Technology Liberation Front Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Tue, 26 May 2020 15:08:28 +0000 en-US hourly 1 DIY-Bio, Biohacking & Evasive Entrepreneurialism Tue, 26 May 2020 15:08:28 +0000

DIY medicineMargaret Talbot has written an excellent New Yorker essay entitled, “The Rogue Experimenters,” which documents the growth of the D.I.Y.-bio movement. This refers to the organic, bottom-up, citizen science movement, or “leaderless do-ocracy” of tinkerers, as she notes. I highly recommend you check it out.

As I noted in my new book on Evasive Entrepreneurs and the Future of Governance, “DIY health services and medical devices are on the rise thanks to the combined power of open-source software, 3D printers, cloud computing, and digital platforms that allow information sharing between individuals with specific health needs. Average citizens are using these new technologies to modify their bodies and abilities, often beyond the confines of the law.”

Talbot discusses many of the same examples I discuss in my book, including:

  • the Four Thieves Vinegar collective, which devised instructions for building its own version of the EpiPen;
  • e-nable, an international collective of thirty thousand volunteers, designs and 3-D-prints prosthetic hands and arms (and which has, more recently, distributed more than fifty thousand face shields in more than twenty-five countries.);
  • GenSpace and other community biohacking labs; and
  • Open Insulin and Open Artificial Pancreas System.

I like the way Talbot compares these movements to the hacker and start-up culture of the Digital Revolution:

The D.I.Y.-bio movement, which emerged in the early two-thousands, seems almost evolutionarily adapted to its historical moment,” she argues. “It echoes aspects of startup culture, especially the early days of personal computing, with its garage-based origin stories. First came the hardware, then the software; now even the wetware of life can be created in people’s homes. D.I.Y. bio reflects popular skepticism about professional authority and gatekeeping, but it is not skeptical about learning or expertise.

She also quotes others on this point, like John Wilbanks, a health technologist at the research nonprofit Sage Bionetworks:

when new biotech companies fail, they tend to sell off their equipment for a discount, and community labs and biohackers scoop it up. Wilbanks told me, “D.I.Y. bio is very similar to the home-brew, hacker-club culture of the late seventies in Silicon Valley. If you’ve not gone on eBay to shop for a DNA sequencer that they can ship to you in twenty-four hours, check it out—there’s a massive secondary market.”

Perhaps the most interesting thing about this bottom-up citizen-science movement is that it run the political gamut. It includes “anarcho-libertarians” to those “steeped in social-justice activism,” Talbot says. But they are all generally unified by a commitment to the widespread dissemination of scientific knowledge and transparency in health-related matters. “D.I.Y. biologists often have a greater commitment than their professional counterparts do to making their work open to scrutiny—and available for free on the Internet,” Talbot notes.

“The D.I.Y.-bio ecosystem includes a lot of do-gooders, and many of them have been galvanized by the covid-19 crisis,” she also observes. Quite right. I discussed that fact in the launch essay for my book, “Evasive Entrepreneurialism and Technological Civil Disobedience in the Midst of a Pandemic.” I documented dozens of examples of various individuals and organizations rising up to meet the challenges posed by the pandemic. “Eventually, people take notice of how regulators and their rules encumber entrepreneurial activities, and they act to evade them when public welfare is undermined,” I argued. “Working around the system becomes inevitable when the permission society becomes so completely dysfunctional and counterproductive.” DIY health innovation has gone mainstream out of necessity.

Importantly, Talbot notes that when it comes to what counts as success for DIY health and biohacking, sometimes good enough is, well, good enough. On this point, she quotes Jon Schull, an e-nable (non-commercial 3D-printed prosthetics) co-founder, who says, “it doesn’t matter that e-nable hands aren’t state-of-the-art. The job of professional prostheses-makers, he said, is “to produce something really good, and if it’s merely better than nothing it’s not good enough”—but, in some circumstances, something is better than nothing.”

That is a crucial point understanding why this movement is so important: Working together in a spontaneous, bottom-up fashion, citizen scientists and tinkerers can act quickly to fill pressing public health needs. Of course, that is exactly what makes these same innovations potentially risky and has some people wondering about the wisdom of such efforts—and the potential need for more regulation.

I wish Talbott would have spent a bit more time diving into these ethical and legal questions. I really struggled with them when writing about all this stuff in my new book on evasive entrepreneurialism and technological civil disobedience. She does briefly discuss how some FDA regs might affect DIY bio movement, including efforts like Open Insulin.  “Even if Open Insulin begins producing a consistent product, it will have to overcome all kinds of regulatory obstacles to demonstrate safety and purity before taking it to market,” she notes. “Manufacturers of pharmacy-grade medications must provide the F.D.A. with reams of evidence that they can produce the substances with complete consistency, in sterile environments. Proving this level of proficiency can cost millions of dollars.” But Talbot does not spend much more time exploring what might happen next on this front if DIY efforts continue to expand.

“But what should the law say about people… who are creating their own specialized medical devices in an open-source, noncommercial fashion?” I ask in my new book.

I outlined three potential future scenarios for the movement:

  1. DIY technologies go mainstream and become more commercialized.
  2. biohacking remains decentralized but becomes more mainstream and professional without becoming fully commercial.
  3. biohacking turn even more rogue or underground in nature as a form of guerrilla innovation that sometimes borders on neo-anarchism.

Regardless of the outcome, the ethical and regulatory issues will persist and grow as technological capabilities continue to grow more sophisticated, decentralized, and inexpensive. I argue in the book that it would be foolish for policymakers to think they can (or should) bottle up this movement altogether:

biohacking and decentralized medicine will expand for a simple reason: People care deeply about improving their health and abilities. They will take advantage of new technological capabilities that let them do so—especially when those capabilities are significantly cheaper than other options. To reiterate, that does not make these technologies safe or smart, but it does mean we will need a new approach to governance as evasive entrepreneurialism expands in this arena.

And then I continue on to note how improved risk education and awareness efforts might be one solution to the growing DIY bio movement.

Anyway, for more discussion on this, see pages 79-87 of my new book. I’ve also listed a few other essays down below that you might find interesting, including several penned by my former colleague Jordan Reimschisel.


Additional Reading:

]]> 0
Video: Evasive Entrepreneurs & the Fresh Start Initiative Thu, 21 May 2020 19:24:09 +0000

Here’s a video chat I did today with Americans for Prosperity – Virginia. My thanks to Benjamin Knotts for hosting the discussion. We talked about my recent book (Evasive Entrepreneurs) and my last one (Permissionless Innovation). We also discussed my new proposal with Matt Mitchell and Patrick McLaughlin to create “Fresh Start Initiatives” to address rules suspended during the COVID crisis.  Watch the 30 min video here:

]]> 0
Matt Ridley on the Freedom to Experiment and Try New Things Sun, 17 May 2020 18:35:34 +0000

Matt RidleyThere are few things more exciting to innovation policy geeks that than the week a new Matt Ridley book drops. Thankfully, that time is upon us once again. This week, Ridley’s latest book, How Innovation Works: And Why It Flourishes in Freedom, is being released. I can’t wait to dig in.

This weekend, the Wall Street Journal published an essay condensed from the book entitled, “Innovation Can’t Be Forced, but It Can Be Quashed.” Here are some of the highlights from Ridley’s piece:

Innovation relies upon freedom to experiment and try new things, which requires sensible regulation that is permissive, encouraging and quick to give decisions. By far the surest way to rediscover rapid economic growth when the pandemic is over will be to study the regulatory delays and hurdles that have now been hastily swept aside to help innovators in medical devices and therapies, and to see whether such reforms could be applied to other parts of the economy too.

Dealing with Covid-19 has forcibly reminded governments of the value of innovation. But if we are to get faster vaccines and treatments—and better still, more innovation across all fields in the future—then innovators need to be freed from the shackles that hold them back.

These are crucial point, and ones I discuss in the launch essay and the afterward of my new book, Evasive Entrepreneurs and the Future of Governance. Alas, as I pointed out in that launch essay and my last book on Permissionless Innovation, a great many barriers stand in the way of the freedom to experiment and try new things. As Ridley points out:

There is nothing new about resistance to innovation. […] Incumbent vested interests, overcautious regulators, opportunistic activists and rent-seeking patent holders combine to oppose or delay almost every innovation.

And that’s a real shame because, Ridley correctly concludes, “It turns out that continuous tinkering to develop and refine a better product is much more important than protecting what you’ve already created.”

Spot on. Head over to the Wall Street Journal to read the entire thing and then go order a copy of Ridley’s new book. He’s one of the most important living defenders of technological innovation and human progress. His work has had a huge influence on my way of thinking about innovation, science, and technology. Thank you Matt!



]]> 0
Panicking About 5G is a Celebrity Trend You Shouldn’t Follow Wed, 13 May 2020 14:00:03 +0000

The COVID-19 pandemic has shown how important technology is for enabling social distancing measures while staying connected to friends, family, school, and work. But for some, including a number of celebrities, it has also heightened fears of emerging technologies that could further improve our connectivity. The latest technopanic should not make us fear technology that has added so much to our lives and that promises to help us even more.

Celebrities such as Keri Hilson, John Cusack, and Woody Harrelson have repeated concerns about 5G—from how it could be weakening our immune systems to even causing this pandemic. These claims about 5G have gotten serious enough that Google banned ads with misleading health information regarding 5G, and Twitter has stated it will remove tweets with 5G and health misinformation that could potentially cause harm in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. 5G is not causing the current pandemic, nor has it been linked to other health concerns. As the director of American Public Health Association Dr. Georges C. Benjamin has stated, “COVID-19 is caused by a virus that came through a natural animal source and has no relation to 5G, or any radiation linked to technology.”  As the New York Times has pointed out, much of the non-COVID-19 5G health concerns originated from Russian propaganda news source RT or trace back to a single decades-old flawed study. In short, there is no evidence to support many of the outrageous health claims regarding 5G.

New technologies have often faced unfounded concerns about their potential risks. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, many people feared electricity in the home was making people tired and weak (similar to the health claims about 5G today). More recently, many were concerned that technologies such as microwave ovens and cell phones might cause cancer or other health issues, but studies have proved that these worst fears have little grounding in science.

Some of these fears are based on misunderstandings of how technology works or confusion over similar but distinct technologies. For example, in the case of concerns about cell phones and cancer, the fears may stem from misunderstandings about the differences between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. In a time of uncertainty, we may want to rush to maintain the status quo. But any number of innovations such as the radio, trains, or cars that were once feared have themselves become part of the status quo.

Why does it matter if some people are afraid of new technologies? While it is completely rational to want to avoid catastrophic and irreversible harms, unfounded fears can risk delaying important and beneficial technologies. For example, work by Linda Simon suggests that the exaggerated claims and fears of electricity’s impact on health may have slowed its adoption. While all technologies carry some risks, can we imagine all that might have been lost if we had listened to those trying to convince us to avoid electricity out of an abundance of caution? we may laugh about fears of electricity and not understanding its benefits, we still see extreme reactions out of fear of new technology, such as recent attempts to burn 5G towers in the United Kingdom because of misinformation about the health risks.

The recent pandemic should remind why constantly improving connectivity and internet infrastructure has been beneficial. As more of us are working from home and have an increased number of connected devices, 5G will increase network capacity and enable faster download speeds. These improvements also play a key role in the development of a number of emerging technologies from smart home devices and virtual reality to driverless cars and remote surgery.

The problem is not in individual choices to avoid a specific technology, but rather how such technopanics can impact broader adoption of beneficial technologies and innovation-friendly public policies. The good news is policymakers recognize the importance of policies that enable 5G and are also informing the public on the facts about wireless technology and health. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Federal Communications Commission has continued to pursue policies that can improve connectivity, including for advancements toward 5G.

While we may want to follow celebrity trends when it comes to the latest fashion or TikTok dances, we should only let them scare us in the movies and not when it comes to 5G. If we only focus on the most outrageous and unfounded claims, our fear might distract us too much to see its benefits.

]]> 0
Introductory Chapter: “Evasive Entrepreneurs and the Future of Governance” Mon, 11 May 2020 21:01:05 +0000

I’m making the opening chapter of my new book, Evasive Entrepreneurs and the Future of Governance: How Innovation Improves Economies and Governments, available here. Also here’s the launch essay and the event launch video, which discuss how the themes discussed throughout the book have become even more visible during the coronavirus crisis.

Also, here are some lists of 10 major themes from the book13 key terms found in the book, and 5 innovation policy scholars who inspired my thinking. Reminder: this book is a sequel to my previous book, Permissionless Innovation: The Continuing Case for Comprehensive Technological Freedom.

I hope you will consider buying Evasive Entrepreneurs after reading this opening chapter.

]]> 0
Podcast with Chairman Ajit Pai about COVID-19 response and US broadband Fri, 08 May 2020 20:17:52 +0000

Last week the Federalist Society’s Regulatory Transparency Project released a podcast Adam and I recorded with FCC Chairman Pai:

Tech Roundup 9 – COVID-19 and the Internet: A Conversation with Ajit Pai

A few highlights: Chairman Pai’s legacy is still being written, but I suspect one of his lasting marks on the agency will be his integrating more economics and engineering in the FCC’s work.

He points out that that in recent decades, the FCC’s work has focused on the legal and policy aspects of telecommunications. My take: much of the dysfunctional legalism and regulatory arcana that’s built up in communications law is because Congress refuses to give the FCC a clean slate. Instead, communications laws have piled on to communications laws for 80 years. The regulatory thicket gives attorneys and insiders undue power in telecom policy. With the creation of the Office of Economics and Analytics and Engineering Honors program, Chairman Pai is creating institutions within the FCC to shift some expertise and resources to the economists and engineers.

We also discussed Marc Andreessen’s It’s Time to Build essay. A thought-provoking polemic (Adam has a response) that offers a challenge:


As we discuss in the podcast, the FCC has outperformed most public institutions on this front. The FCC in the past few years has untangled itself from the nonstop legal trench warfare of net neutrality regulation–an immense waste of time–to focus on making it faster and easier to build networks. As a result, the US is seeing impressive increases in network investment, coverage, and capacity relative to peer countries.

The COVID-19 crisis has been a stress test for the FCC and the broadband industry, and we’re grateful the Chairman took the time to discuss the agency, industry trends, and more with us.

]]> 0
The Continuing Data Privacy Debates and the Question of Enforcement Thu, 07 May 2020 13:25:07 +0000






Questions of Enforcement in the Data Privacy Debate







]]> 0
“Human Needs Are Breaking Down Yesterday’s Precautionary Approaches” Wed, 06 May 2020 18:02:15 +0000

I really liked this new essay, “Innovation is thriving in the fight against Covid-19,” by Norman Lewis over at Spiked, a UK-based publication. In it, he makes several important points similar to themes discussed in my book launch essay last week (“Evasive Entrepreneurialism and Technological Civil Disobedience in the Midst of a Pandemic.”) Lewis begins by noting that:

There is nothing like a crisis to concentrate the mind. And the Covid-19 catastrophe has certainly done this. It has speeded up latent trends and posed new questions. The issue of our technologically informed capacity to solve problems is just one example.

He continues on to argue:

a crisis like Covid-19 will necessarily pose new urgent questions that could not have been anticipated. New initiatives will rise to meet these. Pre-existing skills, knowledge, technologies and attitudes will always be the starting point of new problem-solving quests. Where and how we focus attention will, in part, be based on prior cultural assumptions and existing technologies, and also on the novelty of the problem to be solved.

Lewis discusses how innovative minds are pushing back against archaic regulatory barriers, business models and government regulations. As he nicely summarizes:

Unimagined solutions are being pushed while a more open attitude towards experimentation, risk-taking and side-stepping onerous and costly regulation is starting to emerge. Human needs are breaking down yesterday’s precautionary approaches.

That last line really resonated with me because it’s a major theme that runs throughout my new book, “Evasive Entrepreneurs and the Future of Governance: How Innovation Improves Economies and Governments.” As I summarized in my book launch essay:

Eventually, people take notice of how regulators and their rules encumber entrepreneurial activities, and they act to evade them when public welfare is undermined. Working around the system becomes inevitable when the permission society becomes so completely dysfunctional and counterproductive.

This was happening before the coronavirus outbreak, but the crisis has supercharged this phenomenon. Evasive entrepreneurs are taking advantage of the growth of new devices and platforms that let citizens circumvent (or perhaps just ignore) public policies that limit innovative efforts. These can include common tools like smartphones, computers, and various new interactive platforms, as well as more specialized technologies like cryptocurrencies, private drones, immersive technologies (like virtual reality), 3D printers, the “Internet of Things,” and sharing economy platforms and services. But that list just scratches the surface and the public is increasingly using these new technological capabilities to assert themselves and push back against laws and regulations that defy common sense and hold back progress.

Lawmakers and regulators need to consider a balanced response to evasive entrepreneurialism that is rooted in the realization that technology creators and users are less likely to seek to evade laws and regulations when public policies are more in line with common sense. Yesterday’s heavy-handed approaches that are rooted in the Precautionary Principle will need to be reformed to make sure progress can happen. 

Read my book to find out more!


]]> 0
Biased AI is More Than a Technical Problem: Building a Process-oriented Policy Approach to AI Governance Wed, 06 May 2020 14:18:17 +0000 Image Credit: Police Science Innovation

[Co-authored with Walter Stover]

Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems have grown more prominent in both their use and their unintended effects. Just last month, LAPD announced that they would end their use of a predicting policing system known as PredPol, which had sustained criticism for reinforcing policing practices that disproportionately affect minorities. Such incidents of machine learning algorithms producing unintentionally biased outcomes have prompted calls for ‘ethical AI’. However, this approach focuses on technical fixes to AI, and ignores two crucial components of undesired outcomes: the subjectivity of data fed into and out of AI systems, and the interaction between actors who must interpret that data. When considering regulation on artificial intelligence, policymakers, companies, and other organizations using AI should therefore focus less on the algorithms and more on data and how it flows between actors to reduce risk of misdiagnosing AI systems. To be sure, applying an ethical AI framework is better than discounting ethics all together, but an approach that focuses on the interaction between human and data processes is a better foundation for AI policy.

The fundamental mistake underlying the ethical AI framework is that it treats biased outcomes as a purely technical problem. If this was true, then fixing the algorithm is an effective solution, because the outcome is purely defined by the tools applied. In the case of landing a man on the moon, for instance, we can tweak the telemetry of the rocket with well-defined physical principles until the man is on the moon. In the case of biased social outcomes, the problem is not well-defined. Who decides what an appropriate level of policing is for minorities? What sentence lengths are appropriate for which groups of individuals? What is an acceptable level of bias? An AI is simply a tool that transforms input data into output data, but it’s people that give meaning to data at both steps in context of their understanding of these questions and what appropriate measures of such outcomes are.

The Austrian school of economics is well-suited to helping us grapple with these kinds of less well-defined problems. Austrian economists levied a similar critique against mainstream economics, which treated economic outcomes as a technical problem to be solved with specific technical decisions. The Austrians stressed a principle of methodological individualism, which holds that socioeconomic outcomes are ultimately the products of individual decisions, and cannot be acted on directly by technocratic policymakers. Methodological individualism involves the recognition that individuals drive outcomes in two primary aspects: subjective interpretation of their environment, and through interaction with each other and that same environment. We can sum up application of these two aspects to AI systems in two questions: who gets the data, and where does the data go?

It matters who gets the data because the necessity of subjective interpretation will lead different people to reach separate conclusions about the same data. As an example, a set of data on financial variables such as defaults and debt repayment frequency combined with personal characteristics such as race and geographic locations may lead one person to label African-Americans as larger credit risks. Other individuals reading the same data, however, may arrive at a different conclusion: the patterns in this data stem from structural racism that has suppressed income of African American households compared to other households, and do not indicate that they are inherently riskier. The first interpretation would result in biased outcomes from an AI system used to generate predictions of credit risk based on that data, whereas the second interpretation might actually result in beneficial outcomes; for instance, an agency might offer with more lenient terms to these individuals.

The second question of where data goes depends on the interaction of individuals with each other and their environment, which drives the flow of data and also determines how that data is acted upon. In her book Weapons of Math Destruction, Cathy O’Neil offers a perfect example of this when analyzing what went wrong with the LAPD’s use of PredPol, which took in data on past crimes and used it to predict the geographic location of new crimes. Police forces took this data and increased their presence in hot spots of predicted crime, which resulted in a positive feedback loop of more crime data originating in that area (because of increased interaction between police officers and residents of that neighborhood in the form of increased arrests) generating more predictions of crime, leading to over-policing of minority groups. Ultimately, the data went to a police department that unintentionally increased arrests of minority groups.

Together, the subjectivity of data and the importance of interaction get at a core insight of Austrian economics that directly follows the principle of methodological individualism: context matters. If how data is interpreted and used differs from person to person, then the flows of data matter in who gets the data first and how they use it, potentially transforming the data before sending it on. Thinking along these lines shifts us away from focusing on building better, more ethical AI, and more towards trying to better understand the dynamics of data within a system: who is selecting which data to feed into an AI, what data the AI then generates, and most importantly, how that data is then acted upon and by whom. If we don’t take these matters into consideration, we risk myopically focusing on fixes to the AI that will not change outcomes. In the case of PredPol, for example, the AI could have been completely transparent, but the outcome would have been the same because of how police officers were acting on the output data according to their institutional context.

Some experts are already calling for more process-oriented AI governance approaches, including the EU’s High-Level Expert Group on AI and professional services network KPMG. Carolyn Herzog, general counsel and chair of an ethics working group, comes close to the approach we are advocating in stressing that “…data is the lifeblood of AI,” and that we must pay attention to “…issues of how that data is being collected, how it is being used, and how it is being safeguarded.” However, at present, this data-oriented approach is not represented clearly in U.S. policy. Recent AI policy movements, including ethical principles released by the Department of Defense and the Office of Management and Budget’s AI Guidelines, are a good first step but still emphasize the technology more than the data flows, and are limited to the government’s use of AI. Principle 9 of the guidelines, for instance, notes the importance of having controls to ensure “…confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the information stored, processed, and transmitted by AI systems,” but does not extend this to explicitly consider how the data is used after being transmitted.

Moreover, these proposals do not coherently lay out the relationship between data and AI outcomes because they do not give enough emphasis on where data goes and how it is used in context after being transmitted from the AI system. Returning to our earlier point, interactions matter. Take PredPol as an example. Even if we know how data was being collected, stored, and used by PredPol, and by the police department, these two pieces in isolation are not enough to understand the emergent outcome that results from the interaction between these two organizations. The critical driver is the feedback loop that emerges because of the data flows back and forth between PredPol and the police department. Current policy proposals risk overlooking this class of emergent AI outcomes by narrowly focusing on the AI and data practices of just one organization, rather than explicitly drawing our attention to how data circulates in the wider data ecosystem.

What’s needed is a process-oriented, systemic policy approach focused not just on AI, but how data is interpreted and used in context by individuals and organizations on the ground, and how these parties interact with each other. The NTIA would be a good convener for drafting this framework given their success in leading a multi-stakeholder process to build a framework for enhancing cybersecurity. NTIA can use the AI Now Institute’s algorithmic impact assessment as a blueprint. By building a voluntary framework for AI outcomes, the NTIA can serve a dual purpose. First, it can help ease worries over how to stay compliant with best practices; Second, it can help organizations safeguard against unwanted outcomes of AI systems, and more effectively identify and correct problems that do arise instead of depending on outside forensic data analysis after the fact. NTIA can help establish a common language of AI systems between public and private entities that gives concrete steps organizations can take to avoid these outcomes.

]]> 0
Video: Launch Event for “Evasive Entrepreneurs” Book Wed, 29 Apr 2020 15:22:06 +0000

Here’s yesterday’s full launch event video for the release of my new book, Evasive Entrepreneurs and the Future of Governance: How Innovation Improves Economies and Governments. My thanks to Matthew Feeney, Director of the Project on Emerging Technologies at the Cato Institute, for hosting the discussion and sorting through audience questions. The video is below and some of the topics we discussed are listed down below:

* innovation culture
* charter cities, innovation hubs & competitive federalism
* the pacing problem
* technological determinism
* innovation arbitrage
* existential risk
* the Precautionary Principle vs. Permissionless Innovation
* responsible innovation
* drones, facial recognition & surveillance tech
* why privacy & cybersecurity bills never pass
* regulatory accumulation
* applying Moore’s Law to government
* technological civil disobedience
* 3D printing
* biohacking & the “Right to Try” movement
* technologies of resistance
* “born free” technologies vs. “born in captivity” tech
* regulatory capture
* agency threats & “regulation by raised eyebrow”
* soft law vs. hard law
* autonomous systems & “killer robots”!
]]> 0
Evasive Entrepreneurialism and Technological Civil Disobedience in the Midst of a Pandemic Tue, 28 Apr 2020 22:39:23 +0000

[Originally published on the Cato Institute blog.]

A pandemic is no time for bad governance. As the COVID-19 crisis intensified, bureaucrats and elected officials slumbered. Government regulations prevented many in the private sector from helping with response efforts. The result was a sudden surge of evasive entrepreneurialism and technological civil disobedience. With institutions and policies collapsing around them, many people took advantage of cutting‐​edge technological capabilities to evade public policies that were preventing practical solutions from emerging.

Examples were everywhere. Distilleries started producing hand sanitizers to address shortages while average folks began sharing do‐​it‐​yourself sanitizer recipes online. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) looked to modify hand sanitizer guidelines quickly to allow for it, but few really cared because those rules weren’t going to stop them. Gray markets in face masks, medical face shields, and respirators developed. Some people and organizations worked together to make medical devices using off‐​the‐​shelf hardware and open source software. More simply, others just fired up sewing machines to make masks—and then, faced with an emerging public health consensus, the guidance from the federal government shifted dramatically: where formerly ordinary people were instructed not to buy or use masks, within a matter of days, the policy reversed, and all were encouraged to make and use cloth protective masks.

Meanwhile, doctors and nurses started “writing the playbook for treating coronavirus patients on the fly” by improvising treatments and then sharing them on social media. A few doctors even converted breathing machines to ventilators themselves using 3-D printed parts to address shortages for their patients even though the FDA had not yet authorized it.

Social media sites were also suddenly filled with discussions about how average people might come together to build tools or share information to assist with virus testing or treatments. A 17‐​year‐​old used his coding skills to build one of the most popular coronavirus‐​tracking websites in the world ( after noticing how hard it was to use government sites. And two high school science teachers in Tennessee set up testing operations in their school lab to help reduce testing time in their area.

Meanwhile, journalists and columnists like the Wall Street Journal’s Andy Kessler cheered on such activity, encouraging the public to “innovate from your couch.” Modern digital technologies and platforms that had been pariahs and the target of a regulatory‐​minded “techlash” just a few months earlier suddenly became essential public services that were showered with praise for helping people cope with social distancing and the solitude associated with shelter‐​in‐​place requirements. Headlines in major media outlets explained how “Facebook Is More Trustworthy than the President” and “Twitter Is Making the Coronavirus World a Better Place.”

Philanthropists like Bill Gates were also funding their own solutions. The former Microsoft founder and CEO pointed out that, in an effort to find testing solutions and vaccines, private groups like his Gates Foundation could likely mobilize faster than governments. Gates likely had grown frustrated with government responses after a Seattle‐​based lab that the Gates Foundation funded figured out an effective way to test for coronavirus, only to be blocked from expanding it by over‐​cautious federal bureaucrats. Frustrated by federal intransigence, that Seattle lab started testing for COVID-19 anyway to prove they indeed had an effective test. Commenting on the case study, the New York Times expressed exasperation about “how existing regulations and red tape—sometimes designed to protect privacy and health—have impeded the rapid rollout of testing nationally.”

Wait, Isn’t All This Illegal?

What is interesting about all these examples of bottom‐​up innovation and evasive entrepreneurialism is that they are remarkably inspiring, but also mostly illegal. Almost all these activities butted up against longstanding regulations governing medical devices, practices, or therapies. Some of those rules are enforced by large and powerful federal bureaucracies like the FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Others take the form of state‐​based occupational licensing limitations or certificate‐​of‐​need laws, which require healthcare providers to first obtain permission before they open or expand their facilities or services. This crazy quilt of medical laws and regulations accumulated steadily over time, creating what constitutional scholar Timothy Sandefur calls a “permission society,” which values proceduralism and conformity over practicality and common sense.

Eventually, however, the mountains of red tape that the permission society is built upon start to collapse under their own weight. Laws and agencies that previously commanded obedience are now viewed as an opaque, ossified, and confusing morass of one‐​size‐​fits‐​all mandates, prohibitions, and penalties that actually undermine the very health goals they were put in place to achieve. Suddenly, headlines in every major newspaper screamed of how, as it pertained to virus testing procedures, “The Government Failed” (Wall Street Journal) because of “Flawed Tests, Red Tape and Resistance” (Washington Post) and this resulted in “The Lost Month” (New York Times) in the United States.


Technological Empowerment vs. the Status Quo

What’s going on here, and what lessons can we derive from it?

In a new Cato Institute book, Evasive Entrepreneurs and the Future of Governance, I document how the sort of behavior we have recently witnessed was growing rapidly even before the COVID-19 crisis. In many different contexts, evasive entrepreneurs—innovators who don’t always conform to social or legal norms—are using new technological capabilities to circumvent traditional regulatory systems. They at least want to put pressure on public policymakers to reform or selectively enforce laws and regulations that are outmoded, inefficient, or counterproductive.

Evasive entrepreneurs rely on a strategy of permissionless innovation in both the business world and the political arena. They push back against the permission society by creating exciting new products and services without always receiving the blessing of public officials before doing so. While evasive entrepreneurialism has always been with us to some extent, many of the responses to the pandemic would not have been possible even just a few decades ago. Recent advancements have supercharged in a more technologically empowered world of information abundance and decentralized, inexpensive tools.

As I show in the book, evasive entrepreneurs are taking advantage of the growth of what we might think of as technologies of freedom or resistance. These are devices and platforms that let citizens circumvent (or perhaps just ignore) public policies that limit their liberty or freedom to innovate or to enjoy the fruits of innovation. These can include common tools like smartphones, computers, and various new interactive platforms, as well as more specialized technologies like cryptocurrencies, private drones, immersive technologies (like virtual reality), 3D printers, the “Internet of Things,” and sharing economy platforms and services. But that list just scratches the surface. When the public uses tools such as these to explicitly evade public policies on moral grounds because they find then offensive, illogical, or perhaps just annoying, we can think of that as technological civil disobedience.

Common Sense Prevails

Evasive entrepreneurialism and technological civil disobedience accelerated during the pandemic because both the practicality and morality of government policies came into question in stark fashion. The first month of the crisis witnessed “a torrent of governmental incompetence that is breathtaking in scale,” my Mercatus colleague Scott Sumner argues. “There are regulations so bizarre that if put in a novel no one would believe them,” he notes. “In contrast, the private sector has reacted fairly well, and has been far ahead of the government in most areas.”

Indeed, the pandemic has been a stress test for our institutions, and many of them have failed it. Confusing rules and inflexible agencies that should have been reformed years ago were suddenly exposed and judged harshly. Philip K. Howard, founder of Common Good, says that “Covid‐​19 is the canary in the bureaucratic mine.” Bloated bureaucracies and overbearing regulatory systems, he argues, have created a “toxic atmosphere that silenced common sense” and managed to “institutionalize failure.” Cato’s Paul Matzko has documented how the FDA has been particularly guilty of blocking sensible forms of progress on simple things like face mask production or distribution.

While countless others lambasted the practical failures of our institutions, the morality of government policies was also coming into focus. Why should citizens have their innovative efforts to help others stifled at seemingly every juncture? Must we really follow the law when it undercuts the basic human need to care for others and ourselves?

These are the issues addressed in my new book, which explains the practical reasons why evasive entrepreneurialism is on the rise and then provides a moral defense of it. When innovators and average citizens use tools and technological capabilities to pursue a living, enjoy new experiences, or improve the human condition, they often disrupt legal or social norms in the process. That is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, evasive entrepreneurialism can transform our society for the better because it can help expand the range of life‐​enriching (and often life‐​saving) innovations. Evasive entrepreneurialism can help citizens pursue lives of their own choosing—both as creators looking for the freedom to earn a living and as individuals looking to discover and enjoy important new goods and services.

Defending evasive entrepreneurialism is easy after it occurs, but few defend it before or as it is happening. I argue in the book that the freedom to innovate is essential to human betterment—for each of us individually and for civilization as a whole—and that freedom deserves to be taken more seriously today. The COVID-19 pandemic has made this more apparent than ever before.

There are few things more human than acts of invention. At its root, innovation involves efforts to discover new and better ways of solving practical human needs and wants. People have a right to innovate and create technologies because they possess a more general right to take steps to improve their lot in life and the lives of others around them. When misguided or archaic government programs and policies blocked that potential during the pandemic, people began ignoring or evading them. That was both practically sensible and morally justifiable.

Innovation as the New Checks and Balances

By extension, the response to the pandemic has proven the second thesis set forth in my book: Evasive entrepreneurialism and technologically enabled civil disobedience can actually help us improve government by keeping public policies fresh, sensible, and in line with common sense and the consent of the governed. Evasiveness and technological disruption can act as a sort of relief valve or circuit breaker to counteract negative pressures in the system before things break down completely. By challenging legislators and regulators to reevaluate the wisdom of their policies, evasive entrepreneurs can help us break political logjams and force governments to become more adaptive and accountable.

The proof is in the pudding. As the crisis unfolded, agencies at the federal, state, and local levels were forced to suspend hundreds of regulations that were clearly undermining helpful responses. These “rule departures” would not have been necessary if governments had engaged in periodic spring cleanings earlier. When COVID-19 hit, it became essential to suspend or repeal hundreds of misguided old rules that clearly undermined public health. The only question now is whether those inefficient, counterproductive policies will be put back on the books to do harm again in the next crisis.

But even before the current crisis, rule departures by government actors were becoming more common because even government officials could no longer understand their own rules. Just as private citizens have increasingly resorted to evasive techniques to get things done, many regulatory agencies have given up trying to “go by the book” themselves because endless regulatory accumulation has made it impossible to understand what the law means.

My book documents many cases of public officials essentially ignoring their own policies and making up governance solutions as they go along. This is another sign of profound institutional failure, yet it should also give us some hope that even policymakers themselves now realize that government cannot just grow forever without breaking down at some point. The need for comprehensive reform is now abundantly clear, and the pandemic has moved the so‐​called “Overton Window” (i.e., the acceptable range of possible policy reforms) on many fronts.

A New Approach to Governance

Policymakers need a new approach for technological governance that is more in line with modern realities. Flexibility and humility will be essential. Regulators do not need to throw out the old rulebooks altogether, though. Some precautionary rules still make sense, particularly in cases involving extreme risk. But why not embrace the entrepreneurial spirit of the citizenry and allow more experimental trials, flexible testing procedures, and perhaps even prizes for particularly innovative ideas?

When enforcing the rules that remain on the books, policymakers should also consider targeted waivers and ex post regulatory reviews as opposed to ex ante regulatory prohibitions on any and all evasive innovations. Liability rules can also be tweaked so innovators do not have to live in constant fear of getting sued for trying to make the world a better place. Finally, post‐​market monitoring and recall notices can also be used to ensure flexible experiments have some regulatory guardrails.

But shutting down creative solutions and unique thinking simply because they run counter to some crusty old rulebook is never the right response. We should view evasive entrepreneurialism as an important part of a broader discovery process that incorporates the profound importance of ongoing, decentralized, trial‐​and‐​error experimentation to the process of societal learning and improvement. Lawmakers should find a way to accommodate a little more outside‐​the‐​box thinking and innovating—and not just when our lives are on the line.

Additional Reading 

]]> 0
“Evasive Entrepreneurs” – 13 Key Terms from the Book Tue, 28 Apr 2020 13:09:58 +0000

My latest book, Evasive Entrepreneurs and the Future of Governance How Innovation Improves Economies and Governments, is now live. Here’s the launch essay and online launch event. Also, here’s a summary of 10 major arguments advanced in the book. I will have more to say about the book in coming weeks, but here is a list of 13 key terms discussed in the text. This list appears at the end of the introduction to the book:

  1. Compliance paradox: The situation in which heightened legal or regulatory efforts fail to reverse unwanted behavior and instead lead to increased legal evasion and additional enforcement problems.
  2. Demosclerosis: Growing government dysfunction brought on by the inability of public institutions to adapt to change, especially technological change.
  3. Evasive entrepreneurs: Innovators who do not always conform to social or legal norms.
  4. Free innovation: Bottom-up, noncommercial forms of innovation that often take on an evasive character. Free innovation is sometimes called “grassroots” or “household” innovation or “social entrepreneurialism.” Even though it is typically noncommercial in character, free innovation often involves regulatory entrepreneurialism and technological civil disobedience.
  5. Innovation arbitrage: The movement of ideas, innovations, or operations to jurisdictions that provide legal and regulatory environments most hospitable to entrepreneurial activity. It can also be thought of as a form of jurisdictional shopping and can be facilitated by competitive federalism.
  6. Innovation culture: The various social and political attitudes and pronouncements toward innovation, technology, and entrepreneurial activities that, taken together, influence the innovative capacity of a culture or nation.
  7. Pacing problem: A term that generally refers to the inability of legal or regulatory regimes to keep up with the intensifying pace of technological change.
  8. Permissionless innovation: The general notion that “it’s easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission.” As a policy vision, it refers to the idea that experimentation with new technologies and innovations should generally be permitted by default.
  9. Precautionary principle: The practice of crafting public policies to control or limit innovations until their creators can prove that they will not cause any harm or disruptions.
  10. Regulatory entrepreneurs: Evasive entrepreneurs who set out to intentionally challenge and change the law through their innovative activities. In essence, policy change is part of their business model.
  11. Soft law: Informal, collaborative, and constantly evolving governance mechanisms that differ from hard law in that they lack the same degree of enforceability.
  12. Technological civil disobedience: The technologically enabled refusal of individuals, groups, or businesses to obey certain laws or regulations because they find them offensive, confusing, time-consuming, expensive, or perhaps just annoying and irrelevant.
  13. Technologies of freedom: Devices and platforms that let citizens openly defy (or perhaps just ignore) public policies that limit their liberty or freedom to innovate. Another term with the same meaning is “technologies of resistance.”
]]> 0
“Evasive Entrepreneurs” – 10 Highlights from the Book Tue, 28 Apr 2020 13:08:40 +0000

I’m pleased to announce that the Cato Institute has just published my latest book, Evasive Entrepreneurs and the Future of Governance How Innovation Improves Economies and Governments. Here’s my introductory launch essay about the book as well as the online launch event. And here’s a list of 13 key terms used throughout the book.

In coming days and weeks I will be occasionally blogging about different arguments made in the 368-page book, but here’s a quick summary of some of the key points I make in the book. These ten passages are pulled directly from the text:

  1. “the freedom to innovate is essential to human betterment for each of us individually and for civilization as a whole. That freedom deserves to be taken more seriously today.”
  2. “Entrepreneurialism and technological innovation are the fundamental drivers of economic growth and of the incredible advances in the everyday quality of life we have enjoyed over time. They are the key to expanding economic opportunities, choice, and mobility.”
  3. “Unfortunately, many barriers exist to expanding innovation opportunities and our entrepreneurial efforts to help ourselves, our loved ones, and others. Those barriers include occupational licensing rules, cronyism-based industrial protectionist schemes, inefficient tax schemes, and many other layers of regulatory red tape at the federal, state, and local levels. We should not be surprised, therefore, when citizens take advantage of new technological capabilities to evade some of those barriers in pursuit of their right to earn a living, to tinker with or try doing new things, or just to learn about the world and serve it better.”
  4. “Evasive entrepreneurs rely on a strategy of permissionless innovation in both the business world and the political arena. They push back against ‘the Permission Society,’ or the convoluted labyrinth of permits and red tape that often encumber entrepreneurial activities.” 
  5. “We should be willing to tolerate a certain amount of such outside-the-box thinking because entrepreneurialism expands opportunities for human betterment by constantly replenishing the well of important, life-enhancing ideas and applications.”
  6. “we should better appreciate how creative acts and the innovations they give rise to can help us improve government by keeping public policies fresh, sensible, and in line with common sense and the consent of the governed.”
  7. “Evasive entrepreneurialism is not so much about evading law altogether as it is about trying to get interesting things done, demonstrating a social or an economic need for new innovations in the process, and then creating positive leverage for better results when politics inevitably becomes part of the story. By acting as entrepreneurs in the political arena, innovators expand opportunities for themselves and for the public more generally, which would not have been likely if they had done things by the book.”
  8. “Dissenting through innovation can help make public officials more responsive to the people by reining in the excesses of the administrative state, making government more transparent and accountable, and ensuring that our civil rights and economic liberties are respected.”
  9. “In an age when many of the constitutional limitations on government power are being ignored or unenforced, innovation itself can act as a powerful check on the power of the state and can help serve as a protector of important human liberties.”

In a nutshell, the core arguments made in the book boil down to this: “evasive entrepreneurialism can transform our society for the better because it can do the following

  • Help expand the range of life-enriching innovations available to society.
  • Help citizens pursue lives of their own choosing—both as creators looking for the freedom to earn a living and as consumers looking to discover and enjoy important new goods and services.
  • Help provide a meaningful, ongoing check on government policies and programs that all too often have outlived their usefulness or simply defy common sense.”

I hope you will consider reading the book.

]]> 0
Barriers to a Builder’s Movement: Thoughts on Andreessen’s Manifesto Tue, 21 Apr 2020 16:48:50 +0000

[First published by AIER on April 20, 2020 as “Innovation and the Trouble with the Precautionary Principle.”]

In a much-circulated new essay (“It’s Time to Build”), Marc Andreessen has penned a powerful paean to the importance of building. He says the COVID crisis has awakened us to the reality that America is no longer the bastion of entrepreneurial creativity it once was. “Part of the problem is clearlyforesight, a failure of imagination,” he argues. “But the other part of the problem is what we didn’t do in advance, and what we’re failing to do now. And that is a failure of action, and specifically our widespread inability to build.”The Mind of Marc Andreessen | The New Yorker

Andreessen suggests that, somewhere along the line, something changed in the DNA of the American people and they essentially stopped having the desire to build as they once did. “You don’t just see this smug complacency, this satisfaction with the status quo and the unwillingness to build, in the pandemic, or in healthcare generally,” he says. “You see it throughout Western life, and specifically throughout American life.” He continues:


Accordingly, Andreessen continues on to make the case to both the political right and left to change their thinking about building more generally. “It’s time for full-throated, unapologetic, uncompromised political support from the right for aggressive investment in new products, in new industries, in new factories, in new science, in big leaps forward.”

What’s missing in Andreessen’s manifesto is a concrete connection between America’s apparent dwindling desire to build these things and the political realities on the ground that contribute to that problem. Put simply, policy influences attitudes. More specifically, policies that frown upon entrepreneurial risk-taking actively disincentivize the building of new and better things. Thus, to correct the problem Andreessen identifies, it is essential that we must first remove political barriers to productive entrepreneurialism or else we will never get back to being the builders we once were.    

Attitudes about Progress Matter 

The economic historian Joel Mokyr has noted how, “technological progress requires above all tolerance toward the unfamiliar and the eccentric” and that the innovation that undergirds economic growth is best viewed as “a fragile and vulnerable plant” that “is highly sensitive to the social and economic environment and can easily be arrested by relatively small external changes.” Specifically, societal and political attitudes toward growth, risk-taking, and entrepreneurial activities (and failures) are important to the competitive standing of nations and the possibility of long-term prosperity. “How the citizens of any country think about economic growth, and what actions they take in consequence, are,” Benjamin Friedman observes, “a matter of far broader importance than we conventionally assume.”Image

Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan and co-author Adrian Wooldridge have observed that “[t]he key to America’s success lies in its unique toleration for ‘creative destruction,’” and an “enduring preference for change over stability.” This is consistent with the findings of Deirdre McCloskey’s recent 3-volume trilogy about the history of modern economic growth. McCloskey meticulously documents how an embrace of “bourgeois virtues” (i.e., positive attitudes about markets and innovation) was the crucial factor propelling the invention and economic growth that resulted in the Industrial Revolution.The importance of positive attitudes toward innovation and risk-taking were equally important for the Information Revolution more recently. In turn, that also helps explain why so many US-based tech innovators became global powerhouses, while firms from other countries tend to flounder because their innovation culture was more precautionary in orientation.

There are limits to how much policymakers can do to influence the attitudes among citizens toward innovation, entrepreneurialism, and economic growth. When policymakers set the right tone with a positive attitude toward innovation, however, it inevitably infuses various institutions and creates powerful incentives for entrepreneurial efforts to be undertaken. This, in turn, influences broader societal attitudes and institutions toward innovation and creates a positive feedback loop. “If we learn anything from the history of economic development,” argued David Landes in his magisterial The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some Are So Rich and Some Are So Poor, “it is that culture makes all the difference.” Research by other scholars finds that, “existing cultural conditions determine whether, when, how and in what form a new innovation will be adopted.”

Economists like Mancur Olson speak of the importance of a “structure of incentives” that helps explain why “the great differences in the wealth of nations are mainly due to differences in the quality of their institutions and economic policies.”In this sense, “institutions” include what Elhanan Helpman defines as “systems of rules, beliefs, and organizations,”including the rule of law and court systems,property rights,contracts, free trade policies and institutions, light-touch regulations and regulatory regimes, freedom to travel, and various other incentives to invest. Image

It is the freedom to invest, the freedom to work, and the freedom to build that particularly concerns Marc Andreessen. But he needs to draw the connection with the specific public policies that hold back our ability to exercise those freedoms. 

Policy Defaults toward Innovation Matter Even More

Unfortunately, a great many barriers exist to entrepreneurial efforts. Those barriers to building include inflexible health and safety regulation, occupational licensing rules, cronyist industrial protectionist schemes, inefficient (industry-rigged) tax schemes, rigid zoning ordinances, and many other layers of regulatory red tape at the federal, state, and local level.  

What unifies all these policies is risk aversion and the precautionary principle. As I argued in my last book, we have a choice when it comes to setting defaults for innovation policy. We can choose to set innovation defaults closer to the green light of “permissionless innovation,” generally allowing entrepreneurial acts unless a compelling case can be made not to. Alternatively, we can set our default closer to the red light of the precautionary principle, which disallows risk-taking or entrepreneurialism until some authority gives us permission to proceed. 

My book made the case for permissionless innovation as the superior default regime. My argument for rejecting the precautionary principle as the default came down to belief that, “living in constant fear of worst-case scenarios—and premising public policy on them—means that best-case scenarios will never come about. When public policy is shaped by precautionary principle reasoning,” I argued, “it poses a serious threat to technological progress, economic entrepreneurialism, social adaptation, and long-run prosperity.”  


Heavy-handed preemptive restraints on innovative acts have such deleterious effects because they raise barriers to entry, increase compliance costs, and create more risk and uncertainty for entrepreneurs and investors. Progress is impossible without constant trial-and-error experimentation and entrepreneurial risk-taking. Thus, it is the unseen costs of forgone innovation opportunities that make the precautionary principle so troubling as a policy default. Without risk, there can be no reward. Scientist Martin Rees refers to this truism about the precautionary principle as “the hidden cost of saying no.”  

More generally, risk analysts have noted that the precautionary principle “lacks a firm logical foundation” and is “literally incoherent” because it fails to specify a clear standard by which to judge which risks are most serious and worthy of preemptive control. Moreover, regulatory policy experts have criticized the fact that the precautionary principle, “may be misused for protectionist ends; it tends to undermine international regulatory cooperation; and it may have highly undesirable distributive consequences.” Specifically, large incumbent firms are almost always more likely able to deal with rigid, expensive regulatory regimes or, worse yet, can game those systems by “capturing” policymakers and using regulatory regimes to exclude new rivals.  

Precaution Suffocates Productive Entrepreneurialism 

The problem today is that a massive volume of precautionary policies exist that discourage “productive entrepreneurship” (i.e., building) and instead actively encourage “unproductive entrepreneurship” (i.e., preservation of the status quo). Andreessen identifies this problem when he speaks of “smug complacency, this satisfaction with the status quo and the unwillingness to build.” But he doesn’t fully connect the dots between how the attitudes came about and the public policy incentives that actively encourage such thinking. 

Why try to build when all the incentives are aligned against you? Andreessen wants to know “Where are the supersonic aircraft? Where are the millions of delivery drones? Where are the high speed trains, the soaring monorails, the hyperloops, and yes, the flying cars?” Well, I’ll tell you where they are at. They are trapped in the minds of inventive people who cannot bring them to fruition so long as an endless string of barriers makes it costly or impossible for them to realize those dreams. 

Read Eli Dourado’s important essay on “How Do We Move the Needle on Progress?” to get a more concrete feel for the specific barriers to building in the fields where productive entrepreneurialism is most needed: health, housing, energy, and transportation.Image

The bottom line, as Dustin Chambers and Jonathan Munemo noted in a 2017 Mercatus Center report on the impact of regulation on entrepreneurial activity, is that “If a nation wishes to promote higher levels of domestic entrepreneurship in both the short and long run, top priority should be given to reducing barriers to entry for new firms and to improving overall institutional quality (especially political stability, regulatory quality, and voice and accountability).” 

This doesn’t mean there is no role for government in helping to promote “building” and entrepreneurialism. A healthy debate continues to rage about “state capacity” as it pertains to government investments in research and development, for example. While I am skeptical, there may very well be some steps governments can take to encourage more and better investments in the sectors and technologies we desperately need. But all the “state capacity” in the world isn’t going to help until we first clear away the barriers that hold back the productive spirit of the people. 

Oiling the Wheels of Novelty

My new book, which is due out next week, discusses how innovation improves economies and government institutions. It builds on the fundamental insight of Calestous Juma, who concluded his masterwork Innovation and Its Enemies by reminding us of the continued importance of “oiling the wheels of novelty,” to constantly replenish the well of important ideas and innovations. “The biggest risk that society faces by adopting approaches that suppress innovation,” Juma said, “is that they amplify the activities of those who want to preserve the status quo by silencing those arguing for a more open future.” Image

The openness Juma had in mind represents a tolerance of new ideas, inventions, and unknown futures. It can and should also represent an openness to new, more flexible methods of governance. For, if it doesn’t, the builder movement that Andreessen and others long for will remain just a distant dream, incapable of ever being realized so long as the wheels of novelty are gummed up by decades of inefficient, archaic, counterproductive public policies.


P.S. I highly recommend this excellent essay by Jerry Brito, “We don’t want to build? Maybe we should build anyway.” It touches on many of the same themes I discuss in my response essay as well as in my new book, Evasive Entrepreneurs and the Future of Governance: How Innovation Improves Economies and Governments.

]]> 0
The use of technology in COVID-19 public health surveillance Tue, 21 Apr 2020 16:29:33 +0000

The recently-passed CARES Act included $500 million for the CDC to develop a new “surveillance and data-collection system” to monitor the spread of COVID-19.

There’s a fierce debate about how to use technology for health surveillance for the COVID-19 crisis. Unfortunately this debate is happening in realtime as governments and tech companies try to reduce infection and death while complying with national laws and norms related to privacy.

Technology has helped during the crisis and saved lives. Social media, chat apps, and online forums allow doctors, public health officials, manufacturers, entrepreneurs, and regulators around the world to compare notes and share best practices. Broadband networks, Zoom, streaming media, and gaming make stay-at-home order much more pleasant and keeps millions of Americans at work, remotely. Telehealth apps allow doctors to safely view patients with symptoms. Finally, grocery and parcel delivery from Amazon, Grubhub, and other app companies keep pantries full and serve as a lifeline to many restaurants.

The great tech successes here, however, will be harder to replicate for contact tracing and public health surveillance. Even the countries that had the tech infrastructure somewhat in place for contact tracing and public health surveillance are finding it hard to scale. Privacy issues are also significant obstacles. (On the Truth on the Market blog, FTC Commissioner Christine Wilson provides a great survey of how other countries are using technology for public health and analysis of privacy considerations. Bronwyn Howell also has a good post on the topic.) Let’s examine some of the strengths and weaknesses of the technologies.

Cell tower location information

Personal smartphones typically connect to the nearest cell tower, so a cell networks record (roughly) where a smartphone is at a particular time. Mobile carriers are sharing aggregated cell tower data with public health officials in Austria, Germany, and Italy for mobility information.

This data is better than nothing for estimating district- or region-wide stay-at-home compliance but the geolocation is imprecise (to the half-mile or so). 

Cell tower data could be used to enforce a virtual geofence on quarantined people. This data is, for instance, used in Taiwan to enforce quarantines. If you leave a geofenced area, public health officials receive an automated notification of your leaving home.

Assessment: Ubiquitous, scalable. But: rarely useful and virtually useless for contact tracing.

GPS-based apps and bracelets

Many smartphone apps passively transmit precise GPS location to app companies at all hours of the day. Google and Apple have anonymized and aggregated this kind of information in order to assess stay-at-home order effects on mobility. Facebook reportedly is also sharing similar location data with public health officials.

As Trace Mitchell and I pointed out in Mercatus and National Review publications, this information is imperfect but could be combined with infection data to categorize neighborhoods or counties as high-risk or low-risk. 

GPS data, before it’s aggregated by the app companies for public view, reveals precisely where people are (within meters). Individual data is a goldmine for governments, but public health officials will have a hard time convincing Americans, tech companies, and judges they can be trusted with the data.

It’s an easier lift in other countries where trust in government is higher and central governments are more powerful. Precise geolocation could be used to enforce quarantines.

Hong Kong, for instance, has used GPS wristbands to enforce some quarantines. Tens of thousands of Polish residents in quarantines must download a geolocation-based app and check in, which allows authorities to enforce quarantine restrictions. It appears the most people support the initiative.

Finally, in Iceland, one third of citizens have voluntarily downloaded a geolocation app to assist public officials in contact tracing. Public health officials call or message people when geolocation records indicate previous proximity with an infected person. WSJ journalists reported on April 9 that:

If there is no response, they send a police squad car to the person’s house. The potentially infected person must remain in quarantine for 14 days and risk a fine of up to 250,000 Icelandic kronur ($1,750) if they break it.

That said, there are probably scattered examples of US officials using GPS for quarantines. Local officials in Louisville, Kentucky, for example, are requiring some COVID-19-positive or exposed people to wear GPS ankle monitors to enforce quarantine.

Assessment: Aggregated geolocation information is possibly useful for assessing regional stay-at-home norms. Individual geolocation information is not precise enough for effective contact tracing. It’s probably precise and effective for quarantine enforcement. But: individual geolocation is invasive and, if not volunteered by app companies or users, raises significant constitutional issues in the US.

Bluetooth apps

Many researchers and nations are working on or have released some type of Bluetooth app for contact tracing. This includes Singapore, the Czech Republic, Britain, Germany, Italy and New Zealand.  

For people who use these apps, Bluetooth runs in the background, recording other Bluetooth users nearby. Since Bluetooth is a low-power wireless technology, it really only can “see” other users within a few meters. If you use the app for awhile and later test positive for infection, you can register your diagnosis. The app will then notify (anonymously) everyone else using the app, and public health officials in some countries, who you came in contact with in the past several days. My colleague Andrea O’Sullivan wrote a great piece in Reason about contact tracing using Bluetooth.

These apps have benefits over other forms of public health tech surveillance: they are more precise than geolocation information and they are voluntary.

The problem is that, unlike geolocation apps, which have nearly 100% penetration with smartphone users, Bluetooth contact tracing apps have about 0% penetration in the US today. Further, these app creators, even governments, don’t seem to have the PR machine to gain meaningful public adoption. In Singapore, for instance, adoption is reportedly only 12% of the population, which is way too low to be very helpful.

A handful of institutions in the world could get appreciable use of Bluetooth contact tracing: telecom and tech companies have big ad budgets and they own the digital real estate on our smartphones.

Which is why the news that Google and Apple are working on a contact tracing app is noteworthy. They have the budget and ability to make their hundreds of millions of Android and iOS users aware of the contact tracing app. They could even go so far as push a notification to the home screen to all users encouraging them to use it.

However, I suspect they won’t push it hard. It would raise alarm bells with many users. Further, as Dan Grover stated a few weeks ago about why US tech companies haven’t been as active as Chinese tech companies in using apps to improve public education and norms related to COVID-19:

Since the post-2016 “techlash”, tech companies in Silicon Valley have acted with a sometimes suffocating sense of caution and unease about their power in the world. They are extremely careful to not do anything that would set off either party or anyone with ideas about regulation. And they seldom use their pixel real estate towards affecting political change.

[Ed.: their puzzling advocacy of Title II “net neutrality” regulation a big exception].

Techlash aside, presumably US companies also aren’t receiving the government pressure Chinese companies are receiving to push public health surveillance apps and information. [Ed.: Bloomberg reports that France and EU officials want the Google-Apple app to relay contact tracing notices to public health officials, not merely to affected users. HT Eli Dourado]

Like most people, I have mixed feelings about how coercive the state and how pushy tech companies should be during this pandemic. A big problem is that we still have only an inkling about how deadly COVID-19 is, how quickly it spreads, and how damaging stay-at-home rules and norms are for the economy. Further, contact-tracing apps still need extensive, laborious home visits and follow-up from public health officials to be effective–something the US has shown little ability to do.

There are other social costs to widespread tech-enabled tracing. Tyler Cowen points out in Bloomberg that contact tracing tech is likely inevitable, but that would leave behind those without smartphones. That’s true, and a major problem for the over-70 crowd, who lack smartphones as a group and are most vulnerable to COVID-19.

Because I predict that Apple and Google won’t push the app hard and I doubt there will be mandates from federal or state officials, I think there’s only a small chance (less than 15%) a contact tracing wireless technology will gain ubiquitous adoption this year (60% penetration, more than 200 million US smartphone users). 

Assessment: A Bluetooth app could protect privacy while, if volunteered, giving public health officials useful information for contact tracing. However, absent aggressive pushes from governments or tech companies, it’s unlikely there will be enough users to significantly help.

Health Passport

The chances of mass Bluetooth app use would increase if the underlying tech or API is used to create a “health passport” or “immunity passport”–a near-realtime medical certification that someone will not infect others. Politico reported on April 10 that Dr. Anthony Fauci, the White House point man on the pandemic, said the immunity passport idea “has merit.”

It’s not clear what limits Apple and Google will put on their API but most APIs can be customized by other businesses and users. The Bluetooth app and API could feed into a health passport app, showing at a glance whether you are infected or you’d been near someone infected recently.

For the venues like churches and gyms and operators like airlines and cruise ships that need high trust from participants and customers, on the spot testing via blood test or temperature taking or Bluetooth app will likely gain traction. 

There are the beginnings of a health passport in China with QR codes and individual risk classifications from public health officials. Particularly for airlines, which is a favored industry in most nations, there could be public pressure and widespread adoption of a digital health passport. Emirates Airlines and the Dubai Health Authority, for instance, last week required all passengers on a flight to Tunisia to take a COVID-19 blood test before boarding. Results came in 10 minutes.

Assessment: A health passport integrates several types of data into a single interface. The complexity makes widespread use unlikely but it could gain voluntary adoption by certain industries and populations (business travelers, tourists, nursing home residents).


In short, tech could help with quarantine enforcement and contact tracing, but there are thorny questions of privacy norms and it’s not clear US health officials have the ability to do the home visits and phone calls to detect spread and enforce quarantines. All of these technologies have issues (privacy or penetration or testing) and there are many unknowns about transmission and risk. The question is how far tech companies, federal and state law officials, the American public, and judges are prepared to go.

]]> 0
Hand Sanitizers, Face Masks and Common Sense Regulation Tue, 21 Apr 2020 14:01:10 +0000

[Co-authored with Trace Mitchell and first published on The Bridge on April 21, 2020.]

Which seems like a more pressing concern at the moment: Ensuring that we get hand sanitizer onto shelves or making sure that children don’t drink it once we do? Getting face masks out to the public quickly, or waiting until they can be manufactured to precise federal regulatory specifications?

These questions are currently being raised by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The agency’s rules have been making it hard for distilleries to address the hand sanitizer shortage. Companies looking to supply more face masks to the nation as quickly as possible have been similarly stymied.

Sometimes government regulation is so out of touch with reality and common sense that it should force us to rethink the way business is done in Washington. As our Mercatus Center colleague Scott Sumner concludes, the past month has witnessed “a torrent of governmental incompetence that is breathtaking in scale” and “regulations so bizarre that if put in a novel no one would believe them.” Sadly, he’s right, and the strange world of FDA hand sanitizer and face mask regulation provides us with two teachable moments.

As we write, the FDA has repealed or at least examined many of the immediate barriers to the production of face masks and hand sanitizers. Still, precious time was lost waiting for the agency to clear out unneeded regulations. Going forward, regulators should be sure to review and prune their cache of rules before calamity strikes, perhaps in the form of an independent regulatory review commission or a regulatory budget.

Distilling the meaning of regulation: no innovation without permission

Hard sanitizers have been hard to find for weeks now. Who better to respond to the need for alcohol-based hand sanitizers than the nation’s many distilleries? After all, they have the equipment and means to easily churn out oceans of the stuff. Hearing news of the shortages, hundreds of entrepreneurial distillers rose to the challenge and began cranking out homemade sanitizers, only to learn that their noble efforts were of questionable legality.

That’s because distilleries must navigate a confusing maze of federal, state, and local taxes and regulations. Nominally, these rules are supposed to protect public health. In practice, however, governments often use these rules to extract as much tax revenue as possible.

Setting aside the questions of whether distilleries and their customers should bear these hefty taxes during regular times, these tax rules limited distillers’ efforts to respond to the sanitizer shortage.

The problem is in how these tax rules interact with other rules about how hand sanitizer can be made. The FDA’s rules required that hand sanitizers be made with a bitter-tasting denaturing agent to prevent people from drinking it. But denatured alcohol has become scarce during the pandemic. Yet if distilleries did not use denatured alcohol in their homebrew hand sanitizer, their concoctions would be taxed as an alcoholic beverage!

In theory, taxing undenatured alcohol at a much higher rate also helps the government diminish alcohol use, or keep it out of the hands of minors. That logic is questionable, but it should not even be an issue when we are talking about how to make hand sanitizer. Again, what is the fear here? Are children really going to consume hand sanitizer with drinkable alcohol in it? Seems like there are probably many easier ways to skirt drinking laws than chugging small vials of hand sanitizer.

Moreover, there is an easy fix to all this. The FDA recently issued two guidance documents that temporarily cease actions against pharmacists and firms that produce hand sanitizers with certain non-traditional compositions, so long as they do not intentionally make the mixture more pleasant tasting.

That’s a good start. But the FDA has not updated its guidance to permit distillers to use undenatured alcohol, which is what most of them have on hand. Undenatured alcohol-based hand sanitizers are just as effective as those that are natured alcohol-based. The FDA should explicitly allow this kind of hand sanitizer to be produced so that more people have access to this needed supply.

Face masks: covered in red tape

And it’s not just hand sanitizer.

Face masks have become essential during this pandemic. Doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals are in desperate need of these important, potentially life-saving, items to limit their risk of infection. In addition, the CDC announced last week that everyone should begin wearing cloth face coverings “fashioned from household items or made at home from common materials” when going out in public or interacting with others to help lower the risk of transmission and slow the spread of the coronavirus.

However, the CDC does not recommend that people use surgical masks or N95 respirators, as these are “critical supplies” that need to be reserved for “healthcare workers and other medical first responders.” So why would the CDC want people to create their own homemade cloth masks? Because there is a massive shortage of the higher quality variety used by medical personnel.

Department of Health and Human Services officials have estimated that the United States will need roughly 3.5 billion medical-grade masks to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. How many did the United States actually have on hand at the beginning of this crisis? About 35 million. That is just one percent of the overall need. This has led some hospitals to begin reusing disposable masks or creating their own out of everyday office supplies. With such a significant mismatch between the overall demand and the current supply, it is completely understandable that the CDC would want people to make their own masks and refrain from tapping into the limited supply of medical-grade masks.

But the question remains, why is there such a massive shortage to begin with? Why haven’t businesses and entrepreneurs noticed the incredible demand for face masks and flooded the market with new devices? Why haven’t healthcare facilities started importing face masks from trading partners like China to meet their current needs? The answer is fairly simple. Up until recently, they weren’t allowed.

The FDA considers face masks to be medical devices and subjects them to cumbersome red tape and hyper-formalistic procedures. If a business wants to begin producing face masks and distributing them to the public, it must first go through the FDA’s approval process. This process often takes months and requires numerous tests, extensive records, and a detailed application subject to approval.

In addition, until recently, the FDA made it illegal to import certain devices—like China’s KN95 face mask—irrespective of how well they may work. While these burdensome restrictions are often justified based on a desire to promote public safety, it is clear they do the exact opposite during a pandemic. Instead of protecting the public, these controls actively prevent people from getting the life-saving items they need. In fact, the mismatch created by these regulations is so large that a gray market has emerged for imported face masks.

Luckily, policymakers are beginning to recognize the harm these policies cause. On March 26, the FDA announced that it will not enforce these cumbersome manufacturing requirements for the duration of this crisis. Earlier this month, the agency decided to allow the importation of China’s KN95 face masks.

While these decisions are steps in the right direction, quite a bit of harm has resulted from the delay caused by these overly restrictive regulations. It shouldn’t take a crisis of this magnitude for decision-makers to question policies that raise barriers to supplying people with the resources they need.

The death of common sense

What is going on here? As our colleague Martin Gurri notes, agencies like the FDA and the CDC seem to be “mesmerized by proceduralism” and “tied up in bureaucratic knots.” This is by design, however. These agencies tend to be highly risk-averse and rely on strict, centralized, top-down modes of organization and decision-making. Precaution and preservation of the status quo triumph over experimentation and chance. Their rules are heavy-handed, inflexible, and slow to adapt to new circumstances. Rules quickly become ossified, and agencies eventually fall into a “build-and-freeze” model of regulation that sets rules in stone. These rules may address relevant issues at the time but the agencies either fail to eliminate them when they become obsolete or to bring them in line with new social, economic, and technical realities.

What is left is a series of one-size-fits-all mandates, prohibitions, and penalties that are ill-equipped to deal with a crisis and that can actually undermine the very goals they were put in place to achieve. Practical efforts to protect public health get rejected because proceduralism is valued more highly. “Going by the book” becomes a greater virtue than being innovative.

That is how we get to the point that something as simple as hand sanitizers and face masks can become trapped in a surreal regulatory maze that can only be escaped by petitioning bureaucrats for the freedom to innovate.

Cleaning up this mess

How do we clean up this mess? First, we begin by acknowledging that we face a serious problem. The COVID-19 crisis has revealed just how dysfunctional America’s “permission society” has become, which has profound consequences for public welfare. “Society can’t function when stuck in a heap of accumulated mandates of past generations,” notes Philip K. Howard, author of The Death of Common Sense: How Law Is Suffocating America.

While many government rules are put on the books with the best of intentions, regulatory flexibility and humility should guide enforcement efforts. Rote compliance shouldn’t trump common sense. At some point, periodic house-cleaning becomes essential.

Alas, policymakers seem incapable of regularly pruning regulations, and this year’s spring cleaning for the regulatory state only came about because the COVID-19 crisis forced their hand. Governments at the federal, state, and local levels are now temporarily suspending many regulations that have clearly limited innovative responses to the crisis. A better approach is to get ahead of the problem and begin rolling back outdated, overly cumbersome regulations before a situation like this one arises.

One way of doing this would be to establish a BRAC-style commission to periodically review the regulatory code and clear outdated, unnecessary, or overly burdensome restrictions. Independent regulatory reform committees allow legislatures and agencies to focus on their current needs while still ensuring that some entity is assessing the efficacy of previously enacted laws and regulations. In addition, because this would be an independent commission outside of any particular agency or governmental body, it may be more objective in gauging whether past restrictions really are serving a significant interest and more willing to strike down those that are not. The practice of regulatory budgeting could similarly help to beat back our out-of-control regulatory state.

Whatever the path chosen, it is imperative that governments get their regulatory houses in order. COVID-19 has shown some of the social fault lines that rigid regulation has created in healthcare and technology. We should not wait for the next crisis to show us where vulnerabilities lie in other domains.

]]> 0
Needed: A ‘Fresh Start Initiative’ to Address Rules Suspended during the Crisis Thu, 16 Apr 2020 20:52:23 +0000

The Mercatus Center at George Mason University has just released a new paper by Patrick A. McLaughlin, Matthew D. Mitchell, and me entitled, “A Fresh Start: How to Address Regulations Suspended during the Coronavirus Crisis.” Here’s a quick summary.

As the COVID-19 crisis intensified, policymakers at the federal, state, and local levels started suspending or rescinding laws and regulations that hindered sensible, speedy responses to the pandemic. These “rule departures” raised many questions. Were the paused rules undermining public health and welfare even before the crisis? Even if the rules were well intentioned or once possibly served a compelling interest, had they grown unnecessary or counterproductive? If so, why did they persist? How will the suspended rules be dealt with after the crisis? Are there other rules on the books that might transform from merely unnecessary to actively harmful in future crises?

Once the COVID-19 crisis subsides, there is likely to be considerable momentum to review the rules that have slowed down the response. If policymakers felt the need to abandon these rules during the current crisis, those same rules should probably be permanently repealed or at least comprehensively reformed to allow for more flexible responses in the future.

Accordingly, when the pandemic subsides, policymakers at the federal and state levels should create “Fresh Start Initiatives” that would comprehensively review all suspended rules and then outline sunsetting or reform options for them. To this end, we propose an approach based on the successful experience of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission.

Read the entire paper here to see how it would work. This is our chance to finally do some much-needed spring cleaning for the regulatory state.

]]> 0
Bringing broadband to rural areas quickly during the COVID-19 crisis Thu, 16 Apr 2020 14:45:21 +0000

Building broadband takes time. There’s permitting, environmental reviews, engineering, negotiations with city officials and pole owners, and other considerations.

That said, temporary wireless broadband systems can be set up quickly, sometimes in days and weeks, not months or years like wireline networks. Setting up outdoor WiFi, as some schools have done (HT Billy Easley II), is a good step but WiFi has its limits and more can be done.

The FCC has done a great job freeing up more spectrum on a temporary basis for the COVID-19 crisis, like allowing carriers to use Dish’s unused cellular spectrum. Wireless systems need more than spectrum, however. Operators need real estate, electricity, backhaul, and permission. This is where cities, counties, and states can help.

Waive or simplify permitting

States, counties, and cities should consider waiving or simplifying their permitting for temporary wireless systems, particularly in rural or low-income areas where adoption lags.

Cellular providers set up Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) and Cells on Wheels (COWs) for events like football games, parades, festivals, and emergency response after hurricanes. These provide good coverage and capacity in a pinch.

There are other ad hoc wireless systems that can be set up quickly in local areas, like WISP transmitters, cellular or WISP backhaul, outdoor WiFi, and mesh networks.

Broadband to-go.

Allow rent-free access to municipal property

Public agencies own real estate and buildings that would lend themselves to temporary wireless facilities. Not only do they have power, taller public buildings and water towers allow wireless systems to have greater coverage. Cities should consider leasing out temporary space rent free for the duration of the crisis.

Many cities and counties also have a dark fiber and lit fiber networks that serve public facilities like police, fire, and hospitals. If there’s available capacity, state and local public agencies should consider providing cheap or free access to the municipal fiber network.

Now, these temporary measures won’t work miracles. Operators are looking at months of cash constraints and probably don’t have many field technicians available. But the temporary waiver of permitting and the easy access to public property could provide quick, needed broadband capacity in rural and hard-to-reach areas.

]]> 0
5 Books that Shaped My Thinking on Innovation Thu, 16 Apr 2020 11:42:23 +0000

To commemorate its 40th anniversary, the Mercatus Center asked its scholars to share the books that have been most influential or formative in the development of their analytical approach and worldview. Head over to the Mercatus website to check out my complete write-up of my Top 5 picks for books that influenced my thinking on innovation policy progress studies. But here is a quick summary:

#1) Samuel C. Florman – “The Existential Pleasures of Engineering” (1976). His book surveys “antitechnologists” operating in several academic fields & then proceeds to utterly demolish their claims with remarkable rigor and wit.

#2) Aaron Wildavsky – “Searching for Safety” (1988). The most trenchant indictment of the “precautionary principle” ever penned. His book helped to reshape the way risk analysts would think about regulatory trade-offs going forward.

#3) Thomas Sowell – “A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles” (1987). It’s like the Rosetta Stone of political theory; the key to deciphering why people think the way they do about human nature, economics, and politics.  

#4) Virginia Postrel – “The Future and Its Enemies” (1998). Postrel reconceptualized the debate over progress as not Left vs. Right but rather dynamism— “a world of constant creation, discovery, and competition”—versus the stasis mentality. More true now than ever before.

#5) Calestous Juma – “Innovation and Its Enemies” (2016). A magisterial history of earlier battles over progress. Juma reminds us of the continued importance of “oiling the wheels of novelty” to constantly replenish the well of important ideas and innovations.


Finally, the influence of these scholars is evident on every page of my last book (“Permissionless Innovation”) and my new one (“Evasive Entrepreneurs and the Future of Governance: How Innovation Improves Economies and Governments”). I thank them all!

]]> 0
Reforming Licensing Rules to Help Fight the Pandemic Mon, 23 Mar 2020 13:19:12 +0000

In a new essay in The Dallas Morning News (“Licensing restrictions for health care workers need to be flexible to fight coronavirus“), Trace Mitchell and I discuss recent efforts to reform occupational licensing restrictions for health care workers to help fight the coronavirus. Trace and I have written extensively about the need for licensing flexibility over the past couple of years, but it is needed now more than ever. Luckily, some positive reforms are now underway.

We highlight efforts in states like Massachusetts and Texas to reform their occupational licensing rules in response to the crisis, as well as federal reforms aimed at allowing reciprocity across state lines. We conclude by noting that:


Read the entire piece here.
]]> 0
GPS location data and COVID-19 response Fri, 20 Mar 2020 20:07:38 +0000

I saw a Bloomberg News report that officials in Austria and Italy are seeking (aggregated, anonymized) users’ location data from cellphone companies to see if local and national lockdowns are effective.

It’s an interesting idea that raises some possibilities for US officials and tech companies to consider to combat the crisis in the US. Caveat: these are very preliminary thoughts.

Cellphone location data from a phone company is OK but imprecise about your movements. It can show where you are typically in a mile or half-mile area. 

But smartphone app location is much more precise since it uses GPS, not cell towers to show movements. Apps with location services can show people’s movements within meters, not half-mile, like cell towers.I suspect 90%+ of smartphone users have GPS location services on (Google Maps, Facebook, Yelp, etc.). App companies have rich datasets of daily movements of people.

Step 1 – App companies isolate and share location trends with health officials

This would need to be aggregated and anonymized of course. Tech companies with health officials should, as Balaji Srinivasan says, identify red and green zones. The point is not to identify individuals but make generalizations about whether a neighborhood or town is practicing good distancing practices.

Step 2 – In green zones, where infection/hospitalization are low and app data says people are strictly distancing, COVID-19 tests.

If people are spending 22 hours not moving except for brief visits to the grocery store and parks, that’s a good neighborhood. We need tests distributed daily in non-infected areas, perhaps at grocery stores and via USPS and Amazon deliveries. As soon as the tests production ramps up, tests need to flood into the areas that are healthy. This achieves two things:

  • Asymptomatic people who might spread can stay home.
  • Non-infected people can start returning to work and a life of semi-normalcy of movement with confidence that others who are out are non-contagious.

Step 3 – In red zones, where infection/hospitalization is high and people aren’t strictly distancing, public education and restrictions.

At least in Virginia, there is county-level data about where the hotspots are. I expect other states know the counties and neighborhoods that are hit hard. Where there’s overlap of these areas not distancing, step up distancing and restrictions.

That still leaves open what to do about yellow zones that are adjacent to red zones, but the main priority should be to identify the green and red. The longer health officials and the public are flying blind with no end in sight, people get frustrated, lose jobs, shutter businesses, and violate distancing rules.

]]> 0
Remote Work and the State of US Broadband Thu, 12 Mar 2020 18:36:53 +0000

To help slow the spread of the coronavirus, the GMU campus is moving to remote instruction and Mercatus is moving to remote work for employees until the risk subsides. GMU and Mercatus employees join thousands of other universities and businesses this week. Millions of people will be working from home and it will be a major test of American broadband and cellular networks. 

There will likely be a loss of productivity nationwide–some things just can’t be done well remotely. But hopefully broadband access is not a major issue. What is the state of US networks? How many people lack the ability to do remote work and remote homework?

The FCC and Pew research keep pretty good track of broadband buildout and adoption. There are many bright spots but some areas of concern as well.

Who lacks service?

The top question: How many people want broadband but lack adequate service or have no service?

The good news is that around 94% of Americans have access to 25 Mbps landline broadband. (Millions more have access if you include broadband from cellular and WISP providers.) It’s not much consolation to rural customers and remote workers who have limited or no options, but these are good numbers.

According to Pew’s 2019 report, about 2% of Americans cite inadequate or no options as the main reason they don’t have broadband. What is concerning is that this 2% number hasn’t budged in years. In 2015, about the same number of Americans cited inadequate or no options as the main reason they didn’t have home broadband. This resembles what I’ve called “the 2% problem“–about 2% of the most rural American households are extremely costly to serve with landline broadband. Satellite, cellular, or WISP service will likely be the best option.

Mobile broadband trends

Mobile broadband is increasingly an option for home broadband. About 24% of Americans with home Internet are mobile only, according to Pew, up from ~16% in 2015.

The ubiquity of high-speed mobile broadband has been the big story in recent years. Per FCC data, from 2009 to 2017 (the most recent year we have data), the average number of new mobile connections increased about 30 million annually. In Dec. 2017 (the most recent data), there were about 313 million mobile subscriptions.

Coverage is very good in the US. OpenSignal uses crowdsourced data and software to determine how frequently users’ phones have a 4G LTE network available (a proxy for coverage and network quality) around the world. The US ranked fourth the world (86%) in 2017, beating out every European country, save Norway.

There was also a big improvement was in mobile speeds. In 2009, a 3G world, almost all connections were below 3 Mbps. In 2017, a world of 4G LTE, almost all connections were above 3 Mbps.

Landline broadband trends

Landline broadband also increased significantly. From 2009 to 2017, there were about 3.5 million new connections per year, about 108 million connections in 2017. In Dec. 2009, about half of landline connections were below 3 Mbps.

There were some notable jumps in high-speed and rural broadband deployment. There was a big jump in fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP) connections, like FiOS and Google Fiber. From 2012 to 2017, the number of FTTP connections more than doubled, to 12.6 million. Relatedly, sub-25 Mbps connections have been falling rapidly while 100 Mbps+ connections have been shooting up. In 2017, there were more connections with 100 Mbps+ (39 million) than there were connections below 25 Mbps (29 million).

In the most recent 5 years for which we have data, the number of rural subscribers (not households) with 25 Mbps increased 18 million (from 29 million to 47 million).

More Work

We only have good data for the first year of the Trump FCC, so it’s hard to evaluate but signs are promising. One of Chairman Pai’s first actions was creating an advisory committee to advise the FCC on broadband deployment (I’m a member). Anecdotally, it’s been fruitful to regularly have industry, academics, advocates, and local officials in the same room to discuss consensus policies. The FCC has acted on many of those.

The rollback of common carrier regulations for the Internet, the pro-5G deployment initiatives, and limiting unreasonable local fees for cellular equipment have all helped increase deployment and service quality.

An effective communications regulator largely stays of the way and removes hindrances to private sector investment. But the FCC does manage some broadband subsidy programs. The Trump FCC has made some improvements to the $4.5 billion annual rural broadband programs. The 17 or so rural broadband subprograms have metastasized over the years, making for a kludgey and expensive subsidy system.

The recent RDOF reforms are a big improvement since they fund a reverse auction program to shift money away from the wasteful legacy subsidy programs. Increasingly, rural households get broadband from WISP, satellite, and rural cable companies–the RDOF reforms recognize that reality.

Hopefully one day reforms will go even further and fund broadband vouchers. It’s been longstanding FCC policy to fund rural broadband providers (typically phone companies serving rural areas) rather than subsidizing rural households. The FCC should consider a voucher model for rural broadband, $5 or $10 or $40 per household per month, depending on the geography. Essentially the FCC should do for rural households what the FCC does for low-income households–provide a monthly subsidy to make broadband costs more affordable.

Many of these good deployment trends began in the Obama years but the Trump FCC has made it a national priority to improve broadband deployment and services. It appears to be be working. With the coronavirus and a huge increase in remote work, US networks will be put to a unique test.

]]> 0
The APA’s Welcome New Statement on Video Game Violence Fri, 06 Mar 2020 14:52:13 +0000

I was pleased to see the American Psychological Association’s new statement slowly reversing course on misguided past statements about video games and acts of real-world violence. As Kyle Orland reports in Ars Technica, the APA has clarified its earlier statement on this relationship between watching video game depictions of violence and actual youth behavior. The APA’s old statement said that evidence “confirms [the] link between playing violent video games and aggression.”  But the APA has come around and now says that, “there is insufficient scientific evidence to support a causal link between violent video games and violent behavior.” More specifically, the APA says: 

The following resolution should not be misinterpreted or misused by attributing violence, such as mass shootings, to violent video game use. Violence is a complex social problem that likely stems from many factors that warrant attention from researchers, policy makers and the public. Attributing violence to violent video gaming is not scientifically sound and draws attention away from other factors.

This is a welcome change of course because the APA’s earlier statements were being used by politicians and media activists who favored censorship of video games. Hopefully that will no longer happen.

“Monkey see, monkey do” theories of media exposure leading to acts of real-world violence have long been among the most outrageously flawed theories in the fields of psychology and media studies.  All the evidence points the opposite way, as I documented a decade ago in a variety of studies. (For a summary, see my 2010 essay, “More on Monkey See-Monkey Do Theories about Media Violence & Real-World Crime.”)

In fact, there might even be something to the “cathartic effect hypothesis,” or the idea first articulated by Aristotle (“katharsis”) that watching dramatic portrayals of violence could lead to “the proper purgation of these emotions.” (See my 2010 essay on this, “Video Games, Media Violence & the Cathartic Effect Hypothesis.”)

Of course, this doesn’t mean that endless exposure to video game or TV and movie violence is a good thing. Prudence and good parenting are still essential. Some limits are smart. But the idea that a kid playing or watching violent act will automatically become violent themselves was always nonsense. It’s time we put that theory to rest. Thanks to the new APA statement, we are one step closer.

P.S. I recently penned an essay about my long love affair with video games that you might find entertaining: “Confessions of a ‘Vidiot’: 50 Years of Video Games & Moral Panics

]]> 0
Comment on the FAA’s drone Remote ID proposal Tue, 03 Mar 2020 19:32:20 +0000

Michael Kotrous and I submitted a comment to the FAA about their Remote ID proposals. While we agree with the need for a “digital license plate” for drones, we’re skeptical that requiring an Internet connection is necessary and that an interoperable, national drone traffic management system will work well.

The FAA deserves credit for rigorously estimating the costs of their requirements, which they set at around $450 million to $600 million over 10 years. These costs largely fall on drone operators and on drone manufacturers for network (say, LTE) subscriptions and equipment.

The FAA’s proposed requirements aren’t completely hashed out, but we raised two points of caution.

One, many many drone flights won’t stray from a pre-programmed route or leave private property. For instance, roof inspections, medical supply deliveries across a hospital campus, train track inspections, and crop spraying via drone all remain on private property. They all pose a de minimis safety concern to manned aircraft and requiring networking equipment and subscriptions seems excessive.

Two, we’re not keen on the FAA and NASA plans for an interoperable, national drone traffic management system. A simple wireless broadcast from a drone should be enough in most circumstances. The FAA proposal would require drone operators to contract with UAS Service Suppliers (USSs) who would be contractors of the FAA. Technical standards would come later. This convoluted system of making virtually all drone operations known to the FAA is likely run aground with technical complexity, technical stagnation, FAA-blessed oligopoly in USS or all of the above.

The FAA instead should consider allowing states, cities, and landowners to make rules for drone operations when operations are solely on their property. States are ready to step in. The North Dakota legislature, for instance, authorized $28 million a few months ago for a statewide drone management system. Other states will follow suit and a federated, geographically-separated drone management system could develop, if the FAA allows. That would reduce the need for complex, interoperable USS and national drone traffic management systems.

Further reading:

Refine the FAA’s Remote ID Rules to Ensure Aviation Safety and Public Confidence, comment to the FAA (March 2020),

Auctioning Airspace, North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology (October 2019),

]]> 0
Impressions from the DOJ Workshop about Section 230 Wed, 26 Feb 2020 18:54:26 +0000

Last week I attended the Section 230 cage match workshop at the DOJ. It was a packed house, likely because AG Bill Barr gave opening remarks. It was fortuitous timing for me: my article with Jennifer Huddleston, The Erosion of Publisher Liability in American Law, Section 230, and the Future of Online Curation, was published 24 hours before the workshop by the Oklahoma Law Review.

These were my impressions of the event:

I thought it was pretty well balanced event and surprisingly civil for such a contentious topic. There were strong Section 230 defenders and strong Section 230 critics, and several who fell in between. There were a couple cheers after a few pointed statements from panelists, but the audience didn’t seem to fall on one side or the other. I’ll add that my friend and co-blogger Neil Chilson gave an impressive presentation about how Section 230 helped make the “long tail” of beneficial Internet-based communities possible.

AG Bob Barr gave the opening remarks, which are available online. A few things jumped out. He suggested that Section 230 had its place but Internet companies are not an infant industry anymore. In his view, the courts have expanded Section 230 beyond drafters’ intent, and the Reno decision “unbalanced” the protections, which were intended to protect minors. The gist of his statement was that the law needs to be “recalibrated.”

Each of these points were disputed by one or more panelists, but the message to the Internet industry was clear: the USDOJ is scrutinizing industry concentration and its relationship to illegal and antisocial online content.

The workshop signals that there is now a large, bipartisan coalition that would like to see Section 230 “recalibrated.” The problem for this coalition is that they don’t agree on what types of content providers should be liable for and they are often at cross-purposes. The problematic content ranges from sex trafficking, to stalkers, to opiate trafficking, to revenge porn, to unfair political ads. For conservatives, social media companies take down too much content, intentionally helping progressives. For progressives, social media companies leave up too much content, unwittingly helping conservatives.

I’ve yet to hear a convincing way to modify Section 230 that (a) satisfies this shaky coalition, (b) would be practical to comply with, and (c) would be constitutional.

Now, Section 230 critics are right: the law blurs the line between publisher and conduit. But this is not unique to Internet companies. The fact is, courts (and federal agencies) blurred the publisher-conduit dichotomy for fifty years for mass media distributors and common carriers as technology and social norms changed. Some cases that illustrate the phenomenon:

In Auvil v. CBS 60 Minutes, a 1991 federal district court decision, some Washington apple growers sued some local CBS affiliates for airing allegedly defamatory programming. The federal district court dismissed the case on the grounds that the affiliates are conduits of CBS programming. Critically, the court recognized that the CBS affiliates “had the power to” exercise editorial control over the broadcast and “in fact occasionally [did] censor programming . . . for one reason or another.” Still, case dismissed. The principle has been cited by other courts. Publishers can be conduits.

Conduits can also be publishers. In 1989, Congress passed a law requiring phone providers to restrict “dial-a-porn” services to minors. Dial-a-porn companies sued. In Information Providers Coalition v. FCC, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that regulated common carriers are “free under the Constitution to terminate service” to providers of indecent content. The Court relied on its decision a few years earlier in Carlin Communications noting that when a common carrier phone company is connecting thousands of subscribers simultaneously to the same content, the “phone company resembles less a common carrier than it does a small radio station.”

Many Section 230 reformers believe Section 230 mangled the common law would like to see the restoration of the publisher-conduit dichotomy. As our research shows, that dichotomy had already been blurred for decades. Until advocates and lawmakers acknowledge these legal trends and plan accordingly, the reformers risk throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Relevant research:
Brent Skorup & Jennifer Huddleston, The Erosion of Publisher Liability in American Law, Section 230, and the Future of Online Curation (Oklahoma Law Review).

Brent Skorup & Joe Kane, The FCC and Quasi–Common Carriage: A Case Study of Agency Survival (Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology).

]]> 0
Podcast: Problems with the Precautionary Principle Thu, 20 Feb 2020 20:02:13 +0000

On the latest Institute for Energy Research podcast, I joined Paige Lambermont to discuss:

  • the precautionary principle vs. permissionless innovation;
  • risk analysis trade-offs;
  • the future of nuclear power;
  • the “pacing problem”;
  • regulatory capture;
  • evasive entrepreneurialism;
  • “soft law”;
  • … and why I’m still bitter about losing the 6th grade science fair!

Our discussion was inspired by my recent essay, “How Many Lives Are Lost Due to the Precautionary Principle?”

]]> 0
Europe’s New AI Industrial Policy Thu, 20 Feb 2020 19:37:48 +0000

The race for artificial intelligence (AI) supremacy is on with governments across the globe looking to take the lead in the next great technological revolution. As they did before during the internet era, the US and Europe are once again squaring off with competing policy frameworks.

In early January, the Trump Administration announced a new light-touch regulatory framework and then followed up with a proposed doubling of federal R&D spending on AI and quantum computing. This week, the European Union Commission issued a major policy framework for AI technologies and billed it as “a European approach to excellence and trust.”

It seems the EU basically wants to have its cake and eat it too by marrying up an ambitious industrial policy with a precautionary regulatory regime. We’ve seen this show before. Europe is doubling down on the same policy regime it used for the internet and digital commerce. It did not work out well for the continent then, and there are reasons to think it will backfire on them again for AI technologies.

An Ambitious Industrial Policy Vision

The new EU framework includes a lot of catchphrases and proposals that are an industrial policy lover’s dream. In an attempt to create “an ecosystem of excellence” and ensure the “human-centric development if AI,” it identifies a variety of existing or new industrial planning efforts, including: Digital Innovation Hubs, Enterprise Resource Planning, the Digital Europe Programme, the Key Digital Technology Joint Undertaking, and broad-based public private partnerships. This is all part of an official “Coordinated Plan” prepared together with the Member States “to foster the development and use of AI in Europe.”

To accomplish that, the Commission says it will “facilitate the creation of excellence and testing centres” that will “concentrate in sectors where Europe has the potential to become a global champion.” The Commission also wants to give special consideration to growing small and mid-size enterprises (SMEs) is establishing these plans.

Again, it’s an ambitious industrial policy vision, and one that will be accompanied by a wide variety of (yet-to-be-determined) regulatory enactments to shape the development and use of AI. But if that approach really works, why aren’t European digital companies global leaders today? Instead, firms based mostly in the US have risen to become household names across the globe. Regulation had an influence on that result because American firms enjoyed a policy regime that was rooted in “permissionless innovation,” which generally allows experimentation by default and addresses concerns by using more flexible, ex post remedies. By contrast, Europe’s internet policy approach was rooted in the precautionary principle, or the notion that innovation is essentially guilty until proven innocent. New technologies are to be subjected to prior constraints—or what the new European Commission white paper calls “prior conformity assessments”—before being allow into the wild.

Precautionary Regulation Dominates

Despite losing that last round of the innovation wars, the new EU white paper makes it clear that Europe will keep using a precautionary approach. What does that mean for AI regulation? The problem here begins with defining what is a “high-risk” AI application requiring prior restraints. The white paper defines it in a somewhat circular fashion, saying that, “an AI application should be considered high-risk where…(it) is employed in a sector where, given the characteristics of the activities typically undertaken, significant risks can be expected to occur” and is “used in such a manner that significant risks are likely to arise.” Instead of providing legal certainty, this definition clarifies almost nothing and will require future regulatory inquires to determine the full scope and nature of AI controls.

There’s also a lot of talk in the proposal about preemptively addressing “risks for fundamental rights,” which is understandable. AI innovations can raise various safety, security, and privacy concerns that deserve to be taken seriously. But what about the risk of not having access to important AI innovations at all? What about the risk of losing out on life-enriching—and in many cases life-saving—innovations because, instead of “building trust,” the regulatory regime builds the exact opposite: fear of innovating.

Entrepreneurs and investors respond to incentives. Before building or investing in a new technology, they want to know how long it will take to get that good or service launched—assuming they can get approval at all. Every innovator and investor factors such political risk into their business plans. When the potential costs of product launch overwhelm the likely benefits, they will abandon innovative efforts or look to engage in them elsewhere.

The EU says “the race for global leadership is ongoing,” and claims that, “Europe offers significant potential, knowledge and expertise” through its efforts to make the continent an AI innovation hub. Indeed, some of the best AI researchers are in Europe, and there are plenty of brilliant people brimming with entrepreneurial enthusiasm about creating world-class AI applications. But all that knowledge and enthusiasm do not matter much if the regulatory deck is stacked against innovation from the start.

And Even More Expansive Regulation Down the Road

Beyond the precautionary approach in that document, the EU’s accompanying white paper on safety and liability implications of AI leaves open the possibility of an expansion in preemptive regulatory requirements. “Additional obligations may be needed for manufacturers to ensure that they provide features to prevent the upload of software having an impact on safety during the lifetime of the AI products,” the document notes. Moreover, if an ongoing AI software update “modifies substantially the product in which it is downloaded, the entire product might be considered as a new product and compliance with the relevant safety product legislation must be reassessed at the time the modification is performed.”

That sort of regulatory regime may sound quite sensible at first blush. In practice, however, it means that every conceivable tweak to an algorithm requires costly and complex regulatory approval. If traditional computer software had required regulatory approval before any new modifications could be made, most consumers would still be stuck with an email address and Windows 95 as an operating system.

What the European Commission proves with its new AI policy framework is that it is easy to talk a big game about planning for an innovative future, but it is an entirely different thing to actually bring one about. The European approach will have clear competitive effects, or more specifically, anti-competitive effects. As is already the case with the EU’s regulatory approach to the data economy and GDPR in particular, regulatory compliance costs continue to skyrocket and small and mid-size enterprises struggle to cope. This means that only firms operating the largest digital platforms are able to shoulder these burdens, leaving consumers without as many competitive, low-cost choices as they might otherwise enjoy. Not even generous government support for SMEs will be able to counter-balance the costly entry barriers associated with over-regulation.

Solidifying Market Power of Existing Giants?

This is why it is so ironic how worried the EU is about the market power of Google, Facebook and other US-based tech giants: the regulatory burden now helps those firms maintain their market dominance. Over-regulation by the EU undermined both home-grown and international investment and competition that might challenge those existing players. With each addition layer of AI regulation that now gets piled on top of the Europe’s existing regulatory burden, the prospects for creative destruction decrease, as do the chances for life-enriching innovations to ever make it to consumers.

While the European Commission will, no doubt, insist that they are implementing this new AI regime with the very best of intentions in mind, there is no escaping the fact that regulation involves complex trade-offs and unforeseeable consequences. The consequences in this case are likely a bit easier to predict, however: By smothering new AI applications in layers of red tape, we can expect fewer innovations and less competition.

Despite all the talk of boosting SMEs, perhaps the EU will eventually become more like China and unabashedly support larger home-grown firms to make sure they are part of the global AI race. China has already made waves on this front with its 2017 “New Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan,” an audacious industrial policy plan which seeks “to build China’s first-mover advantage in the development of AI [and] to accelerate the construction of an innovative nation and global power in science and technology.” The document is as much a manifesto about geopolitical power as it is about technological governance. And it does not try to hide China’s authoritarian impulse to meticulously plan every facet of daily life under the auspices of promoting global technological leadership. China’s AI manifesto even concludes with a section on “public opinion guidance” that creepily insists the country will, “Fully use all kinds of traditional media and new media to quickly propagate new progress and new achievements in AI, to let the healthy development of AI become a consensus in all of society, and muster the vigor of all of society to participate in and support the development of AI.”

The new European AI industrial policy framework does not go as far as China’s, not only because the continent is obviously more open and democratic by nature, but also because the EU is a collection of many countries and cultures that will never be able to speak as coherently and forcefully with one voice on all technological governance matters. In fact, the EU’s new governance framework explicitly leaves room for more tailored AI regulation by individual member states.


This leaves Europe stuck between the polar opposites of China and the US when it comes to AI governance. China’s meticulously detailed, highly centralized, state-driven approach stands in stark contrast to the more bottom-up, adaptive American approach which insists that regulators, “must avoid a precautionary approach that holds AI systems to such an impossibly high standard that society cannot enjoy their benefits.”

The US approach also leans heavily on “soft law,” or informal governance mechanisms that are not as burdensome as precautionary regulatory controls. Soft law can include a wide variety of tools and methods for addressing policy concerns, including multistakeholder initiatives, best practices and standards, agency workshops and guidance documents, educational efforts, and much more. These are the governance tools the dominated for the internet and digital platforms for that past twenty years in the US, and they will likely continue to be the primary governance mechanisms for artificial intelligence, robotics, the internet of things, and other emerging tech sectors.

The EU probably thinks it has found the Goldilocks formula and gotten AI policy just right by falling between China and the US on the governance spectrum. It is more likely, however, that European policymakers will be unable to resist the urge to over-plan and micro-manage AI markets until they are once again left wondering how they got stuck trying to regulate market leaders that are headquartered oceans away from them. With the US once again adopting a more flexible approach, we could see a replay of the Web Wars, with innovators and investors putting their efforts behind AI launches in the US instead of Europe. Meanwhile, China will likely attract far more global venture capital for AI and robotics launches than they did for digital platforms. This could really put the squeeze on Europe.

Only time will tell. But, to paraphrase Yoda, when it comes to global artificial intelligence governance, one thing is clear: Begun the AI war has.

]]> 0
My Submission for the DOJ Workshop on Section 230 Tue, 18 Feb 2020 15:54:38 +0000

Below is a link to my submission for tomorrow’s Department of Justice workshop, “Section 230 – Nurturing Innovation or Fostering Unaccountability?“. I will be on panel three, “Imagining the Alternative.” From my opening:

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is a crucial part of the U.S.’s regulatory environment. The principles of individual responsibility embodied in Section 230 freed U.S. entrepreneurs to become the world’s best at developing innovative user-to-user platforms. Some people, including some people in industries disrupted by this innovation, are now calling to change Section 230. But there is little evidence that changing Section 230 would improve competition or innovation to the benefit of consumers. And there are good reasons to believe that increasing liability would hinder future competition and innovation and could ultimately harm consumers on balance. Thus, any proposed changes to Section 230 must be evaluated against seven important principles to ensure that the U.S. maintains a regulatory environment best suited to generate widespread human prosperity.

]]> 0
Building in Accountability for Algorithmic Bias Mon, 17 Feb 2020 14:34:37 +0000

– Coauthored with Anna Parsons

“Algorithms’ are only as good as the data that gets packed into them,” said Democratic Presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren. “And if a lot of discriminatory data gets packed in, if that’s how the world works, and the algorithm is doing nothing but sucking out information about how the world works, then the discrimination is perpetuated.”

Warren’s critique of algorithmic bias reflects a growing concern surrounding our interaction with algorithms every day.

Algorithms leverage big data sets to make or influence decisions from movie recommendations to credit worthiness. Before algorithms, humans made decisions in advertising, shopping, criminal sentencing, and hiring. Legislative concerns center on bias – the capacity for algorithms to perpetuate gender bias, racial and minority stereotypes. Nevertheless, current approaches to regulating artificial intelligence (AI) and algorithms are misguided.

The European Union enacted stringent data protection rules requiring companies to explain publicly how their algorithms make decisions. Similarly, the US Congress has introduced the Algorithmic Accountability Act regulating how companies build their algorithms. These actions reflect the two most common approaches to address algorithm bias of transparency and disclosure. In effect, regulations require companies to publicly disclose the source code of their algorithms and explain how they make decisions. Unfortunately, this strategy would fail to mitigate AI bias as it would only regulate the business model and inner workings of algorithms, rather than holding companies accountable for outcomes.

Research shows that machines treat similarly situated people and objects differently. Algorithms risk reproducing or even amplifying human biases in certain cases. For example, automated hiring systems make decisions at a faster and larger- scale than their human counterparts, making bias more pronounced.

However, research has also shown that AI can be a helpful tool for improving social outcomes and gender equality. For example, Disney uses AI to help identify and correct human biases by analyzing the output of its algorithms. Its machine learning tool allows the company to compare the number of male and female characters in its movie scripts, as well as other factors such as the number of speaking lines for characters based on their gender, race, or disability.

AI and algorithms have the potential to increase social and economic progress. Therefore, policy makers should avoid broad regulatory requirements and focus on guidelines and policies that address harms in specific contexts. For example, algorithms making hiring decisions should be treated differently than algorithms that produce book recommendations.

Promoting algorithmic accountability is one targeted way to mitigate problems with bias. Best practices should include a review process to ensure the algorithm is performing its intended job.

Furthermore, laws applying to human decisions must also apply to algorithmic decisions. Employers must comply with anti-discrimination laws in hiring, therefore the same principle applies to the algorithm they use.

In contrast, requiring organizations to explain how their algorithms work would prevent companies from using entire categories of algorithms. For example, machine learning algorithms construct their own decision-making systems based on databases of characteristics without exposing the reasoning behind their decisions. By focusing on accountability in outcomes, operators are free to focus on the best methods to ensure their algorithms do not further biases and improve the public’s confidence in their systems.

Transparency and explanations have other positive uses. For example, there is a strong public interest in requiring transparency in the criminal justice system. The government, unlike a private company, has constitutional obligations to be transparent. Thus, transparency requirements for the criminal justice system through risk assessments can help prevent abuses of civil rights.

The Trump administration recently released a new policy framework for Artificial Intelligence. It offers guidance for emerging technologies that is both supportive of new innovations and addresses concerns about disruptive technological change. This is a positive step toward finding sensible and flexible solutions to the AI governance challenge. Concerns about algorithmic bias are legitimate. But, the debate should be centered on a nuanced, targeted approach to regulations and avoid treating algorithmic disclosure as a cure. A regulatory approach centered on transparency requirements could do more harm than good. Instead, an approach that emphasizes accountability ensures organizations use AI and algorithms responsibly to further economic growth and social equality.

]]> 0
Congress as a Non-Actor in Tech Policy Tue, 04 Feb 2020 19:28:42 +0000

ImageCongress has become a less important player in the field of technology policy. Why did that happen, and what are the ramifications for technological governance efforts going forward?

I’ve spent almost 30 years covering technology policy. There was a time in my life when I spent almost all my time as a policy analyst preoccupied with developments in the federal legislative arena. I lived in the trenches of Capitol Hill and interacted with lawmakers and their staff morning, noon, and night.

In recent years, however, I have spent very little time focused on the Legislative Branch because it has effectively become a non-actor on technology policy. It is not that congressional lawmakers stopped caring about tech policy. Interest actually remains quite high—perhaps higher than ever before. Congress also continues to introduce lots of bills, host plenty of hearings, and issue mountains of press releases related to tech policy issues.

Nonetheless, all that interest and activity has not really translated into much important legislation. While it is hard to track tech-oriented legislative trends statistically because of the complication of defining “technology policy” over time, judged by substantive output, Congress has largely checked out of technological policymaking.

Think about digital privacy. How many years now have people been predicting a comprehensive “baseline” privacy bill would pass in each legislative session? It never happens. Perhaps it will this year, but if you would like to place a wager on it, I will take that bet.

Speaking of bets, for several years now, I have been wagering with friends that Congress will not pass federal legislation creating a national autonomous vehicles framework. Each session I win that bet. Keep in mind, a framework for driverless cars is far less controversial than privacy policy. Still, nothing substantive ever gets done in Congress.

Same goes for cybersecurity with lots of calls for big measures, but no final action. Folks are now also telling me to expect a big artificial intelligence bill one day soon. I sincerely doubt it. Again, I’ll bet on it if you’d like to lose some money!

Let me be clear, there may actually be some very good reasons why Congress should implement a national framework for privacy, driverless cars, and some AI policy issues. But all the wishful thinking in the world will not magically make it happen.

We need to entertain the possibility that Congress has largely checked out of the world of substantive tech policymaking and isn’t coming back. We may get a few big surprise measures here and there, as we did with clumsily-drafted FOSTA-SESTA. If anything, it is more likely that we instead see misguided legislative riders attached to non-germane measures during late night negotiations. But even haphazard efforts like those will be extremely rare. The days of Congress passing big bills like the Telecom Act of 1996 or the Cable Act of 1992 appear mostly over.

Why Congress Is No Longer the Major Player It Once Was

I think there are probably many obvious explanations for why Congress has checked out of tech policymaking, but let me try to boil it down to a couple of interrelated trends:

The “pacing problem” has intensified: The pacing problem refers to the inability of legal or regulatory regimes to keep adjust to the intensifying pace of technological change. There are just more emerging technologies than ever, and they are evolving faster than ever, too. “New technologies that used to have two-year cycle times now can become obsolete in six months, and the pace of change is not slowing,” says consulting firm Deloitte.

A growing multiplicity of technologies means more tech policy issues to cover. And those issues grow more complicated each year. As soon as lawmakers wrap their heads around one technology (if they do at all), another innovation pops up that complicates things further or crowds out their attention.

Technological convergence and blurring governance boundaries: Technology policymaking increasingly involves metaphysical questions about the underlying nature of things. For example, what is a “phone,” a “medical device,” or an “aerial vehicle”? These things used to be relatively easy to define and had well-understood meanings in federal statutes and regulations. But those concepts evolved rapidly in an age of widespread technological convergence and rapid-fire “combinatorial innovation,” with new technologies multiplying and building on top of one another in the symbiotic fashion. Basically, almost as soon as new tech laws or regulations are enacted, they are confronted with new marketplace realities and technological changes that call into question legal classifications or regulatory distinctions.

For example, today’s smartphones combine dozens of different functions that were previously quite distinct, including health tracking capabilities, mobile payment systems, and video distribution, all of which remain heavily regulated by an assortment of federal laws and agencies. But the convergence of all these capabilities in a single device that we can carry in our pockets creates massive governance challenges, not only for archaic legislative frameworks, but even for newer semantic distinctions that may seem current one moment only to be obliterated the next. These factors also make it harder to figure out who in Congress should be driving policy because technological convergence blurs previously distinct governance categories among legislative committees and the laws they have crafted.

Legislative dysfunctionalism: Policymaking processes move slowly by design. Constitutional constraints and other legal requirements demand it. But things move even slower today because of what Jonathan Rauch calls “demosclerosis,” or the “government’s progressive loss of the ability to adapt.” “[A]s layer is dropped upon layer,” he argued, “the accumulated mass becomes gradually less rational and less flexible.”

Inadequate resources are also part of the problem with Congress facing a complex, rapidly-evolving set of issues but devoting only limited resources to technical staff or studies to better understand these developments. This combined with the factors cited above has led to a never-ending “competency trap,” with lawmakers and their staffs seemingly always one step behind technological developments and societal demands or expectations.

Meanwhile, partisanship increases and the work load on many other fronts grows alongside it. There’s just a lot more on Congress’s plate than ever before. Plus, tech policy matters seemingly always take a back seat to tax, budget, entitlements, defense, and other issues.

Many people hope that boosting technology assessment efforts might help correct these problems. Perhaps better technical advice could help lawmakers ask less ignorant questions at tech-oriented congressional hearings, which have become showcases for the staggering lack of congressional understanding of modern technologies. But just adding new technology assessment capacity, such as in the form of a revived Office of Technology Assessment, won’t likely move the needle much in terms of actual legislative output. More serious structural reforms will be required.

Globalization: Many modern technologies “are truly global and call out for policy approaches that do not respect traditional national borders,” note former NITA officials Lawrence E. Strickling and Jonah Force Hill. Congress only has so much control over technologies that defy national boundaries, further complicating tech governance questions.

Yet, one would think that when America’s global competitive advantage was on the line, Congress would have greater reason to assert itself and craft frameworks to ensure US firms are not disadvantaged by a lack of policy clarity. That has not proven to be the case, however. Congressional lawmakers do plenty of huffing and puffing about the tech governance choices made by Europe, China, and other governments, but they then leave the field wide open to them (as well as lower levels of government) to craft policies that govern national markets throughout the United States.

Endless delegation: Speaking of passing the buck, Congress has been doing it for decades on tech policy by delegating massive and quite amorphous authority to technocratic administrative agencies. Over the past half century, scholars from various disciplines—economics, law, political science, history, and others—have explored the growth of what has been alternatively called the “interest group society,”  “receivership by regulation,”  “iron triangles,” and “client politics.” This literature identifies the way Congress has increasingly abdicated its constitutional role as lawmaker by shifting hard policy questions to regulatory agencies and then hoping that bureaucrats could figure out all the answers.

Delegation is even more common for the most technical policy matters, and that trend has only accelerated in recent years as the complexity increases and overwhelms lawmakers and their staff.

Ramifications for Tech Governance Going Forward

If Congress remains largely incapable of ever getting the ball over the goal line on important tech policy matters, what are some of the ramifications? There are many, but I will identify just a few of the most obvious ones:

  • More tech-oriented legislative activity will shift to the states: In fact, it already has. For each of the tech policy issues I identified earlier (privacy, driverless cars, cybersecurity, and even some AI-related issues like facial recognition), states are—for better or worse—picking up the slack. We should expect that trend to accelerate. This will create an increasingly confusing patchwork of policies that will potentially raise serious barriers to entry and innovation. Nonetheless, I can’t see this trend reversing anytime soon. Perhaps Congress will finally act on privacy or driverless cars legislation if for no other reason than to preempt a crazy-quilt of contradictory policies. Of course, that’s what people have been predicting for years, and it never happens.
  • “Soft law” becomes the dominate governance force for tech: Again, it already has. Soft law refers to informal, collaborative, and constantly evolving governance mechanisms that differ from hard law in that they lack the same degree of enforceability. Soft law can include things like multi-stakeholder processes, industry best practices and standards, agency workshops and guidance documents, and educational efforts. But that just scratches the surface of soft law mechanisms. For better or worse, soft law is becoming the dominant modus operandi for most modern technological governance. We can expect that trend to accelerate to fill the governance gap left by Congressional inaction. For example, we don’t have any formal “rules of the road” for driverless cars, but we do now have four iterations of Department of Transportation guidance on driverless cars. Version 4.0of the DoT guidance for automated vehicles was just released this month. Expect the “soft law-ization” of technological governance to expand considerably in coming years because it is really the only way for agencies to cope with the pacing problem and those metaphysical issues identified earlier. Because soft law is not boxed in by rigid preconceptions of what a particular technology or technological process is or entails, it is often better able to address new marketplace realities. Soft law can adapt as technologies do. With Congress out of the picture, it will have to.
  • The congressional tech policy death spiral accelerates. Some may think (or at least hope) that the situation described here can’t get any worse. To the contrary, it can get radically worse. With our politics increasingly infected with bitter partisanship and rancor, what are the chances that lawmakers can work together to craft comprehensive tech policy measures? I’d say the odds are approaching zero. The Cable Act, the Telecom Act (and Sec. 230), and the Internet Tax Freedom Act all enjoyed broad, bipartisan support when they passed in the 1990s. People reached across the aisle to get things done. It didn’t always work, and sometimes it resulted in misguided policies (like the Communications Decency Act’s provisions trying to censor internet “indecency”). But bipartisan lawmaking scenarios like those seem almost unthinkable now. To the extent many lawmakers even show up at tech-oriented congressional hearings anymore, it is mostly to score points in front of the cameras for Team Red or Team Blue back home. Serious legislative oversight and policymaking is dead; it’s mostly just show-trials and media circuses at this point.

Should I Care about Congress Anymore?

If you believe this miserable thesis is correct but continue to focus on the Legislative Branch for a living, you may be asking yourself: Am I wasting all my time here? Not necessarily. Congress is still actively interested in tech policy matters. For those who hope to limit that damage Congress might do by hastily passing ham-handed, crisis-driven policy measures, your efforts in the trenches will continue to be important in curbing the worst instincts of some lawmakers. In many instances, preserving a perpetual stalemate may go down as a tremendous victory.

For example, as the debate over Section 230 intensifies—with politicians of all stripes looking to gut the most important of all Internet freedom policies—it is vital that smart people work with lawmakers and their staff to beat back misguided and destructive measures. Hopefully this becomes another instance of legislative gridlock winning out! And I think it will.

More realistically, your role will not be to stop Congress from doing insanely destructive things, it will be to just stop them from saying those things. In fact, that seems to be what a lot of people who work with Congress already do today. When I chat with various inside-the-Beltway policy advocates and industry reps today, they usually acknowledge that the prospects for actual legislation on any given issue are quite slim. They will, of course, continue to try to work with lawmakers, their committees, and their staff to either advance or stop legislative measures. Yet, they all seem to accept the utter futility of it all.

Why do they persist? Most obviously, they want to at least preserve the legislative stalemate and not cede the ground to their enemies who might succeed in getting lawmakers to do something if only one side was communicating with Congress.

But the other thing these policy advocates are hoping to achieve is better messaging. Regulatory advocates want lawmakers to use the power of the bully pulpit to put pressure on various people or groups to change behavior, even in the absence of any legislative action. By contrast, many in industry want to make sure that their technologies are understood and not endlessly demonized. Bad press isn’t good for business, even if all the congressional threats never result in final legislation. Also, those defending innovation more generally will want to make sure that even if lawmakers aren’t making any actual laws, they still better understand and appreciate the importance of new technological capabilities for improving human welfare.

Those are all good reasons not to give up your legislative advocacy. For some of us, however, the personal cost-benefit analysis just doesn’t add up. Our focus has shifted to where the real action is at: federal administrative agencies, statehouses and state administrative agencies, the courts, and the growing world of multi-stakeholder governance and other soft law efforts. Congress has checked out, but technological governance lives on in many other forms and venues.

]]> 0