud" makes sense given the current state of technology. You don't want to run your apps and your storage on your home server, because most of you don't have one. (I don't.) And you don't want to keep up its upkeep.
But what price do you pay for throwing everything up onto that "cloud" thingy? Greater risk of third-party access and your privacy's undoing, for one thing. Cloud services also can fail. "Cloud" is a marketing term that confuses people about the fact that there are network operators and software and database managers who have duties and responsibilities to their customers.</rant>
There will come a time—give me a long enough time horizon and you know I'm right—when software will be so stable, hardware so cheap, and connectivity so replete that throwing sensitive data and documents onto someone else's servers will seem like an embarrassing mistake.
That's not the point of the post, but it allows me to stretch for that point. I'm old enough to have played games on a mainframe through a teletype machine. I made copies of letters with carbon paper! We looked up information in books! And liked it!
The technology will change the economics, and I think "cloud" will go.
A solid institution like Google yanking Reader is just one, non-devastating dimension of #cloudfail, but other undesirable things can happen with cloud services.
The Business Model Problem
Nobody beats Masnick for illustrating that there are business models that can compete with "free." He apparently has a rival in Glyn Moody, though, who wrote this week about the wave of newspapers in London reducing their prices to zero.
That is classic Techdirt. And it makes Techdirt...how shall we put it...non-beloved by the copyright-reliant folks out there.
You'll be interested to know (or maybe not) that libertarians are divided on intellectual property laws. Some regard them as a gross imposition on the natural right to say and read and write and use whatever knowledge you want to. Others regard ideas and expressions as the rightful property of their creators, rightfully defended from expropriation by government in its proper role as a preventer of rights-violations. I did my best not to tip my hand at a Cato book forum on the topic this week. Haha!
Libertarians are even divided on whether you should call it "intellectual property" or not. I think it's fine to call it that.
I make a curious distinction—too rare in discussions of these topics—between intellectual property, the myriad things produced by cognition and volition, and intellectual property law, which is the assortment of statutes that extend greater control over intellectual property to certain of its beneficiaries. We should have a name for these things: inventions, expressions, and other ideal objects. "Intellectual" modifies "property" much the way "real" does when the object you're talking about is a chunk of earth.
Intellectual property laws have a very different reason for being than property laws pertaining to physical goods. That's what matters most.
Another "That's So Techdirt!"
Mike came up with the "Streisand effect" and don't you forget it.
So I had to love the triple-Streisand featured this week. What a bunch of maroons there are out there who think they can bully legitimate commentary and other good stuff off the Web.
Don't like that I said that?! Just let me know, and I'll take it down... :-/
Thanks, Techdirt, to the shout you gave to our Wikipedia and legislative data workshop late last week.
We've been working on modeling, advocating for, and now producing better government data, starting with legislation.
In short order, we're going to start systematically reporting on notable bills in Congress on Wikipedia, building the public's capacity and demand for information about what goes on in Washington, D.C.
Our data is perfectly amenable to many uses. Let me know if you want to build something with it.