Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, September 15, 2008
Wayne Brough :: Townhall.com Columnist
Don't Risk Innovation to a Bureaucratic Misinterpretation
by Wayne Brough
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
With unemployment at 10.2%, what will happen by the end of Obama's first term?



Technology is a driving force in society, for both businesses and consumers. Indeed, the cyberspace revolution promises gains on the order of those achieved in the earlier industrial revolution. The implications are profound, not just in terms of economics, but in terms of quality of life. The flow if information at the speed of light has empowered individuals across the globe, with the number of worldwide internet users fast approaching 1.5 billion. Unfortunately, these gains can be trampled by government—through censorship, taxation, or regulation.

The internet creates a thorny array of important questions for government. The taxation of internet transactions, access to the internet, and privacy are the stuff of numerous government hearings, commissions, and studies. The internet also poses a challenge to standard notions of regulation, because it does not follow traditional political boundaries. A case in point is the government’s efforts to stamp out illegal online gambling.

In 2006, Congress passed the “Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act,” calling for new regulations on banks and payment centers to block transactions for illegal online gambling. The problem is that the bill offered no definition of what constitutes illegal activity. Banks and credit card companies are not only required to comply with the law—they must also define the law. Should the law stand, banks and payment systems will be pressed into servitude as informants and enforcers, routinely monitoring transaction information about individual internet users, and blocking transactions with what may actually be legal online businesses. Given the sweeping ramifications for individual privacy, policymakers should pay close attention to the impact this has on internet freedom.

The law’s reach also goes well beyond cyberspace. Banks and payment systems such as credit card companies would be strapped with significant compliance costs and paperwork burdens in order to monitor transactions and identify those determined to be illegal gambling. To date, there has been no attempt to quantify the costs of the new mandate, or its impact on legitimate online businesses.

On Tuesday, September 16, the House Financial Services Committee will mark up legislation introduced by Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) offering a simple solution. “The Payments System Protection Act of 2008” (H.R. 6870) makes clear that the law can be enforced against sports betting, which the courts have already said is illegal. It also requires the regulators to define exactly what “unlawful internet gambling” is prior to issuing broader regulations. This would substantially reduce the uncertainty and compliance burden for banks and payment centers.

Questions of internet privacy and an encroaching federal government are not just ideological criticisms of big government. The issue is much broader than a ban on illegal online gambling and should raise concerns across the ideological spectrum. All internet users should be concerned about the government blocking access to websites or monitoring online transactions. What is at stake is protecting the rights of all individuals as guaranteed by the Constitution. Federal encroachment on the internet to regulate various activities politicizes innovation and encourages government regulation of legitimate commercial activity.

At a more fundamental level, the debate over privacy and government control of the internet should begin by addressing one important question: given the choice, how many Americans would want or permit the federal government to track their transaction history? Federal efforts to identify particular internet transactions are a clear threat to individual rights and protections granted under the United States Constitution. The Founding Fathers took great care to limit the sphere of government involvement in the affairs of individuals, and those limits should be honored wherever individuals choose to act.

Cyberspace is becoming a much more integral part of the lives of most individuals, with over 220 million users and roughly $3 billion in e-commerce activity in the United States alone. Mandates to regulate online activity should not be taken lightly and should require a thorough assessment of both the costs and benefits. Each new mandate offers a greater foothold for government control over the future development of the internet. But the internet has been able to evolve into such a dynamic and valuable resource precisely because it was free from regulatory impediments. Moving forward in the dawn of a new technological era, it would be wise to avoid unnecessary mandates and take steps to protect internet freedom forever.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Dr. Wayne Brough is the Chief Economist at FreedomWorks, a national grassroots organization dedicated to lower taxes, less government, and more freedom.
Freedom & Power For The Left Only
Any action that government takes to track the actions of anyone, absent criminal and threats (real threats, not the contrivances of lawyers)to national security are threats to the constitutional laws proscribed and
affirmed by our founders and the blood of many patriots. It is nothing less that a threat to the republic and every citizen in it.

BUT.... Government needs "it's" money and power and something like the internet and talk radio are absolutely a direct threat to those goals. It isn't surprising that the governments of today, wish to control and abolish these things, which are threats to them, since the majority of their members are lawyers and represent themselves, foreign ideologies and government interests, above that of the people and country. They cannot be removed from their positions of power.

Why? Because the truth about them cannot be heard because it is only reported when it serves the political interests of the reporters. Truth and objectivity are summarily kicked off the bus when this happens and suddenly the kickers realize that they can actually start deciding what the nation will think and do by virtue of their crafts. They, become the news makers and king makers and anything which threatens that status will be dealt with by supporting efforts to control or abolish the aforementioned "threats".

Redesign the internet

Solving the Internet problem is easy to describe, but expensive to correct.

The main problem is that the Internet was designed by a computer programmer, and they by their very nature, have no idea what the real world needs or wants.

Of course when it happened, no one had the slightest idea where it was going, or how it would grow, so to re-do it now, is a terrible job, at a terrible cost.

What would take care of most of the problems, is to place another click box on everything that arrives on your computer. If you click on the first box, the document, the Email, the Advertisement opens. If you click on the new box, the item does not open, a sum of money is credited to your account, and is charged to the one who sent it.

And don’t tell me that using a computer as it should be used, that you can’t find who sent it. One day my daughter called me from the beach on Maui, and I received the call at the Hollywood Bowl, and she was charged, and they found me.

I would also like a law that said messing with the computer system is a Capital crime, and the sentence must be carried out within 30 days.

By the way, I was first introduced to the not-yet-called-computer-business in 1944, and I helped train some of the first 1,000 people who ever saw a computer, so I do have an idea of the criminal mind of an extremely high percentage of people who can use a computer.

If a couple of young boys in the Mountains of Romania can hack into the Pentagon, something is wrong with the way computers are used.

Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.