T
HIERER
_P
ROOF
(D
O
N
OT
D
ELETE
) 2/11/2013
10:53
AM
309
Technopanics, Threat Inflation, and theDanger of an Information TechnologyPrecautionary Principle
Adam Thierer
*
I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................. 311
II.
ARGUMENTUM IN CYBER-TERROREM
: A FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATING FEAR APPEALS ........................................................................ 312
A. Appeals to Fear as an Argumentation Device .......... 312
B. Deconstructing Fear Appeal Arguments: The Violent Media Case Study ....................................... 313
C. Technopanics .............................................................. 315
D. Threat Inflation ......................................................... 317
1. Cybersecurity Threat Inflation ........................... 318
2. Online Safety Threat Inflation ............................ 320
3. Online Privacy Threat Inflation .......................... 325
4. Economic- and Business-Related ThreatInflation .............................................................. 329
III. REASONS PESSIMISM DOMINATES DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE INTERNET AND INFORMATIONTECHNOLOGY .............................................................. 332
A. Generational Differences ........................................... 333
B. Hyper-Nostalgia, Pessimistic Bias, and SoftLudditism ................................................................. 335
C. Bad News Sells: The Role of the Media, Advocates, and the Listener .................................... 337
D. The Role of Special Interests and IndustryInfighting ................................................................. 338
E. Elitist Attitudes Among Academics andIntellectuals ............................................................. 344
F. The Role of “Third-Person-Effect Hypothesis” .......... 345
© 2013 Adam Thierer
*
Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center at George Mason Universi-ty. The author wishes to thank the following individuals for helpful thoughtson various drafts of this article: Paul Dragos Aligica, Jerry Brito, Will Rine-hart, Adam Marcus, Gregory Conko, and two anonymous reviewers.
T
HIERER
_P
ROOF
(D
O
N
OT
D
ELETE
) 2/11/2013
10:53
AM
310
MINN.
J. L. SCI. & TECH.
[Vol. 14:1
IV. TYING IT ALL TOGETHER: FEAR CYCLES .................. 347
V. WHY TECHNOPANICS AND THREAT INFLATION ARE DANGEROUS ........................................................ 350
A. Foster Animosities and Suspicions Among theCitizenry ................................................................... 351
B. Create Distrust of Many Institutions, Especiallythe Press ................................................................... 351
C. Often Divert Attention from Actual, Far MoreSerious Risks ............................................................ 351
D. Lead to Calls for Information Control....................... 352
VI. WHEN PANIC BECOMES POLICY: THE RISE OF AN INFO-TECH “PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE” ... 352
A. A Range of Responses to Theoretical Risk ................ 356
B. The Perils of “Playing it Safe” ................................... 361
C. Anticipation vs. Resiliency ........................................ 364
D. Case Studies: Applying the Resiliency Model toInformation Technology Issues ............................... 368
1. Online Child Safety, Privacy, and ReputationManagement ....................................................... 368
2. Cybersecurity ....................................................... 373
3. Market Power and Economic Issues ................... 374
E. Resiliency Makes Even More Sense WhenPracticality of Control is Considered ...................... 376
VII. A FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATING AND ADDRESSING TECHNOLOGY RISK .......................... 379
A. Defining the Problem ................................................. 380
B.
Consider Legal and Economic Constraints ............... 381
C. Consider Alternative, Less Restrictive Approaches ............................................................... 383
D. Evaluate Actual Outcomes ........................................ 384
VIII. CONCLUSION ................................................................. 385
T
HIERER
_P
ROOF
(D
O
N
OT
D
ELETE
) 2/11/2013
10:53
AM
2013]
TECHNOPANICS
311
I. INTRODUCTION
“In time we hate that which we often fear
.”
1
―
William ShakespeareFear is an extremely powerful motivational force. In publicpolicy debates, appeals to fear are often used in an attempt tosway opinion or bolster the case for action. Such appeals areused to convince citizens that threats to individual or socialwell-being may be avoided only if specific steps are taken. Of-ten these steps take the form of anticipatory regulation basedon the precautionary principle.Such “fear appeal arguments” are frequently on display inthe Internet policy arena and often take the form of a full-blown “moral panic” or “technopanic.”
2
These panics are intensepublic, political, and academic responses to the emergence oruse of media or technologies, especially by the young.
3
In theextreme, they result in regulation or censorship.While cyberspace has its fair share of troubles and trou-blemakers, there is no evidence that the Internet is leading togreater problems for society than previous technologies did.
4
That has not stopped some from suggesting there are reasonsto be particularly fearful of the Internet and new digital tech-nologies.
5
There are various individual and institutional factors
1. W
ILLIAM
S
HAKESPEARE
,
Antony and Cleopatra
act 1, sc. 3, line 12,
in
T
HE
C
OMPLETE
W
ORKS OF
W
ILLIAM
S
HAKESPEARE
1127, 1132 (Stanley Wells& Gary Taylor eds., Clarendon Press 1986).2. Adam Thierer,
Parents, Kids, & Policymakers in the Digital Age: Safe- guarding Against “Techno-Panics
,” I
NSIDE
ALEC
(Am. Legislative Exch.Council, D.C.), July 2009, at 16, 16–17 [hereinafter
Safeguarding AgainstTechnopanics
],
available at
http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/articles/090715-against-technopanics-adam-thierer-Inside-ALEC.pdf.
See also
Josh Constine,
Selling Digital Fear
, T
ECH
C
RUNCH
(Apr. 7, 2012), http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/07/selling-digital-fear (discussing public panic about availability of private information online).3.
See Safeguarding Against Technopanics
,
supra
note 2, at 16 (“[S]ocialand cultural debates quickly become political debates.”).4.
See
Adam Thierer,
Fact and Fiction in the Debate over Video GameRegulation
, P
ROGRESS ON
P
OINT
(Progress & Freedom Found., D.C.), Mar.2006, at 20–21 [hereinafter
Fact and Fiction
],
available at
http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop13.7videogames.pdf (identifying a de-crease in youth murder, rape, robbery, assault, alcohol and drug abuse, teenbirth rates, high school dropout rates, and suicide rates).5.
Cf.
Alice E. Marwick,
To Catch a Predator? The MySpace Moral Panic
,F
IRST
M
ONDAY
(June 2, 2008), http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2152/1966 (giving examples of reasons some arefearful of the Internet, but arguing that these reasons are not based on empir-ical evidence).
Technopanics and Threat Inflation [Adam Thierer - Mercatus Center]
Suggested citation: Adam Thierer, "Technopanics, Threat Inflation, and the
Danger of an Information Technology
Precautionary Principle, 14 Minn. J. L. Sci. & Tech. 309 (2013)
Abstract:
Fear is an extremely powerful motivating force, especially in public…
2.1K
Reads
1
Readcasts
959
Embed Views
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
