WASHINGTON, July 29, 2013 — The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation held a panel on the impact of the National Security Agency’s PRISM program on digital trade last Wednesday.
Ambassador Phil Verveer, former coordinator of international communication and information policy, said recent revelations about the PRISM program have not added any real substance to concerns over privacy that have already existed for decades, they did alter the emotional atmosphere surrounding the debate. Consequently, Verveer claims that PRISM is likely to be damaging to firms involved in cloud computing and other similar services.
However, Daniel Castro, Senior Analyst for ITIF and moderator of the event, also noted that the impact of PRISM was not limited to businesses within the technology sector but would affect all industries that collect data.
Jake Colvin, Vice President of Global Trade Issues for the National Foreign Trade Council, suggested that foreign companies may take this recent exposure to disparage their American competition.
“Foreign firms are happily using PRISM as the latest club to beat U.S. businesses over the head,” he said.
The implementation of protectionist digital trade laws may also result from the revelations about PRISM, Colvin said. For example, Brazil is currently considered laws that would place restrictions on data storage.
Joshua Meltzer, Fellow in Global Economy Development at the Brookings Institution, was highly critical of such policies, noting that they ignore how businesses use and move data. He argued that restricting where a company can store data can raise costs and potentially decrease security if they are unable to utilize the best services.
They panel agreed that the largest problem is a lack of information about the scope of the PRISM program. Colvin suggested that the government correct inaccurate public perceptions of the program, step up outreach to other nations, and work to raise public understanding of how PRISM compares to surveillance programs under other governments, many of which are equally or even more intrusive.
Meltzer agreed that affecting public perception was crucial. He pointed out that PRISM does not restrict data flow, but it has harmed trust. Until that trust is repaired, people with be less willing to make transactions with commercial platforms based in America.
- Advocates for Antitrust Enforcement Say Consumer Welfare Standard Only One Layer of Competition Law
- In Law More Than a Year, MOBILE Now Advocates Say Act Requires Further Implementation for 5G Deployment
- Broadband Roundup: Texas Reaches T-Mobile Settlement, Closing the ‘Homework Gap,’ Broadcast Ownership
- UTOPIA Fiber Announces Completion of Latest Round of Funding, a $48 Million Network Expansion
- Prakash Sangam: China’s Huawei Clones Are Greater Threat to National Security than Huawei
Signup for Broadband Breakfast
Intellectual Property4 months ago
In Congressional Oversight Hearing, Register of Copyrights Says Office Is Responding to Online Users
Broadband Data6 months ago
California Report: Income Most Significant Factor in Low Broadband Adoption
Privacy and Security3 months ago
Comparing Privacy Policies for Wearable Fitness Trackers: Apple, Fitbit, Xiaomi and Under Armour
Antitrust3 months ago
Addressing the Impact of Big Data Upon Antitrust is More Complicated Than a Big Tech Breakup
Expert Opinion5 months ago
Geoff Mulligan: A ‘Dumb’ Way to Build Smart Cities
Antitrust3 months ago
Broadband Roundup: Everyone (Almost) Gangs Up on Google, Muni Broadband Fact Sheet, SHLB Anchornet Conference
Broadband Roundup4 months ago
Cable Industry Touts Energy Efficiency, Next Century Highlights Open Access Fiber, Aspen Forum Set
Broadband's Impact5 months ago
Law Enforcement and Advocates of Facial Recognition Technologies Battle Misconceptions