PUBP 710: The Public and Private Regulation of Technology
Spring 2015
Monday, 7:20-10:00pm
Professor: Siona Listokin
Email (preferred):
Office: Founders Hall, 651
Phone: (703)-937-9756
Office Hours: Monday 5-7pm and by appointment. On nights with guest speakers, I will take a small group of students to dinner with the guest before class, pending interest and availability.
Class website:
Description of the Course
Today’s global information economy is built on a “free and open internet,” while increasingly relying on data aggregation to fuel technological advances and industry revenue generation. The ability to collect, store, and process huge amounts of data and information opens exciting new capabilities that can improve standards of living and organizational productivity. New technology can also improve the effectiveness of national security and intelligence programs. At the same time, important questions of privacy, freedom and equity are at stake and many existing policy structures are not equipped to deal with the data revolution.
This course is a seminar in technology policy, with a focus on the roles of government and industry in the rapid developments in information and communication technology. The class will review the economics of innovation and networks before tackling major issues in technology regulation in the U.S. and around the world. We will consider legal, economic, sociological and moral perspectives in our discussions of the new worlds of data, networks, surveillance, sharing, and hackers.
Note: This is a new course, and suggestions are welcome.
Learning Outcomes
By the end of this course, students will be able to:
- Use the basic tools and vocabulary of microeconomic theory as it relates to new technologies and public policy
- Understand the basics of data science, and implications for technological advancements and privacy intrusions
- Identify the major issues surrounding national intelligence use of data mining
- Compare regulatory frameworks at national and local levels as it relates to the telecommunication and sharing economies
Course Requirements
Course Grades
Participation 30%
Policy Briefs30%
Final Project40%
Participation
This is a seminar style course, and you are expected to participate in class. Class participation is based on in-class discussions, scheduled student presentations, and online discussions. We all have different styles of participating and contributing to group knowledge generation, but do not expect to mentally check out of class while refreshing March Madness scores and email for three hours (the occasional glance is fine); I notice and so does everyone else.
Part of your participation grade will be based on midweek Twitter posts and conversations. We will be tweeting questions and comments about the readings and guest speakers under the hashtag #gmutechpolicy. If you do not have a Twitter account (or do not want to use your personal account), you should set one up. Each week, two students will be designated conversation starters, and everyone is expected to tweet their contributions by Sunday evening. This requirement alleviates much of the writing burden (a tweet or series of tweets must be short), but you are expected to be sharp and insightful. We will review the mechanics of Twitter during the first class of the semester. I recommend reading the Twitter privacy policy before posting anything.
Policy Briefs
There will be three in-class writing assignments scheduled through the semester. You will be asked to write a policy memo on a current topic, and base your answers on material covered in the course. You are expected to use all resources at your disposal, so bring a laptop (or sit in the computer lab), call your buddy who works in the Dept of Justice/Facebook Data Science/NSA/Palantir/DC Taxi Commission, and be prepared to think and write fast.
Thinking critically and writing well under pressure is very difficult. I will be as forgiving as your “she-seems-nice” boss would be in a similar situation. I recommend swapping policy memos with a classmate at the ten-minute mark for copyediting.
Final Project
The major deliverable for this course is a final project. This is your chance to put all your knowledge and enthusiasm for technology policy to good, albeit hypothetical use.
You can choose to take on the role of either anentrepreneur or a public servant with an eye on national security, economic prosperity, market failures and reelection. You may work with other classmates for this project. If you choose to collaborate, the scope/value of your project is expected to be twice (or three times) as impressive.
If you choose the role of entrepreneur,you must develop a short business plan for an app, extension, or service that is related to the information and communication economy. You may be optimistically vagueabout your expected funding rounds and projected user growth (since we policy folks don’t care much about these mundane issues). You must be precise about how your service model deals with or improves existing issues related to data, privacy and security, such as regulations, potential data issues such as breaches [at the macro (i.e., not engineering) level], government requests for data, personal privacy, foreign censorship etc.
If you choose the role of public servant, choose a specific policy problem that is related to the information and communication economy.Fix it!Or explain why the “fix” should be left to the market or done in collaboration with industry. Be specific about the firms and end-users that will be impacted, winners and losers, high-level legal issues and good old practicality. You may be politically optimistic but not stupid. You should think big but not silly.
No matter which role you take, your fellow classmates will be attacking your proposal, so be as thorough as possible in preparing your ideas. Your best defense is to anticipate the weaknesses of your own proposal and fix them.
A third of your project proposal grade will be based on your written critique of two other (randomly chosen) students’ ideas. Your critical appraisal should be fact-based, concise and as brutal as necessary.
PhD Students
Doctoral students in the course must complete all the required deliverables EXCEPT the final project described above. Instead, PhD students should complete an academic literature review of an area related to information technology. PhD students should meet privately with me during the first few weeks of class to go over their areas of interest and formulate a reasonable topic for the article.
Policy on Plagiarism
The profession of scholarship and the intellectual life of a university as well as the field of public policy inquiry depend fundamentally on a foundation of trust. Thus any act of plagiarism strikes at the heart of the meaning of the university and the purpose of the School of Public Policy. It constitutes a serious breach of professional ethics and it is unacceptable.
Plagiarism is the use of another’s words or ideas presented as one’s own. It includes, among other things, the use of specific words, ideas, or frameworks that are the product of another’s work. Honesty and thoroughness in citing sources is essential to professional accountability and personal responsibility. Appropriate citation is necessary so that arguments, evidence, and claims can be critically examined.
Plagiarism is wrong because of the injustice it does to the person whose ideas are stolen. But it is also wrong because it constitutes lying to one’s professional colleagues. From a prudential perspective, it is shortsighted and self-defeating, and it can ruin a professional career.
The faculty of the School of Public Policy takes plagiarism seriously and has adopted a zero tolerance policy. Any plagiarized assignment will receive an automatic grade of “F.” This may lead to failure for the course, resulting in dismissal from the University. This dismissal will be noted on the student’s transcript. For foreign students who are on a university-sponsored visa (eg. F-1, J-1 or J-2), dismissal also results in the revocation of their visa.
To help enforce the SPP policy on plagiarism, all written work submitted in partial fulfillment of course or degree requirements must be available in electronic form so that it can be compared with electronic databases, as well as submitted to commercial services to which the School subscribes. Faculty may at any time submit student’s work without prior permission from the student. Individual instructors may require that written work be submitted in electronic as well as printed form. The SPP policy on plagiarism is supplementary to the George Mason University Honor Code; it is not intended to replace it or substitute for it.
Academic Accommodation for a Disability
If you are a student with a disability and you need academic accommodations, please see me and contact the Disability Resource Center (DRC) at 703-993-2474. All academic accommodations must be arranged through the DRC.
Schedule
- January 26
hello world
Economics of information; Networks; Regulation of new technology
Easley and Kleinberg. Networks, Crowds and Markets: Reasoning About a Highly Connected World. Cambridge University Press. 2010. Chapter 1.
Falzone, Anthony. Regulation and Technology. Journal of Law and Public Policy. January, 2013.
Posner, Richard. The Economics of Privacy. The American Economic Review. 1981. Vol 71(2), pp. 405-409.
The Economist. Technology: Looking Both Ways. February 22, 2014.
Twitter.com. Getting Started with Twitter.
Twitter.com Privacy Policy
- February 2
Privacy Law in the U.S. and EU
US Privacy Law; Role of FTC; EU Privacy Rulings
European Commission, Court of Justice “Right to be Forgotten”
GAO. Information Resellers: Consumer Privacy Framework Needs to Reflect Changes in Technology and the Marketplace. December 18, 2013.
NHPR, The Exchange, July 14, 2014. Should the US Adopt a “Right To Be Forgotten” Online? Podcast available at NHPR.org
Sengupta, Somini. No U.S. Action, So States Move on Privacy Law. The New York Times, October 30, 2013.
The White House, Office of the Press Security. Securing Cyberspace: President Obama Announces New Cybersecurity Legislative Proposal and Other Cybersecurity Efforts. January 13, 2015.
- February 9
Guest Lecture: Peter Miller
Senior Counsel at Crowell and Moring LLP, former Chief Privacy Officer at FTC
Who’s Your Data?
What is Big Data? Crash course on data science; What does your data say about you?
Acxiom.com, AboutTheData,
Anderson, Chris. The End of Theory: The Data Deluge Makes the Scientific Method Obsolete. Wired Magazine. June 23, 2008.
Davenport and Patil. Data Science: The Sexiest Job of the 21st Century. Harvard Business Review, October 2012.
Executive Office of the President. Big Data: Seizing Opportunities, Preserving Values. May 14 2014.
FTC. Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change: Recommendations for Businesses and Policymakers. March 2012.
Oracle.com. Data Mining Concepts.
Policy Brief I
- February 16
Guest Lecture: Alex Howard
Writer and editor, focused on technology, journalism, government and society.
Neutral Regulation
Net Neutrality, TBD based on the FCC; Regulation of telecommunication
Anders, George. The Right Way to Fix the Internet. MIT Technology Review. October 14, 2014.
Crawford. Cable Regulation in the Internet Era. 2014, NBER
FCC, “The Open Internet.”
Hausman and Sidak. Telecommunications Regulation: Current Approaches with the End in Sight. 2013.
Howard, Alex. What’s Next for Net Neutrality? Reclassification or a Tiered Internet? E-Pluribusunum. January 16, 2014.
- February 23
Guest Lecture: Lee Peeler
President, Advertising Self-Regulatory Council
Glass Houses
Economics of targeted ads; The internet of everything; Social norms IRL and online; Privacy breaches, price discrimination
Duhigg. How Companies Learn Your Secrets. The New York Times. February 16, 2012.
Lenard and Rubin. The Big Data Revolution: Privacy Considerations. Technology Policy Institute. December 2013.
Manjoo. Larry Page On Google’s Many Arms. The New York Times, June 25, 2014.
Shiller. First Degree Price Discrimination Using Big Data. Brandeis University. July 31, 2013.
Tanner. Different Customers, Different Prices, Thanks to Big Data. Forbes. March 26, 2014. (see also WSJ 12/24/12 “Websites Vary Prices, Deals”)
Zarsky, Tal. Desperately Seeking Solutions: Using Implementation-Based Solutions for the Troubles of Information Privacy in the Age of Data Mining and the Internet Society. Maine Law Review, Vol 56(1). 2013.
Project Proposals Due
- March 2
Sony! Target! Heartbleed!
Data breaches; Responsibility across business, credit card companies, government; Pooled insurance for ID theft; Cracking down on hackers
GAO. Cybersecurity: Threats Impacting the Nation. April 24, 2012.
Moore, T. Introducing the Economics of Cybersecurity: Principles and Policy Options. Proceedings of a Workshop on Deterring Cyberattacks: Informing Strategies and Developing Options for U.S. Policy. 2010.
Office of the Attorney General, California Department of Justice. California Data Breach Report. October 2014.
Note: No Class March 9 (Spring Break)
- March 16
Guest Lecture: Ben Sperry
Associate Director, International Center for Law and Economics and Legal Fellow, TechFreedom
Meta Security
Intelligence innovations; Legal framework for surveillance; Domestic v. foreign intelligence gathering; Prism, Snowden, NSA
Center for Democracy and Technology. The USA Freedom Act (HR 3361) Summary and Analysis. June 3, 2014.
Kehl, Danielle. Surveillance Costs: The NSA’s Impact on the Economy, Internet Freedom and Cybersecurity. New America’s Open Technology Institute. July 2014.
President Obama, Press Conference on NSA Surveillance, August 9, 2013.
Rotenberg. On International Privacy: A Path Forward for the US and Europe. Harvard International Review. June 15, 2014.
Policy Brief II
- March 23
Guest Lecture: Evan Selinger
Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Rochester Institute of Technology
Security and Secrets
Social networks and democratization; Domestic and Foreign censorship; International relations
Heins, Marjorie. The Brave New World of Social Media Censorship. Harvard Law Review. June 20, 2014.
The Aspen Institute. Is Social Media A Dangerous Force Against Democracy? August 6, 2014. Watch the lecture series at
The Economist. Special Report: China and the Internet. April 6th, 2013.
- March 30
Sharing is Caring
The Sharing Economy; Local Regulation; Regulatory Capture; Data and Regulation
Dungca, Nicole. In first, Uber to Share Ride Data with Boston. The Boston Globe. January 13, 2015.
Downes, Larry. Lessons from Uber: Why Innovation and Regulation Don’t Mix. Forbes. February 6, 2013.
The Economist. All Eyes on the Sharing Economy. March 9, 2013.
Frizell, Sam. A Historical Argument Against Uber: Taxi Regulations are There for a Reason. Time Magazine. November 29, 2014.
Listokin, Siona. Regulating Uber: Data Collection is Key. Slate.com, January 9, 2014.
PayPal. 21st Century Regulation: Putting Innovation At the Heart of Payments Regulation.
- April 6
The Courts
Fair Use and IP; Sexting, cyber bullying; Supreme Court and Technology
Bazelon, Emily. How to Stop the Bullies. The Atlantic. March 2013.
The Kojo Nnamdi Show. Supreme Court Rulings on TV Viewing and Cell Phone Searches. June 25, 2014 (listen to show or read transcript)
Manjoo, Farhad. The Tech-Savvy Supreme Court. The New York Times. June 26, 2014
- April 13
Guest Lecture: Chris Rasmussen
Senior Privacy Specialist, Blue Shield of California. Former Policy Analyst with the Center for Democracy and Technology.
Brogrammers and Accountants
Industry navel gazing: diversity, ageism, gentrification; STEM shortages; Tax avoidance and I <3 Ireland
Houlder, Boland, Politi. Tax Avoidance: The Irish Inversion. The Financial Times. April 29, 2014.
Scheiber. The Brutal Ageism of Tech. The New Republic. March 23, 2014.
Vara, Vauhini. Can Intel Make Silicon Valley More Diverse? The New Yorker. January 11, 2015.
Final Project Due
- April 20
Guest Lecture: Jen Golbeck
Director, Human-Computer Interaction Lab and Associate Professor, University of Maryland.
The Sociology Network
Social science and big data; Facebook News Feed; Google Flu Trends; Anonymous networks
Golbeck, Jennifer. The Curly Fry Conundrum: Why Social Media “likes” Say More Than You Might Think. TED Talk. April 2014.
Kramer, Guillory, Hancock. Experimental Evidence of Massive Scale Emotional Contagion Through Social Networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA June 2014, Vol 111 no 24, pgs 8788-8790.
Lazer, David, Ryan Kennedy, Gary King, and Alessandro Vespignani. 2014. The Parable of Google Flu: Traps in Big Data Analysis. Science 343, no. 14 March: 1203-1205.
Rudder, Christian. We Experiment on Human Beings! OkCupid Blog. July 28, 2014.
- April 27
file I/O
TBD. Project Presentations
Project Critiques Due
- May 4
return 0;
Other topics; Review; What will syllabus for this course look like in 2016?
Policy Brief III