So, more cybersecurity. The government is starting to recognize state actors online, which makes sense given that enemies like Iran aren’t shy about it. That’s good. Recognizing fact is a prerequisite to making good policy.
But I think trying to dictate to private business is the wrong idea. Huawei and ZTE may be organs of the People’s Liberation Army, which would make it a good reason never to have government buy from Huawei, and possibly even to restrict government contractors from using Huawei hardware when fulfilling government contracts. But anything beyond that just grows government in ways that possibly harm us.
If Huawei is breaking the law then we need to put people in jail. If we can show that the Chinese government is attacking us, we need to address the problem at the source, rather than cut a couple vines of kudzu. Expanding government against a couple of businesses is not necessary when we have laws already on the books, and not sufficient when the problem is a state actor.
Continue reading »
And now I really push the definition of Tech at Night, starting to write this at 2am. I’d originally planned to skip tonight’s edition, and instead just sleep. But I woke up, and sleep isn’t returning anytime soon, so let’s make the rounds of tech and policy.
Some Democrats still haven’t learned the lesson of the PCCC. The far left alternative to the DCCC published a Net Neutrality pledge for Democrats to sign. Every Democrat who signed it lost in November. Yet some Democrats continue to press that extremist agenda. It shows just how of touch Harry Reid’s Senate really is.
Possibly more importantly, the drive for the Internet Tax (which again, they call Universal Service Fund reform) continues from the left. The New York Times came out for it, and a group called Consumer Federation of America is even targeting Netflix specifically for an Internet tax. Watch out.
Continue reading »