Another Day, Another Location Data Privacy Scandal We'll Probably Do Nothing About
from the this-problem-isn't-going-away dept
Another day, another location data scandal we probably won't do anything about.
Joseph Cox, a one-man wrecking ball on the location data privacy beat the last few years, has revealed how a popular Muslim prayer app has been collecting and selling granular user location data without those users' informed consent. Like so many apps, Salaat First (Prayer Times), which reminds Muslims when to pray, has been recording and selling detailed daily activity data to a third party data broker named Predicio. Predicio, in turn, has been linked to a supply chain of government partners including ICE, Customs and Border Protection, and the FBI.
As usual, users aren't clearly informed that their every waking movement is being monetized on a massive scale, . .Throughout it all, government has refused to lift a finger to address the problem, presumably because lobbyists don't want government upsetting the profitable apple cart, and government doesn't want to lose access to its ability to track your every waking stumble without much transparency or oversight. Meanwhile, countless folks continue to labor under the illusion that this sort of widespread dysfunction will be fixed by telecom or adtech "market forces."
It's not clear what people expected would happen when we created a massive online ecosystem that monetizes users' every waking movement (and tied it to the federal government) while simply refusing to pass even a basic privacy law for the internet era.
Instead of taking this problem seriously, the nation's top policy voices in 2020 spent most of their time freaking out about a Chinese teen dancing app or trying to destroy a law integral to the functioning of the internet in the mistaken belief this would let them be bigger assholes online.
A Few More Thoughts On The Total Deplatforming Of Parler & Infrastructure Content Moderation
from the it's-tricky dept
I've delayed writing deeper thoughts on the total deplatforming of Parler, in part because there was so much else happening (including some more timely posts about Parler's lawsuit regarding it), but more importantly because for years I've been calling for people to think more deeply about content moderation at the infrastructure layer, rather than at the edge. Because those issues are much more complicated than the usual content moderation debates.
And once again I'm going to make the mistake of offering a nuanced argument on the internet. I urge you to read through this entire post, resist any kneejerk responses, and consider the larger issues. In fact, when I started to write this post, I thought it was going to argue that the moves against Parler, while legal, were actually a mistake and something to be concerned about. But as I explored the arguments, I simply couldn't justify any of them. Upon inspection, they all fell apart. And so I think I'll return to my initial stance that the companies are free to make decisions here. There should be concern, however, when regulators and policymakers start talking about content moderation at the infrastructure layer.
The "too long, didn't read" version of this argument (and again, please try to understand the nuance) is that even though Parler is currently down, it's not due to a single company having total control over the market. There are alternatives. And while it appears that Parler is having difficulty finding any such alternative to work with it, that's the nature of a free market. If you are so toxic that companies don't want to do business with you, that's on you. Not them.
. . .In the end, it's tough to argue that this is as worrisome as my initial gut reaction said. I am still concerned about content moderation when it reaches the infrastructure layer. I am quite concerned that people aren't thinking through the kind of governance questions raised by these sledgehammer-not-scalpel decisions. But when exploring each of the issues as it relates to Parler specifically, it's hard to find anything to be that directly concerned about. There are, mostly, alternatives available for Parler. And in the one area that there apparently aren't (cloud hosting) it seems to be less because AWS has market power, and more because lots of companies just don't want to associate with Parler.
And that is basically the free market telling Parler to get its act together.
* It's noteworthy that AWS customers can easily migrate to Oracle Cloud only because Oracle copied AWS's API without permission which, according to its own lawyers is copyright infringement. Never expect Oracle to not be hypocritical.
Filed Under: app stores, aws, cloud computing, content moderation, deplatforming, infrastructure, network stack, play store
Companies: amazon, apple, google, parler
Ridiculous: Yale Law Prof Argues That Because Some In Congress Want More Moderation, That Makes Twitter A State Actor
from the did-he-teach-hawley? dept
I'm beginning to see where Josh Hawley got his totally nutty ideas about the 1st Amendment. The Wall Street Journal has an utterly insane piece by Yale Law professor Jed Rubenfeld -- currently suspended due to sexual harassment claims, and who was infamously quoted telling prospective law clerks for then Judge Brett Kavanaugh, that Kavanugh "hires women with a certain look" -- and a... um... biotech executive named Vivek Ramaswami who is mad about "woke" companies, insisting (wrongly) that the big internet companies are actually part of the US government and therefore have to abide by the 1st Amendment in their content moderation practices. . .
So... the argument here is that you want more hate speech online, and you're mad that Facebook is restricting it? Holy shit. What is wrong with you?
And, um, note what is left out in this claim about exactly when these companies "took its most aggressive steps against Mr. Trump." It's not just about the fact that Democrats were poised to take control of the Executive and Legislative branches, but because Trump had just inspired a fucking riot at the Capitol building in an effort to overturn a free and fair election and reports were coming out that he was happy about what happened, worrying many that he would encourage yet more attacks in the days leading up to the Biden inauguration.
Seems like kind of an important thing to include, no? There's no indication that the Trump bans were about politics at all. There is every indication they were about preventing an armed insurrection and possible civil war. But Rubenfeld and Ramaswamy literally ignore all of that and insist that it's some sort of ideological or political issue... and stretch that to argue that these companies are arms of the state. A state that is still controlled by Donald Trump.
I mean, this is embarrassing. . .I agree that there might be an argument that elected officials who make specific moderation demands could be violating 1st Amendment rights of speakers (and of the companies themselves!), but to argue that vague statements by elected officials to be better about "taking responsibility" turning all moderation decisions into state action is galaxy-brain nonsense. . .
There are tons of outlets for "disaffected Americans." They have many outlets to be heard. What they don't have is a right to demand that any company host their speech when they are spreading blatant disinformation and violent rhetoric, including calling on people to literally murder public officials.
Ordinary Americans understand the First Amendment better than the elites do. Users who say Facebook, Twitter and Google are violating their constitutional rights are right. Aggrieved plaintiffs should sue these companies now to protect the voice of every American—and our constitutional democracy.
If they do, they will lose, and they will lose badly. It will be an embarrassing waste of money. One hopes that anyone thinking of filing such a lawsuit discusses it with a lawyer trained by actual legal experts, and not taught by Jed Rubenfeld.
Filed Under: 1st amendment, congress, content moderation, jed rubenfeld, state action doctrine, state actor, vivek ramaswami
Companies: facebook, google, twitter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Broadband Market Failure Keeps Forcing Americans To Build Their Own ISPs
from the do-not-pass-go,-do-not-collect-$200 dept
For decades now a growing number of US towns and cities have been forced into the broadband business thanks to US telecom market failure. Frustrated by high prices, lack of competition, spotty coverage, and terrible customer service, some 750 US towns and cities have explored some kind of community broadband option. And while the telecom industry routinely likes to insist these efforts always end in disaster, that's never actually been true. While there certainly are bad business plans and bad leaders, studies routinely show that such services not only see the kind of customer satisfaction scores that are alien to large private ISPs, they frequently offer better service at lower, more transparent pricing than many private providers.
The latest case in point: Ars Technica profiles one Michigan resident who had to build his own ISP from scratch after "the market" couldn't be bothered to service his address with anything even close to current generation broadband speeds: . . .
His plight is far from unique. US phone companies have effectively given up on fixed residential broadband to focus on wireless advertising, leaving companies like Comcast with a growing monopoly across countless US markets. Despite billions upon billions in subsidies, tax breaks, and dubious regulatory favors thrown at the nation's telecom monopolies, an estimated 83 million Americans only have the choice of one provider, while 43 million have zero options. This is obvious market failure, yet there's an entire cottage industry of industry allies whose entire function is to pretend that none of this is actually happening.
This obvious market failure, and our complete twenty-plus year failure to tackle it is bad enough (keep in mind Trump FCC and its associated industry BFFs can't even admit the market isn't competitive or that monopolization is a problem). But when desperate and angry communities decide to build their own networks, that's when the fun really starts. . .
Community broadband isn't some mystical panacea. But it's absolutely a valid idea for communities that have been left behind for twenty years to improve their own infrastructure if that's what the community wants. Better yet, such efforts almost always result in lazy monopolies trying a little bit harder than they usually would under the one/two punch of limited competition and feckless, chickenshit regulators. But instead of embracing these efforts, our industry-captured regulators have chosen to demonize communities as the US FCC pretends that blind taxpayer subsidization, mindless deregulation, and more mergers are somehow going to fix rampant monopolization.
Filed Under: broadband, community broadband, competition, municipal broadband
No comments:
Post a Comment