There's a destructive campaign underway to encourage government confiscation of patents from pharmaceutical…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Image of the Day: Private Pharma Investment Dwarfs Federal NIH Funding

There's a destructive campaign underway to encourage government confiscation of patents from pharmaceutical innovators and dictate the price for Remdesivir and other drugs.  That's a terrible and counterproductive policy under any circumstance, but particularly now that private drug innovators are already hacking away at the coronavirus.  In that vein, this helpful image illustrates the vast disparity between private investment and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding that some seem to think justifies patent confiscation, price controls or other big-government schemes:

 

[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="964"] Private Investment Dwarfs NIH Funding[/caption]…[more]

June 01, 2020 • 10:24 AM

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Congress Restores Regulatory Sanity to Online Privacy Law Print
By Timothy H. Lee
Thursday, April 06 2017
There wasn't any new onslaught of consumer privacy violations to justify that intrusion, and it took the FCC reclassifying internet service as a "public utility" under 1930s-vintage federal statutes enacted for copper-wire telephone service to wrestle authority from the FTC.

From time immemorial, Congress has drawn citizens' wrath by habitually taking the easy or popular route instead of the right or courageous path. 

So when Congress pursues the proper but politically riskier course, we should collectively take note and applaud it. 

Last week provided such an occasion when Congress utilized the Congressional Review Act (CRA), which was enacted in 1996 as part of the Contract with America, to overturn a defective "privacy" regulation imposed by the Obama Administration's Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on a narrow party-line vote last year. 

The predictable jeremiads from the political left and mainstream media came instantly.  To hear them tell it, Congress's vote opened the floodgates for internet service providers to gather and sell consumers' most private online details.  Former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, the hyperpartisan behind the attempted regulation, offered a commentary entitled "How the Republicans Sold Your Privacy to Internet Providers."  Very subtle. 

The truth, however, is entirely different. 

First, the Obama FCC's regulation hadn't even taken effect yet.  So Congress's vote simply maintains a decades-old status quo. 

The Obama FCC rule would've required consumers to affirmatively "opt in" before service providers could use their data to improve overall performance or tailor advertising to consumer preferences and needs.  In contrast, current law allows consumers to "opt out" of such data collection if they so choose, which few do because it would interfere with the more customized online service that many prefer. 

It must also be emphasized that consumers must already "opt in" to allow access to particularly sensitive data like Social Security numbers. 

Another defect with last year's FCC order is that it encroached on longstanding Federal Trade Commission (FTC) authority.  For decades, while internet use grew exponentially and transformed our lives, the FTC served as beat cop on these matters and punished entities for privacy and data security violations.  Under that system, the internet flourished while consumer privacy remained protected. 

Nevertheless, Obama's overactive FCC decided to impose a new "solution" where no problem existed.  There wasn't any new onslaught of consumer privacy violations to justify that intrusion, and it took the FCC reclassifying internet service as a "public utility" under 1930s-vintage federal statutes enacted for copper-wire telephone service to wrestle authority from the FTC. 

Another problem is that last year's FCC rule conspicuously didn't apply to powerful content companies like Google, which make their living by monetizing consumer data for advertising and sales purposes. 

That disparate treatment would be manifestly unfair, and an unacceptable bureaucratic intrusion into the marketplace to pick winners and losers.  Companies like Google that remained immune from the previous FCC's rule possess just as much sensitive customer information as service providers, if not more.  And while proponents of the Obama FCC's proposal claim that service providers deserve tighter restrictions because switching providers is more cumbersome than switching websites, The Wall Street Journal notes that the opposite is actually true: 

The reality is the reverse.  The average internet user connects through six devices, according to a paper last year from Georgia Tech, and moves across locations and networks.  But which search engine do you use, whether on your home laptop or iPhone at work?  Probably Google.  Plus:  Encryption and other technology will soon shield some 70% of the internet from service providers. 

It's natural that American consumers would remain concerned about online privacy.  But the simple fact is that the Obama FCC attempted a radical departure from decades of internet "light touch" regulation that allowed it to grow as it has to date.  As summarized by new FCC Chairman Ajit Pai and acting FTC Chairman Maureen Ohlhausen, who themselves deserve great credit for their leadership, the FTC remains the superior enforcement authority: 

The American people deserve a comprehensive framework that will protect their privacy throughout the internet.  And that's why we'll be working together to restore the FTC's authority to police ISPs' privacy practices.  We need to put the nation's most experienced and expert privacy cop back on the beat, and we need to end the uncertainty and confusion that was created in 2015 when the FCC intruded in this space. 

In short, the Obama Administration fractured our nation's online privacy law, and it is our job to fix it. 

Congress's vote reversing the Obama FCC's ill-conceived and discriminatory rule constitutes a critical step in that regard, and it deserves credit for doing the right thing. 

Related Articles :
Question of the Week   
The largest-ever helicopter evacuation took place during which of the following conflicts?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"Restoring order to America's cities isn't a complicated proposition.All it requires is resources and determination and a firm rejection of the longstanding progressive fallacy that an overwhelming police presence is 'provocative' and 'escalatory' and must be avoided.As has been established across decades of civil disturbances, it is police passivity that emboldens mobs. When the cops stand by, or…[more]
 
 
—Rich Lowry, National Review Editor
— Rich Lowry, National Review Editor
 
Liberty Poll   

Until this week, the U.S. House has required Members to be physically present to vote. Due to coronavirus, "proxy voting," allowing Members to cast votes for absent colleagues, is now being used. Should "proxy voting" be allowed to continue?