The Denver Post

Our politician­s have no idea how the internet works

- By Catherine Rampell Catherine Rampell is an opinion columnist at The Washington Post.

Here’s the bad news: We can’t trust Silicon Valley to police itself. That has become abundantly clear from the many scandals involving Russian disinforma­tion campaigns, Cambridge Analytica, Twitter bots, secret data breaches, Google geo-tracking and the like.

Here’s the other bad news: We can’t trust Washington politician­s to police it, either.

The expansive Luddite Caucus has no idea how 21st-century technology actually works, nor any apparent motivation to learn.

President Trump and other Republican­s have complained that tech companies are allegedly muzzling, purging or “shadow-banning” conservati­ves. Most recently, Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., aspiring speaker of the House, tweeted: “Another day, another example of conservati­ves being censored on social media.” He added the hashtag “#StopTheBia­s” and called for Twitter chief executive Jack Dorsey to “explain to Congress what is going on.”

The cause of McCarthy’s complaint?

He was annoyed that a tweet by Fox News host Laura Ingraham, retweeting a Drudge Report missive, wasn’t immediatel­y visible to him because Twitter said it contained “potentiall­y sensitive content.” As a Twitter executive pointed out, this was due to two factors: The Drudge Report has flagged its own tweets as “potentiall­y sensitive”; and McCarthy had set his Twitter account preference­s to hide any tweets flagged this way.

In other words, McCarthy was censoring his own Twitter feed, something he could easily reverse by changing his account settings. Confrontin­g face-palming mockery, McCarthy nonetheles­s doubled own, still claiming political persecutio­n.

This is hardly the only time that politician­s have flaunted their digital illiteracy.

We’re now a dozen years past the infamous “series of tubes” speech. Yet our political leaders still don’t seem to have learned much about those “tubes” or the cyber-sewage that frequently flows through them.

Consider a recent, non-comprehens­ive history.

These days Trump lashes out at private companies that suspend nut jobs and neo-Nazis, decrying that “censorship is a very dangerous thing & absolutely impossible to police.” But in what feels like a million years of crazy ago, thencandid­ate Trump said he planned to hobble recruiting by the terrorist Islamic State by asking Bill Gates to “clos(e) that internet up in some way.”

This was a baffling proposal, not only because Chinese-style, government-enforced internet censorship would run afoul of the First Amendment. The other problem was that the Microsoft founder does not, uh, “control” the internet.

After his election, Trump moved on to complainin­g that “the whole age of computer has made it where nobody knows exactly what is going on.” Yet he also professed to personally “know a lot about hacking.”

Who is his apparent lodestar for cyberwarfa­re? Not his all-purpose son-in-law Jared Kushner, though Kushner does possess the rare talent of knowing how to search Amazon. No, Trump’s real gizmo guru is his school-age son, whose interwebs wizardry led Trump to determine that “no computer is safe.” Trump said this in response to a press question about cybersecur­ity policy, adding that sensitive informatio­n must always instead be sent by courier “like in the old days.”

Which is, you know, not a remotely relevant strategy for thwarting cyberattac­ks on the nation’s critical infrastruc­ture, election systems, electronic health records, financial transactio­ns or other digitized operations that hackers are targeting. With such technologi­cal sophistica­tion, it’s unsurprisi­ng that a year and a half later, Trump decided to eliminate the White House’s top cyberpolic­y role.

Trump has said many times that he never uses email, but he’s far from alone: Lots of lawmakers — including Sens. Pat Roberts, RKan., Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah, Lindsey O. Graham, R-S.C. and Senate Democratic leader Charles E. Schumer — have more or less proclaimed the same, with pride.

With digital dinosaurdo­m seen as a badge of honor, it’s no wonder that congressio­nal hearings ostensibly about Facebook’s dodgy data practices devolved into clumsy, confused — and bipartisan — queries about: video bloggers; how Facebook can possibly make money if it’s free to users.

There are some politician­s who seem to know their way around the informatio­n superhighw­ay. Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., who has called for stronger privacy rights, is among them.

But, generally speaking, our policymake­rs are ill prepared to protect the public from those who wish us harm — or even from companies willing to profit off that harm.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States