Defining the scope and substance of technology policy is a challenge that can be tackled with a number of approaches. Regulatory oversight of technology must address emerging issues such as the harms associated with online services, and the scope of this regulation can be shaped in different ways techanalyses.com.
Defining the substance and scope of technology policy
Defining the substance and scope of technology policy is critical to the success of the United States as a global leader. The federal government needs to heed the changing needs of Americans as they adopt and integrate new technologies. In the past, judicial scrutiny and piecemeal legislation have struggled to keep up with the pace of market and technological change. The Center for American Progress proposes a comprehensive approach to addressing these challenges.
The report lays out a three-tier regulatory strategy, with a unique opt-in regulatory tier for online infrastructure companies. This tier imposes public interest obligations and requires fairness to legal customers. It is also designed to safeguard essential online information, and includes a baseline freedom of expression protection.
The first tier of regulation focuses on core internet networking protocols. These include web browsing, e-mail, and social networking. The tier also includes cybersecurity measures and intermediary liability changes. The CFPB has the power to enforce tailored remedies and administer sanctions. The tier also includes the Dodd-Frank Act's designation of systematically important financial institutions.
The second tier consists of online services, with a focus on search engines, cloud infrastructure, and the internet of things devices. The tier is designed to promote competition, promote innovation, and protect privacy. The CFPB is guided by a set of principles outlined by Congress. The third tier is the most ambitious. This tier aims to preserve the online infrastructure by requiring cybersecurity, intermediary liability changes, and fairness to legal customers. The CFPB is also tasked with investigating and preventing privacy breaches.
The CFPB's regulatory arsenal includes proactive rule-making and the ability to administer tailored remedies and sanctions. These are in addition to the regulatory tools of the trade. The agency is also a proponent of the cross-cutting model, which complements existing sector-specific regulatory bodies. This is done by focusing on online service components delivered by multiple types of providers. It also includes expert support, regulatory coordination, and investigatory powers.
The most notable part of this strategy is that it is organized around promoting competition, innovation, and protecting civil rights. This is the best way to tackle the many digital and technological challenges facing the U.S.
Addressing harms from online services
Despite the benefits of the internet, many Americans are suffering from online service harms. These harms are caused by market failures, enforcement oversights, and deficient regulation. These harms are not a necessary cost of the internet's social and economic benefits, and there are ways to prevent them.
The authors propose a three-tier approach to online service regulation. The first tier would be an enhanced set of oversight and disclosure powers. These powers could enhance enforcement of new regulations and assist in the development of new regulations in specialist areas. This approach would supplement existing sector-specific jurisdictions, including the FTC and DOJ. The second tier would be a cross-cutting approach, which would address common problems associated with online services, such as privacy and data analytics. It would complement these regulations by focusing on algorithmic decision-making systems, search engines, operating systems, and Internet of Things devices. This approach addresses both new problems and common pitfalls, and would not affect industry-specific rules.
The third tier would involve a dedicated online services regulator. This regulator would have a broad array of rule-making responsibilities, including public interest protection, investigation, and auditing. The regulator's primary goal is to prevent harmful consumer practices from occurring. It might, for example, prohibit companies from selling biometric data or scraping photos from online services without securing permission from users. This model may also be a one-stop-shop for certain problems. The regulator would have investigatory and reporting powers, and may even be the sole oversight body for some issues.
The report identifies three gaps in the current regulatory landscape. These gaps are not necessarily insurmountable, but they require substantial resources and proactive action. The report outlines three tools that could help address these gaps: a cross-cutting approach, a data disclosure framework, and a new dedicated online services regulator.
The authors note that the ad hoc approach of the past is no longer sufficient to address these harms. Instead, the federal government should pursue a more robust and principled approach. Creating safeguards and guardrails for online services is essential, and new statutory prohibitions of problematic practices are required to set clear rules of the road.
Regulatory oversight must grapple with emerging issues
Developing and enforcing rules for online services requires the federal government to develop expertise in areas such as cybersecurity, consumer protections, and communication. The current regulatory framework focuses on reactive, piecemeal legislation that has struggled to keep up with technological change. Fortunately, the 117th Congress has produced bipartisan legislative proposals to address these issues.
As technology continues to evolve, the federal government needs a new approach to technology policy. In addition to enacting new, comprehensive antitrust laws, the federal government must adopt updated competition policies and protect consumers' civil rights. It must also establish a dedicated expert administrative body to oversee online services. The Center for American Progress proposes a hybrid regulatory approach that would incorporate both oversight powers and rule-making powers.
The proposed expert administrative body would incorporate economic, legal, and social knowledge to identify the most common problems in the online services space. It would also consult other regulatory bodies and identify factors that need to be considered when implementing regulations. The experts would then turn these general principles into specific rules that strike a balance between the interests of the public and industry.
The expert administrative body should be guided by legislatively enumerated regulatory principles, and should have strong, robust oversight. The federal government should use its oversight authority to proactively protect consumers from unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices. This includes a clear definition of per se violations, which would be backed by appropriate enforcement powers.
The online service regulator should have specific obligations to investigate emerging problems and set baselines for cybersecurity. The regulatory framework should also consider the representation of all participants, innovation, and information diversity. The agency should also have referral power to bring conduct to other agencies. A referral process is a logical way to ensure that problematic activity is addressed in a timely manner.
The gatekeeper tier of the federal government's antitrust authority - akin to the EU's Digital Markets Act - would provide additional oversight for large, dominant online service companies. These monopolists may have more power than the public thinks, and they can continue to expand during litigation.
Regulatory framework for online services
Despite the fact that much online services legislation is focused on consumer-facing services, it is clear that an appropriate regulatory framework must include flexible tools to address the full range of online services. This includes regulatory tools for identifying and addressing problematic practices, as well as robust enforcement options for online services rules.
To ensure a strong regulatory framework, Congress should establish a dedicated administrative body with rule-making and oversight powers. This new agency should be empowered with significant research and oversight capabilities to identify and address problems. It should also be guided by legislatively enumerated regulatory principles.
An expert administrative body should have the capacity to identify common problems across disparate industries. This could lead to impact assessments and reports that could serve as a guide for sector-specific discussions. These findings would help other federal agencies and the wider ecosystem of concerned parties. In addition, these analyses would serve as a starting point for traditional rule-making processes.
An expert regulatory authority will need to draw on technical and legal knowledge, as well as economic and social expertise. It will be necessary to consult with other regulatory bodies to ensure that a robust regulatory balance is maintained. In addition, the regulatory body will need to consider factors such as information diversity, innovation, and equitable growth.
Several tiers of online services would allow for a more efficient and effective regulatory framework. The general tier will be targeted at protecting consumers, while the infrastructure tier would require a focus on preserving the online infrastructure. These two tiers would provide baseline protections for all legal customers, including freedom of expression, cybersecurity, and fairness. However, these companies will need to deal with intermediary liability changes that will arise as a result of the new tiers.
In order to ensure that the regulatory framework for online services is clear and administrable, the government should establish an expert regulatory body to help identify common problems. This body should have the authority to develop and enforce rules, conduct independent research, and produce reports. It should be guided by legislatively enumerated principles and principles-based rulemaking.