The Internet has transformed the world so much over the last 20 years that the only constant is news articles that open by declaring how much the Internet has transformed the world.
The speed of transformation has been such that particularly less-wieldy institutions have struggled to keep up—like governments. And while the presidential campaigns spar with each other on digital platforms and about their digital mishaps, notably absent from their policy platforms are coherent positions regarding the Internet and data. However, given the tendencies in this election cycle to push protection over real economics, it is also likely that both major candidates would pursue so-called “protection”—government access to your data—over data-privacy.
While it is a popular meme to portray people walking around slump shouldered with their heads glued to smartphone screens, it might be more accurate to show those same people shoveling “1s” and “0s” into the hands of others. We generate data while browsing the internet, when we click on links, and when we send emails. Some of us give this data to corporations unknowingly, and many people do it knowingly for ease of use. But the candidates haven’t taken a stand on whether the government should have access to this data—emails being the primary concern.
Bureaucrats in the Department of Justice, however, have already been actively pushing for such powers. In fact, in one case involving Microsoft, government officials have pushed for data even if they were stored in overseas servers. The long arm of the law knows no borders, according to the Department of Justice’s conclusion. The the second circuit disagreed with them, however.
But the question remains: What is to be one regarding data privacy going forward? Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Chris Coons (D-Del.), and Dean Heller (R-Nev.) have recently introduced a bipartisan bill that they think is the right place to start: the International Communications Privacy Act (ICPA).
Officially, the ICPA would “clarify U.S. law enforcement’s ability to obtain electronic communications around the world.” Unofficially, it would put an end to the Judiciary Department’s potential temper tantrum.
Coons, who has also been at the forefront of innovation and invention with his STRONG Act, said of the bills introduction:
Their bill isn’t perfect, but it definitely goes in the right direction by recognizing protection and the need for probable cause before a U.S. Court can snatch up data. It provides a starting point for the discussion and, if passed, might help a company like Microsoft stay out of another prolonged fight with a government attempting to apply outdated laws to invade their data. Furthermore, the bill would stop the Judiciary Department from attempting to use Congress to just change the law that the Second Circuit used to stop them before.
Even more than the printing press or radio, the Internet has created an innovation renaissance of such speed that government policies simply can’t keep up. When that innovation causes the violent changes and economic turbulence that the Internet has, it’s almost funny to see the disconnect with public policy. However, the policy lag time frustrates bureaucrats instead of amusing them, and that has given way to some very bad and privacy-hindering policy positions. Furthermore, the way that the Judiciary Department has “interpreted” their own law-enforcement powers is in no one’s best interest. In other words, the bureaucrats are thinking short-term policy instead of long-term and that is not the right way to help the markets thrive and protect privacy—or even run a popsicle stand.
Charles Sauer is president of the Market Institute.
