Bartlett Cleland

A ban on facial recognition software used by law enforcement or government agencies that started in San Francisco and Oakland has, in part, gone statewide

Government often seems quite adept at solving yesterday’s problems, building or protecting systems that are irrelevant today.

Some might recall searching for “pirate treasure” in their youth, hoping to come across an abandoned gold mine brimming with wealth, or even finding a path to candy land.

The fundamental problem of defining privacy is the same as defining obscenity. What is an outrage to one person is no big deal to another.

T-Mobile’s CEO John Legere and Sprint’s Executive Chairman Marcelo Claure discussed at length their combined company’s plans for 5G deployment if the government approves their merger.

Next week, the Senate Commerce Committee is scheduled to move forward on the ”STREAMLINE Small Cell Deployment Act.”

Cyberthreats against the private sector have been well covered in the press over the last few years.

Despite coughing up reams of information about themselves in exchange for often minimal benefits, consumers are now suddenly concerned about their privacy. 

For two decades the internet hummed along, creating new opportunities for people, business, and ideas.

The government industrial policy efforts around automated vehicles should end, for the sake of our safety, security and privacy.

Tomorrow, the power of one vote could become very apparent.

There must have been a time, a moment, in each instance when freedom and liberty triumphed that the people exclaimed “Finally!” Today is such a day for internet freedom.

For years consumers have watched videotapes, DVDs, and now digital movies as they see fit. But now a filtering enabled video streaming service would seek to upset that balance just so it can use other’s property without permission to make money.