Op-Ed Contributor: New York, the Silicon City

New York has, over the last decade, become a tech city to rival San Francisco, Boston and Seattle. And it has done so by moving away from its old reliance on the finance and legal sectors, and the industries like hospitality that rely on them. The challenge for Mr. de Blasio is continuing that trend, and making sure all New Yorkers benefit from it.

Mr. de Blasio’s predecessor, Michael R. Bloomberg, can justifiably boast about New York’s rise to prominence as a “digital city.” On his watch, the technology and information sector has become the city’s second-most-powerful economic engine, after financial services. New York now has 10 percent of the country’s jobs in the “Internet publishing and web search portal” industry, up from just over 6 percent in 2007.

Surprisingly, over the past couple of years, the city’s minority populations have been among the main beneficiaries of this boom. Since 2010, the number of blacks working in computer and mathematical occupations — the Census Bureau’s term for tech-related jobs — in the city has risen by 19.7 percent, based on a preliminary analysis of new census data.

Over the same stretch, the number of Hispanics in such occupations in New York City has risen by 25.4 percent. By comparison, non-Hispanic whites in computer and mathematical occupations experienced just a 6.4 percent gain since 2010.

The rapid growth of minorities in New York tech jobs reflects, in part, the soaring number of tech degrees earned by minorities in recent years. For example, bachelor’s degrees in computer and information sciences granted to Hispanic students have risen by more than 40 percent nationally over the past three years, according to data from the National Center for Education Statistics. That supply is then sucked up by the tightness of the city’s technology and information labor markets, which has forced local employers to reach out beyond the usual sources.

The boom has also produced benefits across all five boroughs: Private-sector jobs in the outlying boroughs rose by 9 percent from mid-2008 to mid-2013, while private-sector jobs in Manhattan are up only 3 percent over the same stretch. This pattern is the reverse of the financial boom years, when Manhattan generated jobs at a much faster pace than the rest of the city.

Moreover, despite worries that the city has not yet spawned a Google or a Microsoft, New York’s strength as a digital city continues to grow. Based on data from the Conference Board, an analysis by the Progressive Policy Institute shows that ads for computer and mathematical jobs in New York rose by 6.8 percent in the first 11 months of 2013 compared with a year earlier, and compared with just 4.0 percent nationwide.

Instead, the true weakness in the city’s economy right now lies in the leisure and hospitality industry, which employs almost 400,000 workers in the city. The number of jobs has been rising, but real pay has fallen, perhaps because of continuing weakness in the financial and legal sector, which generates so much demand for hotels and restaurants. These real wage declines undercut gains in the rest of the local economy.

What lessons does this have for the new mayor? New York’s gains came, in part, from the aggressive efforts of the Bloomberg administration to stimulate the technology and information sector. These included funding tech incubators; the “Made in NY” marketing campaign to support small tech companies; the rapid extension of broadband access across the city; the city’s broad-reaching Open Data initiative, which makes city data available to the public and software developers; and the selection of Cornell and Technion, the Israel Institute of Technology, to open a huge new campus on Roosevelt Island.

To achieve the laudable objectives laid out in his inaugural speech, most notably narrowing the income gap, Mr. de Blasio should continue these policies. The technology and information boom needs to be encouraged: It is creating jobs for all corners of the city and helping to reduce the excessive dependence on finance and real estate. That should make the city’s economy — and tax revenues — less volatile in the future.

In his inaugural address, Mr. de Blasio correctly pointed to the need for better education for all New York children. That, too, needs to be part of a continued tech-centric agenda: to improve schools and maintain the city’s tech advantage, the new mayor also must ramp up the attention to tech and related fields in the city’s schools.

The main path to reducing inequality and broadening the city’s prosperity will be better education and training to help New Yorkers prepare for the jobs of the future, and if Mr. de Blasio successfully addresses that issue, his legacy as a great mayor will be secure.

Michael Mandel is the chief economic strategist at the Progressive Policy Institute and president of South Mountain Economics, an economic analysis firm.

Op-Ed Contributor: The Face Scan Arrives

Last week, thanks in part to documents that I and the Electronic Privacy Information Center obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, the American public learned that the Department of Homeland Security is making considerable progress on a computerized tool called the Biometric Optical Surveillance System. The system, if completed, will use video cameras to scan people in public (or will be fed images of people from other sources) and then identify individuals by their faces, presumably by cross-referencing databases of driver’s license photos, mug shots or other facial images cataloged by name.

While this sort of technology may have benefits for law enforcement (recall that the suspects in the Boston Marathon bombings were identified with help from camera footage), it also invites abuse. Imagine how easy it would be, in a society increasingly videotaped and monitored on closed-circuit television, for the authorities to identify antiwar protesters or Tea Party marchers and open dossiers on them, or for officials to track the public movements of ex-lovers or rivals. “Mission creep” often turns crime-fighting programs into instruments of abuse.

At the moment, there is little to no regulation or legal oversight of technologies like the Biometric Optical Surveillance System. We need to implement safeguards to protect our civil liberties — in particular, our expectation of some degree of anonymity in public.

The Department of Homeland Security is not the only agency developing facial-surveillance capacities. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has spent more than $1 billion on its Next Generation Identification program, which includes facial-recognition technology. This technology is expected to be deployed as early as next year and to contain at least 12 million searchable photos. The bureau has partnerships with at least seven states that give the agency access to facial-recognition-enabled databases of driver’s license photos.

State agencies are also participating in this technological revolution, though not yet using video cameras. On Monday, Ohio’s attorney general, Mike DeWine, confirmed reports that law enforcement officers in his state, without public notice, had deployed facial-recognition software on its driver’s license photo database, ostensibly to identify criminal suspects.

A total of 37 states have enabled facial-recognition software to search driver’s license photos, and only 11 have protections in place to limit access to such technologies by the authorities.

Defenders of this technology will say that no one has a legitimate expectation of privacy in public. But as surveillance technology improves, the distinction between public spaces and private spaces becomes less meaningful. There is a vast difference between a law enforcement officer’s sifting through thousands of hours of video footage in search of a person of interest, and his using software to instantly locate that person anywhere, at any time.

A person in public may have no reasonable expectation of privacy at any given moment, but he certainly has a reasonable expectation that the totality of his movements will not be effortlessly tracked and analyzed by law enforcement without probable cause. Such tracking, as the federal appellate judge Douglas H. Ginsburg once ruled, impermissibly “reveals an intimate picture of the subject’s life that he expects no one to have — short perhaps of his wife.”

Before the advent of these new technologies, time and effort created effective barriers to surveillance abuse. But those barriers are now being removed. They must be rebuilt in the law.

Two policies are necessary. First, facial-recognition databases should be populated only with images of known terrorists and convicted felons. Driver’s license photos and other images of “ordinary” people should never be included in a facial-recognition database without the knowledge and consent of the public.

Second, access to databases should be limited and monitored. Officers should be given access only after a court grants a warrant. The access should be tracked and audited. The authorities should have to publicly report what databases are being mined and provide aggregate numbers on how often they are used.

We cannot leave it to law enforcement agencies to determine, behind closed doors, how these databases are used. With the right safeguards, facial-recognition technology can be employed effectively without sacrificing essential liberties.

Op-Ed Contributor: How the U.S. Got Broadband Right

Such criticisms are misplaced. If he is confirmed, Mr. Wheeler will have the good fortune to be arriving at the F.C.C. at a time when the United States has gained a global leadership position in the marketplace for broadband.

More than 80 percent of American households live in areas that offer access to broadband networks capable of delivering data with speeds in excess of 100 megabits per second. Almost everyone in the country has several competitive choices for high-speed broadband service (with wireline, satellite and wireless options). Verizon offers 14.7 million consumers, in parts of 12 states and the District of Columbia, speeds up to 300 megabits per second via our FiOS network, which is poised to provide even greater speeds in the future. Companies like AT&T, Comcast and Time Warner Cable are also investing in their infrastructure.

Fifty-six percent of American adults have smartphones that give them access to mobile broadband data and video. Our country is the center of a booming mobile ecosystem in which new devices and applications are being used to do everything from personal health monitoring and e-commerce to tracking deliveries and saving energy.

Contrast this with the European Union, where innovation and investment in advanced networks have stagnated under an onerous regulatory regime that limits investment and innovation, and where today only about 2 percent of households have access to broadband networks with 100-megabit-plus speeds. “Once, Europe led the world in wireless communication: now we have fallen behind,” Neelie Kroes, the European Union official responsible for broadband policy, said in a speech in January. “Europe needs to regain that lead.”

The United States built its lead because companies invested nearly $1.2 trillion, over 17 years, to deploy next-generation broadband networks. These investments, which began with the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, were neither accidental nor inevitable; they were a result of deliberate policy decisions by Congress and by Democratic and Republican administrations alike to protect consumers while encouraging companies to invest in nascent technologies that are now flourishing.

President Bill Clinton’s administration decided not to impose, on the Internet and wireless technologies, century-old regulations designed for copper networks. Michael K. Powell, the F.C.C. chairman during President George W. Bush’s first term, presided over the decision to exempt new fiber-optic networks from the old regime of price controls and rate-of-return regulation. The fast deployment of 4G LTE mobile broadband networks across the country might not have happened had Julius Genachowski, the most recent F.C.C. chairman, imposed a heavy-handed regulatory approach toward the technology.

Regulatory restraint has resulted in a robust broadband market, but today some self-styled policy advocates insist that America’s broadband marketplace is badly broken and that the only solution is to revert to Depression-era regulations, like government rate setting and price controls or rules dictating what types of competitive offerings broadband providers can offer consumers. These ideas, however, are part of the rigid bureaucratic approach that European regulators like Ms. Kroes have correctly identified as stifling.

Since 1996, as America encouraged the growth of its broadband industry, European regulators have adopted policies that generally limited network infrastructure deployment to a single facility in a given country or region. Other companies were allowed to “resell” broadband services to consumers, but only if they used the same infrastructure. This “retail” competition resulted in prices that may have covered the costs of operations but left little capital or other incentive for companies to invest in improving these networks. In other words, a decade ago the European broadband market may have looked healthy from the standpoint of consumer pricing, but after 10 years of underinvestment, European households (only half of which have access to networks capable of speeds of even 30 megabits) have far fewer broadband options and innovations than their American counterparts.

Regulatory prudence is the only way to keep up the momentum in broadband innovation. We are just beginning to see the potential of innovative cloud-based services, smartphones and tablets to transform education and job training. A recent study found that cloud computing could save enough energy to power Los Angeles for a year, the equivalent of 23 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity. The broadband ecosystem is more than service providers and carriers. Our regulatory system needs to protect consumers while allowing market participants — developers of mobile applications and operating systems, handset manufacturers or operators of mobile virtual networks — to innovate.

There is no telling what will come out of this next wave of change. For its potential to be fully realized, however, it will be critically important for the industry to work with regulators — led, we hope, by Mr. Wheeler — to continue the bipartisan policies that have made our fast-changing industry a global leader.

Op-Ed Contributor: How the U.S. Got Broadband Right

Such criticisms are misplaced. If he is confirmed, Mr. Wheeler will have the good fortune to be arriving at the F.C.C. at a time when the United States has gained a global leadership position in the marketplace for broadband.

More than 80 percent of American households live in areas that offer access to broadband networks capable of delivering data with speeds in excess of 100 megabits per second. Almost everyone in the country has several competitive choices for high-speed broadband service (with wireline, satellite and wireless options). Verizon offers 14.7 million consumers, in parts of 12 states and the District of Columbia, speeds up to 300 megabits per second via our FiOS network, which is poised to provide even greater speeds in the future. Companies like AT&T, Comcast and Time Warner Cable are also investing in their infrastructure.

Fifty-six percent of American adults have smartphones that give them access to mobile broadband data and video. Our country is the center of a booming mobile ecosystem in which new devices and applications are being used to do everything from personal health monitoring and e-commerce to tracking deliveries and saving energy.

Contrast this with the European Union, where innovation and investment in advanced networks have stagnated under an onerous regulatory regime that limits investment and innovation, and where today only about 2 percent of households have access to broadband networks with 100-megabit-plus speeds. “Once, Europe led the world in wireless communication: now we have fallen behind,” Neelie Kroes, the European Union official responsible for broadband policy, said in a speech in January. “Europe needs to regain that lead.”

The United States built its lead because companies invested nearly $1.2 trillion, over 17 years, to deploy next-generation broadband networks. These investments, which began with the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, were neither accidental nor inevitable; they were a result of deliberate policy decisions by Congress and by Democratic and Republican administrations alike to protect consumers while encouraging companies to invest in nascent technologies that are now flourishing.

President Bill Clinton’s administration decided not to impose, on the Internet and wireless technologies, century-old regulations designed for copper networks. Michael K. Powell, the F.C.C. chairman during President George W. Bush’s first term, presided over the decision to exempt new fiber-optic networks from the old regime of price controls and rate-of-return regulation. The fast deployment of 4G LTE mobile broadband networks across the country might not have happened had Julius Genachowski, the most recent F.C.C. chairman, imposed a heavy-handed regulatory approach toward the technology.

Regulatory restraint has resulted in a robust broadband market, but today some self-styled policy advocates insist that America’s broadband marketplace is badly broken and that the only solution is to revert to Depression-era regulations, like government rate setting and price controls or rules dictating what types of competitive offerings broadband providers can offer consumers. These ideas, however, are part of the rigid bureaucratic approach that European regulators like Ms. Kroes have correctly identified as stifling.

Since 1996, as America encouraged the growth of its broadband industry, European regulators have adopted policies that generally limited network infrastructure deployment to a single facility in a given country or region. Other companies were allowed to “resell” broadband services to consumers, but only if they used the same infrastructure. This “retail” competition resulted in prices that may have covered the costs of operations but left little capital or other incentive for companies to invest in improving these networks. In other words, a decade ago the European broadband market may have looked healthy from the standpoint of consumer pricing, but after 10 years of underinvestment, European households (only half of which have access to networks capable of speeds of even 30 megabits) have far fewer broadband options and innovations than their American counterparts.

Regulatory prudence is the only way to keep up the momentum in broadband innovation. We are just beginning to see the potential of innovative cloud-based services, smartphones and tablets to transform education and job training. A recent study found that cloud computing could save enough energy to power Los Angeles for a year, the equivalent of 23 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity. The broadband ecosystem is more than service providers and carriers. Our regulatory system needs to protect consumers while allowing market participants — developers of mobile applications and operating systems, handset manufacturers or operators of mobile virtual networks — to innovate.

There is no telling what will come out of this next wave of change. For its potential to be fully realized, however, it will be critically important for the industry to work with regulators — led, we hope, by Mr. Wheeler — to continue the bipartisan policies that have made our fast-changing industry a global leader.

Op-Ed Contributor: Closing the Door on Hackers

FOR most of my teenage years, I made a hobby of hacking into some of the world’s largest government and corporate computer systems. I was “lucky” enough to be raided by the F.B.I. when I was 17 years old. After that wake-up call, I eventually started a software security company and now find myself helping to plug security holes, not exploit them.

The nature of hacking has changed, too, since I left it in the late 1990s — from a game of curiosity and occasional activism into a central tool in cybercrime and nation-state attacks.

Alongside that shift has come a loud and often misguided conversation about what to do to stop this new breed of hacking. Too much of the debate begins and ends with the perpetrators and the victims of cyberattacks, and not enough is focused on the real problem: the insecure software or technology that allows such attacks to succeed. Instead of focusing solely on employees who accidentally open e-mails, we should also be pressuring software makers to make significant investments in their products’ security.

When you read headlines about the latest cyberattack, you typically do not hear about how attackers were able to put a virus or other malware on a system in the first place. In many cases, it begins with attackers exploiting a software vulnerability or weakness in order to install their malware.

The unspoken truth is that for the most part, large software companies are not motivated to make software secure. It’s a question of investment priorities: they care more about staying competitive with their products, and that means developing the latest features and functions that consumers and businesses are looking to buy. Security issues are often treated more as a marketing challenge than an engineering one.

A result is an open door to hackers inside some of the world’s most popular software systems. Perhaps most famously, during the early to middle parts of the last decade, hackers discovered a significant number of glaring security weaknesses in Microsoft products (some of which were discovered by my company). Several of these weaknesses were exploited in high-profile computer virus and worm attacks.

To be fair, securing software is not a trivial task. Often it means building in multiple barriers to entry and keeping those defenses current with the latest developments in hacker techniques. Security has to be a central and significant investment in any software development project.

Still, given the heightened impact of recent attacks on both corporate and government operations, we must begin to hold software companies accountable for such vulnerabilities.

Fortunately, there is a lot a company can do to secure its code, should it choose to. After Microsoft’s software vulnerabilities drew significant negative attention — one of the few times the public has correctly affixed blame to a software company — Bill Gates himself addressed the issue in 2002 in his now famous “Trustworthy Computing” memo.

In that memo, sent to all Microsoft employees, Mr. Gates made it clear that the company’s future depended on building software and a platform that could be reliably secure. It was more than talk: in the decade or so since, Microsoft fundamentally changed its software development process to make security a core part of the program.

Too many other companies, though, seem to have missed the memo.

Take Oracle, and specifically the security challenges surrounding its Java software, which the company inherited through its 2010 acquisition of Sun Microsystems. Java, one of the most ubiquitous pieces of software in the world, is so full of security holes — including multiple avenues for hackers to take control of a computer remotely — that the Department of Homeland Security recommends that its users completely disable the software in their browsers.

Oracle is not alone. Adobe, which makes the popular Adobe Reader and Flash applications, has seen a significant number of security weaknesses over the years and also a sharp increase in its software’s being a gateway for cyberattacks. The risks associated with Flash were one reason Apple decided not to allow it on iPhones.

Like Microsoft, Adobe has made strides to increase the security of its technology over the last couple of years, and more recently some of those security improvements seem to be paying off. But it still has work to do.

In his 2002 memo, Mr. Gates cast the security challenge as not just a Microsoft problem, but one for the overall industry. A computer or a network is only as secure as its weakest link — no matter how secure one program might be, a poorly protected bit of software could compromise everything.

That means that on top of investing in their own security, companies have to make efforts to coordinate with other developers to present a united front. Adobe and Microsoft have worked together in recent years to identify and close off mutual vulnerabilities, and other companies should follow suit.

A lot of the talk around cybersecurity has centered on the role of government. But investing in software security and cooperating across the software industry shouldn’t take an act of Congress. It will, however, take a new mind-set on the part of developers. They should no longer see security as an add-on feature, nor should they regard holes in their competitors’ security efforts as merely a competitive advantage. As the world comes to depend more and more on their products, it should demand nothing less.

Marc Maiffret is the chief technology officer of BeyondTrust, an enterprise security management company.