Mike Krempansky wonders here why nobody seems to be raising privacy concerns with all talk about government-sponsored wi-fi. On the one hand, I think this is way more important than people realize, because many things we haven't even imagined yet will come out of an omnipresent wireless network. Such a network would likely become our primary means of both accessing knowledge and propagating speech -- and since both of these are fundamental political functions, there might be some dangerous conflicts for governments who administer it. This is similar to the idea that the government mustn't control the press.
On the other hand, I don't feel as though I have any privacy now on the internet, from the government or otherwise, and I'd like to see more attempts to codify strong online speech and access rights before a huge step like the Sessions bill is taken. Why quash the experimentation before it even gets started, especially when everything seems to be shaping up locally? Let people decide in the places they live -- let them innovate. The wireless internet isn't everything yet -- we still have time to develop the laws and rights we'll eventually need.
(I should also mention that I'm completely unmoved by Mike's limited-government objections, and whether or not ubiquitous wi-fi works like a public good, I think there's plenty of rationale for having the government subsidize it. But it remains to be seen how these concerns stack up against the formidable speech and access issues raised above.)
Post a comment