We finally have a glimpse into the policy perspectives of a Hillary Clinton presidency. Earlier today, the campaign released Mrs. Clinton’s Initiative on Technology and Innovation, in which the candidate articulates, at long last, a more detailed platform on issues related to technology, innovation, and online civil liberties. Though I have a few disagreements with Mrs. Clinton, I’m impressed by much of what she has to say.
To begin, her avowed support for the Digital Security Commission Act (also known as the McCaul-Warner Commission) is a welcome sign of her willingness to embrace a more moderate tone on the challenges faced by law enforcement in the digital age. I’ve previously written favorably of the Commission (see here, here, here, here, and here) and the Niskanen Center has been supportive of this approach ever since Chairman McCaul’s inaugural announcement. This is a positive change from her previous statements on encryption, and reflects a growing demand for a bipartisan, rational compromise to the ongoing public debate. I applaud her perspective on this issue.
Her support for a “civic Internet of Things” (IoT) could be a boon to the nascent industry, catalyzing public-private partnerships that would be a first step towards realizing the potential for a national strategy on IoT. Depending on how much funding the presumptive nominee would be calling for investing in such a program, it could be a feasible complement to the DIGIT Act and help set the stage for broader investment in the IoT. If Mrs. Clinton were to promulgate a statement of administration policy similar to the Framework for Global Electronic Commerce offered by her husband’s administration, the growing IoT would be well-situated towards a hands-off, private-sector-first regulatory regime. The Niskanen Center recently published comments supporting that exact approach.
In addition, she has come out in favor of the current plan initiated by the Department of Commerce to transfer the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions to the global multi-stakeholder Internet governance community. This is another position that I agree with, and which a wide range of other actors also trumpet as the best path forward for the future of the Internet. It is also imperative, as Mrs. Clinton points out, on the need to make government simpler and more effective, opening up more data for government use, and embracing the need for greater transparency and accountability—all areas that can be improved by embracing standardized data formats for federal agencies, a process begun by the passage of the DATA Act and continued with the recent passage of the OPEN Government Data Act.
Of particular interest to the Silicon Valley crowd will be her support for reducing regulatory barriers to innovation. Although establishing a Chief Innovation Advisor position in the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs doesn’t articulate a clear pathway to regulatory reform, it is nonetheless heartening to see that Mrs. Clinton is at least thinking about this issue. What she needs to do now is lay out a clearer vision of how this new role can help facilitate and actualize reforms that will lead to the elimination of cumbersome regulation in the tech sector.
There’s a lot to like in Mrs. Clinton’s policies, but there are also a few issues of concern.
To begin, I disagree with her support of the FCC’s Open Internet Order, which reclassifies Internet service providers (ISP) as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act. For a wide variety of reasons, this regulatory approach is largely unnecessary and overly burdensome to broadband consumers, to say nothing of the specious assertions that the new regime engenders “fairness” and “non-discrimination.” An alternative regulatory regime could regulate ISPs on a case-by-case basis, not with the overbearing force of Title II.
The proposed “infrastructure bank” also worries me, as it holds the potential to essentially become a one-stop rent-seeking sinkhole for federal funding of broadband deployment. At $25 billion, it certainly wouldn’t sink the budget; but if the goal is “to undertake actions that foster greater access to high-speed internet … at affordable prices” I could imagine far better ways of achieving those ends at a fraction of the cost (tax rebates or direct subsidies to low-income households, for example).
In addition, I have concerns about Mrs. Clinton’s commercial data privacy perspective, which would “affirm strong consumer protection values through effective regulatory enforcement in an adaptive manner.” While I agree such a protection regime ought to promote “high standards in industry without stifling innovation,” the language is just vague enough to make me worry about the potential for onerously prescriptive regulations. Especially if the language ends up being a stalking horse for expanding the regulatory authority of the FTC and/or FCC to police privacy protections.
Those complaints aside, the majority of Mrs. Clinton’s policy cornerstones are laudable. Given Silicon Valley’s priorities in funding STEM education, reforming the patent and copyright systems, expanding opportunities in innovation and entrepreneurship, and its skepticism of regulations, it is no surprise Mrs. Clinton chose the platform she did. Indeed, it is similarly telling that some 55 major tech firm CEOs have publicly supported her candidacy.
It remains to be seen if Mr. Trump and the GOP can match, or overshadow, Mrs. Clinton’s framework. As of this writing, I remain skeptical, especially given the presumptive Republican nominee’s continuous reproach of the tech sector, and the Valley’s general discontent with the party of Lincoln (to say nothing of the utter failure of earlier GOP contenders to develop articulate and detailed tech policy platforms).
From a policy angle, I appreciate the general optimism and tenor of Mrs. Clinton’s plan. While I disagree with her perspectives on Net Neutrality issues and a potentially stifling commercial data privacy protection scheme, she nonetheless gets a lot right on technology and innovation issues. Between her support for the McCaul-Warner Commission, reducing regulatory barriers to innovation, ensuring the proliferation of cross-border data flows, and supporting the current timeline for the IANA transition, Mrs. Clinton is taking the lead in establishing her tech policy credentials before the general election. It will be interesting to see how Mr. Trump’s plan, assuming he develops one at all, will ultimately match up.