A group of us filed formal comments with the FCC arguing that “free, filtered broadband,” as the FCC proposed to mandate in the AWS-3 spectrum auction, is not “Internet.” Comments here, in WT Docket 07-195.

Commenters strongly support the deployment and ubiquitous availability of broadband services across the country. We are concerned, however, that the Commisson’s proposed rule requiring content-filtering on broadband offered over the AWS-3 band destroys the “Internet” character of the service. The Internet is distinguished by its flexibility as a platform on which new services can be built with no pre-arrangement. While requiring filtering of known protocols in itself raises serious First Amendment conflicts, forcing the blocking of unknown or unrecognized traffic hampers both speech and innovation. We therefore urge the Commission to drop the filtering conditions from its Final Rule.

Thanks to all who helped with the Comments!

Berkman@10 was wonderfully Twittered, Flickrd, and blogged, with technology enhancing the in-person connections.

Next stop, CFP.

As one of those who knew the Berkman Center before it was “Berkman,” I’m particularly pleased to be helping to celebrate its 10th Anniversary season.

When we launched “The Berkman Center for Internet & Society” in 1998, some wondered whether we were just talking about the “law of the horse,” but the intervening 10 years have shown us that horse has legs. The Internet’s distributed communication systems have taught us something new about speech, creativity, and culture — showing the economic flourishing of all these in a distributed, open network.

Berkman’s founding visionary, Charlie Nesson, recognized openness as a core principle early, and others have gradually caught on: freedom at the core means more opportunities to generate value elsewhere in the network. Free software supports better-specialized hardware, user-optimized development, and electronic commerce. Open-access non-discriminatory networks support both commerce and communities.

The challenge for the next 10 years will be to preserve that openness. Join us in person or online as we work to meet that challenge!

Berkman’s Stop Badware project just released a new study, in which they report the “paradox” that most users feel safe online, despite a rash of malefactors and potential mishaps:

CAMBRIDGE, Mass., March 31, 2008 - Nearly 90 percent of Americans say they feel safe online despite the rising tide of spyware, phishing and other badware threatening Internet users, according to a new poll sponsored by StopBadware.org, the consumer protection initiative aimed at combating dangerous software.

…

“What we have here is an Internet security paradox,” said Maxim Weinstein, who manages the StopBadware.org team at Harvard Law School’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society. “Americans see themselves as safe online, even as we see an ongoing trend of organized criminal elements using the Internet to target unsuspecting users.” Weinstein will testify at the Federal Trade Commission on April 1 about how to better educate users about the dangers of phishing, a deceptive practice responsible for $2.1 billion in identity theft damages last year, according to Consumer Reports.

I wonder, though, do we think that mistaken feeling of safety is a bad thing? I don’t — I think it’s great that we have enough of a safety net that people who don’t have the technical competence to deal with PC security threats nonetheless are being generative and participatory. I don’t think we’d gain by scaring those Internet users, even through education. While malware problems are often compared to public health, we don’t have a solution that’s as easy and effective as one-time vaccination to make computer users safer.

I’d suggest instead that social insurance and systematic efforts to prosecute criminal use of malware are better responses than demanding that individual Internet users pay attention, educate themselves, and stay vigilant against ever-mutating threats.