#transparency reports

[firstoccupier]

YouTube’s Transparency Reports Explain Almost Nothing

By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News Baybay City, Leyte, Philippines — March 1, 2026 Reporting In recent years, YouTube has expanded its public transparency reports in response to European regulatory pressure. These documents are presented as evidence of openness: thousands of pages of charts, totals, and trend lines describing content removals, policy enforcement, and appeals…

YouTube’s Transparency Reports Explain Almost Nothing

[jameslosey]

Surveillance of Communications: A Legitimization Crisis and the Need for Transparency

I have a new article out in the International Journal of Communication titled “Surveillance of Communications: A Legitimization Crisis and the Need for Transparency.” The article is open access and available here.

The surveillance of communications faces a legitimization crisis. The information and communication technologies (ICT) that facilitate contemporary communications, from mobile phones to social media platforms, can also facilitate surveillance. The position of ICT services in mediating communications places companies in a position to be under legal and extralegal pressure from law enforcement and other government agencies turn over details of user communications as well as remove content. The collection of communications data by governments has increased precipitously in recent years, in part due to changing technologies. As Bankston and Soltani (2014) document, surveillance historically required considerable costs and manpower. For example, where tracking the location of an individual might have involved multiple police officers in the past, today this data is often collected by telecommunications companies and then accessed by law enforcement on request, lowering the costs of bulk surveillance (ibid.).

Transparency is a critical step toward accountability of the mechanisms through which law enforcement and government agencies access communications data. Since 2010, a growing contingent of ICT companies have begun to publish transparency reports on the extent that governments request their user data, and some include requirements to remove content as well. However, governments have fallen short on providing the level of detail on surveillance programs that is necessary for informed debate. This article offers an overview of transparency reports currently published by ICT companies and discusses why increased transparency is a necessary but insufficient condition for accountability and supporting democratic debates on the practice and extent of surveillance of communications. Furthermore, this article discusses why governments are well-positioned to provide a greater level of transparency on the legal processes and technical means through which law enforcement actors and agencies access private communications data.

[deniscollins]

AT&T and Verizon Pressed to Detail Roles in U.S. Surveillance Efforts

Shareholder resolutions are demanding more disclosure about the companies’ role in handing over customer data to the government.

If you were an AT&T or Verizon executive, would you publish transparency reports on information the company collects about customers and shares with the government agencies?

Shareholders are putting AT&T and Verizon Wireless on notice: Tell the public more about the companies’ role in government surveillance efforts or risk a ding to the bottom line.

Two separate but similar shareholder resolutions, from New York State’s comptroller and a large investment firm, say that the two dominant wireless carriers hurt customers’ trust by not disclosing more about the data they share with governments. The resolutions are the latest sign that the flurry of revelations about American spying efforts is putting business pressure on the companies lassoed into providing customer data to the government.

“If a customer is concerned about their privacy perhaps being compromised, they could switch to another service,” said Thomas P. DiNapoli, New York’s comptroller, the trustee of the $160.7 billion New York State Common Retirement Fund. He filed a resolution with AT&T this month demanding that the carrier publish reports on the information it collects and shares.

AT&T and Verizon Wireless, which juggle enormous amounts of phone calls and Internet data over their networks, have been quiet about the types of information they share about their customers. Internet giants like Yahoo and Google, meanwhile, have published so-called transparency reports detailing the types of information they share with government agencies.

Some tech companies, including Microsoft and Apple, have also been outspoken about their desire to release more information on government requests, including how many orders they receive to disclose the contents of email and other communications.

The comptroller and Trillium Asset Management, an independent investment adviser with over $1.3 billion in assets under management, are pushing for similar disclosure from AT&T and Verizon. They say their investments in AT&T and Verizon are at stake because a lack of trust could make customers look for other service providers.

Trillium, which describes itself as a leader in shareholder advocacy, filed its resolution with Verizon Communications this month. “Transparency is essential if individuals and businesses are to make informed decisions regarding their data,” Trillium wrote in its proposal.

Some analysts and American tech executives are also worried that the spying revelations will hurt profits. Many analysts have predicted the government’s actions would especially hurt companies with major business cloud computing services, which have been a particular target of the spying efforts. Cisco recently attributed a decline in sales in China partly to hostility toward American companies.

In the last several months, AT&T and Verizon have come under scrutiny for their cooperation with government surveillance programs. A court order revealed that the Obama administration secretly collected records for calls made between the United States and abroad, as well as calls within the United States. This month, it was revealed that the Central Intelligence Agency paid AT&T $10 million a year for access to its enormous database of phone records, including Americans’ international phone calls.

Historically, there are stronger laws protecting phone information than Internet traffic, said Harold Feld, senior vice president for Public Knowledge, a nonprofit group that focuses on information policy. That is why government requests for phone information is limited to so-called metadata like the name of a caller, the time the call was made and the recipient of the call, as opposed to tapping the phones, he said.

Compared with tech companies, the American carriers have had a closer working relationship with the government. They provide communications services to the American government. And unlike Internet companies like Google and Yahoo, which have global operations, the carriers have less at stake overseas, where foreign customers might be angry about the revelations of American surveillance.

The carriers also work with regulators to obtain spectrum licenses to operate their networks, so it benefits them to get along, Mr. Feld said. “From an economic perspective they have less incentive to fight” pressure from the government, he said. “The carriers have wanted to stay on the good side.”

Bob Varettoni, a Verizon spokesman, confirmed receiving Trillium’s proposal, but declined to comment on the topic of government requests. “We’ve received the proposal and we’re currently evaluating it,” he said.

Mark Siegel, an AT&T spokesman, said, “As standard practice we look carefully at all shareholder proposals but at this point in the process we do not expect to comment on them.”

It may be difficult for the shareholders to convince AT&T and Verizon, the two biggest American carriers, that they will lose customers because of a lack of trust. In general, very few customers leave those networks. At AT&T, for example, churn, the rate at which subscribers leave, was 1.07 percent in the third quarter, compared with 1.08 percent in the same quarter a year ago. Many customers are subscribed to family plans or corporate accounts, making it tricky to switch devices to a different carrier.

But Trillium believes an enormous amount of money is at stake. It cited the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, which estimates that controversy around surveillance programs could cost the information technology industry at least $21 billion in business over the next three years if foreign customers lose trust in American companies.

Both resolutions may be voted on at shareholder meetings in the spring.

Mr. DiNapoli said privacy was a relatively new issue for AT&T and eventually may become a factor for customers when they choose a provider. “I certainly think there’s a heightened sensitivity that could redirect and reinform consumer behavior,” he said.

[dmcaforce-blog]

How Google Fights Piracy

An in depth report has been released by Google outlining its different strategies at fighting online piracy. The report goes one step further and gives copyright holders a variety of tips for combating piracy but also discusses the difference between censorship and removing infringed content.

Listed below are the main highlights from the report. You can download the full report here.

Create More and Better Legitimate Alternatives. The first principle points out the obvious. If consumers have direct access to content through services such as Netflix, iTunes and Rdio, the more likely they are to pay for the product than pirate it.

“By developing licensed products with beautiful user experiences, we help drive revenue for creative industries.”

Follow the Money. Within the last year, Google has taken major steps in removing sites that host illegal content from their advertising and payment services.

“Rogue sites that specialize in online piracy are commercial ventures, which ins the most effective way to combat them is to cut off their money supply.”

Be Efficient, Effective, and Scalable. One of the most popular and effective options for copyright holders is to utilize the DMCA takedown system. Each week, Google is faced with processing millions of DMCA takedown notices.

“Beginning in 2010, Google has made substantial investments in streamlining the copyright removal process for search results. As a result these improved procedures allow us to process copyright removal requests for search results at the rate of four million requests per week with an average turnaround time of less than six hours.”

Guard Against Abuse. At times, false DMCA takedown notices have been submitted from copyright holders which in turn creates a chaotic atmosphere. This can be viewed as an act of censorship and/or a copyright holder submitting the request for competitive reasons.

“Google is committed to ensuring that, even as we battle piracy online, we detect and reject bogus infringement allegations, such as removals for political or competitive reasons.”

Provide Transparency. The final principal of Google’s anti-piracy report focuses on the issue of transparency. Google, unlike its competitors, publishes full reports of submitted DMCA notices.

“We disclose the number of requests we receive from copyright owners and governments to remove from our services. We hope these steps toward greater transparency will inform ongoing discussions about content regulation online.”

Google’s anti-piracy report serves as a reminder for both copyright holders and policy makers that digital piracy is an ongoing issue and will continue to be a problem as technology advances.

For those interested in learning how DMCA Force can assist you in the battle of online piracy, we encourage you to contact us today with any questions you may have. We also support the notion of total transparency and here you can view our Google Transparency Report.