Net Neutrality

               As summarized by The Verge, net neutrality is the idea that internet service providers (ISPs) cannot charge customers different rates to receive different network performance and priority. For example, AT&T cannot charge Netflix higher rates because they push much greater amounts of data through AT&T’s (and others’) network. The Verge explains that:

“The order focuses on three specific rules for internet service: no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization. ‘A person engaged in the provision of broadband internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful internet traffic on the basis of internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management,’”

When the FCC mentions “paid prioritization,” they are referring to the practice of configuring the network to favor certain traffic based on how much was paid for that traffic or how much its speedy transmission might benefit the network provider. According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, “the FCC produced rules that we could support… We want the internet to live up to its promise, fostering innovation, creativity, and freedom. We don’t want regulations that will turn ISPs into gatekeepers, making special deals… and inhibiting new competition, innovation, and expression.”

                Basically, The Verge, the EFF, the Reddit community, and millions of other entities and individuals argue for net neutrality because they believe that the internet should be an open and unencumbered medium for the transmission of ideas, knowledge, and entertainment. Supporters of net neutrality suggest that prioritization, throttling, and suppression of certain packets traveling through a network will result in the loss of the freedom of ideas and data which is so critical to their vision of the internet. Detractors of net neutrality, including the woefully misguided Forbes contributor Jeffrey Dorfman, suggest that net neutrality flies in the face of free-market capitalist economics. Dorfman gives this analogy: “This is a bad idea for the same reason that only having vanilla ice cream for sale is a bad idea: some people want, and are willing to pay for, something different.” Although I too am a staunch supporter of the free market, Dorfman’s argument makes absolutely no sense to me. Just because content creators and consumers might be willing to pay for better and faster transmission of data doesn’t mean that ISPs should make this an available feature.

It has become increasingly clear in the last decade that computing is becoming a utility commodity, much as the same as electric power, natural gas, or water. Electric companies aren’t allowed to charge certain people higher rates because they draw more current from the grid, nor are they allowed to charge (x) dollars for 120 volt service and (x*2) dollars for 240 volt service. Rather, electric companies simply charge customers a single rate based on how much power they draw from the grid. Users of electricity know that as long as they pay this one rate, they will receive the electric power they need. Similarly, water providers are not allowed to charge higher rates for “more pure water.” This would be an abomination as it would directly and negatively impact the health of people with fewer means. If net neutrality didn’t exist, the sound operation of the economy would be in jeopardy. Modern free-market economics assumes that consumers behave at least somewhat rationally. Central to consumers’ rationality is their reasonable access to all potential information before making consumption decisions. Net neutrality protects reasonable access to all potential information. Clearly, since computing is becoming a public utility and since it allows sound operation of the economy, net neutrality is necessary. The internet is indeed a public service and fair access should be a basic right. 

Project #3

Click here to view a letter to Congress regarding encryption.

Reflections:

Is encryption a fundamental right? Should citizens of the US be allowed to have a technology that completely locks out the government?

Insofar as privacy is a fundamental right, encryption is also a right. As I pointed out in my letter to Congress, encryption is both a human and a legal right. It's easy to demonstrate that the Fifth Amendment proves that encryption is a legal right. It's a bit more difficult to prove that encryption is a human right. The proof lies in the fact that a lack of encryption would very likely lead to human suffering, as I explain in the letter. Anything which, when lacking, leads to human suffering is a human right. Consequently, US citizens should be guaranteed encryption. As the Declaration of Independence stated, "all... are endowed... with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Removal of encryption would go against all three supposedly-inalienable rights since unprotected data could lead to loss of life, suspension by law enforcement of certain freedoms, and financial or other personal loss: a removal of happiness.


How important of an issue is encryption to you? Does it affect who you support politically? financially? socially? Should it?

Encryption is important to me not from an ideological standpoint, but from a legal and logical perspective. The U.S. Constitution very clearly grants American citizens various rights, the maintenance of which, in the modern digital age, necessitates encryption. Politicians who are anti-encryption will generally not receive my support in the future, as encryption will be central to my career in the finance industry where secure data and trade secrets are very important. It seems reasonable to expect politicians to support encryption since so many people's lives and careers depend on it, as I've explained above and in the letter.


In the struggle between national security and personal privacy, who will win? Are you resigned to a particular future or will you fight for it?

It's unfortunate that the 21st century has been defined by issues of "national security." Regrettably, the political climate is one in which it is easier to see politicians moving away from encryption rather than towards it. I wouldn't be surprised to see a bill not unlike the fictitious one I laid out appear within the next few years. The question will be whether my predictions of significant personal and financial loss due to the lack of encryption will actually come true. If they do, it will be incumbent upon politicians to reinstate encryption immediately. Ideally, however, politicians will recognize that it's very close to, if not actually, illegal to remove encryption from consumer and corporate electronics in the first place. I'd be willing to fight for a world which includes encryption, and I'm sure my future employers will be willing to bring their resources to bear in the fight as well.  

The DMCA and Circumvention

In 1998 when Bill Clinton signed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act into law, he both created and destroyed critical features of the internet. The Act’s safe-harbor provisions enabled social media, blogs, and other crowd-sourced websites to flourish. At the same time, news outlets and internet advocates including Slate, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Wired, and The New York Times claim that the law’s anti-circumvention statutes have done serious harm to the open flow of information, ideas, and creativity the internet originally stood to offer. In particular, the DMCA has this to say about circumvention: “no person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under [a given] title.” (per Wired) In English, this means that no individual hacker, company, or consumer may attempt to break into protected media for (almost) any reason. This provision was originally installed to protect DVDs from being copied into bootleg versions. Many people take umbrage with the statute, for varying reasons. The Atlantic argues that the law “threatens to make archivists criminals if they try to preserve our society’s artifacts for future generations” while the EFF rightly points out that the law makes it “legally risky” to engage in reverse engineering of copyrighted software.

The computer science field, both academic and industrial, finds it particularly difficult to come to grips with the dubious nature of reverse engineering. Except for purposes of determining interoperability, (even that can be questionable) reverse engineering is made illegal by the DMCA. Furthermore, the law has enabled companies to place digital locks on their code, preventing external tampering. In my opinion, the concept of software licenses and DRM schemes is absurd. If developers and filmmakers expect their code and films to be treated by the judicial system in the same manner as books or physical artwork, they provide to the public said code and films in the same manner. Books do not contain DRM software, nor are they only procurable under a license and “terms of service” agreement. Paintings do not require signature of a legal document just to complete the purchase transaction. Yet, paintings and books still receive copyright protection under the law. Developers and filmmakers must cease using DRM software and forcing customers into strange legal covenants just to acquire the software or other piece of media. Honestly, DRM is just companies being lazy and unwilling to face the open market. When someone purchases a book, he or she also purchases the rights to do whatever he or she wants with that specific copy: highlight in it, rip pages, read it to a child, or even burn it. The only thing a person cannot do is reprint the book and sell it as their own. Similar practices should apply to software and movies. However, in this case, the rights which should come with purchase would include reverse-engineering if not being done directly for profit and translation into new formats (i.e. burning mixtapes from iTunes purchases). Generally, software and media producers should not be allowed to remove the free nature of both people and markets.

In the same spirit, it should be considered ethical for people to build workarounds for DRM software, so long as they have no profiteering or malicious intent in doing so. If software and other digital media were to be sold in truly discrete, license-free forms, the ethics of reverse engineering, DRM circumvention, and phone unlocking would become clear: let the property owner do with his or her property as he or she pleases. Until these ethical questions can truly be resolved, however, property and copyright laws pertaining to digital media must be completely rewritten and creators of said media must be forced to face competition.

Online Advertising

     Without going into too much detail, I must admit that online advertising is what pays my college tuition, in an indirect sort of way. Consequently, my ethical response to online advertising is likely a bit more biased toward acceptance than most other people. At its core, online advertising is the result of companies cleverly making use of the data available to them. On the level, such behavior is in no way ethically reprehensible. The standard methods companies use to gather their data, i.e. page-view tracking, purchase history, social media analysis, etc. are all legitimate (this post will refer to them as reasonably-public) methods because they gather data which the subject knowingly and willingly makes public. Any post on social media should, in my opinion, be fair game for usage by a third party. Additionally, page-views and purchase history are all conscious decisions which the subject generally knows have the potential to be observed by a third party and thus become reasonably-public data. When the subject makes these decisions, it is on her to make her peace with that fact. (I would, however, like to see a beefed-up Incognito Mode become a better option for those who truly cannot fathom the idea of their browsing being observed.)

     The New York Times and The Guardian both chronicle cases of legitimate data collection. Target makes use of customer’s conscious and public decisions to great effect. Facebook collects social media data which is, by definition, public. (Social media? Come on…) Even the cases where lenders and recruiters collect data on their customers, as decried by the Kaspersky blog, is legitimate. In a society in which every company has the obligation to perform well for customers and shareholders alike, all potential competitive advantages which can be legitimately and legally acquired should be considered and used.

     However, when data to be used for advertising is acquired illegally—whether through hacking, intimidation, or bribery—the data itself and the resulting analytics and company actions become ethically disagreeable. Illegally or illegitimately acquired data not only gives the company in question an unfair advantage in the marketplace, but it also puts the customer at a disadvantage. A person whose not-reasonably-public decisions, identity, and preferences are compromised must now work hard to (if possible) restore his or her identity and good reputation. Nor should that person be expected to be the vanguard of their own not-reasonably-public data. That responsibility lies with the companies who can mobilize large IT departments to protect financial secrets, matters of identity, and so forth. Individual people generally do not have the IT expertise or physical ability to fully protect their own not-reasonably-public data, and so that charge shifts to the other, generally more powerful, party.

     With the current (and most logical) precedent of companies each holding and owning the data they collect on their customers, it is incumbent on those companies to protect the data from hacking and leaking for two reasons. First, hacking or leaking of not-reasonably-public data breaches the necessary relationship built on trust between the company and the customer as described in the previous paragraph. Second, it removes the marketplace advantage the company might have had by owning the data. Within this second point lies my justification for why companies should be allowed to sell reasonably-public user data. A key component of the modern marketplace economy is the securitization and distribution of individual bits of data (stocks, bonds, mortgages, etc.) In my opinion, reasonably-public user data is just more data ready to be securitized. Therefore, companies should be allowed to package and sell user-data in a responsible, airtight manner when the purchaser can prove that it will use the data for legitimate ends. Additionally, if the government has a very legitimate need for the data and can provide a warrant or court order, they should be provided with the data (in most cases.) Overall, the major keys when dealing with user information and advertising are legitimate collection of reasonably-public data, mindful protection of that data, and sound market practices when dealing with the data.