Earlier this week, I spoke in San Francisco at an event co-sponsored by the Reason Foundation, TechFreedom, and the Koch Institute. Hosted by my CNET colleague Declan McCullagh, the topic was "DC vs. SF: A Clash of Visions for Tech Policy."
The discussion ranged widely, from copyrights and patents to NSA surveillance to the failure of the government's Healthcare.gov website. Although panelists from the political left and right disagreed on some issues, there was as usual widespread consensus that from the standpoint of entrepreneurs and engineers, the core problem in technology policy is that the pace of change for innovation continues to accelerate while the pace of government, at best, remains constant. Moore's Law, increasingly, trumps legislated law, often unintentionally, and often with unintended negative consequences.
At the same time, as I emphasized, the shift in commerce, social life, civil life and nearly everything else from offline to online media means that future collisions at the intersection of innovation and regulation are inevitable and, indeed, certain to increase in both frequency and the degree of collateral damage. Governments claim a monopoly on regulating much of this activity, after all, and like any institution that believes in its own mission is unlikely to let itself go quietly out of business as its markets change.
Governments rely for revenue on taxes. As more traditionally taxable activity migrates online, lawmakers are certain to follow. That's been true in the development of any frontier, physical or virtual.
The longstanding Silicon Valley approach of ignoring Washington in hopes lawmakers won't notice what we're doing was always a dangerous policy, and has now become downright reckless. So how should innovators engage with regulators?
Watch the video below to find out!