Bridge Span 18-6: Your Privacy at Risk When Government Drives Your Car?

The sudden outrage expressed leading up to the Facebook hearings was more than a little surprising. After decades of talk about privacy and that consumers were giving away volumes of information online for very little in return, they suddenly seem to have come to understand that when one makes information “public” on social media or other websites that the information is in fact public. Perhaps the silver lining will be a heightened sense of individual ownership in details about themselves, a turn to good old individual responsibility. But while the country is distracted by the current outrage, other security and privacy challenges lurk nearby as our cars may start reporting on us.

In 1999, the FCC set aside the 5.9 GHz band of spectrum for “Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC)” and “Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS),” a vehicle to vehicle communications system, programs of the Department of Transportation. Despite every advantage being provided nothing resulted over time even, except the wasting of more than $1 billion in taxpayer money. But regardless, in December of 2016, the Obama administration in its very last moments proposed a pricey mandate requiring that that all new cars and trucks have DSRC technology embedded in them. And again, nothing happened. The Transportation Department last said it was still reviewing comments over a year later. Others have indicated a decision was being made at “higher levels” in the new administration as to what to do next. In the meantime, the marketplace has marched on using radar, lidar and cameras.

That block of spectrum cordoned off for this government adventure has become increasingly valuable over the decades. Valuable in terms of money certainly, but more importantly the band had become valuable in terms innovation opportunity. For years, the 5.9 GHz band has been desired to provide additional wireless bandwidth, recognizing that this band of spectrum is what will help consumers get to gigabit wi-fi. The band is very well suited to serving taxpayers directly, by providing them a means of receiving faster mobile broadband now, providing greater speeds for the last 100 feet.

In addition to wasted money and lost opportunity, a very real problem has been one of privacy and security. In the case of these government technologies, the privacy challenges make those for social media look easy.

That the internet was not built with security and privacy as part of its design is a glitch that has haunted the internet industry. So, since the beginning, such features have had to have been “bolted on” to try to provide enough security to consumers that they would feel comfortable using and storing their information via the web. Because the cars would be communicating, DSRC and other vehicle to vehicle technologies raise all of the same privacy and security issues. The DoT record is filled with concerns about hacks, spoofing, phishing and false information that are real obstacles to a fully trusted vehicle communications system.

Placing those same potential vulnerabilities behind the wheel of a car is a poor idea. But, the biggest privacy challenge may come from elsewhere.
Government has been trying to get behind the wheel for years, and that goal is nearer at hand more now than ever. As identified years ago by Kamila Pajer, in, “Many countries are seriously considering introducing surveillance tools and road pricing systems based on Global Positioning System (GPS) and Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) technology that will trace cars and tax their drivers.” But it gets worse. “If the technology allows,” she wrote, these governments might “even decide where and at what speed the vehicle goes if it allows it to move at all.” Years ago, the National Transportation Safety Board was already requiring that electronic data recorders be included in all new cars made in the U.S., and the DoT was already at work on the ITS and DRSC. These technologies go well beyond GPS and GSM when it comes to tracking cars.

This government created communications technology is being pitched as a means to relieve congestion and improve safety, but it could turn out to be a tool that allows the state or hackers to invade privacy and risk our safety. The application of technology should increase privacy and freedom, not deprive it. Improperly used, the freedom-enhancing benefits of technology can turn into shackles that limit and constrain. The government industrial policy efforts around automated vehicles should end, for the sake of our safety, security and privacy.

Bridge Span 18-5: State Tax Authority as Big as the Internet

Given the volume of whining and complaining by state tax collectors one would think that they face a real crisis in collecting online taxes. In fact, they do not. And given their proposed solution one would think that they are out to end small business and crush the Constitution if that is what it takes to get their way. In fact, that is exactly what they are proposing.

Several states, led by South Dakota, undertook a scheme to overturn current law, intentionally passing unconstitutional laws to bait the Supreme Court into acting. What the tax collectors want is to have no restraints on how far they can reach into states across the country and into anyone’s pocket whether or not they are actually in the state. In South Dakota v. Wayfair, heard by the Court this week, the Court was asked to determine whether in fact there are limits on state taxing authority or whether state authority to tax and enforce is as deep and broad as the internet. The trade of a sliver of revenue for expanded taxing authority is a bad deal.

Online purchases total less than all retail sales and only very small fraction goes without being taxed already, especially as 17 of the 18 largest online retailers already collect the taxes for the state tax collectors. Given that the states already have the authority to collect 100% of the tax, where they do not is only a problem because the states do not want to collect it themselves.

As the public is well aware, this is merely a ploy by state tax collectors and their fans to gain new tax revenue via an expanded definition of what tax is due. A March National Taxpayers Union poll makes that abundantly clear. By enormous margins people believe that the internet is best when it is as free as possible of taxes and regulations generally. Specifically, nearly two thirds oppose taxes being imposed on them by states where they are not. Three-quarters understand that such taxes are a reversal of the benefits of tax reform and that such actions will hurt small business. Big retailers will be able to absorb the blow of a massive new compliance burden of being made the tax collectors for every taxing entity, nearly 12,000 nationwide, while small businesses will be put out of business.

But, the troubles even run deeper than big business eliminating competition via regulation. The issue of physical presence nexus is perhaps the most important issue of the internet age as it provides a limit to government power — preventing the power of government from spreading beyond the physical borders of a government’s jurisdiction, such as the state lines. A government empowered to tax those without any real, physical connection to the state then can also collect tax from, and audit, the same.

This would be particularly troubling for small business, often having a limited physical presence in only one or two states but subjected to tax collection and audits of every jurisdiction. Deprived of their standing, small businesses lose the protection of due process. Making sure states do not erect such barriers to discourage interstate commerce is precisely the active obligation placed upon the federal government by the Commerce Clause. The U.S. Constitution was partially written in response to, and as a solution for, this exact problem which developed under the Articles of Confederation.
States saw few limits to their power and began looting across the state lines. Taxation without representation. As a people we had been there before. So, something better was needed and a new Constitution was written, including the Commerce Clause, as a means to keep overly aggressive states from imposing barriers to trade on other states and the citizen of those other states. But we are now on a course to go back to that time, where citizens of one state will be at the mercy of 12,000 tax collectors from across the country.

Tax collectors, at the behest of politicians, rally to the cry “Don’t tax you, don’t tax me, tax that fellow behind the tree!” Taxing those they do not represent is an easy way to avoid scrutiny, but as history has shown, that scheme is also a proven way to lose our Constitution.

Bridge Span 18-4: The Market Speaks Louder, and Faster, than Government’s Talking Cars

The federal government had already wasted 18 years and more than $1 billion in taxpayer money in a quest to create DRSC (Dedicated Short Range Communications) technology, a system for vehicle to vehicle communications. During that time, precious spectrum bandwidth, the 5.9 GHz band, was locked up and made unavailable for use by the American people, even though it was, and is, critical to expansion of faster broadband. Nevertheless, in December 2016, instead of freeing the spectrum from the aging failed experiment, the Obama administration in its very last moments, proposed a pricey mandate requiring that that all new cars and trucks have DSRC embedded in them. And for the last two years, as in the previous eighteen, nothing happened.

The Transportation Department last said it was still reviewing comments. Others have indicated a decision as to what to do next was being made at “higher levels” in the current administration. But, with spectrum being finite and obviously in short supply, why the delay? The government-created technology continues to slow innovation, just as it has done for years.

While today we stand poised to rush into a 5G world, DSRC was created when 2G was all the rage, after the FCC allocated the spectrum for use by the Department of Transportation. Back then, government decided that automated vehicles would best be served by connective technology. The marketplace thought otherwise, heading down a different road. The use of radar, cameras and lidar, (pulsating lasers), are the most active and prominent solutions being deployed today. The threat of the government mandate being imposed, in a completely different direction than the market, is creating uncertainty in transportation innovation, and resulting in lost opportunity for wi-fi.

As work began twenty years ago, the Department of Transportation only created one answer and devised only one path forward to “solve” its perceived problem of “automated vehicles” building a technology solution that could only be made effective with a massive government mandate. That is, for the system to work, all vehicles on the road would have to have the appropriate technology embedded – at a cost of over $100 billion to consumers. Additionally, billions of dollars would have to be spent on infrastructure to accommodate the new technology. Ironically, the justification used for the last two decades has been that the proposed mandate would enable DSRC technology to be deployed more quickly. That argument continues to be made even as radar and lidar vehicles are taking to the roads, leaving the government dream solution in the dust.

From the start, the DoT failed to understand that if government acts to address a problem of public concern the correct approach is to identify the problem then craft public policy that will encourage as many potential solutions as possible so that the most innovative will have the opportunity to provide the benefits to society. Rather than harnessing the opportunities of the market providing a broad swath of potential innovations, government has, not surprisingly, failed in its attempt to dictate a specific technology.

Some have suggested that perhaps the government could continue its pet project and but also allow for more current market accepted innovations to move forward by proposing that the spectrum band be shared. The idea has been sharply rebuffed by those insisting that the band must only be used for vehicle connections and safety.

The rebuke has always been odd given that the safety applications only use a small portion of the spectrum claimed by DSRC interests. As it turns out, the rest of that spectrum has been envisioned for use by commercial applications that are not safety services. Why should these services be provided special status in the market? Why should government be competing with the market at all?

The correct next step for the Department of Transportation is to acknowledge that the FCC knows the best way to deploy spectrum and offer the spectrum back so that it can actually be put to very good use. The Department should not just hold the spectrum for something later or replace the DRSC odyssey with some new scheme. The spectrum is needed now and should be used to its best purpose. The FCC made a bet on the auto industry twenty years ago, a bet that should never have been made, and now with that plan having failed long ago, they should seek to better their record and yield to market demands.