Tech politics
The Computing Technology Industry Association (CompTIA) published today a short set of Bush and Kerry answers [pdf] to questions about technology policy. For my money, the most interesting pair of statements came in response to the following question: “What is the appropriate role for the federal government in addressing concerns about content over the Internet?”
President Bush immediately jumps to children, and gives a weirdly focused answer. Let's take it apart.
We must give our Nation's children every opportunity to grow in knowledge while protecting them.
Does this mean that the chief responsibility of the federal government when it comes to online content is to act as a terrified parent? Is the internet assumed to be a dangerous, threatening, dark and seedy place?
Parents have the first responsibility for protecting children online, by paying attention to their children when they are on the Internet, and by preventing children from giving out personal information online.
Okay, apparently the Administration is not alone in being a parent. Parents can also be parents. But we're really focused on those threatened kids. Is the internet just a place for scaring children?
My Administration is standing with parents by waging a nationwide effort to prevent the use of the Internet to sexually exploit and endanger children.
Yes, apparently the internet is mostly for the exploitation and endangerment of children. Which happens in chat rooms and by way of P2P services of various kinds. We must get rid of this P2P idea.
My FY 2005 Budget would double funding for Justice Department programs that investigate and prosecute child exploitation and obscenity over the FY 2001 level. My Administration has successfully defended the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), which requires schools and libraries to filter content that is harmful to minors if they are to receive Federal money for Internet access.
So the main role of the federal government when it comes to the internet, which is a dangerous, dark, and oppressive place, is to prosecute. And to insist on filtering. Rather than encouraging the development of tools that facilitate user control of their experiences (both in terms of filtering and making useful connections), the government is going to protect us on its own.
I signed into law the Dot Kids Implementation and Efficiency Act to create a new child-friendly domain on the Internet, which functions much like the children's section of the library, where parents can feel comfortable allowing their children to browse.
How many active, non-defensive registrations have there been in .kids.us? According to Michael Gallagher's (NTIA official; rumored to be the next FCC Chairman if Bush wins) testimony in May 2004, “Currently, kids.us is home to thirteen active websites.”
That's right. There are 13 great places for kids to go online in kids.us.
And that's it — that's the end of the President's statement. Granted, he was operating under strict word limits. But still, it's worth wondering what's going on here. Between protecting children (after all, even the oldest among us are God's children, right?) and assuaging security concerns, the Administration we've got is going to be very forceful about constraining this awful, grimy, set of “internets” — it'll take money, it'll take prosecutors, it'll take reams of international agreements, but someday we'll rein it in.
Sen. Kerry was able to talk about issues other than child safety in his response. Here's his answer in full:
Concerns about content over the Internet range from parents worried about the proliferation of pornography to musicians worried about their works being stolen on peer-to-peer networks.
I am a big believer in technology and science. I strongly support attacking bad behavior — putting child pornographers behind bars and prosecuting individuals engaged in mass piracy. But, regulating technology should be a last resort to solving any content problem.
I believe that technology will solve most content concerns. Software available to parents to filter out pornography is helping parents protect kids. Legal music and movie services are on the rise, with services like iTunes and iPods revolutionizing the marketplace. The role of the federal government is to remain vigilant in the protection of our children and in standing up for the protection of intellectual property. And, it is the role of the federal government to ensure that law and regulation encourage the development and deployment of new technologies.
He's worried about children and he's worried about IP, but Sen. Kerry seems to sense that technology is not all bad.
Either way, whoever is elected, we may need an Earth Day for the internet.