December 21, 2020
Top 10 tech policies states can advance in 2021
Perhaps a bright spot in the darkness that is 2020, technology countered many of the challenges brought on by the pandemic. Millions of workers traded their downtown offices for their home offices due to mandatory lockdowns. Schools moved to a virtual space, businesses initiated online ordering options, and doctors provided medical services through telemedicine. None of this would have been possible without the significant advancements in tech innovation over the past few years.
Technology—and tech policy in particular—is more important than ever. In fact, almost every policy issue now involves technology in some way. State policymakers realize this and want guidance on how they can protect constitutional rights while also creating an environment that doesn’t hinder innovation. State think tanks are in a unique position to help state lawmakers advance effective tech policies that improve the lives of the people of their state.
State Policy Network’s Todd Davidson sat down with three technology experts to discuss 10 policies state think tanks can advance in upcoming legislative sessions.
Watch the recording here.
Passing or improving existing anti-strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP) laws will protect people from frivolous lawsuits that chill speech. These laws increase public participation by allowing judges to dismiss meritless lawsuits designed to silence people for their speech early in litigation.
Government surveillance without a warrant, particularly of personal data stored on corporate servers or personal cell phones, need to be curbed via changes in law. With the exception of cell site location information, state law enforcement can access an individual’s email and other data without a warrant. States need to update their warrant requirements to recognize the privacy interests individuals now hold in their data.
Telehealth services promote accessibility to healthcare for everyone, particularly underserved and rural populations, but are often stymied by outdated rules or rules crafted by incumbent healthcare providers. Also, regulatory barriers can limit the legitimate use of technologies (e.g. electronic health records, genetic testing) that empower consumers to make choices about their healthcare.
States have an opportunity to lead and compete on transportation technologies by crafting laws friendly to innovation without sacrificing safety. Autonomous vehicles and drone regulations should encompass both principles.
Broadband access and investment should be led by private providers with states streamlining rules for deployment and not the provision of government-funded services. States should cut red tape preventing 5G and broadband deployment, pass Over-the-Air-Reception Devices (OTARD) reform, reduce satellite placement fees, incentivize “dig once” streamlining, and utilize public-private partnerships that focus on conduits and other dumb network elements (a dumb network is one that performs minimal processing to support running activities).
Data and privacy regulation policies on the state level by their nature attempt to regulate interstate commerce beyond a state’s borders. These policies would make internet and digital services less accessible. Instead, policies should reiterate that states cannot dictate the data regulations of other states without violating the Dormant Commerce Clause.
Policies to regulate social media companies at the state level face interstate commerce issues. Also, efforts meant to impose political neutrality or other content moderation standards would inherently result in government action and less speech.
Sharing economy services like ride-sharing, meal delivery, or other tailored services are often fought by incumbent industries or blocked by outdated laws. Policies should be technology neutral and allow innovative services like these to emerge and compete in the marketplace.
Regulatory sandboxes allow industries to test innovative products without the burden of unnecessary regulations and under the supervision of state agencies. Their benefit is twofold: they allow industries to create new products and allow state agencies to determine which regulations are necessary and which ones are not in a controlled environment.
Facial recognition technology deployed by the government should be treated differently than when it is deployed by private or commercial entities. There should be policies to ensure that local and state law enforcement have strict limitations on when they can use facial recognition along with policies and educational efforts to promote commercial adoption and deployment.
