Tech Talk: CDT Files Suit Against President Trump's Executive Order Talking Tech w/ Alexandra Givens
We have another exciting show for you this week!<br><br>Last month, The Center Democracy and Technology filed a lawsuit against President Trump’s “Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship”. The suit argues that the Executive Order violates the First Amendment by curtailing and chilling the constitutionally protected speech of online platforms and individuals.<br><br>In today’s episode, you will hear from Alexandra Reeve Givens, President, and CEO of The Center for Democracy and Technology, as we discuss CDT’s lawsuit against President Trump’s “Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship,” as well as her vision for 2020 and beyond. <br><br>Let’s get ready to talk tech!<br><br>To read CDT’s full complaint: https://cdt.org/press/cdt-suit-challenges-presidents-executive-order-targeting-first-amendment-protected-speech/<br>More on Alex: https://cdt.org/staff/alexandra-reeve-givens/<br><br>More on our host, Jamal https://bit.ly/cdtjamal<br><br>Attribution: sounds used from Psykophobia, Taira Komori, BenKoning, Zabuhailo, bloomypetal, guitarguy1985, bmusic92, and offthesky of freesound.org.
Top Keywords
- platforms 0.011
- speech 0.007
- section thirty 0.006
- important 0.006
- encryption 0.006
- social media 0.006
- media 0.006
- social 0.005
- policy 0.005
- media platforms 0.005
- president 0.004
- thirty 0.004
Transcript
Welcome to Tech Talk. Bye. CT.
Tea. Welcome to CDT's Tech Talk, where we dish on tech and Internet policy while also explaining what these policies mean to our daily lives. I'm Jamal Magby, and it's time to talk tech. On 05/11/2020, the Center for Democracy and Technology welcomed our new president and CEO, Alexandra Reeve Givens, to the team. Prior to joining CDT, Alex served as the founding executive director for Georgetown Law's Institute for Technology Law and Policy. Alex joined CDT with deep expertise at the intersection of technology, law, and public policy, particularly on privacy, algorithmic fairness, competition, and online speech. Here to share her vision for CDT's future is Alexandra Reed Givens, president and CEO of the Center for Democracy and Technology. Alex, thank you so much for being here today.
Thank you for having me. As you know, I'm a big fan of the show.
We've heard. So to kick us off, what brought you to CDT, and what opportunities leading the organization excite you most?
I joined CDT because I just have a deep respect for the organization's history and its position to affect change on really important issues in technology policy, whether it's thinking about consumer privacy, government surveillance, free expression, Internet architecture, election security, really, you name it in terms of the cutting edge issues in tech policy. CDT's experts have been there at the forefront leading the conversation. I worked with CDT a lot when I was on the senate judiciary committee for a number of years and just knew and saw the value of having trusted experts that I could go to to help focus on real solutions that put the public interest first. And for me now to be able to cross over and to be here leading the organization, it really is a dream come true.
That's awesome. So CDT has been around for about twenty five years. Where do you see CDT fitting into the current social and political climate, and how important is CDT's voice?
When I think about CDT's contribution to the policy landscape, I I really view our biggest value add as just being a trusted forum that can bring together a wide range of technical expertise, civil society advocates, affected communities, companies, and others to push for meaningful solutions that that really do put the public interest and individual rights first. We're deeply grounded in our commitment to civil rights and civil liberties, and we want to use that expertise to help policymakers and businesses get to the right answer. So, you know, when I was in the senate, I really could see the need, as I said, for that trusted outside voice to help that work. You sit in that office hearing, strong opinions, we'll say, from all sides, and it takes real work and real knowledge to figure out the actionable path forward that centers public interest and, you know, tries to get the right result. In my view, we're just at a time when congressional offices are more leanly staffed and under resourced than ever, when the executive branch is spending less time thinking constructively about these issues. And so I see a real role for CDT to play that trusted adviser position, helping to make sure that we're advancing smart policy solutions on these questions.
That's awesome. So switching gears a bit, you took over CDT amidst the global pandemic. How is that affecting your role, and how do you approach CDT's work?
Yeah. I, we can decide to not expect to spend my first months in this role getting to know everybody on staff through endless video calls. As you yourself have seen, Jamaa, I have two little kids at home. And as for my two year old Charlotte, that dial and chime is just like the Pavlovian dog whistle for her to come bursting through the office door. So, you know, both the team and our partner organizations and people on the hill and all other types of embarrassing audiences are getting to know my personal life very well. In turn you know, on a more serious note, in terms of the COVID response, CDT just mobilized instantly and has been deeply engaged in a way that I find really meaningful. Our COVID data for life and liberty task force, for example, is focused on how data can be used to responsibly fight the pandemic while preserving civil liberties and promoting civil rights. I bring that up as an example because I think it's a really nice illustration of what CDT does best. The task force is bringing together a range of voices from civil society, you know, our partners like the ACLU, Data for Black Lives, EFF, academics, and then also companies like Google, Apple, and Microsoft who were at the forefront, in many of the technological responses to COVID to do joint work on questions like the equity implications of contact tracing apps. So for me, when I see us doing that, trying to bridge those communities and then most importantly, get widespread buy in from really influential voices on essential questions that affect people's lives, that's really, really important. Then we're also working on COVID response in other areas. For example, our student privacy team is helping state and local education officials understand how to deliver remote learning while still thinking about privacy and other protections for children online. We suddenly see all of these education officials basically having to operate as CIOs. Right? And they're really difficult tension, for them to have to navigate. So the TBT has stepped in there and is providing resources and support. We've joined the calls for congress to finally finally use this opportunity to help close the digital divide, and there's a lot more too. Not to be a shameless plug, but it is all described on our website. If you go to CD, we have a page specifically focused on our COVID response, And you'll see the way that we're working on it across a wide range of issue areas.
So switching gears a bit from COVID nineteen, you're also leading this organization at a time of significant protests across the country about police violence and racial injustice. Does CDT have a role to play in those questions? Without question.
Between the devastating impact that COVID has had on communities of color, in particular, thinking about the disparate outcomes for people in terms of exposure to the illness and who is doing the hard work in many instances and the dangerous work on the front lines, of caring for people. Between that traumatic impact on communities of color and then, of course, just the steady dump drumbeat of outrageous examples of disproportionate police violence, When those things come together, I think I hope that we've really reached a moment of reckoning in our society. You know, a lot of what we're seeing isn't new, but the scale of the protests, the engagement by mainstream organizations and companies does feel different. And to me, I think it's a really important moment in the country, and I think the tech policy has a really important role to play in the response. We're at a time when technology intermediates just an ever growing portion of our lives. Right? So from the use by law enforcement for surveillance, to whether and how people access information and opportunities online, to whose voices are heard on social media platforms, the role that those platforms play in amplifying or hopefully choosing not to amplify misinformation and threats. All of those are just huge questions facing our society, and I think the most important realization is that the impact of those issues and those technologies aren't felt equally by everyone. So that raises just really important questions about how the platform should respond, about how platforms, for example, should approach content moderation, how they can audit for bias in their algorithms and the techniques they should use. There's just vital work to be done centering questions of equity in tech policy conversations. Of course, many people are doing this work already. CDT has worked on these issues for a long time, But just in this moment in particular, we feel a really deep responsibility to play our part.
CDT, we have a lot of policy areas and a lot of issue areas that we focus on. How do you continue to learn in order to stay on top of things within your role?
So I read constantly. When I was in the senate, I often likened the job to being in grad school, where you just need to be in a constant state of consuming information and diverse viewpoints to try to stay up to date on new areas of concern and and potential responses. So so that's my main thing is really just trying to understand new areas of vulnerability, what potential interventions might be. For me, I think one of the biggest revolution in the time that I've worked in tech policy has been the way that social media platforms have helped removed barriers to information, so it's easier to hear from more voices now. So this is a little bit of a confession, but I access a huge amount of my inputs by following people on Twitter, following diverse policy groups, academics, government organizations. To me, I mean, I you know, I laugh about that because that's probably, like, not a good thing to admit one's dependence on social media. But why I find it so valuable is that you're just not you're not hearing only from people who have the bandwidth or the professional calling to write formal books and position papers, you know, or the people who think to email you the report that they've just written. It's much easier to feel connected to a wider range of voices and to just get a better sense of the sheer scale of issues to be worked on, what different people are saying about those issues, and to think about how we wanna position ourselves in the field to help to help respond.
That's great. Now looking to the future, what are your hopes for the future of CDT?
Well, we've just marked our twenty fifth anniversary, and to me, that's a really significant milestone, both honoring CDT's tremendous legacy in the space, but also thinking what that means for the future. And in particular, you know, in light of some of the issues that we've just talked about, right, that 2020 does feel like a turning point, and like a moment for very significant reflection, not only for companies, but within civil society to think about how we're engaging, on these really important questions for the country. So so when I think about that, I'm eager to double down on CDT's role in those conversations, continuing to convene diverse stakeholders, both in The US and The EU, where we have an office, but also through our partnerships around the world. Thinking specifically about how we do that, I think we have a really meaningful role to play bridging the conversations between technologists and public policy experts in particular so that we can push for public policies and oversight, frankly, that are just deeply grounded in technology and an understanding of what potential vulnerabilities are as well as potential opportunities for change. Also, you know, I wanna get us back together physically in the office. That's gonna happen when it's safe, and I'm really looking forward to putting the team together then.
Yeah. I I will say, as a member of the team, we're definitely looking forward to getting all in the same room and and huddling and and having a chance to connect again. Last month, the Center for Democracy and Technology filed a lawsuit against president Trump's executive order on preventing online censorship. The suit argues that the order violates the first amendment by curtailing and chilling the constitutionally protected speech of online platforms and individuals. Here's to explain what this executive order could mean for the future of free speech online is Alexandra Reid Givens, president and CEO of the Center for Democracy and Technology. Alex, thank you so much for being here today. You decided to bring this lawsuit in your first few weeks on the job as CEO. Why did you feel CDT needed to act?
Well, as you know, the executive order was filed after Twitter took steps to fact check two tweets by the president that contained misinformation about mail in voting. To us, both the timing of that and president Trump's own words made clear that it was brought in retaliation for Twitter fact checking his tweets. We see that as a deeply dangerous effort to deter social media companies from fighting misinformation and voter suppression, and in particular, to do so in an election year. So when you think about those things together, they've just really go to the heart of CDT's core mission around promoting free speech online and preserving free and fair elections. So of all the lawsuits in all the world, we felt like this was a vitally important one for us to move in on, and we felt we had to fight.
So what does CDC hope to accomplish by filing this lawsuit against the administration?
We wanted there to be an immediate and strong reaction to the president's effort, to intimidate platforms. We are in this highly charged moment around content moderation with the president escalating his use of misleading, I would say, incendiary communications on social media, accusing platforms of political motivations when they try to respond to those efforts. The fact remains that under the first amendment, fact checking is protected speech. And the order's approach, which is to have government agencies and state AGs create some standard of political neutrality by which platforms objects would be actions would be judged, creates just this unenforceable and really dangerous precedent for government interference in public discourse. So all of those factors together just require intervention, which is to say, basically, we're trying to have the order invalidated under First Amendment grounds because we see it as deeply unconstitutional.
So what role do social media companies play in American elections? Why are they so influential?
If we learn nothing else from 2016, I think it was just a clear lesson as to how important social media platforms are now in terms of shaping the public discourse and access to information, and that they are real vectors for concerted efforts around voter suppression, and in particular, voter suppression of marginalized communities. The evidence is there. Research has shown that the, efforts by RSA to shape user behavior, the messaging was targeted, and that's deeply troubling. We're at a time when people rely on information platforms to get information about voting, to see trends and what their friends and allies are doing. All of those things make misinformation and voter suppression efforts online particularly impactful and, therefore, particularly troubling. And that's why we want platforms to be able to take reasonable, responsible steps to address them.
So we touched on it earlier, but how does section two thirty protect the discourse on social media services? Why is this important?
Well, so section two thirty has been characterized a thousand ways by a thousand commentator. But, really, it's most important, like, fundamental insight is this, which is that it allows platforms to moderate the user generated content that they host without fear of being sued for what they keep up or they put down. That protection is really important when we think about allowing free speech to flourish on the Internet and also to allowing social media platforms to create a healthy ecosystem that's not overrun by spam or hate speech or misinformation. Without that type of protection, social media platforms would be so anxious about litigation that they just have really strict rules, either prohibiting all forms of potentially controversial speech, or on the flip side, they would do the opposite, which is avoid moderation altogether, which is equally disastrous for public discourse. So two thirty strikes a really important balance, encouraging social media platforms and giving them the freedom to create, you know, to address particularly harmful speech on their surfaces.
So we all know section two thirty has its fair share of critics. How does CDT see the debate around section two thirty that's happening right now?
Sure. So I made the point about how section two thirty, creates the freedom for platforms to be able to moderate content, in appropriate and responsible ways. Within that framework, there's still a robust and active debate about whether platforms platforms are doing enough, about whether section two thirty creates the right balance of incentives for them to act. There are critiques that platforms aren't doing enough to address hate speech, for example. Right? But then there are also critiques that there are silencing voices. Some of those concerns come on the right, but we also see lawsuits filed by groups that are affiliated with Black Lives Matter, who think that their videos are being taken down too rapidly and without fair process. When CDT looks at that ecosystem, one of the areas that we call foremost strongly is for platforms to have clear rules of the road. So to really clearly articulate their standards, to apply them equally and consistently, and to have avenues for appeal if people feel that their content is inappropriately
taken down or if other contact inappropriately stays up. So that's one of the areas where we're putting a lot of pressure on companies and thinking about solutions to help those processes work better. So keeping in the theme of free speech issues, the Earn It Act is seeing new light this week. What is this bill intended to do, and how does it actually impact free speech and encryption?
So the bill aims to address the online spread of child sexual abuse material. That's its purpose, and that's very motivating, I know for senator Blumenthal and I believe for senator Graham as well. The way that it purports to do this is by creating a commission that would articulate so called best practices that the platforms need to meet in order to retain their section two thirty immunity. That framework said the bill raises really serious concerns about what those best practices would actually entail. Most importantly, it's highly likely that this would be used as a runaround to limit the use of strong end to end encryption, which is really essential for maintaining privacy and security on people's messages. This is a debate that some of the listeners may have seen played out in the media. The Department of Justice has for a long time been pushing to get a backdoor to end to end encryption. Senator Graham, like, just this week introduced another bill that would push for that as well. So advocates are very worried that this commission structure, which takes decision making out of congress's hands and puts it in a commission led by the attorney general with some pretty questionable procedural provisions in there about how decisions would be made, that it creates this opportunity for encryption runarounds to be kind of shoehorned in when we know that those wouldn't succeed through the regular democratic process.
So you mentioned, a few minutes ago, in strong end to end encryption. Why is strong end to end encryption so important?
As our lives move increasingly online, we all just have a deeply vested interest in ensuring the privacy and security of our communications. Communications. You know, you can think about this in term of online chats, the messages we send, the future of telemedicine. When I think about it, I think particularly of marginalized and historically repressed groups that use encryption, because they are able to access safe communities to talk to allies and to find kindred spirits. And that privacy is really, really important for those purposes. Sadly, it's been well established by the security community. I mean, just expert after expert that a backdoor for law enforcement is a backdoor for hackers too. That's hackers that could be trying to access that information to blackmail people, for other purposes. So the vulnerability that is created when you start to circumvent encryption has impacts for all of us. We also just think that this solution is really ineffective because the bad actors that folks are worried about, the ones that are using platforms for particularly nefarious behavior, are unlikely to be deterred, if mainstream social media platforms kind of open up their approaches. Right? Very likely the bad actors would just abandon mainstream services and move to other encrypted tools anyway. So what we see here is an intervention that's trying to go after one piece of the ecosystem that would likely just move into darker services anyway, while at the same time having a really significant impact for broader communities, who use these services and rely on them for their daily communications. Are there legislative alternatives that members of congress could be considering instead of the earn it act? Yes. When you think about the issues that this bill is trying to address, reportedly trying to address child sexual abuse is horrific, and it's an area that we all should care about and should be providing more resources for. We feel strongly that there are other points of intervention that just don't have these massive unintended consequences for Americans' privacy and free speech rights. That includes really specifically investing more money in child protective services, in social services, and funding organizations that help at risk kids. Those are really important places where we can be trying to crack down on these problems without the unintended consequences that this legislation otherwise has. Senator Wyden has a that this legislation otherwise has. Senator Wyden has a bill that does exactly that, and that's one of the areas where we're trying to mobilize people's attention and support.
Well, Alex, thank you so much for joining us here today. To stay up to date on all of CDT's work, please visit us at cdt.org and check us out on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn at SendDemTech. Thank you so much for listening.
