Net Neutrality

From the article on USA Today, net neutrality is defined as “the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) should give consumers access to all legal content and applications on an equal basis, without favoring some sources or blocking others. It prohibits ISPs from charging content providers for speedier delivery of their content on ‘fast lanes’ and deliberately slowing the content from content providers that may compete with ISPs”. It seems like a simple enough concept, and a pretty straightforward issue. However, politics has a way of complicating everything, so it is no surprise that once President Obama got involved, people’s opinions on net neutrality were sharply divided along party lines.

The arguments for the net neutrality are simple. If Internet service providers are able to discriminate between sites in terms of the speeds they allow users to access them, and divide the internet into slow and fast lanes, there will be a clear divide between companies that are able to get into the fast lanes and those that cannot. If the ISPs are allowed to construct slow and fast lanes, the bigger more established companies will be able to afford the fast lanes while the newer emerging startups will not. This will kill competition. For example, say a new startup creates a brilliant new search engine that will rival Google. If they are not able to afford “fast lane” service, they will be given slower service. This will definitely be a huge mark against them in the consumers mind. It doesn’t matter how much better their search algorithm is if it takes twice as long to access their website compared to Google. In this way, Google’s deep pockets will be able to kill off any competition it might have in the search engine market, by driving up the fixed cost of that industry. Eventually people will stop trying to compete with Google, thus stifling innovation and creating an untouchable monopoly.

The arguments against net neutrality (in my opinion) are not as straightforward. The companies that stand to gain from no neutrality regulations (ISPs), and political opponents (the Republicans) believe that neutrality regulation will actually stifle competition and innovation. They believe that this regulation would increase governmental bureaucracy, decrease ISPs incentive to invest in projects that provide faster internet service and service in areas with poor or no coverage, and would prevent them from recovering the costs of providing service to high needs customers such as Netflix. According to Broadband for America, an industry trade group, this regulation would “threaten millions of jobs and a diverse array of stakeholders” (http://www.inc.com/associated-press/obama-inflames-debate-on-net-neutrality.html)

I am firmly on the side of network neutrality. We need to protect the interests of the emerging companies and by extension innovation at all costs to prevent monopolies. History and economics have shown time and time again how bad monopolies are for the economy. At a time when we are looking at the worst cases of corporate welfare and crony capitalism that our country has ever seen, this regulation would go a long way to prevent these harmful phenomena from happening in the tech sector. I disagree with all of the arguments against this regulation. First and foremost, it is imperative to point out that the internet is clearly a utility, that can and should be regulated by the government. The internet is a utility in the same way that telephone networks, gas, water and electricity are utilities. We use the internet as much as the other utilities, and in today’s world, access to the internet is of a comparable importance as that of the other utilities. Secondly, I disagree with the argument that this regulation would prevent innovation on the network speed front. There is still competition between service providers. If Comcast provides slower internet than Time Warner, I will switch providers. The regulation does not mandate that all providers have the same speed, just that each individual provider cannot distinguish between companies. Thirdly, I disagree with the argument that this regulation would prevent the ISPs from expanding into areas with little or no coverage. This argument to me makes no sense. This regulation does not seem to affect ISPs incentive to expand at all. Again, this comes down to competition. ISPs are competing with each other to provide coverage to different people. If Comcast does not want to foray into a particular area and Time Warner does, then Time Warner gains those customers. If anything, this regulation does a huge service to those areas (presumably poorer areas), because they ensure that those people can have access to the entire internet at the same speeds as the rest of the country.

Overall, I feel this is an essential regulation that needs to be passed to ensure a healthy economy. The tech sector, especially the startup culture in this country is a huge revenue producer. The fact that Silicon Valley exists in the United States has ensured that most of the exciting new innovations in tech have occurred here and have allowed Americans to reap the benefits of those innovations. We should not let corporate greed and an irrational fear of the government from protecting the most important public utility of the 21st century.

Letter to Government Representatives addressing encryption

Dear Mrs. Murray,

We are writing this to urge you to take a strong position on the recent issues of encryption that appears in the Apple case. As you are well aware the FBI is trying to have Apple create a special access point into an encrypted phone. This phone was used by the San Bernardino terrorists that killed 14 people and wounded many more. We strongly believe that Apple should be forced to cooperate in this case in order to help protect the American people and hopefully stop further terrorist attacks down the road.

Apple has repeatedly said that creating any backdoor for the government to get around encryption would cause massive damage to the security of the phones and make them much easier to hack. This however is not completely true. If the unlocking of the phone was handled correctly the FBI could unlock the phone and Apple would keep its security. All that Apple would have to do is using the device ID release a targeted update that can only go to that phone. In the update they would just have to change the number of attempts before the phone erases its data to infinite from the 10 it currently is at. This would allow the FBI to get into the phone and would not compromise any other phones. The phones would be safe and the FBI would be able to use the information on the phone to hopefully stop further terrorist attacks.

The other big argument that Apple has against creating a backdoor is that it could be a slippery slope. If they do it this one time, then soon all phones in any crime will automatically be unlocked and the concept of encryption will fall away. However, we disagree with this sentiment. This was a major terrorist attack and as such is very different from even a murder. If considerations are put in that the unlocking can only be done for terrorist attacks or matters of national security and a certain level of court has to make the order for each phone that is unlocked in this manner, it will never become commonplace. Another measure that Apple could take is require the inputs to be put in manually so that a person would have to go in and enter every single combination by hand. This would help ensure that the government would only want to use this unlocking in special circumstances.

We are aware that a balance must be struck between national security and personal freedoms. It would be amiss for us not to note that privacy concerns are legitimate. It would be a disaster if our quest for national security eroded our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. However, going to the other extreme would be disastrous as well. In this particular case, given that the phone in question possibly contains information that would help protect the citizens of San Bernardino, and indeed the citizens of this country, against future attacks, along with the fact that it is possible for Apple to provide the FBI with what they need  without creating a back door that will affect everyday citizens should push the decision in favor of the FBI.

We hope this letter will help inform you of our reasoning and position on this particular case of encryption.

Sincerely,

Calvin Rutherford

Vaishnav Murthy

Kevin Boyd

Encryption Reflection

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

As we see in the First (right to free speech), Third (right against quartering troops in peace time), Fourth (right against illegal search and seizure), Fifth (right against self incrimination) and Fourteenth (right to life, liberty and property) Amendments, there is an inherent right to Privacy afforded to American citizens by the Constitution. The Supreme Court said as much in several controversial cases involving sexual liberty in the twentieth century. This established right to privacy, in my opinion, can be extended to a right to encryption. We absolutely have a right to keep our electronic data safe and secure from prying eyes, just like we have the right to protect our tangible private property by means of locks and safes.

However, allowing citizens to have technology that completely locks out authorities under any circumstances is dangerous to national security. Just like it we have the right to privacy of tangible property unless there is a warrant for it in which case we temporarily forfeit that right, we should have a right to secure encryption of our virtual data until there is a warrant for it, in which case the government should be able to access it. I am aware that this could be viewed as a slippery slope, but I must point out that the other solution – that there be a case where the authorities cannot access data under any circumstances – also has several unwanted consequences, in terms of significantly weakening our ability to keep our communities and our nation secure from threats.

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

Given that more and more of our sensitive data is in the virtual world, encryption is a hot button issue right now, as it should be. I feel that it is imperative that we elect representatives that recognize how important it is to have good encryption legislation. They must be able to recognize how important it is to strike the balance between personal freedom and national security as it applies to the virtual world. It would be a national disaster to have people in power who are unaware of how urgent it is to pass legislation on how much encryption should be allowed.

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?

There will always be a struggle between national security and personal privacy, especially now as we live in the age of increased consciousness about personal freedoms and how important they are, combined with the recent increases in terror attacks. There are people on both sides of the debate arguing for more emphasis on either side, and the issue is that both sides have excellent arguments that cannot be ignored. In my personal opinion, either extreme is an incorrect direction in which to steer our country. Being completely safe from terror attacks and crime will be scant consolation if our rights have been so infringed upon that we are not allowed to express our thoughts freely. On the other hand having complete and utter artistic freedom will be of little importance if our national security becomes so weak that we constantly live in fear of being attacked. The best solution, as with most things, lies somewhere in the middle.

I believe (and hope) that the future will show that this fight will continue, with both sides keeping the other in check so that we continue to live in a society that is both reasonably free and safe. However, there is always the danger that terror attacks give the national security side impetus to encroach upon our fundamental freedoms as we saw with the Patriot Act signed after the attack on September 11th 2001. However, I am sure that with a vigilant public, we will always steer the country back to parity.

Piracy

From the readings, what exactly the DMCA say about piracy? What provisions does it have for dealing with infringement? What exactly are the safe-harbor provisions?

According to Wikipedia, the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) criminalizes “[the] production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures (commonly known as digital rights management or DRM) that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. In addition, the DMCA heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet.” On the subject of safe-harbor provisions, Wikipedia states that Title II of the DMCA – the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA) – provides “a safe harbor for online service providers (OSPs, including ISPs) against copyright infringement liability, provided they meet specific requirements. OSPs must adhere to and qualify for certain prescribed safe harbor guidelines and promptly block access to alleged infringing material (or remove such material from their systems) when they receive notification of an infringement claim from a copyright holder or the copyright holder’s agent. OCILLA also includes a counter-notification provision that offers OSPs a safe harbor from liability to their users when users claim that the material in question is not, in fact, infringing. OCILLA also facilitates issuing of subpoenas against OSPs to provide their users’ identity.”

Is it ethical or moral for users to download or share copyrighted material? What if they already own a version in another format? What if they were just “sampling” or “testing” the material?

Copyrights were created to protect inventors of goods and services from having their inventions stolen or used for free. This, in a way similar to a patent, encourages innovation and pushes society forward. I therefore feel that a copyright must be respected.

If the download of copyrighted material takes place from an authorized source, where credit (and payment if applicable) goes to the owner of the copyright, then the act is ethical. If, however, the download is taking place from a spurious site, where payment is possibly circumvented, it is akin to stealing and is ethically and morally wrong.In a similar vein, sharing copyrighted information is wrong, if it circumvents the restrictive distribution aspect of the material’s copyright. Even if the people downloading and sharing already own the information in another format, their actions would be morally and ethically wrong, if the activity was not taking place through the proper channels. A format issue does not excuse stealing. Nor does the excuse that the people were just “sampling or testing” the material. If the copyright owned by the distributors states that the material cannot be downloaded for these purposes, then it is morally and ethically wrong to download the material anyway for a self-created “free trial”.

Have you participated in the sharing of copyrighted material? If so, how did you justify your actions (or did you not care)? Moreover, why do you think so many people (regardless of whether or not you do) engage in this behavior even though it is against the law?

Since I am morally and ethically opposed to copyright infringement, I have to my knowledge, not engaged in illicit sharing of copyright material.

Now, on the question of why so many people engage in this illegal behavior, I think it truly comes down to a matter of convenience. It is similar to breaking the jay-walking law. While it is illegal to jaywalk, and you can get in trouble if you are caught jaywalking, sometimes jaywalking is more convenient than waiting for the pedestrian light to turn green. In a similar vein, while it is illegal to share copyrighted information, sometimes people find it the most convenient (read: cheaper) to do so than to pay for services that offer legal access.

Does the emergence of streaming services such as Netflix or Spotify address the problem of piracy, or will are these services not sufficient? Is piracy a solvable problem? Is it a real problem?

To address my last point, I do think that streaming services address the problem of piracy. This is because these services provide unlimited access to material for a nominal fee. This coupled with the fact that online piracy websites are either getting shut down or getting more expensive, as alluded to in the Slate reading Goodbye to Piracy by Steven Witt,  makes it less convenient to illegally share or download material instead of purchasing access through these legal portals.

Piracy is a solvable problem, and I feel that we are on the right track to solve it. The trick is to make the consumer’s life more convenient. Increasing the number of services such as Spotify, Netflix or Hulu will further increase the convenience of legal channels and will eventually eradicate piracy.

Patents and Patent Trolls

From the readings, what exactly are patents? What are the ethical, moral, economic, or social reasons for granting patents?

Wikipedia defines a patent as “a set of exclusive rights granted by a sovereign state to an inventor or assignee for a limited period of time in exchange for detailed public disclosure of an invention. An invention is a solution to a specific technological problem and is a product or a process.” In other words a patent is a certification granted to an individual or a corporation by a government that certifies that the individual or corporation owns a particular invention. Using this patent the individual or corporation has the right to set restrictions on how, when and where this invention is used in the public. These restrictions include a payment of fees for anyone else who wants to use their invention.

The ethical and moral reason we have patents is to protect the inventor from being exploited by having his invention stolen by someone else. The economic reason for having a patent is twofold:one to ensure that for the period of the patent, the inventor can maximize his gain from his invention by eliminating competition that can use the same solution; two to ensure that no rival company can sue the individual or corporation for solving their problem in a similar way. These are commonly known as offensive and defensive uses of patents respectively. The social reason for patents is that they encourage inventors to continue trying to invent things, and thus come up with creative solutions to solve problems and advance society.

In your opinion, should patents be granted at all? Are they really necessary or beneficial for society? Do the promote innovation or do they hinder it? Explain.

As I alluded to earlier, patents do help give a stronger incentive to innovate. If anything it ensures that there will always be an arms race to the next great solution because if a patent to this solution is granted, it guarantees a huge financial payday for the inventor. This arms race ensures that innovation happens faster and more frequently. Now, the question is whether this constant arms race is good or bad for society. I believe that it is good. Innovation pushes a society forward. It pushes for more creative and efficient solutions to problems society commonly suffers from. This gives society more time to focus on other problems, and cyclically improves their standard of living.

Additionally, should patents on software be granted or should patents be restricted to physical or more tangible artifacts? Explain.

I feel that software should be treated differently from other physical and tangible artifacts. However this does not mean that patents should not be granted to software. The litmus test for whether software should be granted a patent must differ from the criteria for other physical objects. I feel the current set up we have right now works ideally. If the algorithm does something clearly new, we should grant it a patent. However, if a piece of patented software is significantly changed or reworked or improved, the patent cannot carry over. In other words, a patent granted to a rudimentary algorithm cannot hold for any and all changes that occur to that algorithm from then on, because that would have an opposite economic impact that what the patent is supposed to have, by stifling competition thenceforth. A patent is meant to temporarily hold competition from doing the same thing, thereby encouraging them to come up with something better. Thus, a patent can be granted to software, but must be updated any time significant changes are made to that software.

Finally, is the existence of patent trolls evidence that the patent system is working or that the system is broken? Explain.

Patent trolls are evidence that the system has some bugs in it. For example when VirnetX, a company that makes its income solely from suing other companies for patent violations, successfully gets awarded $626 million of punitive damages that Apple has to pay them, it evidences a system that has certain problems within it. A company that makes no products out of its patents should have them revoked, in my opinion. Being able to hoard patents and use them as weapons to get a huge payday from companies actually innovating and making products is antithetical to the reason behind having patents in the first place.