posted July 18, 2006 07:31 AM            

Red: Technology should be neutral / indifferent to current laws and business models. It is too risky to do otherwise.

Blue: Technology should enforce current laws and extend current business models. It is too risky to do otherwise.

1) State your position. How and why will more/less government regulation of hardware and software promote innovation?

2) Present your evidence, preferably using the sites and types of sites you have encountered in this course.

3) Explain how your evidence supports your position. Tell us how to think about it.

Learn more on the case page.

posted July 26, 2006 11:27 AM            

In regards to technology, I would like to state my position. I believe that technology should be neutral and indifferent to current laws and business models. Things such as hardware, software, and networks should be built to be future friendly. Less government regulation will promote and encourage technology innovation. Think about how many pieces of technology you own that would be tremendously affected if technology wasn’t neutral.

“Blaming or praising the Internet is like blaming or praising the pen. Don't outlaw tools because a building collapsed.”

“Whether one accepts the neutrality of technology depends on one's valuing philosophy… whether one tends toward the pragmatic and situational or the absolute and authoritarian. Those who believe that technology is neutral argue that "guns don't kill people, people do", or that a knife can be used to "cook, kill, or cure." Those who believe the opposite counter with evidence that technology cannot be evaluated in a vacuum. Monsma (1986) argued for the "value" of technology. He based his premise on two traits that he believed are common to all technological developments: (1) technological objects are unique; they are designed to function in a particular and limited way, and (2) technological objects are intertwined with their environment; they interact in unique ways with the rest of reality.”

“Ellul even went so far as to claim that whether one believes the technological system to be a good or bad influence is immaterial. The nature of technology, for Ellul, was so encompassing that it defied being judged. Whether we believe in it or not, and whether we think it is good or bad, technology continues on its course doing what it always does…subjugating our humanity.”

“Those in favor of "network neutrality" and keeping the current model of the internet as just a data conduit include big hitters such as Google, eBay, Amazon and even Microsoft. They know it will cost them more if they have to pay to get their video delivered to users. The phone and cable companies want to be free to charge for new services and make more money, and they argue that it's not up to the government what they do with their networks. I'm a market socialist, and I believe that regulated markets are the best way to create social value. I have also been using the net since 1985 and I have seen it evolve and grow thanks to the balance between regulation and market forces. That balance has to be maintained. Social justice is best served by ensuring that public utilities, of which the network is surely one, are regulated in the public interest. Markets fail, and they do so in ways that any humane society must address. Ensuring that network access is available to all and that the network itself carries all lawful traffic is the only way forward. We must just hope that the US government recognizes that this is the case, and sets a good example to the rest of the world.”

“The SavetheInternet.com Coalition is a real grassroots alliance of organizations, citizens, businesses and bloggers that have banded together to protect Internet freedom. The Coalition believes that the Internet is a crucial engine for economic growth and free speech. We are working together to urge Congress to preserve Network Neutrality, the First Amendment for the Internet that ensures that the Internet remains open to new ideas, innovation and progress. From its beginnings, the Internet has leveled the playing field for all. Everyday people can have their voices heard by thousands, even millions of people. The SavetheInternet.com Coalition -- representing millions of Americans from all walks of life -- is working together to ensure that Congress passes no telecommunications legislation without meaningful and enforceable Network Neutrality protections.”

“A major argument in favor of network neutrality is that a discriminatory network distorts markets that depend on the network, and ultimately may slow national economic growth. For example, if a network favors search engine A over search engine B, A may become dominant even though B's technology is better. In other words, a discriminatory network may "freeze" innovation (particularly application innovation) based on today's dominant applications. The link to national economic growth is as follows: many economists believe innovation is a major catalyst of economic growth, meaning that if a discriminatory network leads to less innovation, a country will grow more slowly.”

posted July 26, 2006 04:50 PM            

Internet commerce requires regulations and governance. A basic measure of a country's sovereignty is its government's ability to exercise jurisdiction - that is, the ability to set, interpret, and enforce laws throughout the country's territory. A government’s ability to exercise jurisdiction has lead to corporate and financial organization, which, in turn has lead to prosperity – a most sought after goal.
It is understood that principles and decree are diverse among nations and cultures. This is obvious and should only be considered a bump in the road towards a successful and just international E-regulation model. It’s necessary to understand that cultural boundaries are built to be revised incrementally. As any organization grows it is not uncommon to run directly into boundaries. If the organization was brought to a halt as a
direct result of these boundaries, growth, innovation and prosperity will be discontinued.

Clearly, it would be impracticable for each country to apply its own legal regime to the whole of the Net. What, then, is the extent of a country's legal domain in this space?
Current Activity

According to “Net Dialogue” the clearinghouse on international internet governance; Governments have worked through the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) to draft model clauses for electronic contracts (spelling out, e.g., choice of law and choice of forum for disputes), as well as the Hague Conference to consider rules for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. Meanwhile, governments are asking technical organizations to build geographic indicators into the Internet address system and into the devices connected to the network. These zoning initiatives allow a "mapping" of the real world onto cyberspace.

The new Technological Protection Measures (TPM)
Technological protection measures are components, software and other devices that are used to protect copyright material from being copied or accessed. These measures are increasingly common as a means of self-protection for copyright owners in response to increasing copyright infringement in the digital age.

TPM provides a means of protection for the innovators of the world. Copy right infringement is on the rise and is at it’s greatest peak of all time. At the same time, innovation is also on the rise and is also at its greatest peak of all time. The fog has cleared and experts can foresee a quandary brewing. Whentwo conflicting interest are flourishing simultaneously, something will have to give. To quote the cowboys of the wild west…“This town isn’t big enough for the both of us”. Commerce and international prosperity would be fortunate if innovation were to survive. Especially as future generations will depend on innovation to enhance quality of life and counter natural elements of disaster, such as diseases and global climate alteration. We must understand that without regulation, innovation will die. Innovation is strongly driven by motivation. Motivation is indirectly fueled by regulation, laws, protection etc. It becomes a simple equation, without regulation there is no motivation, without motivation there is no innovation, without innovation there is no prosperity.

Regulation is wrongfully associated with punishment
Many businesses and consumers are still wary of conducting extensive business over the Internet because of the lack of a predictable legal environment governing transactions. This is particularly true for international commercial activity where concerns about enforcement of contracts, liability, intellectual property protection, privacy, security and other matters have caused businesses and consumers to be cautious.
In 1997 the White House design a framework for global electronic commerce and the predictions stand true today. The document states that Electronic Commerce over the Internet should be facilitated on a global basis. The Internet is emerging as a global marketplace. The legal framework supporting commercial transactions on the Internet should be governed by consistent principles across state, national, and international borders that lead to predictable results regardless of the jurisdiction in which a particular buyer or seller resides.

Electronic commerce can be segmented into three chief issues, Financial, legal, and market access, identical to traditional commerce. For over 50 years, nations have negotiated tariff reductions because they have recognized that the economies and citizens of all nations benefit from free trade. With that being said, why would we introduce tariffs via internet commercial trade? With out regulation any nation conducting electronic business can tax in any manner they feel necessary. This will extinguish free trade and quickly lead to tax inflation. It’s recognized that many nations are looking for new sources of revenue, and may seek to levy tariffs on E commerce.

The framework developed by the White House created these principles. Any taxation of Internet sales should follow these principles:

• It should neither distort nor hinder commerce. No tax system should discriminate among types of commerce, nor should it create incentives that will change the nature or location of transactions.
• The system should be simple and transparent. It should be capable of capturing the overwhelming majority of appropriate revenues, be easy to implement, and minimize burdensome record keeping and costs for all parties.
• The system should be able to accommodate tax systems used by the United States and our international partners today.

Regardless if these principles are in place now, this is just an example of how regulation is necessary to maintain commercial flow. Think of the mechanics of a water slide. With out water pressure monitors and life guards, the water slide would be incredible fast and fun in the beginning. As the day goes on the water level will raise, water pressure becomes dangerous and the slide will need to be shut down. The water slide needed regulations to continue on a successful path. The regulations will not slow down the water flow, they will just make sure it is at a viable level. This concept needs to be applied to all levels of commerce, especially those with great ambiguity and opportunities for high level monetary returns.

posted July 26, 2006 04:52 PM            

Regulation is wrongfully associated with punishment
Many businesses and consumers are still wary of conducting extensive business over the Internet because of the lack of a predictable legal environment governing transactions. This is particularly true for international commercial activity where concerns about enforcement of contracts, liability, intellectual property protection, privacy, security and other matters have caused businesses and consumers to be cautious.
In 1997 the White House design a framework for global electronic commerce and the predictions stand true today. The document states that Electronic Commerce over the Internet should be facilitated on a global basis. The Internet is emerging as a global marketplace. The legal framework supporting commercial transactions on the Internet should be governed by consistent principles across state, national, and international borders that lead to predictable results regardless of the jurisdiction in which a particular buyer or seller resides.
Electronic commerce can be segmented into three chief issues, Financial, legal, and market access, identical to traditional commerce. For over 50 years, nations have negotiated tariff reductions because they have recognized that the economies and citizens of all nations benefit from free trade. With that being said, why would we introduce tariffs via internet commercial trade? With out regulation any nation conducting electronic business can tax in any manner they feel necessary. This will extinguish free trade and quickly lead to tax inflation. It’s recognized that many nations are looking for new sources of revenue, and may seek to levy tariffs on E commerce.
The framework developed by the White House created these principles. Any taxation of Internet sales should follow these principles:
• It should neither distort nor hinder commerce. No tax system should discriminate among types of commerce, nor should it create incentives that will change the nature or location of transactions.
• The system should be simple and transparent. It should be capable of capturing the overwhelming majority of appropriate revenues, be easy to implement, and minimize burdensome record keeping and costs for all parties.
• The system should be able to accommodate tax systems used by the United States and our international partners today.
Regardless if these principles are in place now, this is just an example of how regulation is necessary to maintain commercial flow. Think of the mechanics of a water slide. With out water pressure monitors and life guards, the water slide would be incredible fast and fun in the beginning. As the day goes on the water level will raise, water pressure becomes dangerous and the slide will need to be shut down. The water slide needed regulations to continue on a successful path. The regulations will not slow down the water flow, they will just make sure it is at a viable level. This concept needs to be applied to all levels of commerce, especially those with great ambiguity and opportunities for high level monetary returns.

posted July 26, 2006 05:52 PM         

Blue Team – Technology should enforce current laws because it will be too risky to do otherwise. More government regulations of technology will promote innovation.

Government plays a major role in the shaping of technology. One key role of government is to form policies and regulate activities that improve the health and welfare of everyday citizens or protect citizens from harm. Our government encourages technological development through support of our infrastructure, our educational system, and by absorbing some costs of using technology through granting tax credits and/or capital investment funds to the creator of the technology. For example during the 1970s, the government gave tax credits to companies willing to invest in research for alternative energies (wind, solar).Government influences technology in other ways, too. For example, Congress can directly influence the development or use of a technology by passing laws regulating the use of a technology or by forbidding its use totally. Congress can indirectly influence technology by funding or failing to fund a specific technology.
http://www.cdt.org/legislation/

The U.S. must realize that prosperity is directly tied to our ability to develop technologically. Much of our economic growth is a direct result of technological improvements. Technological advances such as the television and the internet has allowed for increase of public awareness. Unfortunately, awareness doesn’t automatically equate to being better informed citizens. Therefore, government should continue to maintain control by regulating technology. It is the duty to protect the public from terrorists that take advantage of technology, such as encryption. As a nation we have a false sense of security and the governments continued monitoring of such technologies is vital to our national security.

Some examples of government regulations and technology include:

• Digital Millennium Copyright Act http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/iclp/dmcal.htm

• Anti-Spy ware

• Wireless privacy http://www.cdt.org/privacy/issues/location/010406fcc.shtml

• VOIP Fees http://ww6.infoworld.com/products/print_friendly.jsp?link=/article/06/05/0578104_HNv oiptax

• Anti- phishing http://www.govtech.net/magazine/channel_story.php/99056

• Section 508 http://www.jimhatcher.com/webcourse1.htm

• Internet Tax Ban http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/09/17/HNhouseinternet_1.html

• CAN-SPAM – http://ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pobs/buspubs/canspam.htm

• For computer intrusions there is a set of technology available such as firewalls to protect resources and they are supported by legislation to allow prosecution of and litigation against those that are determined to circumvent the technology.

In closing it is in the best interest of society to embrace the regulations of technology because it would be detrimental to our nation’s security to do otherwise.

[This message has been edited by apple (edited July 26, 2006).]

posted July 26, 2006 09:02 PM            

Technology should be neutral and indifferent to current laws and business models. Less government and industry control over hardware and software can only promote additional opportunity for innovation and change. Technology should be built with the future in mind to get the best and most innovative results.

Everyday incompatibilities between hardware devices, between software formats, and between hardware and software create room for improvement and change. It might cost some businesses to fail, but others will come up as a result and the general population will have access to a great array of new products and technology, including new devices to use and learn from. For example, let’s look at some of the technology in our past to recognize the potential for our future. We have the first major computers. They took up entire rooms to run and store information, now we have little laptops that weigh less than 10 lbs. Also, let’s look at cars. At one point cars were made with have with heavy metal crafted by men, while now, some are covered with durable plastics, and built by computers.

If we had strong government and industry controls and regulations over technology in the past we would not have some of the improvements and innovations we are aware of today. The potential is too great to ignore and put rules on. Ripley the robot can listen to commands and follow directions. Where will his abilities end, and what kind of robots will Ripley be the precedence for? We are already seeing issues with cloning, and the US will soon be missing out on opportunities for medical breakthroughs as a result, we should not sell ourselves short of the growth technological advances could bring about, that is, with little or no government control.

After reading about Digital Rights Management, or DRM, it is apparent that it plays a major role in the future of whether or not there will be a toll put on technology. A definition of DRM, taken right from wikipedia.com, states that DRM is any of several technologies used by publishers to control access to digital data (such as software, music, movies) and hardware, handling usage restrictions associated with a specific instance of a digital work. DRM and Copy Protection refer to technologies that control or restrict the use and access of digital media content on electronic devices with such technologies installed (wikipedia.com). Both, if enforced seriously, will create barriers to consumers. Entertainment would be hindered, since people would no longer be able to do what they choose to with their media, and education would become an issue as well. Since programs and software copying would be prohibited, despite it’s readily availability now, students and scholars alike would not be able to go beyond the general search on their computers or demos provided by companies.

The scare of Copy Protection and Digital Rights Management has become a major issue for some important critics, like Richard Stallman. He wrote a story in response to the DRM as an example of his feelings and opposition for the issue (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html). Stallman feels like this is a way to pressure the public to waive their constitutional rights for the Fourth Amendment.
Defective By Design, and organization that is also against DRM uses iPods and iTunes as an example. Although the DRM of Apple is not as seriously enforced, the organization Defective By Design claims that DRM will cripple the future of digital freedom, and they plan to fight against it. A poster using an iPod as an example shows how seriously they feel. Their major goal is to bring public awareness to the issue and to create a group initiative against it (defectivebydesign.com). It is apparent that by using ads similar to the current iPod ads, they are sure to draw some attention.

Free creations are also on board, trying to spread the word, and bring about change, offering artists and programs a new “free content license”. It will serve as a copyleft, which enable the artwork and programs to be freely available. It is an agreement that allows for users to have full and free access to the program, or art to do what they want with it, freely (freecreations.org/faq).
The United States has already taken DRM a step further with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), a United States copyright law which criminalizes production and dissemination of technology that can circumvent measures taken to protect copyright, not merely infringement of copyright itself, and heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet. Opponents feel the same about DMCA as DRM, for the same reasons. One person against DMCA wrote that “the DMCA is anti-competitive. It gives copyright holders — and the technology companies that distribute their content — the legal power to create closed technology platforms and exclude competitors from interoperating with them.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA).

As a response to the possibility or freedom being taken away fro the user and consumer, there are some alternatives. Although many companies and sites have used DRM and DMCA to their advantage, and prohibited the use or copy capabilities, there is a solution. There are programs being created by anonymous sources that will override DRM or DMCA rules for certain types of media, shown on http://cryptome.org/ms-drm.htm. In addition, there are many other efforts devoted to getting around the barriers. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has come up with a “Patent Busting Project” to boycott and take down some of the largest companies and brands that exercise DRM and DMCA (http://www.eff.org/patent/wp.php). Their purpose if to protect innovation and free expression, and make everyone aware of the problems that can be caused with out them.

I think that it is very important to support some of the ongoing efforts to protect the future of technology so that we will see more innovation and change. With too much control from government laws and models to follow, there will be less of an opportunity to expand what we already know and have at our fingertips. The evidence supporting technology neutrality and campaigns against the controls all mention the same thing. That is, taking our freedom from customers and users and seriously bruising the chances to gain dramatic advancement of the technology we have become so familiar with.

I believe that this business will not only hinder innovation, but also education as well, because there will be no great changes, like we have today. The ability to share information and technology is so open and available that without that, learning will become more of a challenge. Technology must remain neutral and indifferent to current laws and business models so that we do not fall behind the innovations of other countries and parts of the world. To limit ourselves will truly cost us in the long run, in convenience, preference, profitability, and competition, as well.

posted August 06, 2006 02:38 PM            

To rebut my side of the technology debate, I would like to comment on some of the arguments that were brought up by the blue team two weeks ago to defend the red side. The blue team said during the debate that, “One key role of the government is to form policies and regulate activities that improve the health and welfare of everyday citizens or protect those citizens from harm.” I would argue that technology gives our society more educational opportunities and improves quality of life for people of all ages. With that being said, technology should be neutral and indifferent to current laws and business models.

The blue team also stated that, “Internet commerce requires regulations and governance. A basic measure of a country's sovereignty is it’s government's ability to exercise jurisdiction - that is, the ability to set, interpret, and enforce laws throughout the country's territory. A government’s ability to exercise jurisdiction has led to corporate and financial organization, which, in turn has lead to prosperity – a most sought after goal.” In response to that, I would add that yes, Internet commerce does require regulation and jurisdiction, but there can and should be a reasonable limit especially for the reasons of technological and economic growth. After all, less government regulation would promote and encourage technology innovation, which would definitely lead to prosperity – a much sought after goal in regards to our country in the words of the blue team.

The blue team also brought up the point that, “Motivation is indirectly fueled by regulation, laws, protection, etc. It becomes a simple equation: without regulation there is no motivation, without motivation there is no innovation, and without innovation there is no prosperity.” I would argue that statement completely opposite and say that with too much regulation, there would be no motivation for people because they would feel trapped and that innovation wasn’t valued. Therefore, that lack of motivation would lead to no room for innovation and lastly, no final product for our nation’s government to prosper.

posted August 07, 2006 04:18 PM         

The Net is an extraordinary communications tool that provides a range of new opportunities for people, communities, businesses, and government. As Internet becomes more populated, it increasingly resembles society at large. Government has an important role to play regarding technological advances. While government should respect the rules and customs that have arisen on the Internet. It still needs to monitor and regulate what corrupt citizens or fraudulent corporations are doing online. Technology standards and privacy issues are too important to be entrusted to the marketplace alone. Markets encourage innovation, but they do not necessarily insure the public interest. In a world driven by the flow of information and the development of technology, understanding its strengths and limitations is crucial. As well as participating in creating better laws,is an important part of being an involved citizen. Technology affects our lives as much as laws do, and it should be subjected to a similar scrutiny.