ACLU, SF’s wifi deal and slippery Chris Vein
My SRL/GETV pal Eddie just posted this video of an ACLU spokesperson calling Chris Vein* (the Mayor’s Senior Advisor for Technology, and Acting Executive Director of the Department of Telecommunications and Information Services — “DTIS”) on the carpet for not responding to the many huge privacy issues underlying SF’s proposed free citywide wifi deal with Earthlnk/Google. Eddie was (as usual) causing trouble videoblogging from Netsquared. I’m so buying him a drink for catching this on camera. Snip:
“Chris Vein of DTIS presents the San Francisco TechConnect project which will roll out citywide broadband wifi by Google & Earthlink. From Vein’s presentation at the Netsquared conference in San Jose on May 30, 2006.”
* WTF — he’s SF’s tech czar, but has no Wikipedia entry? And why can’t I find his site?
I find myself somewhat bemused by all the concerns about this project because, yeah, there are some certain compromises, but I think they’re all acceptable because what we’re talking about is a free Wi-Fi network created by corporate entities. Either there have to be compromises so that it makes sense for the corporations involved or the people of the city are going to have to foot the bill. And does anyone actually believe that the city would end up creating a free Wi-Fi network that would actually not take forever, cost a ridiculous amount, and be all kinds of problematic?
Also, on the privacy front, Google will require an e-mail address, but you can sign up with a dummy address. Or whatever address you want to use. So what’s the big deal?
As it is, when you sign up for internet access on any other service, you’re signing up with an e-mail address…and your credit card information…and your home/business addresses…and your phone number…and often times you social security and birth date and other personal info involved in a credit check.
So…what’s the big deal about using a dummy e-mail address to sign onto a free wireless service that is handing out dynamic IPs and which, by definition, doesn’t tie you to any specific physical address?
If anything, there are less privacy concerns with this service than the services most people are using today in their homes and offices.
@Chester
Dude – some of the vendors who bid the SF WiFi project did much better on the privacy and free speech issues yet the city keeps jamming the Google Earthlink solution.
This is a municipal network – think about it, why shouldn’t people have at least the same privacy as their library records – and note San Francisco has a special Patriot Act Watch Law especially for protecting the privacy of these records.
Why are we so concerned about the companies well being? They always complain about privacy – it’s hard to do right.
Why should the poor who need help getting online the most – have to give up their privacy?
Here is my commentary on the video:
Here is video of ACLU directly asking Chris Vein how he will support Free Speech and address Privacy concerns on the SF TechConnect WiFi Project on May 30th in San Jose.
As was the case at the May 19th and previous city hearings, DTIS continues to refuse to agree to any baselines or engage in a public discussion of these issues – instead shrouding the discussion in the need to keep the negotiation secret and to get the Best Deal for the city – yet they will not say what the best deal is. He also advocates that the private firm must make money on the initiative – SF is giving the vendor free access to all the city property like light poles and building tops. Earthlink/Google need to figure out how to make money with the conditions the city puts on the initiative – not the other way around. Plus 5 other vendors bid the project – if Earthlink/Google can’t meet the demands then the city can go to these vendors.
The city has gotten four letters about this issue over five months yet he still can’t explain how privacy could be protected.
Nicky Ozer of ACLUNC then points out that there are other costs besides money here. There was no discussion of getting digital inclusion funding as has been the case in the Philly deal. It is funny that Chris mentions the 62 criteria used to judge the vendors because they refuse to release the detailed scoring of the proposals – only summary scores, and they refuse to provide the answers to the 15 oral interview questions.
Also why can’t we see a significant pilot of the technology before the contract is signed? We want to see real-world how privacy, capacity, coverage, work before the city commits to this WiFi Franchise Monopoly.
This is looking more and more like the ComCast deal – signed sealed delivered contract that the Supervisors are forced to approve without the public playing a part in the criteria of the deal.
So that video is the Q&A portion of the session. This video, which runs about 9 minutes, is Vein’s presentation that leads up to this, complete with Powerpoint slides.
Chester: SFLan has been offering free Wifi in SF for awhile now and there is no demand for email addresses or anything else to use their network. Also, you’re not required to give up an email address or demographic info to use computers or wifi in the public library.
The biggest thing that bugs me about all this is that we’re stuck with a 300k for free / 1meg for $20 deal when many other countries around the world have 10x the speeds we do for the same price. In 2004, South Koreans average broadband speeds were 8megs to to the home. If Google/Earthlink get a 10 year monopoly to provide this straw pipe now, what’s the incentive for them to boost speeds as hardware and bandwidth prices drop over the next few years?
I don’t disagree with you in spirit, obviously, and you bring up a lot of good points. I think it boils down to this:
1. Yes, there are other vendors and they may have offered to concede more. But the question is: are they actually viable? What are the chances they will create a workable profit model that will enable them to sustain the network? Basically, big concessions don’t mean anything if the vendor goes belly-up and leaves the city with a dead network.
But I guess it’s hard to evaluate this because the process has been far less than open. I would totally agree to making it more transparent (though I also understand why total transparency and open public discourse makes these kinds of projects take forever.
2. Again: I’m not sure how user tracking is such a big concern. Just sign up with an e-mail address. It doesn’t have to be one that is in any way tied to your identity. I don’t get why I should care if anyone tracks the internet usage of “fuckingdieyouspammer@gmail.com”.
And, again, all the wired telcos have intimate access to the landscape with all the shit running beneath the ground, but I don’t see all this hubbub being raised about the fact that, for DSL or Cable access, you have to give up much more and much more intimate personal information.
Is it because those companies are bound by covenants about protecting that information? (That’s not a rhetorical question…I’m really wondering.)
1) City is required to provide expanded weekly reports on the status of any Franchise negotiations based on past problems
2) ACLU, EFF and EPIC have sent four letters to San Francisco – advocating for Municipal WiFi with privacy protections – I believe that have received no response from the city and it appears that the RFP and other aspects of the TechConnect initiative has largely not addressed the issues they have persistently raised.
read the 4 letters here:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/internet/sfws41906.html
This is a muni sponsored solution – why can’t see demand a model the protects privacy and free speech?
Eddie:
1. As far as I can see, SFLan is very cool, but it’s totally voluntary, no? If so, could they commit to a level of coverage or service beyond simply what they are capable of providing? Also: if they are operational now, then I don’t see why they can’t continue, regardless of what the City does with Google/Earthlink or anyone else.
2. Your gripe with the bandwidth available in other countries is not something Google/Earthlink can solve. Whether or not we get better bandwidth is an if, as you write. And, I guess, Google’s incentive to upgrade the bandwidth would rest upon their incentive to provide what they’re providing now: find a way to monetize the service so that it makes sense.
Not very reassuring, I agree. But I guess my entire viewpoint rests upon these basic questions:
A. If not Google/Earthlink, who else is going to build this? Who else could figure out a feasible profit model that also works within public requirements on privacy/universality/etc.? I don’t believe the City will get around to it, itself (and imagine your Wi-Fi being managed by the same sort of bureaucracy as the rest of the City). And I don’t think there’s any other private entity that can either. There’s a lot of would-be commercial wi-fi networks littering the landscape.
So, basically: if not Google/Earthlink, then who?
B. Again: how is my privacy a concern if I’m going to sign on with a dummy e-mail address?
So far, neither of you have addressed that question. Kimo’s sent a lot of info to me via e-mail and I appreciate his dedication to the issue.
I guess I’m just thinking that, if Google/Earthlink don’t do it, nobody really will. And, based upon that, we don’t lose anything by letting them do it. That’s pretty much the foundation for why I’m not very aggro in contemplating all the details, as important as they may be. Because, for example, to me, I don’t really care about disaster provisioning when I don’t think anyone will build and maintain it in the first place.
@chester
if you read the EFF/ACLU/EPIC letters you would see that there is a concern about tracking where an account is used and if click streams are recorded as well as the location that this occured. This is at an account level – therefore all activity could be tracked – doesn’t matter if you gave a fake email address – pretty quickly it would be easy to identify who you were if you signed into any accounts you use online as well as your location in the city.
There were 6 bids for the RFP – some do a great job of protecting privacy – with a business model they assert works. Additionally think about it – libraries are not private entities they are paid by the city – some governments have decided to pay for a WiFi solution rather than privatizing it – this provides more control.
This whole SF WiFi deal from the start has been a disaster because Mayor Newsom got cozy with the Google founders on a long trip back from Swizterland – this makes political sense for Newsom – rich company and controls most of advertising on the internet (helpful for future campaigns).
Let’s make SF a model solution – we can do better – Philly spent 9 months doing community outreach and needs analysis – none of that has been done here. What have a lot of smart technical people here in SF – why not engage them?
I can see the concern regarding correlation of your activity with other accounts you log into. I guess my thought on that is that that sort of correlation — to an even greater extent — is already possible with all the commercial services most of us subscribe to and I don’t see why it’s necessary for there to be a higher standard in this situation.
After all, through your home internet service, you could conceivably have all your activity correlated not just with your various online accounts (which may or may not reveal anything about your identity), but with your actual identity, your address, and all your financial information.
So, I’m wondering: why is the privacy bar set higher in this instance? Is it because this network gets the City’s stamp of approval? And, if so, then why does that make a difference?
As for other bids conceding more privacy protection and claiming financial feasibility…I find it hard to believe as I don’t even see how this network will be financially feasible for Google. (I just think they have pockets deep enough to support a financially unfeasible project.) Perhaps I’m wrong but I just don’t see it.
On libraries — yes, they offer service and are funded through public funds. But that doesn’t mean that they can be a channel through which to operate a city-wide free Wi-Fi network. And the failure of Prop. 81 illustrates that the libraries are in fundamental financial trouble without the burden of being the fount of citywide Wi-Fi access.
As for the city paying for, implementing, and administering a system with public funds…call me cynical, but I’d believe that possibility only after seeing it happen. I’m not interested on relying upon internet service provided by the same bureaucratic structure that provides services like, say, MUNI. Not to mention the fact that a city-funded system would not be free, like the Google/Earthlink system. Instead of a free, opt-in service, it would, in effect, require all city taxpayers to pay for it.
On the theory that this is a cozy deal between Newsom and Google in order to benefit Newsome…I wouldn’t deny that possibility, but I think, personally, the more likely explanation is that he’s very impressed by the financial wherewithal of Google and, thus far, their record of behavior.
It would make sense to work toward working with a company with the capability of supporting projects that don’t seem to make financial sense at first, and, furthermore, one whose record of behavior warrants a greater level of trust than most others. But, then, that’s my personal opinion.
As for making the SF system a model system — anyone would obviously agree. But I’d be pretty happy with the proposed system: more than usable bandwidth that one can elect to use or not use, which doesn’t cost any taxpayer a single penny, sponsored by companies most capable of keeping it going, and which poses no more (and, in fact, less) privacy concerns than the commercial services that are being prevailingly used at the present.
Is it the ideal, model solution? I guess not. But I also guess I just don’t see how it is actually a bad thing.
@chester
Well first – did you read the letters from ACLU, EFF and EPIC? I feel some of your issues might be better informed after reading them.
2nd, we can improve on the system thas has been forced on us by the Mayor and his cronies who are happy to take whatever Google/Earthlink offer.
3rd this is a municipal WiFi franchise getting exclusive access to vertical city assets – the city has every right to put its stamp on what it feels is the best model.
4th – why has the muni wifi discussion been almost devoid of considering a community model like sflan or austin wireless or seattle wireless? Why does this have to be another privitization solution? What does the public give up in their privacy for something that doesn’t cost anything up front?
And what happens when a new version of the tech comes out and now, well we can’t offer free any more if google/earthlink roll it out – think how the SF Chronicle has gone from 25 cents to 50 cents because they have no real compeition.
It seems that there is a concern for companies to make money as the excuse for not changing the Earthlink/Google deal – hello? 5 other companies bid the project.
On Google’s behavior – they provided a censored search engine to China and they have no record of rolling out a sucessful WiFi network – in fact the Mountain View initiative has been delayed and Google couldn’t even get wifi working on their recent Press Day on their own campus. Plus this is not Google’s network in SF – it is piggybacked on Earthlink.
We should demand significant pilots on any network to work out the capacity, privacy, security and coverage issues before a contract for the WiFi Monopoly Franchise agreement is signed.
Why does DTIS refuse to agree to baseline privacy, digital inclusion funding, and many other issues – shrouding it wis a current negotiations cloud – SF has a special provision for Franchise agreements requiring weekly summary of all parties positions – yet DTIS has refused to provide them.
Why should the poor who are supposed to be helped with this solution required to give up their privacy to use it? Why do they get crappy 300k speed when the city specificially asked for at least 1000k (1MB)?
Prop 81 – was for all the libraries that were not funded on the prior bond measure – they were the ones that did not rate high enough – why should we fund poorly rated proposals – and this is a state discussion – not a city one.
We have a chance to make a much better municipal WiFi model – what is wrong with that?
Something to consider on the Privacy question – Chris Vein’s former employer SAIC and it’s relationship with the NSA.
“Mr. Vein was AVP and General Manager, Western Operations of a consulting organization at Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)”
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.saic29jan29,1,5221259.story
Little known contractor has close ties with NSA
When the National Security Agency went shopping for a private contractor to help it build a state-of-the-art tool for plucking key threats to the nation from a worldwide sea of digital communication, the company it chose was Science Applications International Corp. SAIC