Op-Ed

[Commentary] Congress is about to make a major decision about privacy protection, civil liberties and national security. The 2008 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act, including its most controversial provision, Section 702, is set to expire on Dec. 31. The two of us — both members of the panel that President Barack Obama appointed in 2013 to review the government’s foreign intelligence programs in the wake of Edward Snowden’s disclosures — agree that FISA Section 702 should be reauthorized but with a significant reform.

The government should no longer be permitted to search the data collected under Section 702 without a warrant when seeking information about US citizens and legal permanent residents. There is, however, one aspect of the way the 702 program has evolved that we believe needs to change: the FBI’s practice of searching the data for information on Americans without first obtaining a warrant. Americans are entitled to full protection of their privacy. They should not lose that protection merely because the government has information in a foreign intelligence database that it legally acquired. Importantly, the government collected that information by using a standard that could not be legally be employed to target an American anywhere in the world.

[Geoffrey Stone is a law professor at the University of Chicago. Michael Morell was the deputy director of the CIA from 2010 to 2013 and twice served as acting director.]

[Commentary] Public-private partnerships, or PPPs, are a popular way to build community broadband networks. These networks typically are the result of local government entities finding ways to partner with private companies. But what if communities “think differently” about how to form PPPs?

Ammon (ID) (pop. 13,800) today celebrates its success at thinking differently to produce a city-owned gig network. The city built the network with no debt and got an impressive 70% of the potential customers to sign up for service. One key is new technology. The other is that the “private” in this PPP structure is citizens themselves.

[Craig Settles is a broadband industry analyst, consultant, and author of “Building the Gigabit City.”]

[Commentary] Since the election, The New York Times has toughened everything about its coverage of Donald Trump, from the choice of words it uses to describe what he says to the number of reporters assigned to cover and investigate him. Like everyone else, the Times underestimated his chances of being elected. Although it published impressive investigations of his taxes, treatment of women, and real-estate deals, it was only after his surprise victory that the dimensions of Russia’s interference in the election and ties to Trump were examined and revealed.

In recent months, the Times has been in a running one-upmanship battle with The Washington Post, a thrilling journalistic display that has reinforced the importance of the few national news organizations left that still have the muscle to do this kind of reporting. “The role of the press is clearer now than it’s ever been,” said Executive Editor Dean Baquet on CBS’s Face the Nation in February. The quixotic nature of the new administration, the president’s serial lies (the word Baquet was right to use on the front page), and the false narratives that tumble out of the White House daily cry out for this kind of accountability journalism. Without the instrumental, muscular reporting of the Times’s team, we would not know what was going on inside this bizarre and byzantine White House.

[Jill Abramson is a former executive editor of The New York Times, and currently a senior lecturer in the English department of Harvard University]

[Commentary] With Facebook handing over Russian propaganda ads from the US election to Congressional investigators, we must understand that this is part of a much broader assault. The threat of these digital attacks extends to all democracies, in the West and beyond. Furthermore, attacks on elections over the past year are asymmetric. Liberal democracies do not and often cannot respond in kind to cyberattacks on their own way of governance. Democracies with free and fair elections are vulnerable to attack, while in autocratic societies, it only matters who is counting the votes. Authoritarian regimes do just fine manipulating their own elections. In Russia, tweeting or sharing real news that’s embarrassing to the regime can land you in prison. Imagine then the response of the regime to fake news that’s damaging to the Kremlin. If democracies actively disseminated such fake news, it would only reduce us to Russia’s level and lead to greater repression there.

The response to these cybercrimes must be international and must be broad-based, ranging from regulating social media to guarding our electrical grid and electoral systems. Building a collective defense in this new code war is at least as great a challenge as staving off the territorial or regional threats of the Cold War, when NATO was established in order to respond to threats in Europe.

[Toomas Hendrik Ilves served as president of Estonia from 2006-2016. He is a distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution.]

[Commentary] The most distressing aspect of the recent period of aggression toward freedom of speech and press in this country is the willing rejection of Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.’s starting premise: that overcoming the natural and, in his terms, “logical” impulse to persecute others who disagree with or are different from us is the hallmark of a civilized society. When you relish intolerance, you are reversing course on one of the most profound tenets of modern thought. So that when a president stokes the fears and prejudices that exist beneath the surface, he models a different—and divisive—kind of behavior for citizens.

In this way, just as our unparalleled protections of speech and the press have over decades laid the foundation for a broader ethos of tolerance, so can the lack of respect for these same rights quickly send us careening backward toward a pathos of intolerance that reaches far beyond speech, infecting all of our decision-making.

[Lee C. Bollinger became Columbia University’s 19th president in 2002.]

[Commentary] To shed light on the motivations of the tech elite, I and my co-authors at Stanford Graduate School of Business, David Broockman and Neil Malhotra, released the findings from a political survey of over 600 tech company founders. Our results revealed a group that was largely supportive of Democrats and redistribution through higher taxation. That is, they seemed to defy the stereotype of hyper-libertarian big business and the results were received with considerable confusion.

In this post, I’d like to show how these seemingly contradictory beliefs are unified (based on the data). All of the policies supported by the Valley make a lot more sense in the context of their core belief: a radical optimism in the future. “I tend to believe that most Silicon Valley people are very much long-term optimists,” said LinkedIn founder and Hillary Clinton supporter Reid Hoffman. “Could we have a bad 20 years? Absolutely. But if you’re working towards progress, your future will be better than your present.”

[Gregory Ferenstein is the editor of The Ferenstein Wire]

[Commentary] Are tech firms too smart? Some people seem to think so, and their proposed restrictions on tech companies could hurt customers. The questions of whether and how tech firms should be allowed to leverage their knowledge are at the core of some recent regulatory proposals, which I describe below. The proponents of more regulations appear to believe that the world would be a better place if tech companies benefitted less from what they know. My concern here isn’t with privacy issues, but with at least three erroneous beliefs underlying these proposals:
Belief 1: The race for knowledge is bad for competition
Belief 2: What you know belongs to others
Belief 3: All “innovations” should be promoted identically

[Mark Jamison is the director and Gunter Professor of the Public Utility Research Center at the University of Florida’s Warrington College of Business, was a member of the Trump FCC Transition team]

[Commentary] The Federal Communications Commission Chairman, Ajit Pai, a former Verizon lawyer, has spoken eloquently about the “digital divide” and his commitment to resolving it. His solution? Creating the same market conditions that fueled the divide in the first place.

Pai’s approach is a field of dreams that suggests, “If we let them (internet service providers, or ISPs), they will provide it.” But that business model, at least for many of the large incumbents, has left far too many offline. Pai has suggested that broadband deserts are created by the boogie man of government regulation. But ISPs will invest only when they need to and they likely don’t see the need to right now. The problem we face is getting service to those who are too costly to serve. Pai needs to see that the pattern of exclusion in broadband results from the failure of business models, not merely the presence of regulations.

[Maya Wiley is a Henry J. Cohen Professor of Urban Policy & Management at The New School.]

[Commentary] Italy’s antitrust chief Giovanni Pitruzzella feels so overwhelmed by the amount of information on the internet that he has called for government regulation to fight fake news. Pitruzzella builds his case by contrasting the First Amendment with the European Convention on Human Rights, which he argues provides no constitutional protection of “fake news.” This is due to an interpretation of the limits of protected speech that says that the distribution of “fake news,” in Pitruzzella’s words, violates Europeans’ “right to be pluralistically informed.” Yes, our digital era and the explosion of speech and communication on social media are unique.

But the introduction of the printing press in the 15th century and its impact on the world in the ensuing centuries may serve as an instructive analogy from which Pitruzzella may take a lesson or two. In the 16th and 17th century, access to the press triggered waves of fake news and dissemination of wild conspiracy theories about witches and millenarian crazes. Religious fanaticism was printed side-by-side with scientific discoveries. During the first century after Gutenberg, print did as much to spread lies and false information as enlightened truth.

[Flemming Rose is a WorldPost contributor and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. Jacob Mchangama is director of the Copenhagen-based think tank Justitia.]

[Commentary] As an investor in and adviser to socially-minded startups—and as a parent of two young children—I spend a lot of time grappling with the question of how we can build a better world for the next generation. As the digital revolution remakes almost every aspect of our lives, it's more clear than ever that any forward-looking agenda must focus on expanding digital access and participation. We cannot build a more equal America, or a future with greater opportunity and economic mobility, if large numbers of Americans are stuck on the wrong side of a growing digital divide.

Above all, we need strong policies to make the internet open and free and prevent Big Tech monopolies from distorting or undermining opportunity and competition online. One of the most important things we can do to make this happen is to push Congress to enact a strong "net neutrality" law ensuring all viewpoints and communities have full access to the internet and that no one can block access to websites or manipulate the flow of data to silence critics or competitors.

[Jimmy Lee is president of Goodcity Chicago, a nonprofit that provides startup financing and organizational assistance to social entrepreneurs from low-income neighborhoods.]