Arizona Senate Passes Human-Animal Hybrid Bill

Arizona's state legislature, having solved all of the state's other problems with its recent anti-immigration bill, decided to tackle the apparently urgent problem of human-animal hybrids. The bill passed by the AZ Senate provides, in pertinent part:

A. A person shall not intentionally or knowingly create or attempt to create an in vitro human embryo by any means other than fertilization of a human egg by a human sperm.
B. A person shall not intentionally or knowingly:
1. Create or attempt to create a human-animal hybrid.
2. Transfer or attempt to transfer a human embryo into a nonhuman womb.
3. Transfer or attempt to transfer a nonhuman embryo into a human womb.
4. Transport or receive for any purpose a human-animal hybrid.

The Arizona bill is remarkably similar to the Human-Animal Hybrid Prohibition Act of 2009, introduced in the U.S. Senate by Senator Brownback. The Arizona version includes language exempting research involving transgenetic animal models containing human genes and xenotransplantation of human organs, neither of which was found in Senator Brownback's bill. While this is a laudable improvement protecting some research, the bill is still aimed at curtailing scientific progress. The broad language, part (B)(1) in particular, could cover a wide variety of potentially lifesaving research.

Laws limiting scientific freedom should be avoided at all costs. Arizona is free not to fund such research, but the state shouldn't outlaw it altogether. If such laws absolutely must be passed, it should handled at the national level, not by a patchwork of state laws.


Hat tip to Politico: Arizona legislature targets 'human-animal hybrids'

Should Social Network Privacy Settings Be Regulated?

Recent changes to Facebook's user privacy policy are drawing the ire of more than just hastily arranged protest groups promising action if they can only reach 1 million members. After Facebook announced its new policy, which will allow the social networking site to share user information and curtail users' ability to keep information private, Senators Schumer, Bennet, Franken and Begich sent a letter to Mark Zuckerberg expressing their concern over the privacy changes. The letter outlined three areas of concern:

1. Facebook's new policy makes publicly available a user's current city, hometown, education, work, likes, interests and friends. Users must either allow this information to remain available or delete it entirely. The letter argues that users should have more control over what information is public.
2. Third-parties can store users information indefinitely, up from 24 hours under Facebook's previous policy. The letter recommends either reverting to the 24 hour policy or making users opt-in before allowing their information to be stored indefinitely.
3. Partners for Facebook's new "instant personalization" feature have access to user's friends list. While users are currently allowed to opt-out, the letter argues that it should be a clear and coherent opt-in provision.

Senator Schumer also sent a letter to the Federal Trade Commission urging them to set guidelines on the use of information submitted by users of social networking sites like Facebook, Myspace and Twitter. The Senator is prepared to offer legislation authorizing the FTC to examine practices in the disclosure of private information from social networking sites and to ensure users have the ability to prohibit the sharing of personal information.

Asking the FTC to regulate broadly across all social networks might not be the best solution. Will professional networking services like LinkedIn be included under the FTC regulations? It's pretty safe to assume the interests and privacy concerns of LinkedIn users differ from those of Myspace users. That said, the FTC may be able to find some common ground for minimum privacy standards, leaving individual services free to give their users a higher level of control.

The truly egregious act by Facebook wasn't setting the privacy controls at the current level, it was pulling a privacy bait-and-switch on its users. Facebook got 400 million people to sign up to use a service, including entering personal information, based on privacy rules that allowed them to strictly limit who could see that information. Once an enormous amount of valuable information had been put online, Facebook gradually started rolling back the amount of control users had over their own information.

If the government is going to play any role in regulating social networking sites, it should focus on ensuring smooth and transparent transitions when privacy policies change. Protect users from being defrauded into posting personal information under the illusion of privacy only to have all the information made public by future changes. If a user enters information under one privacy policy, that policy should continually apply to that information unless affirmatively waived. Facebook's new policy should only apply to information entered after the changes were made.

Rachel Maddow Takes A Cheap Shot @ SCOTUS

Court watchers, political pundits and privacy advocates alike had an eye on the Supreme Court this week as the justices heard oral arguments in City of Ontario v. Quon. The question before the Court was whether a police officer had a reasonable expectation of privacy for text messages sent and received on a government issued pager. The officer filed suit after the City audited his text messages. While the city did not have an explicit policy in regard to the usage of and access by the city to messages sent from pagers, it did have a general "Computer Usage, Internet and E-mail Policy" reserving to the city the right to access emails stored on city servers.

The argument raised significant questions as to whether or not the city's email policy put the officer on notice that his pager messages were also subject to review. A key factor in answering this issue is the exact nature of email vs. pager messages, triggering some technical questions from the justices. Here's how Rachel Maddow covered these questions:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Pretty harsh treatment of Justice Roberts and others, painting them as out of touch and not at all tech savvy. The oral argument transcript, however, reveals a different story:

JUSTICE GINSBURG: But my question is, an employee reads this policy and says, oh, my e-mails are going to be subject to being monitored --

MR. DAMMEIER: Sure.

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Wouldn't that employee expect that the policy would carry over to pagers? When you think of what's the reason why they want to look at the e-mails, wouldn't the same reason apply?

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Maybe -- maybe everybody else knows this, but what is the difference between the pager and the e-mail?

MR. DAMMEIER: Sure. The e-mail, looking at the computer policy, that goes through the city's computer, it goes through the city's server, it goes through all the equipment that -- that has -- that the city can easily monitor. Here the pagers are a separate device that goes home with you, that travels with you, that you can use on duty, off-duty.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: You can do that with emails.

MR. DAMMEIER: Certainly, certainly. But . . . in this instance it went through no city equipment, it went through Arch Wireless and then was transmitted to [another person].

Instead of ignorant questions from a technology illiterate CJ, the exchange above cuts to the very core of the case. The Ontario email policy was based in part on the use of city-owned computers and network resources, allowing the department to audit emails stored on city-owned servers. Justice Roberts' question was searching out a legally significant difference between the expectations of privacy with the email situation described above and that of messages sent on a pager - which used no resources, other than the actual pager device itself, besides the Arch Wireless network.

I understand that it is easy - with a little editing - to score some points by painting the Court as out of touch. Attacks like this give credence to the opponents to allowing TV cameras into Supreme Court oral arguments. A ten-second sound bite can't always convey the nuanced back and forth of a legal argumentation at the highest level. Cameras could open up the doors for millions of Americans to experience one of the most important institutions in our country. Unfortunately, it would also open the Supreme Court to attack from those who would forget the whole of the argument and merely twist snippets to fit their agenda.

Allow Me To Introduce Myself

Welcome to Innovation Congress!

As I launch this project, it might be helpful to tell you a little bit about myself and my vision for Innovation Congress. My undergraduate degree is in the hard sciences, but my chosen profession is the law. I see this site as a forum for discussing the intersection between my two passions. The primary focus will be developments in science & technology policy and law. This encompasses a broad range of issues, including science education, alternative energy funding in climate change legislation, space policy and funding, government transparency, online privacy and intellectual property.

I chose the name Innovation Congress not just because I intend to follow legislative developments in the science and technology realm, but out of a desire to embracing a broader meaning of congress - a forum for people to come together and discuss important issues. I hope my posts spur vigorous debate in the comments. In that spirit, I welcome guest contributors who wish to express opposing viewpoints or address issues I've yet to recognize.

Once again, welcome to Innovation Congress. I hope you enjoy.