The Dynamist

Can tech companies send data about European Union citizens across the Atlantic? According to a new framework, the answer is yes. Recently, the EU formally adopted a new agreement with the U.S. on data privacy that gives companies the green light to send data back and forth. For years, EU privacy advocates have raised alarms that U.S. intel agencies like the NSA are spying on EU citizens, particularly by tapping the data droves of Big Tech companies like Google and Meta. This framework is the third attempt at a data-sharing framework after past attempts were struck down by a European court after the Edward Snowden revelations revealed U.S. spying practices. Will the third time be the charm?Evan is joined by Caitlin Fennessy, Vice President and Chief Knowledge Officer at the International Association of Privacy Professionals. Prior to joining the IAPP, Caitlin was the Privacy Shield Director at the U.S. International Trade Administration, where she spent ten years working on international privacy and cross-border data flow policy issues. You can read her work on these issues here.

How much does U.S. regulation really cost Americans and the economy? A new report from FAI found that, in 2022 alone, agencies issued more than more than 3,000 rules, including 265 “significant” ones with an estimated cost of over $117 billion. Some estimates say the totality of federal regulations costs the economy nearly $2 trillion. These rules span everything from healthcare to the environment, but what is the actual effect on our daily lives? Some critics of the ever growing bureaucracy (or “Deep State” as President Trump calls it) say Congress has let federal agencies run amok—writing unclear laws that then have to be interpreted and implemented by unelected bureaucrats. Has Congress given too much power to the Executive Branch? Is there a way that Congress can flex its muscles over federal agencies?Evan is joined by Satya Thallam, Senior Fellow at FAI and former White House and Senate policy advisor, and Dan Lips, Head of Policy at FAI and former national security policy advisor in Congress. Read Satya's recent report on reining in the administrative state. 

The feds, via the SEC, are cracking down on Binance, the largest cryptocurrency exchange in the world, essentially calling it an illegal operation. Prior to his appointment as Biden’s SEC chair, Gary Gensler taught a class on Bitcoin at MIT, which made some crypto enthusiasts think he might be friendly to the industry. But he’s been anything but a friend to crypto. His proponents say he’s taking long overdue action to rein in an industry rife with fraud, scams, and get-rich-quick schemes. Critics worry the SEC’s increasingly aggressive approach will send crypto and blockchain-based innovations overseas, and see the U.S. cede leadership to other nations. As the debate rages over how to regulate various crypto coins (are they commodities or securities?), is there a way for the SEC to go after back actors without casting too wide a net? Evan and Luke are joined by Dr. Thomas L. Hogan, a former Chief Economist for the US Senate Banking Committee and now a specialist in crypto and monetary policy with the American Institute for Economic Research. You can check out his work here.

The question has become cliche: Why doesn’t Europe have “Big Tech” companies? Critics of the European Union’s approach to tech regulation say it’s just that—they’ve regulated too much. But proponents of a stronger hand say America’s relative “light-touch” has left consumers unprotected from abuse of their personal and sensitive data. As the EU continues to lead the democratic world in regulating tech, will their standards become the global standard, or will tech firms start splintering their products and user experiences for different markets? Is the impact of European regulation overplayed? Can differences in the continent’s tech sector be better explained by a more conservative investment culture than the risk-taking of Silicon Valley? Evan discusses all that and more with Yael Ossowski, deputy director of Consumer Choice Center, a global consumer advocacy group. Check out his radio show & podcast Consumer Choice Radio here.

With the 2024 election shaping up to be a digital bloodbath, social media platforms like Facebook will continue to be an electoral lightning rod in the United States around the world. Social media executives are under intense scrutiny as disagreements flare over misinformation, foreign interference, bias, free speech, and voter targeting. Now, AI-generated ads are already making their way to voters’ screens at a time when the rules are still being defined. With artificial intelligence poised to play a major role in the U.S. presidential election, how will governments and companies respond?  Joining Evan to discuss is Katie Harbath, founder and CEO of Anchor Change where she advises clients on tech policy issues. Previously she worked at Facebook where she built and led teams responsible for managing elections and working with governments and elected officials to use Facebook and Instagram to connect and engage with constituents. You can subscribe to Katie’s newsletter here and read her work for Bipartisan Policy Center here.

In April, an anonymous TikToker released a song, “Heart on my Sleeve,” that was listened to by millions of people before being taken down by various streaming platforms. The problem? The song wasn’t by the famous artists Drake and The Weeknd. It was generated by artificial intelligence that mimicked their voices. This song and other examples of AI-generated media have sparked a debate among artists, lawmakers, and others about whether and how generative AI should be allowed to learn from copyrighted works. As the U.S. Copyright Office, courts, and Congress look to tackle the issue, is there a way to balance the interests of human creators, AI developers, and consumers? Evan is joined by Daniel Takash, regulatory policy fellow at Niskanen Center, a nonprofit public policy organization based in Washington, DC. You can read his work on copyright and other topics here.

Recently, Apple CEO Tim Cook traveled to Beijing where he praised China for the country’s “rapid innovation” and celebrated the longstanding and “symbiotic relationship” that his company has had with the People’s Republic. As the U.S. Congress is increasingly examines the business dealings of American companies in China, including through the Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, what can lawmakers learn from Apple’s investments in China—from manufacturing to supply chains. And as tensions continue to rise between the U.S. and China, and Taiwan faces a potential invasion, should Apple be rethinking this relationship? Should the U.S. government intervene? Evan is joined by Geoffrey Cain, Senior Fellow for Critical Emerging Technologies at Foundation for American Innovation and author of The Perfect Police State: An Undercover Odyssey into China's Terrifying Surveillance Dystopia of the Future.References:Tim Cook’s comments on Apple in China at the 2017 Fortune Global Forum.

Congress seems to be in a mad rush to regulate artificial intelligence, determined not to repeat what many legislators see as the mistake of letting social media run amok. But while AI-related headlines focus on doomsday scenarios like civilizational destruction and job loss, less attention is paid to the potential for AI to transform how our government operates. It would be an understatement to say our government could use some modernization, but can a Congress so bent on regulating AI also embrace the technology for its own purposes? Joining Evan is Luke Hogg, Director of Outreach at Foundation for American Innovation. You can read his piece in Tech Policy Press, “Artificial Intelligence Could Democratize Government.” And check out other work from FAI scholars on this topic, including this piece by Zach Graves.

Elon Musk has called himself a “free speech absolutist,” but a recent decision to censor certain content on Twitter ahead of an election casts doubt on the validity of that moniker. Musk argues that it’s better to comply with the Turkish government’s requests than see the platform shut off in Turkey entirely. Skeptics say Musk should’ve denied the requests, and, if President Erdoghan shut down Twitter, it would prove he is an authoritarian, which could help inform voters as the head to the polls. What can we learn from this dustup and Twitter’s handling of government requests more broadly? Evan is joined by Nathan Leamer, Executive Director of Digital First Project, a tech policy organization. You can read his chapter in “The Digital Public Square” here.

Almost everyone agrees that an Internet connection is essential for full participation in modern American life. That’s why our government is spending huge sums to build networks in rural areas and help low-income Americans pay their bills or connect for free. As the burden increases on taxpayers, is it time to rethink how we subsidize broadband? Should Big Tech companies like Google, Amazon, Meta, and Microsoft help foot the bill for the infrastructure needed to use their services? Or should Americans pay additional fees on their Internet bill to help other Americans get online? What other business models might help pay for infrastructure going forward? Evan is joined by Roslyn Layton, Senior Vice President of Strand Consult and visiting researcher at Aalborg University. She is also a nonresident senior fellow at Foundation for American Innovation. You can read her report on broadband cost recovery and her other work at StrandConsult.dk. You can check out the Sandvine report on Internet traffic referenced on the episode here.