Adam Thierer, a research fellow at the conservative Mercatus Center, makes a strong case for “permissionless innovation,” a hands-off approach to technological advances. He explains that crafting reasonable regulations is difficult because policy makers assume that the past predicts the future and because they begin from a position of fearing the worst-case scenarios. However, technology moves too fast for legislative procedures to match its progress. Thierer’s energetic prose, supported by detailed references, deserves careful reading. While always politically neutral, getAbstract recommends his compelling case for a fearless laissez-faire approach to regulating new technology to regulators and to those who are wary of regulation.
“Why Permissionless Innovation Matters”
The Internet and its related technologies created a world of immediately available information, a setting in which anyone’s voice can be heard. These advances bloomed in an environment of permissionless innovation, a climate that invites experimentation and risk taking and that encourages aggressive failure. Permissionless innovation benefits society, and seems sure to lead to more and better communication and networking. Beyond these breakthroughs lie new advances into the “fully customizable” physical world – the “Internet of Things,” in which “smart” homes, appliances, vehicles, and the like will communicate with their users and with each other. However, wrong-headed regulation and legislation addressing the real issues of privacy and security could stifle the Internet’s future promise.
The past decades have produced invaluable innovations: faster computers, pads and tablets; generations of mobile phones; and the rise of the Internet. Consumers came to expect faster and better connectivity, and they got it in a prevailing climate of permissionless innovation that opened doors on widely different levels – encompassing professionals...
Adam Thierer, a senior research fellow with the Mercatus Center Technology Policy Program, specializes in the Internet and free speech, and reports on media, safety and digital privacy.
Comment on this summary