The Impact of Felten’s Experience

Felten’s talk was hosted by Barbara Simons; I had Bob Tarjan sitting on one side and David Cheriton on the other side of me;[iii] and the room was packed with other computer science professionals.  I also recognized many of my classmates.  It was refreshing to see so many computer scientists attend and take such interest in Felten’s talk, but it was not surprising.  Felten’s experience with the DMCA had a chilling effect on the computer science academic and research community.  Congress’s lack of technical expertise to fully consider implications of technology-related issues, law, and policy suddenly became an unsettling reality. 

The computer science community is at the forefront of technology-related issues.  Society and Congress need our expertise now more than ever.  This point hit me the hardest.  Consequently, I am considering pursuing a law degree instead or at least along with a Ph.D. in Computer Science.  This is a rather drastic career change for me.  However, knowing that there are worse possibilities than what Felten experienced if computer scientists do not actively partake in technology-related issues, law, and policy, I feel compelled to become involved. 

Lawyers, Legislators, Policy-Makers and Computer Scientists:  Bridging the Gap

Felten’s experience because of the DMCA is one example of what happens when Congress passes bad laws and demonstrates Congress’s lack of expertise to fully consider implications of technology-related issues.  Some may argue that this latter point does not give a complete account of Congress’s technical expertise.  While only a few members of Congress can claim a satisfactory background in technology, Congress has access to various expert resources.  First, a “small but increasing number” of congressional staff employed by members of Congress are trained in technology.  Second, Congress forms subcommittees to specialize in key areas, and technology experts may serve on these subcommittees.  Third, Congress has access to various support agencies to give expert advice on technology.  Finally, Congress listens to prepared statements of technology experts from universities, industry, and federal laboratories.  [23]  In sum, Congress has plenty of access to technical expertise, though it may not have as much technical expertise in itself. 

Furthermore, Barke, an expert on technology policy, argues, “the unavoidable problem for Congress is the balancing of interests”, not lack of technical expertise [23].  However, the pre-requisite to Barke’s contention is that Congress needs to fully understand the interests that it is attempting to balance, which may require Congress to have more technical expertise than it does.  Further yet, it is not clear whether the computer science community was even given a chance to express their interests for Congress’s consideration, since Section 1201 of the DMCA was a “midnight provision.”  Finally, suppose the computer science community did have a chance to make their argument against Section 1201 of the DMCA; it is not clear whether computer scientists would have successfully done so, since it seems that most lawyers and legislators do not understand the technicalities or technical depth of our arguments.   On the other hand, perhaps we do not understand what kind of arguments would convince or compel Congress to seriously consider our interests.

On a similar note, while I strongly admire lawyers, legislators, and policy-makers with non-technical backgrounds attempting to deal with technical issues, I also notice that they do not necessarily have all the technical issues nailed.  Minimally, computer scientists need to become active participants by way of offering their technical expertise.  In addition, perhaps computer scientists need to have a stronger presence in Congress, by having a dedicated organization (such as the ACM) representing our interests.

The Future and the Most Important Lesson I Learned

It seems clear that the direction has to go the both ways; lawyers, legislators, and policy-makers need to understand computer scientists and computer scientists need to understand lawyers, legislators, and policy-makers.  In sum, lawyers, legislators, policy-makers, and computer scientists need to synergistically work together to effectively and successfully tackle technology-related issues.