InfoTech & Public Policy

In class last week, we talked about the use of geo-location technologies with respect to directing emergency calls of someone using VoIP. A little looking into how these technologies are available and what they’re used for, and it seems that there are applications to many of the topics we’ve talked about this semester. When so much of the problem of internet governance stems from the anonymity of internet users and the ease with which internet traffic can transcend borders, knowing the location of an internet user changes the game.

First, let’s take a look at the geo-location technologies currently in use. A large part of the software used now is available from proprietary providers such as Quova and Digital Element. This proprietary software is based on determining the location of a particular IP address. This information has to be gathered by analyzing the locations of IP addresses all over the world. Note that while there are ways to conceal location (such as using a proxy server), the software can flag internet users who are doing so. Interestingly, another mechanism for determining physical geo-location without using IP addresses was patented in September, 2005. The patent holder: the NSA. The NSA website briefly profiles its “Network Geo-Location Technology” which as described here measures latency to build up a network latency topology map. This map can then be used to look up a computer based on the time it takes to connect to that computer. (This system can also be avoided using some kind of proxy service). The patent on this method of geo-location is one which the NSA has made available to be licensed for industry use.

Consider some of the possible uses for geo-location technologies (some taken from this article and the websites of Quova and Digital Element): Credit card companies or banks can use this software to detect fraud. Gaming operators can adopt this technology to comply with laws regarding trade practices over international and state borders. Sites such as eBay can use this to restrict which products are available in which locations (think Nazi paraphernalia and France). Hosts of digital worlds could keep track of the international transference of real money through in-game assets, and online providers of digital content can use it to comply with contracts that require them not to broadcast shows in certain areas (according to this article, major league baseball is a Quova customer that uses the product to make sure locally-broadcast games don’t lose their exclusivity by being unconditionally available online).

Aside from all of these applications for law enforcement, the companies that offer geo-location software market it for its ability to improve the user experience of the web. Namely, they cite the advantages of being able to give a user local search results, for example to guide a user to a store closest to them, and to target online advertising (ad-serving is currently the most common use of geo-location technology). Digital Element’s website claims that 25% of all Internet searches are local in nature, and that targeted ads have been shown to sell up to 30-40% more than general ads. Even if these numbers are exaggerated, it’s hard to argue that such location technologies have value to advertisers, search engines, and others.

The problem with geo-location technologies is that there’s a fine line between using general geographic data add desirable features or to make sure border-dependent laws are enforced on the web, and infringing on privacy and collecting personal information. Depending on the edition of Quova’s software, information obtained can be anywhere from simply geographic information in the basic edition up to much more in the security edition (“geographic information and confidence factors, demographic information, connection type, connection speed, IP routing type, AOL flag, ASN, carrier name, top-level domain, second-level domain, registering organization, a list of anonymizing proxies, hostnames, and routers”), and the services offered by Quova includes a variety of audit services for data collection (marketed as a means to help online business owners manage their business). We have to ask how much information should be available, and to whom.

While the current capabilities of both systems do raise questions about privacy and information availability, the question really comes up when we consider potential improvements on these technologies. While for marketing uses (among others) being able to locate some user / IP address to a general geographic area is sufficient, there are certainly other uses that would benefit from more exact geo-location technology such as emergency service for VoIP users, or the ability to more exactly locate someone committing fraud. The downside is that in different hands (or even in the hands of law enforcement officials depending on your point of view), the ability to accurately locate anyone using the internet is a dangerous tool, certainly one that you would not want to be commercially available. Using proxy servers may be an effective method of avoiding being located, it would also means the loss of all the positives of geo-locating technology.

The applications and benefits of geo-location technologies are quite substantial, and potentially provide a means to deal with many of the policy-related issues of internet regulation we’ve discussed this semester. As the technologies develop however, care needs to be taken with respect to the capabilities of such software available through general distribution.

I’d like to return to an issue I wrote about earlier this semester, how visa processes affect U.S. technology companies. During President Bush’s trip to India in March, he promoted the benefits of outsourcing. Outsourcing is critical for U.S. businesses, but U.S. industry still needs to attract highly qualified foreign personnel to work inside the United States. The post-9/11 environment has significantly slowed the process of “worker visas” (AKA H-1B visas). Students who previously wanted to study in the U.S. for advanced degrees are now considering other countries because of the difficulty in qualifying for U.S. student visas.

U.S. businesses have been lobbying Congress to increase the caps on the number of H1-B visas that can be issued in a year. According to Information Week, “The United States received the maximum number of allowable petitions for H-1B visas in fiscal 2006 six weeks before the fiscal year even began.” But recent focus on larger questions of immigration has threatened to derail progress on raising the H-1B caps. As a result, last week Texas Senator John Cornyn proposed the “SKIL (Securing Knowledge, Innovation and Leadership) Bill” which will allow industries to continue competitive hiring while the immigration debate rages on. Why should lawmakers address the worker visa issue immediately?

An industry group called Compete America is focuses on promoting competitiveness for American industry. Their website cites the following troubling trends, “Misguided immigration policies for highly educated foreign talent, combined with our foreign competitors’ increased efforts to attract that talent, have resulted in American brain drain. Fewer of the world’s top minds are coming to the United States to study. International applications to U.S. graduate programs are down 23 percent from 2003. Foreign student immigration to Australia has doubled since the year 2000 while the same type of immigration to the United States has not increased at all. After receiving a U.S. graduate degree, fewer foreign students are staying to work and contribute to the United States, finding better opportunities back home. While 25 years ago 70 to 80 percent of foreign students stayed in the United States after receiving a graduate degree, today only 50 percent do.”

The SKIL Bill, according to Compete America, will accomplish the following:
* Exemptions for U.S. educated foreign professionals with a master’s or higher degree from the H-1B and EB quotas so their talent can be retained in the United States.
* Creation of a flexible, market-based H-1B cap so that U.S. employers are not locked out of hiring critical talent.
* Extension of foreign students’ post curricular optional practical training from 12 to 24 months to allow them to go more easily from student to green card.
* Exemptions for spouses and minor children of EB green card professionals from the annual cap, thus making more visas available for the professionals U.S. employers need.

The United States can not afford to stand by idly and watch a brain drain develop. Congress should act now – admittedly difficult during an election year – to insure the next generation of technology is led by U.S. companies and research institutes. Allowing the cap to be lifted while other issues involving immigrations are debated is critical.

In this week’s discussion of broadcast regulation, the issue of localization and boarders came up. In particular it was noted that Canadian broadcasts had quotas for Candian and French Language content. The rules are actually quite specific: 35% of weekday radio broadcasts between 6AM to 6PM must be Canadian and 55% within the same timeframe must be in French. They even have specific rules on what qualifies as Canadian content.

Most students expressed the thought that protection of culture was silly. The fact that it was the French Language (of all languages) that was being protected made these regulations even sillier. After all, if there is one thing that is popular across America, it’s France Bashing (if you have any doubt, try “I’m Feeling Lucky” for “French Military Victories”).

The typical argument against cultural regulation (as expressed by some in class) is that people vote with their feet: if Canadians wanted to watch more Canadian Television, they would not need government subsidies for it. I have a few responses to that. First, by living in America, one has a distinctly asymmetrical view of broadcast culture. American airwaves are remarkably impermeable to international content, while international airwaves are filled with American content. Chances are, you have never heard of MC Solaar (a popular French Rap Artist), but many of my friends overseas have heard of Eminem. You have probably never heard of the Spring Festival TV Show, which (at least a few years ago) was the biggest TV event in mainland China. And yet, the students I have talked to (in East Asia and Europe) have all heard of American television shows. (Unfortunately, the most popular example, cited universally, is “Friends.” If you don’t believe my anecdotal evidence, check out the French, German, and Chinese language sites, which are always the first hit in the appropriate national language Google search). This asymmetry goes a long way in explaining the divide between countries concerning cultural protections. So then if American culture does better in the free market, does it mean it is somehow better – more marketable, larger popular appeal?

Not necessarily. The name of Frederick II’s palace in Potsdam is “Sans Souci” – it’s French for “without worries.” Why did this quintessentially Prussian ruler name his palace in French? And more importantly, why does it imitate the intricate Rocco style of Versailles (and for that matter, why do all the palaces of that era?) During the eighteenth century, France was the preeminent power and French culture and language were dominant. It has even been remarked that Russian Aristocrats spoke better French than they did their native tongue. Similar geopolitical overtones exist in the modern debate over culture and language preservation: people in foreign countries view American content as an invasion of something they cherish dearly.

A possible response might be, “well, I’m American; as a policy matter, I should oppose all cultural protections because they hamper the free market mechanisms I believe in and inhibit the spread of my culture.” Its pretty clear that Americans do not always think this way. One of the biggest applause lines in Avenue Q was from “Everyone’s a Little Bit Racist:”

Everyone makes judgments
Based on race.
…
Now not big judgments, like who to hire
or who to buy a newspaper from –
…
No, just little judgments like thinking that Mexican
busboys should learn to speak goddamn English!

On the policy front, a provision of the current immigration bill requires that newly “amnestied” immigrants learn English. My point is that Americans are just as culture and language conscious as everyone else.

While I believe that countries have a very legitimate right to support their own culture, I don’t think broadcast quotas are the right way of accomplishing that goal. For one thing, it costs a regulator the same amount of ink to place the quota at 1% for domestic content as 99%; the danger is that policy makers will pick unrealistic numbers without concern for their effects. Subsidizing cultural events is a much better method as increased support comes with increased costs. This is very much in tune with American policy: the current budget for the National Endowment for the Arts is around $140 million. Of course, one could argue that NEA money is squandered too: if the masses choose Britney spears over Itzhak Perlman then let them listen to teenage pop. This is a completely different debate, but I think that most Americans support some form of subsidization for the Arts.

This week I want to talk about a current issue that deals with privacy and the protection of personal information, two topics that we focused on in previous classes.  By the end of 2006, the State Department hopes that all newly issued passports will be “e-passports.”  The US is also pushing other countries to issue these electronic passports.  What makes the e-passport different is that it has an embedded RFID chip which holds the travelers identification information, including name, birthday, and digital picture.  This is the same technology that is used at tollbooths, such as the familiar EZ-Pass .

When the US issued the first e-passports in January 2006, they opened a big can of worms with civil liberties groups.  The ACLU fears that these e-passports will be abused as tracking devices to keep tabs on the whereabouts of travelers on certain watch lists.  I don’t think that this concern holds much water, because the government can already track travel habits just by looking at ticket records as it is.  What concerns me is not a fear of big brother-tactics by the government, but rather the theft of my personal information by someone “skimming” the information off of my EZ-pass(port). To demonstrate security flaws in the new technology, a Dutch security firm successfully intercepted and decoded information on an e-passport.

I think that e-passports could definitely speed up the line at customs, and they do make sense as the next step in the evolution of identification.  They do raise privacy questions. If we are going to require e-passports with RFID chips, why doesn’t the government just implant RFID chips into travelers?  I have heard of some systems that use RFID chips to identify pets. Certainly this same technology could be applied to humans.  Just think, you would never have to worry about losing your passport or forgetting it at home.  At the same time, however, you would have a microchip inside you that could still be skimmed, and this information could be used to program another chip which could then be implanted in someone else who just successfully stole your identity.  As technology continues to evolve, privacy concerns and identity theft become more and more commonplace.  As we’ve discussed, it is up to the individual to protect his or her personal information in the face of technological innovation.

            The .xxx domain has been the source of all sorts of different controversy.  Many civil rights groups worry that its creation could legitimize the pornography industry or increase the amount of porn on the internet.  Free speech advocates fear that it could lead to internet censorship.  Of course there are many potential positives to the creation of a .xxx domain.  Those who wish to view pornographic material would have an easier time finding it while those wishing to avoid it or block it would also have an easier time.  This reasoning recently motivated two US Senators to propose a bill which would create the .xxx domain and require all pornographic websites located in the main top level domains such as .com, .net, etc. to relocate to this new domain.  Beyond adding to the controversies above, this proposed bill could intensify an already heated debate over control of ICANN and the DNS servers. 

            The fact that two senators even proposed such a law implies that they believe the US has the right to actually directly influence ICANN policy without the input of the rest of the world.  Consider the implications of implementing this bill.  The US could not enforce this law without ICANN’s involvement.  Their jurisdiction is only over countries in the US.  If a pornographic website has all of its operations overseas the US can do little to force it to move to the .xxx domain.  Furthermore any such efforts could potentially drive US porn companies to move over seas costing the US a significant amount of money.  Because the internet is global as long as some pornographic sites remain in the main stream domains this law would have virtually no effect in terms of removing pornography from the those domains. 

            Therefore for the law to be effective it must require all pornographic websites to move to the .xxx domain whether or not they are based in the US.  The only way for the US to do this would be to have ICANN force these sites off of the other domains like .com, .net etc.  This approach is in fact the one the senators suggest in their bill.  The fact that US senators would even propose such a bill serves to confirm other countries worst fears about US oversight of ICANN.  Until recently the US could always claim that it never exercised its power over ICANN and that all of these countries concerns were only theoretical.  However this bill demonstrates US lawmaker’s willingness to consider directly influencing major ICANN policy. 

            The most ironic thing about this proposal is that when the .xxx domain was initially proposed it was US intervention that postponed its creation indefinitely.  This initial intervention helped fuel calls for international oversight of ICANN from countries like the EU.  The bill is facing heavy resistance and will likely be defeated however the damage could still be done.   Merely proposing the bill is a reminder of the potential power the US could wield over the internet.  Passage of this bill could very well be the final straw to lead to the US losing its oversight power over ICANN.  Rather than supporting these countries fears, the US should be doing everything it can to demonstrate that these fears are unfounded. 

This is the story of an invitation gone wrong, and what its unintended consequences might mean for public policy in the connected world.

Tourism Australia has been trying to run commercials on television stations in other countries, inviting tourists to visit down under. “We’ve poured you a beer. And we’ve saved you a spot on the beach. So where the bloody hell are you?”

As invitations go, it doesn’t sound so bad to me. But censors in Canada didn’t like the use of the word “hell,” given that the ad might be aired prior to 10:00 (after which, you can use any word you want on Canadian network TV). Regulatory authorities in the UK also had a problem with the ad. In their case, however, “hell” was just fine; the word “bloody” was at issue. I should also mention that the ad would also need to be edited to remove clips of people drinking beer if it was to be shown in Canada (where you can not depict people enjoying alcohol on TV).

Sosuime’s March 22 post (on the US Supreme Court and obscenity) and Tourism Australia’s troubles have prompted me to wonder about obscenity rules and guidelines in an ever-increasingly connected world. Sosuime’s post refers to a Supreme Court affirmation of an earlier decision that “community standards” should be applied when judging if a work of art or publication is obscene or not. The old adage of “I know it (pornography) when I see it” seems to be the rule of thumb in this approach.

We can add an extra dimension to the examples above by turning to technological advances. Simply put, the national regulation of broadcasting becomes more difficult now that we can watch TV remotely (via the sling-box demonstrated in class) or over the Internet. How can “community standards” be applied if everyone in the world with a broadband connection is your potential audience? And even if we could figure out how to apply such standards, would we want to?

The creative anarchy of the Internet may therefore have an influence on what is being broadcast, and how regulators censor potentially offensive content. As the web delivers more and more moving images and programming originally meant for television, consumers will have more choice, and are more likely to spend less time in front of their TVs. Networks will try to respond with more relevant content that pushes the boundaries of what is acceptable on commercial television (much as they have already done in trying to fend off Tony Soprano and other pay channel content). Regulators can go along or they can apply their standards rigorously. Personally, I hope that there will be a re-evaluation of how programming is censored. It’s foolish that we can see violence depicted on network TV all the time, while the relatively mild phrase “bloody hell” can still raise hackles.