personal privacy

Unless you have been living under a rock, the recent woes experienced  by tech and social media giant Facebook have dominated news cycles on  days when chemical weapons, nuclear proliferation, and North Korean  summits might otherwise capture the attention of the American  consciousness. The headline:

Facebook Doesn’t Care About Users’ Privacy
(and they probably never did).

In fact, they misappropriated the personal data of more than 85 million citizens, and then took a couple of years to admit it.

The blunder has not gone unnoticed by other tech titans. On a  Saturday afternoon Apple CEO, Tim Cook, at March’s Beijing China  Development Forum, offered his hot take on the situation at hand and how  data affects human lives:

“This certain situation is so dire and has become so large that  probably some well-crafted regulation is necessary. The ability of  anyone to know what you’ve been browsing about for years, who your  contacts are, who their contacts are, things you like and dislike, and  every intimate detail of your life; from my own point of view, it  shouldn’t exist.”

Needless to say, Zuckerberg has taken a beating; so too has Facebook  shares, suffering a precipitous drop of 4.4% since the unveiling of the  Cambridge Analytica scandal. While Facebook users are now looking more  closely at their app settings, there has been a noticeable exodus from  the platform for many users. Millennials were less enthralled with  Facebook than the newer social media platforms like Instagram (also  owned by Facebook) and SnapChat, so a loss of active users as a result  of these privacy concerns are a black eye on, arguably, the world’s most  visible social media platform. And it is costing them money in not only  market value, but also ad sales.

News of this privacy breach comes in the wake of the outing of  Cambridge Analytica and the role they may have had in  politically-oriented ads. To hear Facebook speak about it publicly, they  have been trying to combat the rise of fake news (despite famously  denying they played any role in the election).

Ungoverned, false information that lingered because of the clicks it  created, and not whether or not the story has been appropriately sourced  and verified, is the primary cause of the rise of fake news that  plagued Facebook and spilled out into casual conversations. Fake news is  best understood in the context of giving oxygen to an idea regardless  of its veracity: such stories were likely accelerated and allowed to  fester as a result of these ineffective fact-checking efforts. Without  access to the results of these third-party editors, we cannot understand  the effect in its totality.

You might be wondering why we can’t apply more pressure to turn over  the data or at least share the full results. The reason will irritate  you. We can’t do much about it is because, as a private corporation,  they are not obligated to release data. That is why GDPR-like  legislation is being proposed in the U.S. on a state and national level.  Facebook claims that in not revealing this internal data, they don’t  risk revealing private user data––which is hypocritical at best, given  what we know now about the Cambridge Analytica scandal.

Can we genuinely believe that Facebook is really prioritizing privacy as their new
ads suggest?

We say no, but draw your own conclusions, sports fans.Having a big sale, on-site celebrity, or other event? Be sure to announce it so everybody knows and gets excited about it.

Most Americans don’t remember the Cold War and détente with  Russia—except perhaps for a re-imagining like FX’s stellar series, The  Americans. However, the recent attention Russian influence has received  in the media conjures the feel of a digital version of spies and  dead-drops. The most pressing question is: how deep and far-reaching are  these efforts? Will they affect the 2018 midterm elections—and beyond?  Have we lost control of our media and our election process? But more  importantly, what are the preventative measures being taken to safeguard  against future espionage?

Truly, Facebook and other digital platforms could have had an effect  on the election. Billions of clicks on fake news had to have some  impact. Obviously, if clicks had no impact, there would be no  advertisers. But the depth of the “Facebook Effect” remains unclear, as  real efforts into investigating are stymied by partisan posturing, Wall  Street favors, and a reluctance on the part of tech giants to own any  responsibility for how information is shared at viral speeds. Certainly  it can (and likely did) shift political opinions. This information,  which is apparently available to those who plant surveys inside Facebook  (which they then can sell to advertisers or rogue operators),  represents the kind of lever that can have a domino effect in crumbling  the roots of our democracy.

What does this have to do with information privacy? Everything.

Knowing that America’s information is for sale, or is easily  accessible, is an invitation for foreign governments to attempt to  influence our elections—and it won’t only be Russia lurking in the  shadows. 

With Facebook front and center as the tech boogeyman of the year, we  need to remember that they might not be the champions of innovation that  has been built up in the public consciousness prior to their very  public dressing-down. In many ways, they have created a kind of digital  monopoly by cannibalizing more than 60 companies, including:

• Instagram
• WhatsApp
• Parakey
• ConnectU
• FriendFeed
• Octazen
• Divvyshot
• Friendster
• Numerous others

Beyond that, Facebook login credentials are used in hundreds of popular apps like Words with Friends or Venmo.

It conjures up a kind of information-hoarding that cannot continue  unchecked. And the Facebook social platform is not the only arena in  which information is tracked and sold: Instagram, Tinder, and other  complementary sites are doing much of the same in the name of newsfeeds,  user experience, and, most importantly, ad revenue via clicks.  Additionally, they can monitor connected devices in your home through  Wi-Fi connections that do not even have a Facebook app installed. Talk  about invasion of privacy. That means they can monitor your kid’s  cellphone, your smart TV, and even your Wi-Fi connected security system  or doorbell.

Makes you want to go back and take a closer look at their privacy  notice, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, it never offers you options. It is  always “take it or leave it” and once you sign up, they keep changing  the rules to suit their own purposes. Consideration must be given to  people’s privacy rights in order for these bad privacy practices to  change.

Google has been saddled with the largest fine yet by the EU—€4.34bn ($5 Billion USD).  The fine, based on the European Union’s claims, is over “serious  illegal behavior” tied to how Google monopolizes its search engines on  mobile phones in Europe.

The claims are derived from a finding that Google required  pre-installation of their search engine and web browser on phones using  the Android operating system, which is used on nearly 80% of phones. If  manufacturers failed to pre-install as instructed, then they would lose  access to the Google Play store
and other streaming services provided for by Google.

Margrethe Vestager, the EU’s competition commissioner, had some harsh words about the
tech giant:

Google uses the Android OS “to cement its dominance as a search  engine,” preventing innovation and competition “and this is illegal  under EU antitrust rules.” She added: “The vast majority of users simply  take what comes with their device and don’t download competing apps.”  She concluded that these services are not free, as consumers “pay with  their data” to use them. “Or to slightly paraphrase what [U.S. free  market economist] Milton Friedman has said: ‘there ain’t no such thing  as a free search.’”

Citing that the inhibition of innovation and competition through  restrictive usage of the Android OS is illegal under EU antitrust rules,  Vestager stated it monopolizes the market. Unsurprisingly, Google was  quick to announce that it would be appealing the ruling. A Google  spokesperson had the following to say about the verdict:

“Android has created more choice for everyone, not less. A vibrant  ecosystem, rapid innovation and lower prices are classic hallmarks of  robust competition. We will appeal the commission’s decision.”

The tech giant has 90 days to end the practices outlined in the  ruling to avoid increased and continued fines. The verdict caps a  three-year investigation into the Android OS by European commission’s  competition authorities..

As the father of the Web, Tim Berners-Lee pays close attention to the  malicious ways in which some are using his invention, particularly  considering recent fake news based social media streams that travel  across his invention. He had come up with hyper-text protocol (http), a  machine language he envisioned would help scientists share ideas across  the fledgling ìInternetî of the early nineties.

Often in the space of scientific advancement, scientists make  discoveries without investigating long-term societal ramifications.  Berners-Lee, however, sought to prevent this when he released his http  source code to the public. While this meant that he would not profit  from his invention, he understood that others might use http for  criminal purposes. Even before a rash of cybercrimes brought into  question privacy rights while using the Internet, Berners-Lee knew of  the ramifications. He believed that releasing the source code to the  public in the storied tradition of ìopen sourceî software would even the  playing field.

Remarkably, Berners-Lee is not an absentee father who made a  technology impact then retired to a tropical beach sipping a margarita.  Since releasing his http source code to the public, he has been working  to prevent the cybercrimes he prophesized would occur. Today he recounts  that the sorrow surrounding the misuse of his invention has had a  visceral effect on his psyche. Berners-Lee noted in a recent interview  that what has emerged is anti-human. 1 Elements such as AI, neural  networks, and the semantic Web add a science fiction element that is  decidedly unsettling.

As a father, Berners-Lee wants to add democratic ideals to control of  the Web. He believes this is the only way to check the ìinhumannessî  that will result from less human autonomy. Working from the fact that  humans gave the Web ìaway with every signed user agreement and intimate  moment shared with technology,î 2 Berners-Lee came up with the software  platform Solid that would help humans take control of their personal  footprints inside the Web. 3 This platform is fully compatible with new  privacy standards set by the EUís GDPR. In the simplest explanation,  Solid, is like a safety shield that protects Web users, particularly  those that utilize social media streams. Thankfully, Berners-Lee is in a  rare position to change the Internet and the way people approach  digital lives for a second time. A task fitting for a father.