Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Uncle Sam Wants Your Fitbit

The fight for Internet freedom gets physical.

We are at the dawn of the Internet of Things—a world full of smart devices equipped with sensors, all hooked up to a digital universe that will become as omnipresent as the air we breathe. Imagine every appliance in your home, every machine in your office, and every device in your car constantly communicating with a network and offering you a fully customizable, personalized experience. Besides neato gadgets and productivity gains, this hyper-connected future will also mean a new wave of policy wars, as politicians panic over privacy, security, intellectual property, occupational disruptions, technical standards, and more.

Behind these battles will be a grander clash of visions over the future course of technology. The initial boom of digital entrepreneurship was powered by largely unfettered experiments with new technologies and business models. Will we preserve and extend this ethos going forward? Or will technological reactionaries pre-emptively eliminate every hypothetical risk posed by the next generation of Internet-enabled things, perhaps regulating them out of existence before they even come to be?

Web Wars

The first generation of Internet policy punditry was dominated by voices declaring that the world of bits was, or at least should be, a unique space with a different set of rules than the world of atoms. Digital visionary John Perry Barlow set the tone with his famous 1996 essay, "A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace," which argued not just that governments should leave the Internet unregulated but that Internet regulation was not really feasible in the first place.

Barlow's vision thus embodied both Internet exceptionalism and technological determinism. Internet exceptionalism is the notion that the Net is a special medium that shouldn't be treated like earlier media and communications platforms, such as broadcasting or telephony. Technological determinism is the belief that technology drives history, and (in the extreme version) that it almost has an unstoppable will of its own.

First-generation exceptionalists and determinists included Nicholas Negroponte, the former director of the MIT Media Lab, and George Gilder, a technology journalist and historian. "Like a force of nature, the digital age cannot be denied or stopped," Negroponte insisted in his 1995 polemic, Being Digital. But Barlow's declaration represented the high-water mark of the early exceptionalist era. "Governments of the Industrial World," he declared, "are not welcome among us [and] have no sovereignty where we gather." The "global social space we are building," he added, is "naturally independent of the tyrannies you seek to impose on us. You have no moral right to rule us nor do you possess any methods of enforcement we have true reason to fear."

It turned out we had reasons to fear after all. If the first era of Internet policy signified A New Hope, the second generation—beginning about the time the dot-com bubble burst in 2000—could be called The Empire Strikes Back. From taxes to surveillance to network regulation, governments gradually learned that by applying enough pressure in just the right places, citizens and organizations will submit.

A second generation of Internet scholars cheered on these developments. The scholar-activists at Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society, such as Lawrence Lessig, Jonathan Zittrain, and Tim Wu, joined with a growing assortment of policy activists with tangential pet peeves they wanted governments to address. Together they revolted against the earlier ethos and called for stronger powers for governments to direct social and commercial activities online.

Mark Rightmire / The Orange County Register / ZUMAPRESS.comMark Rightmire / The Orange County Register / ZUMAPRESS.com

In the new narrative, the real threat to our freedom was not public law but private code. "Left to itself," Lessig famously predicted, "cyberspace will become a perfect tool of control." Thus, government controls were called for. Later, Wu would advocate a forcible disintegration of the information economy via a "separations principle" that would segregate information providers into three buckets—creators, distributors, and hardware makers—and force them to stay put. All in the name of keeping us safe from "information monopolies."

Spurred on by this crowd, governments across the globe are clamoring for even greater control over people in cyberspace. But the second generation's narrative has proved overly simplistic in two ways.

First, the exceptionalists and techno-determinists were partially right—the Internet, while not being unregulatable per se, really has proven more resistant to government control than analog-era communications systems. The combination of highly decentralized networks, a global scale, empowered end-users, and the unprecedented volume of information created in the process has created formidable enforcement challenges for would-be censors and economic regulators.

With each passing year, the gap between "Internet time" and "government time" is widening. As the technology analyst Larry Downes argued in his 2009 book The Laws of Disruption, information-age "technology changes exponentially, but social, economic, and legal systems change incrementally." His examples ranged from copyright law, where bottling up published works is growing harder, to online privacy, where personal information is flowing faster than the ability of the law to control it.

This leads to the second way in which the Empire Strikes Back narrative falls short. As the Internet changes the way people connect with one another, governments have had to change the way they try to impose their wills on the rest of us. The old command-and-control models just don't work on highly distributed and decentralized networks.

Consider regulation of speech. Outright censorship has proven extremely difficult to enforce, and not just in the United States, where we have a First Amendment keeping the police at bay. Although some atavistic regimes still try to clamp down on content and communications, most attempt to shape behavior by encouraging firms and organizations to adopt recommended codes of conduct for online speech, often in the name of protecting children.

A similar phenomenon is at play for data privacy and cybersecurity policy. While some comprehensive regulatory frameworks have been floated, the conversations are shifting toward alternative methods of encouraging compliance. Many governments are choosing the softer road of encouraging codes of conduct and "best practices."

Economic regulations have evolved, too. Price and entry controls are almost never suggested as a first-order solution to concerns over market concentration. Instead of hard-nosed, top-down diktats, governments are increasingly using "nudges," convening "multistakeholder" meetings and workshops, and deploying what Tim Wu calls "agency threats." The Obama administration's Commerce Department and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have already used this approach in their attempts to influence "big data" collection, biometrics, online advertising, mobile app development, and other emerging sectors and technologies.

Think of it as a "soft power" approach to tech policy: Policy makers dangle a regulatory Sword of Damocles over the heads of Internet innovators and subtly threaten them with vague penalties—or at least a lot of bad press—if they don't fall into line. The sword doesn't always have to fall to be effective; the fact that it's hanging there is enough to intimidate many firms into doing what regulators want. It's similar to the approach that the Food and Drug Administration has employed for decades with many food or medical device manufacturers: constantly harping on them about how to better develop their products, often without ever implementing formal regulations clarifying exactly how to do so.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • sarcasmic||

    I'll give you my fitbit when you pry it from my, um, uh, what's a fitbit?

  • Charles Easterly||

    Make-up free Female Joker on page one of the article is wearing Fitbit (and several pieces of Tech-Flair as well).

  • sarcasmic||

    *psst* i was being sarcastic

  • straffinrun||

    are you still being sarcastic?

  • Rich||

    Probably just mean-spirited.

    Of course, I'm being sarcastic.

  • Charles Easterly||

    Yes, and you also gave me an opportunity to mock the tecked-out, super fit woman in the photograph whilst making a reference to a movie I know you've seen.

  • yamasakimorris||

    Start making cash right now... Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I've started this job and I've never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here...
    www.work-cash.com

  • Rich||

    More far-reaching would be the "algorithmic auditing" proposed by tech critic Evgeny Morozov and others. Advocates seek a legal mechanism to ensure that the algorithms that power search engines or other large-scale digital databases are "fair" or "accountable," without really explaining how to set that standard.

    "I know a fair algorithm when I see it."

  • Rich||

    The ripple effects of hacking TIOT will be *awesome*.

  • wadair||

    We need search algorithms to give a leg up to special classes to offset white/cisgendered privilege.

    /prog

  • LynchPin1477||

    And Ryan Calo of the University of Washington School of Law fears "digital market manipulation" that might "exploit the cognitive limitations of consumers."

    Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the bastard child of feudalism and Marxism, with a shiny new 21st century veneer. Come and despair.

  • Super Kevin Horlock||

    "The Internet of Things" is just another quasi-scam perpetrated by the tech industry to shift product.

    Latest in a long line of bullshit that dates at least to the Y2K hoax if not before.

    Do I want fully-customisable appliances in my home? Uh, not really. On one hand there are theoretical and nebulous benefits to having a Cloud-based toilet I guess. But then on the other I have to buy a new toilet that can be hacked by some malicious Estonian tween for one nefarious purpose or another. At worst. Or which will not work properly and need expensive repairs. At best.

    The real threat to the "Internet of Things" is not Washington, as this author postulates (and particularly since the tech industry more or less will learn to own Washington as every other major US industry has.)

    No, the threat is in the actual marketplace. Which I think will determine pretty quickly that nobody other than some hipster twat Google Glass-wearing fucknozzle really wants a Cloud Toilet in their house.

  • LynchPin1477||

    On one hand there are theoretical and nebulous benefits to having a Cloud-based toilet I guess smartphone

    On one hand there are theoretical and nebulous benefits to having a Cloud-based toilet I guess portable phone

    On one hand there are theoretical and nebulous benefits to having a Cloud-based toilet I guess electronic mail

    On one hand there are theoretical and nebulous benefits to having a Cloud-based toilet I guess "internet"

    On one hand there are theoretical and nebulous benefits to having a Cloud-based toilet I guess color television

    On one hand there are theoretical and nebulous benefits to having a Cloud-based toilet I guess radio

    On one hand there are theoretical and nebulous benefits to having a Cloud-based toilet I guess telegraph

    On one hand there are theoretical and nebulous benefits to having a Cloud-based toilet I guess wheel

    On one hand there are theoretical and nebulous benefits to having a Cloud-based toilet I guess fire

  • wadair||

    Latest in a long line of bullshit that dates at least to the Y2K hoax if not before.


    Well, I can see why you have no need or use for networked appliances.

    I remember trying to convince people like you to use email back in the early 1990s but they couldn't imagine a need for it. The same happened with networks and then networked printers, and then connection to the Internet.

  • ||

    Right now, the big users of IoT data are engineers who can get constant updates on the equipment they manufacture and use that to fix design flaws.

    The other big users are service companies. I had a service contractor who used an IoT app to monitor the walk in coolers at a bunch of quick serve restaurants that he supported. He was able to not only pull temp, but compressor data and some other stuff. There were several times he was able to show up at a store and replace a compressor that was about to fail before it broke and cost the store owner a bunch of food. Once he was able to show store owners how proactive he could be, he was able to crush his competition who only showed up once something had broken.

  • ||

    IoT is a real thing and it is real cool. Home automation is a tiny subset of IoT applications.

    The problem with home automation is it is the poster child for IoT because people can see the vision. The problem is that it is a hard application to build.

    I have done IoT since 2005 or so and almost all of it is industrial uses. A huge sector of IoT is in the Quick Serve Restaurant space. You can put sensors on your coolers, on your drive thru loops and your fryers. Without having to have a manager on site, you can make sure that the kids are actually doing their jobs.

    The closest I think I ever came to a real consumer level IoT app was a solution for your hot tub. A remote gateway allowed the user to use their phone to turn on/off their hot tub from anywhere. It also allowed users to run the internal cleaning process remotely.

    Most though are for things like refrigeration or monitoring grain bins for hot spots. Real non-sexy applications. Hence the trade show home automation demos which are sexy.

  • np||

    Imagine every appliance in your home, every machine in your orifice, and every device in your car constantly communicating with a network and offering you a fully customizable, personalized experience.

    This is how I first read that.

  • Rich||

    8-)

    offering you a fully customizable, personalized experience

    Sorry, but this is just bullshit.

  • uunderstand||

    I thought Angel Soft tissue was a cloud-based toilet experience.

  • Ron||

    An insurance company has recently started a policy where if you where a fit bit and allow them to see that you have maintained a healthy lifestyle you'll get a lower rate. this is fine for those who choose to in a private setting but unfortunately with the government run healthcare the government will probably soon make wearing a fit bit a requirement, thus allowing them to monitor your every moment of life.

  • Loki||

    And failure to maintain a government approved "healthy lifestyle" will result in penaltaxes, natch.

  • Ron||

    this is already happening in Japan. even though they have a government single payer system if your waist line exceeds a certain size, only 33 inches, the company you work for will be penalized with more taxes thus putting the enforcement onto the company and not the government. has we all know nothing is free, somebody has to pay

  • utabintarbo||

    33 inches? What about adults?

  • PH2050||

    Can they just mandate doses of Prozium and get it over with already?!

  • ||

    Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do...... ✹✹✹✹✹✹ www.incomejoin70.com

  • ||

    Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do...... ✹✹✹✹✹✹ www.incomejoin70.com

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online