FTC Confirms Facebook Data Security Investigation
|
The Federal Trade Commission has confirmed that it is conducting a non-public investigation of Facebook regarding Cambridge Analytica's use of its data. Just over a week ago, a number of reports detailed how Cambridge Analytica obtained Facebook profile information on over 50 million Facebook users through a researcher that collected the data with an app. Since then, the company has faced hard inquiries from a number of groups including Congress and the UK Parliament. Shareholders, Facebook users, and states have also filed a handful of class action lawsuits against the company while state attorneys general have opened their own probes as well. (engadget.com, 3/26/18)
Meanwhile, CNNMoney reports that Mark Zuckerberg has decided he will testify before Congress, according to Facebook sources. The sources believe Zuckerberg's willingness to testify will also put pressure on Google CEO Sundar Pichai and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to do the same. Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley has officially invited all three CEOs to a hearing on data privacy on April 10. (money.cnn.com, 3/27/18)
|
|
Calif Consumer Privacy Act: Huge Data Battle Includes Tech Giants
|
The California Consumer Privacy Act is a grassroots initiative funded by business, legal, and political groups working to educate voters about the risks of their sensitive data being sold by corporations. It also
aims to change the law, giving consumers whose data has been stolen, more legal protections. Representatives from the Act aim to get the initiative on the ballot in November. The group must submit approximately 365,000 valid signatures by the end of April to officially qualify for the November ballot. If enough valid signatures are collected, the initiative will need 50%+1 to pass in November. The initiative would do a number of things: *Give consumers the right to find out if their information is being sold and to whom, plus the right to prevent businesses from selling personal information. *Prohibit businesses from discriminating against consumers who exercise these rights. *Allow consumers to sue businesses if data is stolen, and even if consumer cannot prove injury. *Apply to online and brick-and-mortar businesses alike. *Cost to enforce these measures would be offset from penalty revenue. (ivn.us, 2/26/18)
Meanwhile, according to a recent Sacramento Bee article, Google, Facebook, AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast have contributed $200,000 each to a campaign finance committee opposing the California Consumer Privacy Act since mid-February. Initiative proponents expect the Internet behemoths will eventually pour in over $100 million to try to stop the measure from passing. Steve Maviglio, spokesperson for a coalition opposing the measure that includes the California Chamber of Commerce, Technet, and the Internet Association, said the proposal is flawed. His group, the Committee to Protect California Jobs, plans to make the case that it will lead major companies to flee California. (sacbee.com, 3/23/18)
|
|
Calif Wants to Govern Bots, Police User Privacy on Social Media
|
California legislator Rep. Marc Levine, D-District 10 has introduced legislation that will force social media sites to protect users from bots and create a state privacy agency to regulate and
protect consumers' online information. A social media bot or chatterbot is a computer program that engages with users' conversation via text. The programs are designed to simulate how
a human would behave in a discussion and are frequently mistaken for real people. In January, Levine introduced AB 1950, a bill that would require social media sites to identify and verify all social media advertising purchases to be linked to verifiable humans. In February, Levine also introduced AB 2182, designed to protect users from social media companies taking ownership of a user's social media material, and other vital data that is held by companies. The bill would create the California Data Protection Authority and oversee Californians' personal data on the Internet, including their names, social security and driver's license numbers, financial account data, medical data, and email addresses. According to Levine, key questions must be answered: "Who owns your data? Once you decide to leave Facebook, do you still want your information to continue (in perpetuity)?" The bill would create an agency or privacy czar that would oversee the actions of Internet companies and hold them responsible for data breaches and other actions.
Levine's legislation was inspired by the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which goes into effect in late March. The GDPR forces companies to erase a user's identity upon request. It also requires that social media companies
explicitly state what users agree to when they sign a consent to participate in the social media platform. The rule also addresses data breaches. In the case of a breach, the GDPR calls for users to be notified within 72 hours when personal and sensitive information has been released, and it also allows for an independent authority to monitor complaints and violation of the rule. The independent regulator could charge and fine those companies that have violated the law. (govtech.com, 2/23/18)
Meanwhile, a recent Los Angeles Times article - Silicon Valley played by a different set of rules. Facebook's crisis could put an end to that - reports that, federally, there are calls to eliminate "safe harbor" for platforms such as YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook so that they be regulated like media companies. Other ideas include turning Google into a public utility like its counterparts in the telecommunications sector. And Amazon is forcing new ways of thinking about monopolistic powers beyond just consumer prices. One recent sign that Washington is willing to take on the industry occurred last week when the Senate overwhelmingly passed the Fight Online Sex
Trafficking Act, which penalizes sites that facilitate prostitution. Silicon Valley opposed the law, fearing it was a slippery slope that would make tech companies liable for content. Already, Craigslist has removed its personals section, and Reddit said it would ban certain transactions. (latimes.com, 3/23/18)
|
|
Pentagon Wants Tech Industry's Help on Artificial Intelligence
|
Robert O. Work, a former deputy secretary of defense, recently announced that he is teaming up with the Center for a New American Security, an influential Washington think tank that specializes in national security,
to create a task force of former government officials, academics, and representatives from private industry - with a goal to explore how the federal government should embrace artificial intelligence technology and work better with tech companies and other organizations. There is a growing sense of urgency to the question of what the U.S. is doing in AI. China has vowed to become the world's leader in AI by 2030, committing billions of dollars to the effort. The Pentagon needs help on AI from Silicon Valley because that's where the talent is. The tech industry's biggest companies have been hoarding AI expertise, sometimes
offering multimillion-dollar pay packages that the government could never hope to match. Google illustrates the challenges that big internet companies face in working more closely with the Pentagon: Recently, two news outlets revealed that the Defense Department had been working with Google in developing AI technology that can analyze aerial footage captured by flying drones, and some employees were angered that the company was contributing to military work. Google runs two of the best AI research labs in the world - Google Brain in California and DeepMind in London. Top researchers inside both labs have expressed concern over
the use of AI by the military. When Google acquired DeepMind, the company agreed to set up an internal board that would help ensure that the lab's technology was used in an ethical way. And one of the lab's founders, Demis Hassabis, has explicitly said its AI would not be used for military purposes. Google said it was working with the Defense Department to build technology for "non-offensive uses only."
(nytimes.com, 3/15/18)
|
|
U.S. and China: A "Technology Cold War That's Freezing Over"
|
The New York Times reports that recent tit-for-tat trade actions could deepen what has become a global contest for technological dominance between the United States and China, home to the planet's largest population of internet users and a flourishing community of start-ups and innovative companies. The Trump administration last week accused Beijing of stealing valuable technological know-how from
American companies as it proposed tariffs on $60 billion in Chinese goods and curbs on Chinese investments. China responded with its own set of penalties aimed at American products. The world's two biggest economies have each become increasingly protective of their own leading-edge industries, and mistrustful of the other's.
Both sides have been putting up defensive walls for years. To stay in business in China, Apple has had to set up a data center there to store Chinese customers' personal information. Amazon
recently had to sell equipment to its Chinese cloud services partner to comply with new Chinese rules. Facebook and Twitter are blocked in the country; newer American players, such as Snap, are not even trying to enter anymore. In the U.S., regulators have repeatedly thwarted attempts by Chinese tech groups to acquire American firms. And espionage concerns have for years kept Huawei, one of the world's biggest suppliers
of telecom gear, and a powerhouse of China's tech scene, largely out of the American market. The Trump administration says it wants to level the playing field, dishing out to Chinese companies the kind of treatment that American ones have been receiving in China for some time. (nytimes.com, 3/23/18)
|
|
Massive Biobank of Patient Data: Promising & Challenging
|
This spring, the National Institutes of Health will start recruiting participants for one of the most ambitious medical projects ever envisioned. The goal is to find 1 million people in the U.S., from all walks of life and all racial and ethnic groups, who are willing to have their genomes sequenced, and to provide their medical records and regular blood samples. They may choose to wear devices that continuously monitor physical activity, perhaps even devices not yet developed that will track heart rate and blood pressure. They will fill out surveys about what they eat and how much. If all goes well, experts say, the result will be a trove of health information like nothing the world has seen. The project, called the All of Us Research Program, should provide new insights into who gets sick and why, and how to prevent and treat chronic diseases. The All of Us program joins a wave of similar efforts to construct gigantic "biobanks" by, among others, the Department of Veterans Affairs, a British collaboration, and private companies like Geisinger Health Systems and Kaiser Permanente. But All of Us is the only one that attempts to capture a huge sample that is representative of the U.S. population. The diversity of participants makes the daunting task of retrieving medical records even more difficult - Americans tend to have medical records stored slapdash all over the place, and they change insurers and medical plans frequently. There is little uniformity in the country's electronic health systems. Meanwhile, even the most straightforward part of the project - DNA sequencing - is formidable, as there are not enough sequencing machines in the U.S. to serve even just this project. All of Us will depend on more sequencers being built, and prices falling for sequencing. (phillytrib.com, 3/20/18)
|
|
|