Berin Szoka, President

Berin Szoka

@BerinSzoka

–

@BerinSzoka

Berin Szoka is the founder of TechFreedom. Previously, he was a Senior Fellow and the Director of the Center for Internet Freedom at The Progress & Freedom Foundation. Before joining PFF, he was an Associate in the Communications Practice Group at Latham & Watkins LLP, where he advised clients on regulations affecting the Internet and telecommunications industries. Before joining Latham's Communications Practice Group, Szoka practiced at Lawler Metzger Milkman & Keeney, LLC, a boutique telecommunications law firm in Washington, and clerked for the Hon. H. Dale Cook, Senior U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Oklahoma.

Szoka received his Bachelor's degree in economics from Duke University and his juris doctor from the University of Virginia School of Law, where he served as Submissions Editor of the Virginia Journal of Law and Technology. He is admitted to practice law in the District of Columbia and California (inactive).

He has served on the Steering Committee for the D.C. Bar's Computer & Telecommunications Law Section, and currently serves on the FAA's Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC). Szoka has chaired, and currently serves on, the Board of Directors of the Space Frontier Foundation, a non-profit citizens' advocacy group founded in 1988 and dedicated to advancing commercial opportunity and expansion of human civilization in space.

He blogs for the Technology Liberation Front.

Content featuring Berin Szoka

Today's Approval of PCLOB Nominations a Long-Overdue Victory for Privacy and the Rule of Law

Berin Szoka

May 17, 2012

· Comments

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved five nominations to the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) today. The following statement can be attributed to Berin Szoka, President of TechFreedom:

The PCLOB is a board that even the staunchest critic of government bloat should love. This isn't another unnecessary regulatory agency, but an essential tool for overseeing how the Federal government collects and uses information about Americans. That's why a dozen leading conservatives and libertarians signed a letter last week supporting the PCLOB.

A key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission, the PCLOB was first established in 2004, but the Senate never filled the Board. So today's vote is a long-overdue victory for privacy and the rule of law.

The PCLOB is more necessary than ever as Congress careens towards passing cybersecurity legislation that, while well-intentioned, could allow radical new intrusions by government into our private communications without traditional safeguards. Even if such legislation is amended as TechFreedom and others have urged, the PCLOB will be needed to ensure those added safeguards are actually enforced. A budget of one or two million dollars a year is a small price to pay to help protect us from a growing government. The PCLOB can't do this alone, but it won't happen at all without the Board.

Szoka is available for comment at media@techfreedom.org.

TechFreedom has recently joined on three separate coalition letters on the issue of cybersecurity. To learn more about the PCLOB, read the Congressional Research Service Report.

Toward a Greater Understanding of Internet Activism through Public Choice, Economics

Berin Szoka

May 7, 2012

· Comments

In the lead essay for the "Cato Unbound" symposium this month, I analyze recent political movements that have been aided by Internet-based communication by positing a set of questions,

Activists played important roles in bringing down dictators in the Arab world, stopping the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in Congress and electing Barack Obama—just to name a few examples. But how much did the Internet matter in making these watershed events possible? How effective is it likely to be in the future? And how would we measure whether activism “works” for society—not just the activists?

I respond to the concerns raised by Evgeny Morozov in his iconoclastic 2010 book, The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom (summarized in his short essay in TechFreedom's free ebook The Next Digital Decade: Essays on the Future of the Internet). In general, I suggest that we simply do not yet understand the Internet's effect on activism well enough to make strong normative judgments about it. But applying Public Choice theory can help us understand how developments in communication technologies are changing the relationship between an individual and the group in social movements. A few highlights:

Social media lower organizational costs, especially of recruiting members, but also noticeability: “members’ ability to notice each other’s actions.” Even in 2003, there was little way to tell whether your friends actually followed through when you asked them to help join a cause. But today, it’s easy to encourage them to re-share material on Facebook or Twitter—and to “notice” whether they’ve done so.
Social media allows members of large groups—think Twitter followers—to be continuously bombarded with propaganda about the worthiness of the cause creating social pressures not entirely unlike those that can be generated in a face-to face group.
The Internet empowers large, dispersed groups (like dedicated Internet users) to organize against small but concentrated interests. As anyone who works in technology policy in Washington can attest, SOPA’s implosion made Congress more cautious—at least about Internet regulation, where fear of a digital activist backlash is greatest.
Ultimately, the Internet does make coordination easier among like-minded people to provide reputational feedback about corporations and governments. However we must still be vigilant—governments can and do manipulate the Internet in overt and covert ways to stifle their populations.
Activism works largely by imposing reputational costs on its targets. Online reputation markets deliver information much faster and more cheaply than ever before.

I conclude by saying: "The Internet may not necessarily make the world a better place in every way, but the more we understand how it changes our relationships with each other, the better equipped we will be to steer its evolution in more humane directions."

In the coming days, Jason Benlevi, Rebecca MacKinnon and John O. McGinnis will all respond, leading to a spirited debate on the topic of Internet activism and to what degree technology really does enhance freedom.

Join TechFreedom at the Tech Policy Summit June 6-7 in Napa

Berin Szoka

April 27, 2012

· Comments

You're invited to join TechFreedom at the sixth annual Tech Policy Summit, taking place June 6-7, 2012 at the Silverado Resort in Napa Valley.

The Tech Policy Summit is an independently-produced, nonpartisan gathering that brings together leading industry executives, investors, government affairs professionals, legal experts, academics and consumer advocates to discuss critical policy issues impacting technological innovation. Some of the topics that will be addressed at this year's Summit include:

The role of the government in improving private sector cybersecurity
Digital privacy and government access to data
Responsibilities of online intermediaries
How social media and big data are impacting policy
Lessons learned from the SOPA/PIPA battle
Broadband access and growth
Emerging technologies and the future of copyright

Confirmed speakers include Votizen CEO David Binetti, former Congressman Rick Boucher, Google policy manager Betsy Masiello, POPVOX founder and CEO Marci Harris, CDT’s vice president for policy Jim Dempsey, VP of Academics and Innovation at Singularity Vivek Wadhwa, Politico reporter Michelle Quinn and CNET chief political correspondent Declan McCullagh. TechFreedom's Berin Szoka is a member of the 2012 Advisory Board for Tech Policy Summit and will be speaking at the conference. More details are available at TechPolicySummit.com and additional speakers will be announced soon.

Registration for Tech Policy Summit is now open, and you can sign up for a special TechFreedom rate of $695 with discount code TF2012. Space is limited to 200 people and the rate increases to $1,495 on May 19, so we encourage you to register early to secure your spot.

Free Market Coalition: Amend CISPA to Preserve Freedom, Prevent Gov’t Overreach

Berin Szoka

April 20, 2012

· Comments

The House of Representatives is expected to vote next week on the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011 (“CISPA”). TechFreedom and the Competitive Enterprise Institute and have joined with FreedomWorks, Americans for Limited Government, and the Liberty Coalition in sending a letter [pdf] to Congress identifying several significant problems with the bill as drafted and urging recommendations to alleviate those concerns.

CISPA aims to help companies defend against cyber attacks by facilitating the sharing of cyber threat information among government agencies and the private sector. Despite the bill's noble intentions, however, it risks unduly expanding federal power, undermining freedom of contract, and harming U.S. competitiveness in the technology sector. Our coalition letter articulates the following major problems with CISPA and explains how Congress can amend the bill to fix them:

Read more →

How the U.S. Can Lead the Way to Extraterrestrial Land Deals

James E. Dunstan, Berin Szoka

April 10, 2012

· Comments

We strongly support private property rights in space. And we believe in the power of private enterprise and are convinced that only entrepreneurship can lower the cost of doing business enough to fuel a space-based economy. On these important points we agree with Rand Simberg.

But we disagree completely on the path America should take to achieve space property rights.

The basic idea is nothing new. In his book Unreal Estate: The Men Who Sold the Moon, Virgiliu Pop tracked hundreds of outer-space property rights claims over thousands of years, from individuals, kings, and countries, under various theories of law. All have failed the test of time.

The negotiators of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty knew that such claims would never stop unless the countries agreed once and for all that: “Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.”

But wait, Simberg and others argue that Article II of the Treaty only prohibits national appropriation, leaving individuals free to do whatever they want in space. Well, not so fast. Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty states:

States Parties to the Treaty shall bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried on by governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities, and for assuring that national activities are carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in the present Treaty.

Read more →

Szoka Cautions NTIA Privacy Multistakeholder Self-Regulatory Process

Berin Szoka

April 2, 2012

· Comments

TechFreedom President Berin Szoka filed comments on the NTIA's Multistakeholder Process to Develop Consumer Data Privacy Codes of Conduct. The following statement can be attributed to Szoka:

The White House Report wisely recognizes that the “flexibility, speed, and decentralization necessary to address Internet policy challenges” can come only from self-regulation. But avoiding “failure by design” in the multistakeholder process envisioned by NTIA depends on the following questions: (1) What role will government play?; (2) Just how “open” and “transparent” must the process be?; (3) How may civil society groups participate in the process?; (4) By whom will self-regulatory codes of conduct be subject to approval?; (5) Regardless of who votes, what will be the mechanism for voting?; (6) Will there be a shot clock for the process?; (7) How will the initial selection of issues work? and (8) How exactly will self-regulatory codes of conduct be updated?

In particular, if industry is to reach consensus on improving privacy practices, they must be able to negotiate in private. Moreover, if self-regulation is to deliver the “flexibility, speed, and decentralization" necessary to forge workable privacy protections that also promote innovation, as the White House hopes, it must be up to industry to vote on codes of conduct. Privacy advocates can certainly inform and shape the outcome of the self-regulatory process even without voting on its outcome.

Read Szoka's full comments here.

Szoka is available for comment at media@techfreedom.org.

Congress Finally Appoints Ohlhausen to FTC, Much-Needed Voice of Restraint

Berin Szoka

March 30, 2012

· Comments

Yesterday the Senate confirmed the nomination of a new FTC Commissioner, Maureen K. Ohlhausen, as well as the re-nomination of FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz. The following statement can be attributed to Berin Szoka, President of TechFreedom:

We commend the Senate for finally filling the Republican seat on the Federal Trade Commission that has sat empty for nearly six months. Having taught, practiced and advised the FTC on privacy and consumer protection law, Commissioner Ohlhausen has exactly the kind of legal expertise the Commission needs to ensure the agency fulfill its statutory responsibilities, but does not exceed its authority.

But this vote should have happened months ago. For agencies like the FTC to function as independent, expert agencies, they need a full, bi-partisan slate of experts to oversee their operations. It is particularly unfortunate that Ohlhausen's confirmation came just a week after the FTC issued a major report recommending new regulations to protect consumer privacy. Commissioner Rosch, the lone Republican on the Commission since October, issued a scathing dissent, warning that the Report "would install 'Big Brother” as the watchdog over [information collection] not only in the online world but in the offline world." Given the concerns Ohlhausen has expressed about FTC overreach, it seems likely she too would have strongly dissented from the FTC's expansive use of its unfairness authority.

Such a voice of restraint has been completely absent on competition, where Commissioner Rosch has joined Chairman Leibowitz in going far beyond traditional antitrust laws to regulate competitive practices they consider "unfair." Before her nomination, Ohlhausen explained the dangers of this approach.

To ensure proper oversight of Internet regulation, the Senate should vote immediately on the nomination of Ajit Pai to the Federal Communications Commission, which has languished since October.

Szoka is available for comment at media@techfreedom.org.

In his testimony yesterday before the House Energy & Commerce Committee, Szoka explained his concerns about the FTC Privacy Report, and the need for the FTC to clarify its unfairness authority. See also TechFreedom Senior Adjunct Fellow Geoffrey Manne "The FTC's Misguided Rationale for the Use of Section 5 in Sherman Act Cases."

Szoka to Testify at House Hearing on White House Privacy Proposal

Berin Szoka

March 29, 2012

· Comments

TechFreedom President Berin Szoka will testify at today's livestreamed hearing on the White House Privacy Report. The following statement can be attributed to Szoka:

As valuable as "privacy" can be, its value is not absolute. Privacy advocates and policymakers alike all too often overstate the value of privacy and understate its costs. We should approach privacy like any form of consumer protection: Weigh harms against benefits and empower consumers to make their own choices wherever possible.

The White House Report gets the most important question right: government lacks the "flexibility, speed, and decentralization necessary to address Internet policy challenges." However laudable the Report's principles, what matters is pragmatically transposing them into concrete rules that recognize real-world trade-offs with innovation, convenience, and other competing values.

Before legislating, Congress should ask whether the FTC can adequately address substantial harms through its unfairness and deception authority. The FTC must walk an exceedingly fine line on unfairness. If used too seldom and defined too narrowly, unfairness will fail to protect consumers from real harm, suggesting legislation is needed when it is not. But if defined too broadly, unfairness will again make the FTC the "National Nanny," as the Washington Post dubbed the agency in the 1970s. This time, the FTC will be micromanaging not children's advertising and funeral parlors, but the very way we communicate with each other. At its worst, the unfairness doctrine would likely have banned the camera, that great invader of privacy, back in 1890. But at its best, unfairness could supplement self-regulation—if the FTC becomes more rigorous in its analysis.

Read Szoka's full oral remarks below the fold and written testimony here.

Read more →

Blocking Verizon/SpectrumCo Deal Would Harm, not Help, Consumers

Geoffrey Manne, Berin Szoka

March 27, 2012

· Comments

Yesterday, the International Center for Law and Economics and TechFreedom jointly filed comments [pdf] with the FCC on the Verizon SpectrumCo deal. In the comments, ICLE Executive Director Geoffrey Manne and TechFreedom President Berin Szoka counter the primary arguments against the deal:

Critics lament the concentration of spectrum in the hands of one of the industry’s biggest players, but the assumption that concentration will harm to consumers is unsupported and misplaced. Concentration of spectrum has not slowed the growth of the market; rather, the problem is that growth in demand has dramatically outpaced capacity. What's more: prices have plummeted even as the industry has become more concentrated.

While the FCC undeniably has authority to review the license transfers, the argument that the separate but related commercial agreements would reduce competition is properly the province of the Department of Justice. That argument is best measured under the antitrust laws, not by the FCC under its vague "public interest" standard. Indeed, if the FCC can assert jurisdiction over the commercial agreements as part of its public interest review, its authority over license transfers will become a license to regulate all aspects of business. This is a recipe for certain mischief.

The need for all competitors, including Verizon, to obtain sufficient spectrum to meet increasing demand demonstrates that the deal is in the public interest and should be approved.

The authors are available for comment at media@techfreedom.org.

Public Interest Groups Who Are Fighting for Your Digital Freedom

Berin Szoka

quoted in Forbes on

March 22, 2012

· Comments

Yesterday, TechFreedom was profiled in Forbes for our continued efforts fighting for digital freedom:

TechFreedom has been on the ground, “[b]uilding bipartisan support for protections against government snooping in Americans’ private communications and location information…. We recruited other free-market organizations to join the Digital Due Process coalition, whose efforts to reform the outdated 1986 ECPA are gathering steam, especially after all nine Supreme Court justices in the Jones decision denounced warrantless GPS tracking and five called on Congress to act.”

Szoka said that TechFreedom has also been successful in “[b]uilding a diverse coalition in opposition to a sweeping ‘digital dragnet’ that would allow law enforcement to track the Internet use of every American.”

“Our view across the board is that government should meddle or intervene only when there’s a clear market failure or harm to consumers.” In other words, when it comes to government regulation, TechFreedom thinks less is most definitely more. And in those infrequent cases when the government needs to intervene, Szoka said, “The regulation of the law should be narrowly tailored to the problem. Let’s deal with each problem as it arises.”

“This is not just about government and government’s role: it’s about technology and whether or not it makes the world a better place.”

Berin Szoka, President

Berin Szoka

Content featuring Berin Szoka

Join Our Mailing List