Electronic privacy

Debate continues to rage over the proposed Google Books settlement. The subject, which was the topic of an ACS Issue Brief by Prof. James Grimmelman and a ACSblog reply by David Balto, was taken up recently by Steve Pociask, president of the American Consumer Institute Center for Citizen Research.

The settlement would permit Google to give the public access to scores of "orphan works," or copyrighted material whose owners either are unknown or cannot be found.

Pociask takes issue with the settlement: 

[T]he current book search settlement gives the most dominant online firm a significant competitive advantage over its rivals, delays entry by would-be rivals and hands Google favorable pricing over other Web-centric competitors. The results would likely lead to market power that could permanently lockout competitors, thereby posing anticompetitive risks to the public. Furthermore, this would be accomplished by a single judge's decision, instead of through legislative means or public discourse, or market forces.

When surfing the Internet, consumers find most of their information using search engines, and mostly using Google. Through Web site rankings and ad placement, Google already influences how we find Web content. Google also tracks and retains your Web site browsing history for the purpose of "behavioral advertising." Now, if this court settlement is approved, Google will know exactly what you are reading.

President Bush received bad advice from his lawyers regarding some crucial decisions in the war on terror, including National Security Agency surveillance of American citizens, detention and trial by military commission of suspected terrorists, and authorization of harsh interrogation techniques-the torture question. In each of these contexts, the President's lawyers made broad and even unprecedented claims of unilateral executive power after a secret process of decision. Their advice exceeded the bounds of professional responsibility.

Legal advice to a President is always sympathetic to his policy goals. Advisers feel political and personal loyalty to the President who selected them. Competition for influence within the administration fosters telling a President what he wants to hear. Also, the culture of the Executive Branch ensures sympathy. Given these powerful incentives to support the President's policy agenda, what can and should constrain the lawyers? First, there is the obligation of the oath to defend the Constitution that they all take. The lawyers also have a second obligation in their professional responsibility to "exercise independent professional judgment and render candid advice." As Robert Jackson said, "the value of legal counsel is in the detachment of the advisor from the advised." We expect that distance from professionals of all kinds, our doctors for example.

To buttress the duty of independent judgment, executive advisers need to accept the principle of the Steel Seizure case that Congress can lay down the law, even in time of war. Support of a broad initiative power for the executive is fully consistent with this principle. Some of President Bush's lawyers followed a theory that the executive has broad unilateral power in the foreign realm that Congress may not control, except perhaps by withholding funds or impeachment. This risks a destabilizing pursuit of executive hegemony, one very erosive of the rule of law.