Purchased a FORA.tv video on another website? Login here with the temporary account credentials included in your receipt.
Sign up today to receive our weekly newsletter and special announcements.
Julian Morris:Welcome everyone to this event here in San Francisco, sponsored by Charles Koch Institute and coordinated by TechFreedom and Reason Foundation. We are very grateful for all of you coming out this afternoon to hear, I think, a great panel. I'm told that I have to mention the hashtag as were now live streaming. So the hashtag is #DCVSF. So everyone start tweeting about #DCVSF. I'm just going to quickly introduce the moderator of the panel, Declan McCullagh, who has been with CNET for 11 years and is just taking a bit of a sabbatical to develop how an interesting project to aggregate news or news tweeting and other social media. And if you're interested in that, the web address is http://recent.io so go and see what Declans doing in his sabbatical. I will now pass it over to Declan who will introduce the panel and I hope you have a fun event. Thanks. [Applause] Declan McCullagh: Well, thanks for the gracious introduction. Its a pleasure to be here because we dont have enough of these discussions comparing to the left and the right post especially out here in Silicon Valley. I spent 10 years living and working in Washington DC and then moved out here where my work, I'm on sabbatical at CNET, which is part of CBS in over 235 second street. So I at least have a bit of a feel for this left coast to right coast divide. So the topics were going to talk about today, if we actually get around through all of these, or things like, how the different coasts think about the future, or these visions of how to promote and adapt to technological change of really fundamentally compatible, and can technology turn politics. As with me today are folks I will try to pigeon hold this for your entertainment. We have Mike McGeary:Do we get to pigeon hold back? Declan McCullagh: No, actually, I get to set the rules here. I'm the moderator, no. We have Berin, who willwas just for that, will go first. Berin is the president of TechFreedom. He is the nominal libertarian on the panel. He may not be a true libertarian because he doesnt actually want to abolish enough federal agencies. But he does, at least, want to reform them. So I think that probably qualifies. He has written things that are glowing about the Federal Trade Commission, its potential to good in this space, which probably puts them against the tea party types. We also have Larry, who is hopefully not making that horrible noise. Larry, he lives in the east bay. He is local, Berins in DC. Larry claims not be a libertarian, although he has posted glowing book reviews on his website written by a libertarian and saying this a libertarian estrous. So I'm not really sure about your non-libertarian credentials. You might be a closet one, but I think Larry is probably more of a fact-based analyticalhis favorite thing to do is to write an article in the Harvard Business Review and then turn it into a book, which is what he's doing right now in fact. When is the book coming out? Larry Downes:January 7th. Declan McCullagh:And the name of it? Larry Downes:Big Bang Disruption. Declan McCullagh:Thank you. And we have Mike, who wants to be called progressive but Ill call him a lefty. He's based here in San Francisco, lives out in the sunset, and is the Co-Founder and Chief Political Strategist for Engine Advocacy, which has been very active in the last few years and trying to have a left coast input on some of the things that Washington DC does that are so annoying. Maybe Mike, Ill start with you. I mean, we hadthis approaching two years ago, the SOPA, the debate. This struck me as a pretty good example of how thesethe left versus right coast divisions are in conflict. We havethat really might be me. Sorry about that folks. There'syou hadSOPA and the Senate Companion Legislation were co-sponsored in the senate by a democrat, Patrick Leahy and in the house by a republican, Lamar Smith. They're pretty much identical bills, and they were also defeated by this cross-partisan coalition, and have we learned anything from this? This is 42 years ago. Mike McGeary:I think we have learned a lot, and thank you again, its wonderful to be here and thanks to everybody for putting this together and Declan for moderating. I think we have learned a lot. I think one of the things, and I get asked about this in my travels around the country trying to support entrepreneurial communities, is you know, Silicon Valley, entrepreneurs in general, are they left of center or are they right of center, and what I have sort of come to in working with this community around the country for the last few years is, its not, it maybe non-partisan, it may be bi-partisan, it may be post-partisan. It may be all of that. It may be none of that. And that I think is the learning curve that were on post-SOPA. There were a lot different people from a lot of different constituencies, both political and otherwise that got up and arms and made a big difference on SOPA. And that I think was indicative of the power that this community, rooted in technology can have when they set their mind to it and when there's enough sort of push from that community to take action. What weve seen in the intern room is that there's no recreating that example as well. Each of these is going to be different, but I think in dealing with, in politicians especially in Washington, that the threat is there, makes us a powerful constituency all the same. You know, its the all adage about, you know, Bill Russell didn't like to throw elbows under the basket but he did it once on national television and no one really bothered him ever again. So thats where were starting to build and starting to hope but as to where that lies, you're looking at generational change, made a lot of the demographics of the entrepreneurial movement, you know, where can in places especially outside Silicon Valley reflect the country as a whole. But there in the valley, youve got usually fairly young, at least socially progressive community. How that then reflects in politics especially where itwhere a lot the times we talk about regulation and in some cases a lack there of or smarter regulation or however you want to put it, that leads to this odd partisan, the strange bed fellows of politics where I can have a meeting with Mark Warner and I can have a meeting with Darrell Issa and the topic and the outcomes can be the same, even those are two people that are diametrically opposed seemingly on the political spectrum. So in terms of what we learned, I think were still learning. Declan McCullagh:Let me interrupt you there. Are these incompatibilities a social issue or fiscal issues? I wrote an article in 2008 for CNET talking about Tim Draper, one of Silicon Valleys leading venture capitalists. Meaning, in 2000 and 1999 he was dubbed George W. Bush as a point man in Silicon Valley. He was out therealso, three fundraisers before bush even got the nomination over a year before the election, and then in 2008, he swapped and was starting to talk about the wondersits good to have a fresh face told us for the article about Obama. So is itthe republicans aren't going to have a chance until they start embracing or move more left on social issues, is that it? Mike McGeary:No, I dont think thats it at all. I think what you're looking at is a constituency that while it is savvy is not necessarily mature especially in a DC sense. Silicon Valley is an idea thats only been around 50 years, right? I mean, like thatsor 60 as supposed since the war, and that is not a lot of time in political terms. Its actually in political terms simultaneously, you know, overnight and now what have you. But the point is, people are still learning and as new people come into this valley and new people create new products and gain prominence and gain a foothold. They're all sort of learning on the fly. They just know they got a bunch of money and people are going to try to separate them from it in a political context. So I guess they better get, you know, savvy and think about these stuff. But there is no construct that they go into in the same way that a manufacturing company executive who built a manufacturing company might because there are established lines between the unions and the corporations or what have you. Those lines have never been well-established in Silicon Valley and there arewe are again still on that learning curve of how were going to get to a situation where there is a little bit more of a consciousness amongst all of us. Declan McCullagh:Let me stop you there and ask Berin what he thinks aboutyou mentioned learning curve. Well, TJ Rogers is the CEO of Cypress Semiconductor. He's much more of a Silicon Valley than a San Francisco type, he told me in an interview I did with him a few years ago, and is also a libertarian who said he would vote republican if they put up none-nuts for the nomination. He's talking about political pigmies Berin Szoka:If that happens. Declan McCullagh:Well, I was interviewing during election year. It as unclear what was going to happen that year. But he talks about political pigmies in Sacramento, he's very outspoken but he wrote something for the Cato Institute over 10 years ago saying it was the opposite of this education, kind of like the dis-education or un-education curve saying lets not, we for Silicon Valley hopes does tell DC what were doing because it will help them regulate us and control us better. Berin, as a libertarian liked in DC, is this something that you would agree with? Berin Szoka:Well, I think there's a mixture of truth and naivety in what he was saying. So I think if to put this into context-- Declan McCullagh:The CEO of a billion dollar plus company and the co-founders and naivety. Berin Szoka:And that doesnt mean that one cant be a little nave about politics and certainly 15 years ago I think everybody here was and I think what Mike is saying is that people are, to some extent, starting to grow out of that and the question is, one of the questions I think is fastening for this event today and for everybody here is what that means. So when I say grow out of that, I dont mean that I want everyone here to play the game in the way that everybody else does. So in that sense I certainly agree with TJ I think he was absolutely right that getting involved in politics does corrupt. It tends to make people think that they can solve their competitive problems in Washington if they cant win in the marketplace. It tends to make people think that DC can really help them, not just by getting out of the way but in some positive sense can make the world better. But on the other hand, where I think not just TJ but everybody in the 90s in the tech industry was a little nave about politics is what Eric Goldman, a professor here at Santa Clara Law School, he, I think very hopefully suggests that Internet exceptionalism can really thought of in three waves. And the first wave, 1996, declaration of independence of cyberspace by John Perry Barlow, is really the height of that. Its the idea that technology will always win. Politics and the government are essentially irrelevant. Governments of the industrial world, you have no sovereignty where we gather. You cant really even affect us, so go away. That clearly proved not to be true. And the second wave of people who push back against that pointed out that for example, in SOPA, the entire debate about SOPA really hinged on the governments ability to clamp down on certain mechanisms about payment, the interface between the Internet and advertising the things that actually support websites. Those are all points of control, and whether or not the government should, it certainly true that they can clamp down on those. And so as a matter of refining your vision overtime, even if you think that the Internet is different, the technology is more powerful in the long term than politics. You have to grow up a little bit and understand that DC can still screw things up a lot. And so the vision of Internet exceptionalism I think is really evolving towards something that is different in important ways. Its not the idea that the Internet is immune to technology, that there's nothing that the government can really do to stop it but rather the thing that I think is today on the shoes like SOPA is increasingly uniting on the fellows coalitions, which is to say, whatever we think about social justice issues, the right level of taxation, Obama Care, we, people who are pro-technology agree on a lot and it really is because we think that in some sense, the Internet technology is different. We might be, you know, to speak for people who may become more from likes under the spectrum. They might be less optimistic about the governments ability to get things right when it comes to technology, more optimistic about the ability of technological change. I thin this is the theme of Larrys work, to, in the long term, protect consumers to tear down even the mightiest of corporate incumbents. In other words, people who think that the government has an active role in many areas of life, can still take a very different view in this area. So to me, the real clash between DC and San Francisco as proxies or some larger clash of visions, isnt really between left and right and it isnt even really between the traditional, basic underlying ways that people on those ends of the spectrum tend to think about the world and human nature really comes down to attitudes towards change and a willingness to either embrace the future in all of its messiness and unplannability and to be very skeptical about the ability of policy makers to plan it or stir it or improve on it. Thats the spectrum that I live-- Declan McCullagh:But DCs always backward-looking, right? I mean, how many politicians do you have who are looking ahead as much as some of the CEOs out here. Berin Szoka:So I think there are archetypes that we should keep in mind. So what I'm arguing for is what Virginia Postrel in 1998, call dynamism, and its not warmed over libertarianism. It is something that is broader than libertarianism and it can include people on the left that are pro-technology and importantly are willing to let it play out and are skeptical about governments ability to get things right. Thats one end of the spectrum. The other end of the spectrum and its not a monolith, there are people all the way along the range, is what she broadly described as the stasis mentality. And the important thing and the thing that confuses people about these debates is that there are two very different variants of that. So you can imagine a triangle having one picture it, but there are people in DC who are pure reactionaries, who are very afraid of technological change. Declan McCullagh:You really shouldnt be saying such nasty things about Ed Markey. Berin Szoka:Well, I'm not going to single out senators but there are certainly senators in DC and some of them might happen to chair the commerce community for example, who will just go off on rants about for example how kids dont read books these days, and by books, I dont mean iPads because, you know, thats not a book, and what their reallyand this comes out all the time, and what they're really have been seeing is a deep hostility towards technological change. Its a desire to preserve the world that they grew up in, that they're comfortable with and a sense that anything else is really unsettling basic values like what it means to read and what it means to learn. But there's another version of that stasis mentality in DC thatthis is where people get shorted up, that is pro-technology that will come out and will say good things about technology and importantly are with us on many issues. Like immigration, just for example, they will be our allies a lot of the time, but they're technocrats. Their idea is a different version of a stasis mentality. They know that change is coming. They're in favor of it but they want to help. They want to stir it, control it, so their values are really about not control in a [???][0:17:13.0] I'm not saying these people are necessarily trying to-- Declan McCullagh:They need to shape it to reflect democratic priorities. Berin Szoka:Thats a very good summary. And so to me, thats the real conflict, is between that dynamos range of people that are all across the political spectrum who are fundamentally about humility when it comes to DCs ability or Sacramentos ability to control or improve upon the future who believe that technology can improve the world but policy makers are not able to do that very well, and in DC those two conflicting mentalities. And if you understand that spectrum, I think a lot of the debates that today seem very confusing start to make sense and importantly its not about traditional left and right politics. So its not surprising that you get the coalitions weve seen on SOPA, on Aarons Law, on cellphone unlocking including a long list of issues. Declan McCullagh:Let me bring in and Larry before we get to that long list of issues. There'syou cant let Berin get away with this. I mean, he's calling everyone in DC pretty much the statist mentality 1.0, which is reactionary or statist mentality 2.0-- Berin Szoka:Importantly, stasis. Declan McCullagh:Statist or stasis. I'm willing to mix them up. Berin Szoka:This is not about libertarianism. Declan McCullagh:I'm trying to bring it back to libertarian. Cant you see where I'm going here? You cant let Berin, Mr. libertarian Mike get away with this. You need to rise up to either defend the statist or stasis mentality, right? Larry Downes:Right, wrong, no, so, look, I mean, I have a much more pragmatic view and I've been watching this, I think, you know, I'm slightly older than Mike. So I know this is not the first time that weve been at this dance. I remember, you know, John Perry Barlow in the early days of Electronic Frontier Foundations working very closely with Newt Gingrich when he was House Speaker, and being very surprised that he was working very closely with Newt Gingrich. But you know, Gingrich had whatever else he has, he has very pro-technology point-of-view. I agree with Berin, I think actually its more institutionalized that he suggest this naivety in the valley about Washington in particular, particularly among the venture capital community, there has been this long standing belief that if you ignore the regulators, they will not harm you, they will go away. And every now and then, some disaster occurs like the Microsoft antitrust suit, of course that wasnt Silicon Valley, that was Seattle, so that didn't count. You know, Intel gets an antitrust trouble in Europe, but those are kind of seen as natural disasters that couldnt have been avoided or couldntthis has happened, and now we will go on about our business. Ive always thought that that was a dangerous point of view but I think its a dangerous, more of a dangerous point of view now for two kinds of pragmatic reasons. I dont know if you can stay out of the politics and the theory. There's really two main reasons why Washington and the UN and any other regulator has gotten more interested in technological innovations particularly those that come from here then they were in the past. One is money, you know, there's much more economic activity. Declan McCullagh:Tell you about taxing or coming out of here for a Woodside fundraiser and raising some cash. Larry Downes:Taxing. So if your tax base essentially is moving to cyberspace one way or the other through commerce or through all sort of other activities that happened more and more in the Internet and happened less and less in the physical world, then your tax base is migrating. And that of course unifies all government as a point of crisis. Its like, okay, now we really have to do something about this because otherwise were out of business, were out of business in the sense of we have nothing to do, we have no money coming in to do it with. So thats one. The second I think, thing thats happened is the sort of widening gap in how technology advances. So on the one hand, you know, I often compared sort of the difference in speed of Moores Law, which kind of, you know, nice easy way of saying, technology happens faster all the time. Innovation happens faster all the time versus government law, which happens at the same pace, it doesnt get faster and it starts off pretty slow. And so you know, weve had, you know, 60, 50 some years of Moores Law, so the gap just gets wider and wider. The speed of change in technology happens faster. The speed of government, lets just be kind and say its flat. Its exactly the same. And the bigger the gap gets, the more sort of opportunity-- Declan McCullagh:I cant talk you in to defending the Obama Care website, can I? Larry Downes:No, I havent looked at it so I cant. But I think, you know, its a great example of, you know, the problem and I'm sure this is the problem, at the heart of it is the contract cycle process, you know, the sort of government, government contracting is designed to be slow and deliberative and when you try to do something quickly, you're going to have disasters, and in this case, you're going to have disasters because you're trying to implement new technologies and you know, you put in forI mean, I did some government contracting in my early days as a systems integrator and you know, you're agreeing the contract for new computer devices two years before they're actually going to go in to the field where they're going to be used. You're guaranteed to be contracting for obsolete technology. So like, thats the government model. And I'm sure, and I said, I knowI'm very sure that that would explain a lot of what's going wrong with the Obama Care website. Declan McCullagh:Here's another model, this also goes out to any of you, there'sPaul Graham is well known in this area forhe's worked at Y Combinator. As an essay, thats really pretty well read in those circles of maker versus manager model and the ideas that the makers should not be interrupted. They need to really focus on creating things and managers are interruptions are fine, meetings every 30 minutes, not a problem. Maybe its more like a program resources lawyers model and there's no coincidence, a very few programmers in congress and you have plenty of lawyers. Does that model work? Youve craters out hereno, let me finish. Well, I'm not really sure, but I hope that dont identifies as a program, entrepreneurs as certainly. But you have, there's only one, but you have craters out here and you regulators, controllers and libertarians if there werent and MIT destroyers in DC. Does that model work? Mike McGeary:Yes. Declan McCullagh:So then these visions are in conflict and nothing can be done. We might as well just go back to desert and go home. Mike McGeary:And I'm sure desert will be lovely. But before we go-- Declan McCullagh:They look pretty tasty. Mike McGeary:You know, I think these two visions are well in contrast, you know, government being necessarily deliberative and you know, Silicon Valley moving at beyond Moores Law speed. I dont think that the government just gets better if practitioners of the Moores Law speed show up there because even if there are startup congress in the room, if any of you run for congress, good for you. If you get there, you'll still be of 435 in the house or 1 of a 100 in the senate. Even if you're one of one in the ite house, you still have these necessarily deliberative cheques and balances, rking both against you in terms of, you know, pushing ahead at all speed and frankly rking for you to make sure that what comes out can be good. I look at where chnology can fit into this and say technology can make the government better. I know at puts me at odds with lots of people on this panel and in this room sometimes. But chnology can make government better. And Ill leave it to people like, you know, my iend Clay Johnson, whos doing the Department of Better Technology to fix government ocurement and others to talk about the yes, horrendous rollout of healthcare.gov and rrys exactly right, if you're going on that kind of product cycle, spending that kind money, you're doomed to fail from the start and any startup founder will tell you at. But there are ways for that interaction that can happen between the actitioners, the makers and the managers to happen without going through an electoral cle. Its a lot of what we do frankly with my organization and Engine Advocacy. We ing the practitioners to Washington. We bring Washington to the practitioners. Weve ld more than 40 round tables here in San Francisco and around the country with erybody from Darrell Issa and Jason Chaffetz to Mark Pryor and Julie Brill with the C and a whole host of others where they get a sense of what's happening in startup mmunities, what challenges are being faced. In some cases on particular bills, what sues are cropping up that could be better, that could better serve the technology mmunity, what sort of regulation could be smart or that kind of thing. That teraction had not really been happening. I mean, having it at the higher levels of chnology when you are Google or Microsoft or you know, name your big tech company, u can afford to have an army of K Street lobbyists that are marching around and going every cocktail party and talking with every staffer and making sure the latest white per and X, Y or Z is in front of them. But when you're, you know, two guys at a -working space or a company of 10 people, you know, working out of an office park mewhere, trying to build a product, you dont have government relations councils and ankly you shouldnt. So thats what were trying to do is bring that conversation, nvene it, bring it together, because the more that that conversation happens, the re exposure that members of congress or regulators or administration officials get to chnology and understand it or can at least hold it in their hands even if its an app d they use it on their phone and they understand it. The more that these arguments nt become abstract, you know, it isnt an abstract argument about patent anymore when say that, if a retailer or a hotelier is getting a patent to a lawsuit because ey're providing Wi-Fi to their customers that may be just maybe some smarter gulations should come into force here. When that conversation gets less abstract and re tangible, that helps us out. Do they need to be in congress to do it? No. Do ey need to hangout every once in a while? I think so. clan McCullagh:We have a non-abstract conversation about the National Security Agency d Surveillance here or-- rin Szoka:Before we do, let me just respond to Mike if I may. So actually, I agree th Mike on two important points. Number one, I think organizations like his are credibly important. I think there's a yearning need in DC for education because many ople in congress really, they justthey're technologicallyI'm trying to put this in a n-insulting way-- ke McGeary:The Internet is not a truck? Is that what were going for? rin Szoka:Well, its worse than that. I mean, Ted Stevens got demonized for his now mous speech that he-- ke McGeary:But he at least is trying. rin Szoka:He was trying and quite frankly, this is the nicest way I could put this, at Ted Stevens said is actually is, A, not that inaccurate, and B, is far less stupid an the sorts of things that are said at just about every hearing on technology ever. ke McGeary:Oh yeah. rin Szoka:So the fact that Ted Stevens got beat up for that the way that he did, you ow, in some sense its just how means work. It just happened. It was on the daily ow. It was a thing. But there's a constant stream of this sort of thing in DC and xing that really will help. So thats the first thing. Second thing is, I actually think the government can work a lot better. I'm not one of these people who think at anything that we do to make government better just makes government bigger and is erefore bad. And that is a certain stream on the right that I think is very ngerous and frankly very childish. Its not a mature approach to government. But it es come from a certain truth, which is that anytime we start engaging with vernment, trying to improve upon government, getting back to my point about TJ gers, TJs right, that there is a temptation. The government is very seductive to ink that, ah, well, you know, hey we fixed Aarons Law, we fixed this, we fixed that, ts do these other things and the government could help us. There are all sorts of ings that we could go down our wish list and thats where I fear that Silicon Valley it starts to mature may in fact be seduced by government and may get into the siness, the very thing that TJ Rogers words against that other industries have gotten to of trying to stir policy in their directions, not merely to make sure that they n hire the employees that they need who happen to live all around the world or fixing sues like that. But sort of positive agendas of laws that protect certain dustries, certain business models that are shaped by people out here who happen to ve the strongest lobbies or positive programs of subsidies or industrial policy. So l give you one concrete detail, the day that people out here start talking about dustrial policy, right, is the day that we will know that Silicon Valley has ndamentally changed and not for the better. Thats not the kind of maturity that I'm lking about. What I'm talking about is maintaining a healthy distance while still ing engaged and weve talked about this after the NSA but there are a wide-range of sues in DC where people who are in favor of technology think that, you know, they ve the solution, a broadband is a great example where everybody in this room wants ere would be more broadband all around the country. We all agree on that. The estion is how we do it and there are a lot of people in DC who take an approach that can only describe as being very similar to that episode of The Simpsons where ringfield strikes rich on oil and has all this money to spend and is trying to decide at to do with it and of course, Phil Hartmans character comes in and sells them on e idea that all they need to do is build the monorail. And somehow not by fixing in street is, are they going to improve their city, but by pouring money into a rticular technology. Thats going to change everything. Thats technocratic thinking its best. Its a sort of technocratic thinking. They built the monorail in Seattle real life-- clan McCullagh:Okay, I want to get away from monorails. And thisthe airports. I've en travelling a lot in the last few weeks and they're very useful. The airports, I ke the airport monorails. rin Szoka:Just briefly-- clan McCullagh:No, no, no, there's no briefwere done with monorails-- rry Downes:Cut him off, come on Declan. clan McCullagh:Thank you. I'm glad someones on my side here. The NSA, the velations are arguably the biggest new story of the year. So I thought it might tually be useful. Sorry to bring them up over lunch. There'swere probably not done th the revelations yet. Glenn Greenwald has said in an interview, he said he has ns of thousands of documents to go through. But it seems like there's sort of a nsensus out here. Silicon Valley companies would like more transparency. I'm not re if that is and viewed as an end in itself or just a way to say, well, maybe if ere's more transparency, the prosecutors and intelligence analyst, that is the NSA ll seek a few orders for surveillance and also there's probably the subtext of let us ear our names. I mean, the people think that the company is participating in a -called prison program or opening their networks and if they can say, oh you know, we t like 20 requests a year, the American public might think thats reasonable. But we nt have DC saying, sure more transparency, not a problem. I mean, they might say at but they dont mean it. Any thoughts? rry Downes:Yeah. So well-- clan McCullagh:So are we going to see real change in terms of either transparency or e programs themselves as a result and how is this going to affect the companies out re? rry Downes:Well, that might happen but I just want to first challenge one of your sumptions here, which is that these are revelations. The truth is, there's a lot of w specifics that were getting but there is nothing in the snowed material that wasnt ready known at the time of the last set of updates to FISA and the Patriot Act, and ere are lots of people including people in Washington. clan McCullagh:NSA weakening encryption standards? Where are the New York Times ticles? Point me to one. Okay, it wasnt known. rry Downes:Thats the point. It was, no, you know, Julian Sanchez was telling erybody who would listen. He was attending all the hearings and nobodyyou know, Mike here, so I cant say nobody, you know, nobody paid attention. So part of it is-- clan McCullagh:He's a real libertarian. We shouldve had him on the stage. rry Downes:Julian? Yeah. So, and I also have to say I was wrong because I assumed en the snow to storyits like, okay, this is going to be news for about two months til there's a tornado or hurricane or some other natural disastersomethings going to me along and its going to go away. Well, it hasnt gone away and now I'm not so sure at's going to happen. But I think what I would like-- clan McCullagh:Silicon Valley once reformed, at least in transparency maybe in the ogram themselves, is it going to happen? Yes or no councilor? rry Downes:Maybe. Maybe transparency, maybe more transparency. And then well tuallyand if we get the transparency, then well know what else to reform. clan McCullagh:I mean, isnt that a useful mental model folks, that politicians say at they want, so they can come out here and go to Woodside in after 10 and have very ce fundraisers, maybe Portola Valley if they're slumming, and then walk away and then thing really happens. I mean theres-- rry Downes:But thats usually the case but sometimes accidents happen and-- clan McCullagh:It doesnt happenaccidents happen, well okay, Ill go with that. rin Szoka:Something has to happen here. Even Dianne Feinstein, the senator for the her California has come out in favor of transparency reforms because, you know, she o is perhaps the biggest hawk and defender of the NSA in congress, even she realizes at politically she has to stop the bleeding. So the question I think is not whether mething happens. The question is whether its the bare minimum of what people like r think needs to happen versus actually really dealing with the problem. So you ow, there's transparency and then there's transparency. There's do you actually turn e FISA court into a real court where you have an adversarial process instead of the vernment going to a judge and say, oh no just trust us, and then lying. Or do you tually deal with the underlying problems of what the law allows. So I think the estion-- clan McCullagh:Anything apparently. rin Szoka:The question is how far does that go? Unfortunately its a really hard sue. I mean, like literally a hard issue. Its hard to understand. Its hard to derstand the moving parts. There's a lot of basic technological ignorance that timidates members of congress and makes them reluctant to get their arms around mething, which in part why its important to engage with them and make sure they derstand the basic issues. So when something like this happens, they're ready to mp in, but I will say that just to put DC in perspective, I think its very sad while is NSA controversy has been now going for month and months and months-- clan McCullagh:Four months. rin Szoka:--congress is still sitting on the other privacy reform that was almost ady to go, which is fixing law enforcement access to data by making sure that if they nt to get your emails or track you using your cellphone, that they have to get a rrant. That should be uncontroversial. That bill has over 140 co-sponsors in the use and it all got tied up in the senate for basically because the securitys exchange mmission wanted an exemption for themselves and just to give you a sense on how DC rks, despite all the attention thats being paid to privacy now, the one privacy form that could be passed to more and the people who understand where the hard works ing done is now languishing for lack of attention. clan McCullagh:So with this perspective, you'rewhat Berin said-- ke McGeary:I want to say one thing on that. clan McCullagh:Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. You'll be the next person to jump but I just wondered what is in perspective and say, what Berins talking about is an fort to reform privacy laws. The ACLU and American or tax reform and all these oups in the left and the right signing on to this, you had Apple and Microsoft and &T and Google and Twitter and all these companies pouring money to this lobbying fort. Its been going on for about half a decade and it failed because Senator Leahy st didn't really feel like doing anything with it. So this is a failure folks. This a failure of the political process. And Mike gets the next word. ke McGeary:I dont know that its a failure of the political process. I think what we ed to do and its not a lack of attention. I think that we had to stop watching those llies over the weekend where you had a lot of at least support, I know, on the ternet, and in some cases, you know, rally where you had people that are up and arms out, you know, this assault on privacy and they want to do something about it. Thats e problem, they want to do something, not, lets pass this law, lets change this gulation and lets focus the debate here, here and here. And the problem is, DC, as a lture only has so many inputs. And machinegun firing, we hate you at them, isnt ing to halt anybodys problems anywhere. So its exactly what you said. I dont think s a lack of attention. I think it is the lack of focus on the community at large at is trying to push and advocate force subs new changes that will make it harder for e NSA to break encryption or for us to tap [???][0:38:16.1] miracle cellphone, which the way must have been spectacularly boring material to read on the streets-- rin Szoka:Actually, I want to know, you know that moment where George Bush gave her e backrub? That famous moment was the best moment of BushI want to know what she id afterwards. There's a record of that somewhere. ke McGeary:Yeah. I feel as though a chip has been implanted in my back. NoJohn ewart did that. The point is this, weve got to focus that debate. We got to pick 3 areas whether its the ready to go or whether its the things that have been in ocess and say, okay, senators, congressmen, regulators, here is where we need to fix is. We want to see change in these areas through these vehicles. Go and do your b. Not, we hate the NSA. That doesntI mean, its a nice sort of catharsis and perience for people to go and see their friends all in agreement with them and shout d it doesnt get anything done. You have to focus that. clan McCullagh:Well, you have a bright lineIll get to you next Berin. But saying, ay, were going to have a coalition of groups that more or less represent all is well d good within the technologies space and were going to have some bright lines. If u support this bill, were going to support you. If you vote against it, then were ing to try to vote your ass out in the next primary and well throw a lot of money at too. I mean, isnt that a nice bright line of channels? Why hasnt this been done rin? rin Szoka:Well look, the point that I was trying to make I think is very consistent th-- clan McCullagh:You're not answering the question. Answer my question and get to your int. rin Szoka:Okay, so if you're talking about political advocacy, clan McCullagh:Yes. rin Szoka:So the basic answer is I think that-- clan McCullagh:The cup of policy. rin Szoka:Yeah, this is the point. So visions ofas Thomas Sowell once said, are the lent shapers of our thoughts. So visions, this term that I used at the beginning re, they really do matter because thats what unites everything else. It gives fect. It helps us to connect to things that we see in the real world. And if you nt see political activism on a particular point, its probably because the underlying ychology of the issue isnt really there yet. So in other words, here, people havent allythey dont have a sufficiently coherent understanding of privacy such that when ey get all worked up-- clan McCullagh:Are you saying thatyou're walking [PH][tonian] coming here and saying re dumb? rin Szoka:No, you have better things to worry to do than worry about this and this d this is where TJ Rogers-- clan McCullagh:Now thats probably true. rin Szoka:Right? So I want to live in a world where people in Silicon Valley dont ve to spend a lot of their mental space on this. But they're always going to have to end some of it and they have to have effective advocates, people like Mike, writers ke Larry, hopefully organizations like TechFreedom, who carry their message not just DC but in the broader conversations. So that for example, when something like the A story happens, the punch line isnt just NSA = Bad. The punch line is, the vernment has two easy accesses to out data, we do need to fix the NSA but there are her things we have to fix too like act for reforms. So the point that I was trying make about act for reform is the fact that the dots havent been connected yet hopes illustrate how immature, not just Silicon Valley but the broader popular discourse out technology is because in a better world when something like that happens, the ory that comes out of it is, you know, the top 3 things that could be done today are, u know, NSA transparency and fixing the FISA court, tackling the underlying rveillance laws. But lets not forget about law enforcement, which still has access. ts not forget about the fact that in most states in this country, lawyers in divorce ses are officers of the court. So we can compel email records or other sorts of ings like that. Thats a huge story that right now gets swept aside because everyones o focused on the NSA. So to answer your answer your question of politics, I think s when those understandings are more clear when people have a better developed derstanding of how a government should approach technology, then you will see more fective political activism of the kind that you-- clan McCullagh:I still dont know. Could you give me an answer? I want a litmus test. re you theis this a good guy or a bad guy? ke McGeary:There's a politicaland look, there are very few times in politics where ere are good guys and bad guys and those lines are clearly delineated and fortunately those, to borrow the line from the west wing, those days usually end with dy counts, right? Like, thats wherethere aren't many good guys and bad guys all the me, everywhere, black and white, you know, its clearly delineated stuff. In litics, which is the argument were talking about here, there are three things that n elections, money, media, and feet on the street. Tech is very good at media-- clan McCullagh:I'm going to say votes. ke McGeary:So the pointits like Bruns created in baseball. The point is to score, erything is about baseball for me, and by the way, if the new followers on Twitter, m welcome to all of you. Sorry about all the screaming thats going to happen during e World Series. But everythings about baseball. When Bruns created it or how you uge whether or not a team is good, whether they win or lose. Votes are how you termine whether or not you know, win or lose in elections. How do you get votes? ney, media and feet on the street. Tech is very good at the media side of this and ey're getting more savvy everyday, not just the all in come to seeing the blue state gitals, the Obama Campaigns, you know, even project orca from the Romney Campaign, u know, things like that. There's more thats happening and more sort of a centralized way of using the tools that are out there whether its, you know, social dia, Youtube, whatever to get your message out there, they're very good at that. On e money side, what tech has done is support candidates where they say, Well, you're od on the social issues. So this gets back to your point of, do republican just have get good on social issues to be popular in Silicon Valley. Well, I like them to get od on social issues and I think that would make them more popular in Silicon Valley. u know, I dont think thats also the be all and end all, weve got to get more mature a culture in technology and in the valley and beyond to understand that were not ing to agree with people all the time and that there will be people with whom we do t agree all the time that deserve our support because they will support the kind of anges that we need to make our businesses more effective and to make the kinds of ssages that we want to drive in our private life, whether its you know, were creating plications or were making some product or whatever it is. clan McCullagh:If a politician is anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion and loves driving large pickup trucks instead of a Prius but is going to vote well on patent. So then, u're okay with supporting that politician. ke McGeary:I mean, its the oldest, you know, trick in the book, politicians make range bad follows and youd be supI am surprised and my father is just super angry at at how many republicans I spend time with. I think Jerry Moran, a senator from nsas is a super nice guy, and is really good on technology and entrepreneurship, and dont talk about other things with him because we dont agree and thats fine. I dont ree with everybody I'm friends with, you know. Lord knows, one or two Yankee fans at I'm friends with. clan McCullagh:It does all go back to-- ke McGeary:They kind ofthey slip in. clan McCullagh:Let me put Larry into this-- ke McGeary:We have to understand what our interests are. clan McCullagh:Okay. Strange bad falls, narrow targeted told coalitions, Larry. rry Downes:Yeah. clan McCullagh:Do you agree with this? This man may be crazy. rry Downes:I really dont have the capacity to understand electoral politics. I dont ally frankly care. Berins right some ways, one of those people that thinks that chnologys going to solve the problem one way or the other anyway, all the governments ing to do is, you know, sort of skew the trajectory, stop things, slow things down, t ultimately technologys going to have its way. What I'm more concerned about is the licy stuff and I think what were talking about before, it really boils down to, you ow, its much easier to stop SOPA than it is to rewrite the FISA Law, because you ow, youve got a bill, you hate it and you want it dead. Okay, thats, you know, you t your mob out on congress, they got the message and the bill went away. clan McCullagh:Does Collin here support as a mob-- ke McGeary:But I will say this, part of the reason we were able to defeat civil is t simply because we put the mob out there. It was a coordinatedmaybe a campaign and e fact that thanks to the efforts someone like Darrell Issa and I'm supporting the n who brought you the California recall here, right, you know. But he put out the en act with a bunch of other co-sponsors, which said, okay, SOPAs not good but here's s other idea thats a little better, can we maybe find some common ground here? Now alleverybody got into the fact that SOPA was terrible and then it was-- clan McCullagh:This is mob plus. ke McGeary:Yeah. rry Downes:But if we were trying toif the goal had been to fix, you know, six ovisions of SOPA and there were discussions early on. We said, alright, we need this t, this change, this out, you know, there was a constructive look at the actual atute and I think if you were trying to rally the troops behind, you know, the six y changes to SOPA that would've made it not catastrophic, you would have a much rder time getting that campaign to go the direction it went and the speed it went and e size that it went, then its much easier to say, we got to kill SOPA. ke McGeary:Yeah, but thats the focus of all mass campaigns like that. I mean, I was king meetings in the capital and the office buildings on January 18th and telling ople its not if were going to win, its how bad were going to lose. And trying to fix ose six provisions while the gathering horde was with their pitchforks and torches at e gates, you know, threatening to get in. But thats how, you know, that's the fference between the mass campaign and the inside game, and you got to be able to get vvy enough to do both and do it well. rry Downes:Yeah, I agree completely. clan McCullagh:You know, at some point I want to take questions from the audience and o we have a microphone thats can be circulated? Dont make me keep these folks from tacking each other. Maybe you can do a better job of it. So please, if you can entify yourself, that will be great. dience:Hi, can everybody hear me. I'm Bob Zikeman. I wanted to bring up an issue nce you mentioned SOPA and PIPA, I assume you're blending them together. For people at dont know, SOPA and PIPA were house in senate bills towell, to shut down websites at had stolen intellectual property on them. So I just want to make a comment, Id ke to hear everybodys opinion about it, but it seems to me that, you know, you talk out strange bed fellows and see that, you know, stopping SOPA is being a good thing cause weve got republicans and democrats together. But I looked at Darrell Issa whos man that in almost every other area I really like, and in his intellectual property sues I really dislike. I think he's doing a disservice. So libertarians and you ow, principle of libertarian is property ownership. So there is, you know, we can bate whether intellectual property is property, but also libertarians in general lieve, I think maybe all of them believe that the governments one, you know, main rpose is to protect someone from taking your property. And so why is it, its ustrating to me to see so many libertarians trying to attack the intellectual operty laws. In other words, we wouldnt say, if somebody was selling your credit rd online, we think the government had a legitimate reason for shutting that site wn. But if they're selling your book or your articles online, we somehow think that at should be free and we haveI'm frustrated about libertarians and conservatives who y, yeah, thats government intervention, but thats the place I think we should have vernment intervention. clan McCullagh:This is divisive issue within the libertarian movement and nservative movement as well and this division is been going on for over a decade. d so its not a new thing, but if you believe that IP is property, then your point is ll taken. But not everyone believes that IP is property in part because you have ings like fair use andbecause its actually treated fairly differently under a federal w. Does anyone want to respond to this? ke McGeary:Without getting into the intellectual property, you know, debate on ether it is or whether it isnt, Ill leave that to both smarter people than meIll just ave it to them. But you know, lets put this in a different context, lets assume that is property, so in the same way you're a cattle rancher in West Texas and you think at one of your neighbors has been wrestling your cattle and taken some away. You nt then get to go napalm his farm and execute his family. That's the difference tween what SOPA was trying to do. I absolutely agree that a hard working artist and eators need protection. I dont think they should have the ability to break the derpinnings of the Internet to do that and that's what SOPA was threatening to do. I would say that-- dience:One big thing is thats a big rumor and its people likepart of the fact is for living, okay? Nobodys going to break the Internet, thats preposterous but thats the ar that was put out there-- clan McCullagh:By him by the way. ke McGeary:By me, I'm the guy. So, you're welcome. rry Downes:And Mike. rin Szoka:So listen, I often said that copyright is the Vietnam of tech policy. Its total quagmire and its the last thing that we want to get stuck. clan McCullagh:I think we should go to the next 30 minutes talking about nothing tso this islibertarians on tech policy. I dont think thats me this time, I think its u. rin Szoka:So here, look, Ill just say one thing about the big picture and the one ing about substance. Big picture, one of the very serious problems that Silicon lley has is that it gets so stuck on copyright. I understand that its important to ople on both sides of the issue, but there are people on both sides of the issue that t so stuck on that, that they cant talk about anything else. And just to give you a ta point, so I've now been in the think tank world for going on six years and every ar I get summer fellow applications to spend the summer with us, mostly from law udents. And about 80% of them, and I mean that, about 80% of them wrote an essay at basically says, I want to go into Internet policy because I'm fascinated by pyright and I got into this debate on either side, usually its prousually its pyright skepticism, but either side, its sort of the central galvanizing issue of ch policy and I think its a huge problem because it ends up distracting us from other sues that matter a lot. And just briefly on substance I will say, I support pyrights in general, but we were very skeptical and critical on both SOPA and PIPA. d the issue is frankly from my perspective is not even really a copyright law issue, s a mechanism of enforcement issue. And so I would actually modify the analogy that ke offered earlier. I would say something more like, its like if you suspect that a rticular person has stolen your cattle, do you get to napalm them and their ighbors. In other words, there's a lot of collateral damage involved there and the estion is about tradeoffs. And in general-- clan McCullagh:Sorry to spend too much time on this folks. rin Szoka:Its utilitarian enterprise. There's no clear easy answer. clan McCullagh:And some are just special interest lobbying in both sides. rin Szoka:In process failure. clan McCullagh:We have a microphone. No, no, no, ke McGeary:Part of the reason we started engine was because we wanted to move away om the-- clan McCullagh:He doesnt have a microphone. He cant respond. ke McGeary:So to Berins point, it was-- clan McCullagh:This is an unfair discussion. Okay, there's a microphone in the back ats going to the gentleman with his hand up. If you could identify yourself, pefully you work for Hollywood and have criticsand would also want to criticize bertarians on IP. dience:Hi, I'm John Chism. Thank you so much for this interesting panel. This is t my question but if I may make a comment about intellectual property. The only tent protection that I can think of that would make sense would be covering the vention from that period of time from which it was created until the world at large uld've thought of the idea anyway, and I would think that the 17 or 20 years that tents have existed were broadly intended to reflect thator lets say they did reflect at even if that was not their intent. Well, the pace of innovation inexorably is creasing every decade. And so at minimum, it seems to me, that the duration of the tent ought to decline every decade, maybe by some systematic predictable amount like % every 10 years. So I havent heard anyone in the public sphere talk about it that y or suggest that but it seems to me something we might consider. So thatsnow to my estion, which is for Berin. I really like and find appealing your model of stasis rsus dynamisists if I've gotten the two-- rin Szoka:Dynamists. dience:What was it? rin Szoka:Dynamists. Its a tough word, it sounds like dynamitic. Its a great oblem. dience:Well, I just finished reading Tyler Cowens book, Average is Over, which I ghly recommend. And one of the things he points out in the last chapter is thathe lks about inequality, rising inequality, at least of incomes in the US and addresses at you often hear as the concerned thats raised about that, which is that there will mass uprisings in the US, a kin to what we saw in the 1960s perhaps if we allow this continue. And he responds to that by saying, the US population is ageing. Were tting older. Were getting more conservative. That seems unlikely to him and so he's t very worried about that. My question is, what effect does the ageing of the US pulation have on the mix of folks who are statists versus dyna-- rin Szoka:Dynamists. dience:Dymasists. rin Szoka:Dynamists. See this is the problem with that word. clan McCullagh:You need to rebrand. You can only take it so far. rin Szoka:So, actually thats a great question and let me just say, I just happened to back home to New Mexico and happened to findfiling cabinet of my fathers papers. is was the problem that he wrote about, basically was the effect of ageing and how it fluences attitudes towards risk both among industrial managers and among politicians. o you might say, I come by this honestly and you're exactly right, you know, netically and psychologically, we do become more conservative, more stasis, more sessed with preserving things the way that they were when we were growing up as we t older. And the question is, what do we do about it? So Ione thing that he oposed in one of the papers I happened to pick up and read through was age limits for blic office. You know, its a veryideas of term limits. The idea is that, you know, some point people probably should just shoot themselves out of the public sphere cause they have a hard time adjusting to a changing world. I will only say that if u want to see whether thats a good idea, just watch a hearing sometime and judge for urself, because you get a pretty good sense pretty quickly of peoples comfort level th technology across the political spectrum, whatever they think about the issue, it a serious problem and in particular and the thing, the single thing that I think uld make the biggest difference to these issues because the idea of age limits for fice is not realistic, its never going to happen. What is realistic and what is ally important is the kind of thing that changes Washington that maybe people here nd to undervalue is term limits on committee chairman. So the problem is in DC, and have this now in the house, because they change their rules, you know, the publicans did this when they came in. The problem is if you get people who are tting too long on a particular subject area, they're the congressional barrens. They le that area and they continue to think of it the way that they knew it way back en. Every hearing you get to involve one of those people saying, Well, you know, ck in 1996 when we wrote the Telecommunications Act, based on understanding of chnology from 1992 before the Internet was a thing, you know, let me tell you how we d things. This is totally irrelevant and it has nothing to do with the real world. short answer is, I'm deeply concerned about that very problem, but I do find some ason for optimism in some of the basic neurological work that's coming out that ggests that our brains are more plastic than we used to think. There was this whole ea that after the age of 25, you basically couldnt evolve or over change, and that parently is just not true. We are actually more capable of evolving and changing. I have both reason for concern in the short term and in the long term. I think, you ow, people are probably more able to adjust than we might give them credit for but ey're still going to be stuck in that stasis mentality and frankly you need timately a vibrant voice of youth that is willing to advocate for change. ke McGeary:But how do you balance that with the need for institutional memory? rin Szoka:Well, the answer in DC is Congressional Staff. So for example, I think one the nave idea on the political right in the United States and I mean this, is the ea of term limits in general because the idea is well, you know, if we limit members congress to, you know, three terms in the House and two terms in the Senate, our litics. clan McCullagh:Can weterm limits? rin Szoka:Let me finish the point. clan McCullagh:Were getting a little far field from Diannewhat was that again? rin Szoka:Declan. The point is the actual effect of that and this may be true for e idea that I threw out earlier about community leadership. The actual effect is to power staff because the real problem in DC ultimatelywe can talk about members of ngress and lawmakers. I think what people dont really understand is that the people o actually wield power are the staffers for better and worse and this is of course e point-- clan McCullagh:So you're talking about term limits for staff? rin Szoka:This is a promise never even change. clan McCullagh:Lets go to the next question please and identify yourself if you uld. dience:Hi, Luther Loe from Yelp. I want to talk about SOPA/PIPA in my question but rt of move beyond it here. So isyou know, it seemed like with SOPA/PIPA you had an ignment between the end user interest as well as the industry coming together and ats why you had sort of this perfect storm and it was for being against something. you contrast that with H1B, were not seeing the switchboards getting fried over H1B cause thats industry interests, or if you look at [PH][cisco] where you have a lot of e same kind of grassroots, folks that were against, SOPA/PIPA in conflict with dustry. My question is, what issues are out there where team Internet, so to speak, n put some points on the board rather than being against something? In the case of PA/PIPA, were against something, is the interest of the end users and industry igned. What issues exist where the interest of the end users and industry are igned and or affirmatively advocating for something? clan McCullagh:This is a good example because it cleared the House twice even though e advocacy groups hated it. Also you can go back to the encryption wars in the 90s. That wasadvocacy groups hated the Encryption Export Controls. It wasnt until dustries started throwing lots of money at the problem in the late 90s that they entually disappeared but that doesnt answer your question. Larry answers your estion. rry Downes:First of all, I agree with you that the other stuff, the immigration form, the tax reform, patents, copyrights, spectrum reform, all the other stuff, its rder and I dont think that means we shouldnt work to make the user base understand at yes, you know, immigration reform is important to you even though, you know, its directly. But I think the one thats clearly happening now thats working quite well, though its a little early so maybe thats premature, is in the sharing economy where uve got sort of companies again, the [???][1:02:17.7] and so on who are facing this se more likely state and local regulators throwing a bunch of regulations at them at were written at a time when things were very different, the technologyyou know, so and so forth, and you're getting nice alignment I think between the startups and eir interest and their customers, they're users, and they are being very effective viously at using social media as a way of, you know, militarizing their users to show at the city council meetings to light up the switchboards at the California Public ilities Commission. Its a good model I think for that kind of alignment but we need definitely apply it to some of these bigger issue not just, you know, because ey're really, really important to Internet users, they just dont know it. ke McGeary:Yeah, I think the sharing economy points a really good one and I think ats one where this gets a lot more diffused and it does go down to the state and cal level. I mean, you got to understand, you know, uber and the #uberlove by the y. We can talk about loving corporations another day, but here we are. The, you ow, uber is fighting people like the sealer of weights and measures in Cambridge, ssachusetts. So thats usually not something that would, you know, get people out and rce, you know like, you need taxi meters, you dont need taxi meters. But its a oduct that they use that has worth to them so they do it and there's a very tangible y that they can go and say theyll be a part of it. So yes, I think the sharing onomy thing and the ability for people to enjoy those parts and make money off of ose products, to make a living off of those products, is going to be really portant. I want to say one point on immigration. Its not just tech. So this is a ght about comprehensive immigration reform. There are a lot of the early days in is and weve been working on this for quite some time not as long as many immigration vocates but, you know, from the technology perspective were working on for a while. d the thing of it is the original push and pull was okay, do we just look for like, H1B bill and maybe startup visa and do those alone? And the broader political ntext was, nope, this is going to be about comprehensive. And so now its trying to nd the cracks in the floodgates so that were able to get house republicans to act and ssa comprehensive attempt to performing an immigration system that is fundamentally oken. Thats the only thing thats going to become law under the current circumstance. o we have a stalemate right now. I dont think Luther, that is that technology has t made a difference. I think there are many groups out there, us4.us partnership for w American economy and on down the line and so many more that have had an impact in at debate. But we are one constituency in a much broader fight that goes well beyond r own borders. And that is the political reality that were dealing with and so we ve got a double down and make sure that we find those cracks and we get the publicans in the House to keep that ball moving in the right direction. Its the only ing thats going to move. So until we do that, were kind of stuck. rin Szoka:So we of TechFreedom spend a lot of time thinking about this question. at are the positive issues that we could advocate on? Weve already talked about NSA form, we talked about [PH][Akba]. Ill give you a few other quick examples. Number e, positive agenda is celebrating what I think is the cornerstone of Internet eedom. Section 230 is the law that immunizes websites from the comment that are sted by their users. You scrap that, you tweak it as the state attorneys general, most unanimously recently proposed to do to make sites liable under state law and you eak many of the websites, meaning the sharing economy websites that have allowed ers not only to create content but also to do innovative things like Airbnb and Uber. ery similarly in principal to that but in terms of a positive change that needs to be de and not something that has to be stopped, anti-slap legislation is something that vil rights groups have beenjournalists have been pushing for many years because eyve been the victims of strategic lawsuits against public participation. But thats w a really important issues for companies like Yelp, for every website out there cause if their users can be sued by a dentist or someone that they review where they y, I'm going to sue you. I'm going to file a BS defamation claim. Thats enough to scourage many people from posting content in the first place. Thats a great issue at I think this community could win on and demonstrate that we can actually not just op things but make a difference in the real world. But two other quick things-- clan McCullagh:One other quick thing. rin Szoka:Two other quick things. I bought you lunch, Declan. clan McCullagh:It was a nice lunch. One and a half. rin Szoka:Promoting broadband, right? We spend all of the time in the world in DC guing about net neutrality, there's a lot of agreement though on the need to open up ectrum. Let people open put up cellphone towers to make wireless service work better d make it easier to build competitive networks. Those are all the things that DC uld be doing now that we dont because we spend all this time arguing about really upidly patronized issues like net neutrality. The final thing, the big battle that I e coming over the next year is already starting. Weve discussed it earlier, we lked about [???][1:07:25.7] countries like Germany and Brazil are reacting to the NSA andal in the worst possible way to say that they cant abide US censorship for fair, d in response, they're going to cut off loads of data to and from the US. They're ing to acquire that data about their citizens be located on servers in their country d perhaps also to prevent those companies from actually serving in those countries. at that actually means as Cameron Kerry said-- clan McCullagh:Were getting very far field from DC versus San Francisco. Now talking ropeans versus US. There's a difference, even I know that. rin Szoka:This is sort of the more extreme version of DC. Brussels is pure chnocrat. clan McCullagh:Okay, points for making that stringed analogy. ke McGeary:Well do this next month in Brussels. rin Szoka:Absolutely yes. The point is, thats the next big fight. You want to talk out the openness of the Internet, thats being threatened right now by people who are lking or saying the right things about censorship and fighting the NSA but who are sponding to it by putting or by proposing to put up-- clan McCullagh:Even though their intelligence agencies do the same thing. Okay, next estion over where. Identify yourself please. There's a microphone in route to you. dience:Hi, I'm Christopher Rasmus. I'm with Health Privacy Project at Center for mocracy and Technology. And I'm kind of glad that you brought up Obama Care and Ill y to keep this to the converserelevant to the conversation of DC versus SF. But a t of the conversation I think related to the healthcare.gov websitea lot of the nversation about Obama Care has focused on the healthcare.gov website and I think at's missing from the discussion is the relative success of our state exchange vered California versus the healthcare.gov website, and to tie this back into our nversation today. I'm wondering if you think that some of the reason that the te-based exchanges have been more successful is that they are in fact that policies en't in fact being honed in at the state level and whether, you know, tie this back to a more libertarian discussion is federalism. Is there a role, is there a ccessful, more successful model of tech policy done at the State House level versus e congressional level and what your thoughts are on that. ke McGeary:If you try to run technology policy at the State level, you're going to d up with 50you're going to end up with the EU problem, frankly you're going end up th 50 different statutes on privacy policies and things like that for app developers, ich are totally, you're never going to be able to navigate that and have an effective oduct. I mean, this is the 27 different iTunes example out of Europe, right? This the issue. There is a role for wider adoption of a lot of these regulations and der oversight so that you dontas a practitioner, you dont have to navigate so many fferent systems in a way that demeans your end product and ends up costing you ofits and revenue in profit. The exchange, the healthcare.gov example is teresting. My favorite tweet on this whole thing is, you know what doesnt need a bsite to work? Sing pair healthcare. Thats the kind of stuff thats you gets you in il in a room like this. You know, its one of those things where, you know, this ssivelythis massive liberal government-spending plan brought to you by Mitt Romney d the Heritage Foundation isnt working because its just so handcuffed. There's so nythere's 50 different data systems, right, for each of the state healthcare and then u have all the different companies and all of their needs and all the rest of it. ere's a piece of technology can play here in simplifying and codifying and bringing at kind of data up to where we are and a lot of cases they're finally moving off of ke paper and pen and pointing stuff like this online. So there is a role that chnology can play in this. My view as a big government, liberal socialist is that, u know, more of that oversight, more ability for more people in this country to play that system is better than sectioning it off my state. rin Szoka:I would just say the lesson that I take from this is that, if the vernments going to subsidize something, they still shouldnt be in the business of nning it. This was Milton Friedmans point about public education. His idea was, ok, you know, if were going to subsidize education, give vouchers but dont have the vernment run the schools. And this is where I think to get back to the DC versus San ancisco concept, this is where I think, you know, you can have agreement that atever governments role, however big the welfare state is going to be, there are some ings the governments just not very good at and while I think government could do a tter with tech, while tech could improve government, I dont think we ever want to ly on government getting tech right. So whatever governments role is, sites like at should be built by the private sector. dience:The argument I was trying to make is that, you know, healthcare.gov is the one at suffered the challenges, but if you focus the policy of building a website that is ate level, you know, a lot of the states have been much more successful. So cramento and not just blue states but red states like Kentucky have had a successful plementation. So maybe the government, maybe you could argue about whether or not e government should be involved in building websites but at least be better less gument that states sometimes do it better. clan McCullagh:I like the federalist argument but lets not arguments from the dience. Lets have questions from the audience. We have enough arguments going on up re. But points well taken. Yes, we have someone over here with hiswas waiting for a crophone. And its all yours. If you're can identify yourself, that will be lovely. dience:Ah yeah, Ed Hurst. And I want to relate the DC, San Francisco and there was a ference to team Internet earlier, which might be interpreted as San Francisco and I ink some of the comments earlier about might be relevant to this but my question is, team Internet really sabotaging in the Internet, in the b to b space? And by that, at I mean is that, you know, all the people who were concerned about the NSA velations, the sort of red meat for the rednecksnot for the rednecks but for the team ternet, red meat sort of the media disclosure Rob Merckle that really has nothing to with the future of the Internet. If that is really under meaningless in the long n, imagine Brazil and the EU but if by a virtue-- clan McCullagh:Yeah, we cant hear you very well over here. dience:Sorry. So can you hear me now? Okay, good. So the question is, if by a rtue of team Internet and Silicon Valley really revving up over all the NSA issues. that really exacerbates the inherent protectionist instincts in other countries and Washington reacts, as it has been to team Internet by, you know, we got to change is on the NSA, weve got to do this hearings that generates opposition, not just in rope, in Brazil, but in China and throughout Asia, and then the impact is directly levant and its not an esoteric thing. If you look at companies like, not just sales rce, which is here we all know but work day, service now, splunk, market-o, all the siness cloud companies that depend on cross border data flows may be because of this ck of connection between the outside team Internet, Facebook-focused groups versus e B TO B interest that we have that generates so much negative PR, it gives the cuse of protectionism against the US and if the valley should have a more mature titude about these things to recognize that what we say here and if that has impact DC, that has an impact on our companies and we could lose the B TO B lead we have cause other countries were giving them the tools to stop it with. clan McCullagh:So you're saying that because Silicon Valley companies especially ybe the ones listed in the present document or not talking enough the world might art using non-US companies for cloud computing-- dience:No, not quite. Its more that because people get so excited about the NSA sues and you know, and you find like whether its Yahoo or Facebook or we dont ntwell, Facebooks a little different, but we dont want to cooperate with the NSA ey're making us, well, there's all these we just love to tell you, there have been so ny instances of this. If people were not to push that as hard and if the Internet mmunity were not to push that as hard, it would provide less ammunition for our reign, foreign governments that inherently want to support national champions and ey're using all the ankhs about Snowden as an excuse to do discriminatory measures ainst our companies. So France would love to have their own equivalent of sales rce or workday or splunk or service now or market-o or any of the other new companies at are coming up, this helps provide them the excuse for doing it, its hard for us to fend. So if USTR wants to go to Beijing and tell the Chinese they shouldnt require mmunications license for American B TO B companies, be enterprise offer B TO B mpanies like the ones I named in all the different subsectors. The Chinese will say, ll, you know, you guys are concerned about Snowden-- clan McCullagh:Right. So lets see European other countries be holier than now even ough their spy agencies do the same thing and if you look at maybe the stats coming t of the Netherlands, they're the wire-tap capital of the world per capita and were y down near Canada at the bottom. There's holier than now, true? rry Downes:Yeah. So look, I mean, I somewhat agree with you but I think in some ways s kind of starting to playing the victim. I think there are sort of two kinds of untries in the world outside the US. There are countries who want financially to be re successful with technology and they look for any excuse to find ways to sadvantage American based companies, then there's also the repressive regimes that inas, Irans and North Koreas who want in fact, you know, they want to end US nsorship so they get better access to their own forms of censorship and they will-- clan McCullagh:It would be convenient if Google will move Gmail servers to China. rry Downes:Well, the point is-- clan McCullagh:Well, if the Chinese sends their police. rry Downes:So their goaland this app came up last year with the international health ??][1:18:04.7] and the conference that happened to Dubai in December is we have a lot governments who are very concerned or no, jealous of US interests for different asons and they will look for any excuse to say we need to, you know, take governance much as we can away from the US as a country. Now as far as the NSA stuff is ncerned, the problem as I said is beginning all along has been at least transparency oversight in the FISA Law and Patriot Act, not talking about that is not going to op these other countries from using the revelations and I think the best thing to do to get it out in the open, find out what the actual issues are, fix the transparency oblems, fix the oversight problems, and then go back to being holier than everybody se and saying, you know, our censorship is at least democratically, you know, enabled d yours isnt. rin Szoka:So again, mark my words, this is the fight that we will be focused on over e next year. This is round two of the fight that happened over the ITU, trying to ke over governance to the Internet. There was an alliance between states that wanted re control and certain companies especially in Europe that wanted to have ternational regulations to allow them to recover more of their costs. They lost and is is the fight that they're not picking. And the point that I was trying to make rlier before Declan was, you know, trying to get me to wind up-- clan McCullagh:I thought I actually succeeded. rin Szoka:But I actually did have a point to make, which is Cameron Kerry, when he ft as General Council of the Commerce Department, this is John Kerrys brother. He t this better than anybody possibly could and in really strong terms. He said it uld a sad outcome of the surveillance disclosure as if they led to an approach to ternet policy making and governance in which countries became a series of walled rdens with governments holding the keys to locked gates. But that is where we will nd up if all data has to stay located on servers in the nation in which the country ves or where a device is located. The digital world does not need another great rewall in Europe or anywhere else. In other words, he compared the Europeans efforts d for that matter, Brazilians efforts to protect their citizens to the Chinese forts to prevent their citizens from accessing a larger Internet. This is the coming ght on Internet openness and quite frankly, the area where I'm very disappointed in is administration just as I was about Guantanamo and lots of other civil liberties sues, is this administrations response to the NSA scandal was essentially to say, We d nothing wrong. We are protecting Americans. What they could've said, which would ve been just slightly different was, we are trying to combat terrorism or whatever t asabout America, Americas greatness lies not in its superiority over other nations, t in that it is more enlightened but it in its ability to fix its faults. And so if have come through this experience by actually doing something about the NSA, inging more transparency to the process, ensuring we that we had a real court, which something that holds the US above every other country in the world in principal, in st areas that we have a warrant requirement for things like, access to content. If had fixed those things quickly, we could've headed this all aloft in the past. And e problem now is we didnt and now politicians in Europe, they're finding out that ey themselves personally have been spied on. And so they're now joining the fight ere last time they were on our side against the ITU. They're now joining the fight there's this going cabal that is joining forces against the current model of ternet governance and quite frankly, unless the US moves very quickly on things like e NSA, were going to lose the very basic principle of openness that information flows ound the world, not just B TO B but B to C. Its all of the services that we know and ve. clan McCullagh:You cant trust the Obama Administration to head off this trade war is at you're saying? Okay, you agreed with me for once. Lets take one more question. re wrapping up? Not even one more question. So two things, if you continue the NSA scussion I'm hosting, the law of it, founder at CNET 235 2nd street tonight at 6 lock, we can talk NSA then. EFF is also sending a representative and also this event s co-sponsored by TechFreedom, the Reason Foundation and the Charles Koch Institute.