The Blobject

Blobject enjoys tech, law and everything in-between

[globalawakening]

Hacking the “mind”

[theblobject]

I would like to continue last week’s discussion by broadening the scope a bit. As many of you might already know, Yuval Noah Harari is a popular historian from Israel, whose books "Homo Sapiens" and "Homo Deus" have sold thousands of copies worldwide, referring to humanity’s past and present respectively. 

He is specifically credited with the concept of "dataism". In case you are wondering what exactly this is, this speech in the World Economic Forum is a great summary of his ideas regarding humanity's future. Of primary concern are the concepts of data and AI, the combination of which is leading towards a complete redefinition of human societies.

One of my favourite parts of the speech is the one of pre-digital totalitarian regimes: even if governments knew everything about you through 24/7 surveillance, you would still be the owner of your own mind, your own thoughts. Contemporary AI-driven data management, however, could put an end to this ownership, as our privacy is becoming more and more undermined.

How ethical is the use of AI in this context? Could it lead to more democratic institutions and enhance welfare or is it just a huge door towards techno-feudalism? As philosopher Karl Popper had argued, we cannot use historical trends to predict the future. Maybe our descendants will look to our thoughts with contempt, but this does not prevent us from keeping asking questions.

[theblobject]

Homo Deus naked? The broad implications of IoT

The Internet of Things (IoT) is an absolute buzzword nowadays. From popular culture to the insular world of academia (with scholars such as the Homo Deus author Yuval Noah Harari), the notion that smart technologies have become an integral part of our lives is more prevalent than ever. Smart wearables, smart homes, even smart cities, have become sensational keywords, embodying the bold idea of an interconnected techno-utopia.

As with every bold idea, however, things are not that simple. While it might please the hearts sci-fi enthusiasts around the world, there are many implications that might severely sabotage such a venture. 

A prominent issue is data privacy, and especially, the danger of establishing powerful surveillance states through a digital panopticon. We simply cannot ignore the question on why IoT data could not end up in government reservoirs, with the goal of scrutinizing individuals’ everyday lives. 

Furthermore, since IoT services involve significantly more parties than traditional services, it is difficult to adequately explain how users’ data are being processed. Consumers are surrendering their privacy, often without even realizing it, as privacy policies are rarely examined properly. This lack of transparency greatly undermines our individual autonomy. 

Cybersecurity risks - often intensified by the rush of deploying new digital technologies - is another issue of vital importance. A 2020 study which analyzed over 5 million IoMT (Internet of Medical Things), revealed a disturbing number of vulnerabilities - up to 15% of devices were unknown or unauthorized, while 5 to 19% were using unsupported legacy operating systems. This lack of security makes these devices quite prone to cyberattacks, especially through ransomware. 

It becomes evident that IoT, while offering important benefits to society, it must also be constrained to particular limits. Thus, it needs specific attention in the scope of legislative texts such as the GDPR or the ePrivacy Regulation - the latter proposed by the European Commission in 2017. Legal principles will be crucial, especially accountability - i.e. being able to demonstrate compliance with the GDPR while processing personal data, through the implementation of appropriate technical and organizational measures.

What would these appropriate measures then be?

In an IoT context, organizations should be aware of what they collect and process, and mitigate data security risks through features such as client-side encryption and blockchain technology. 

Moreover, privacy by design, one of the key concepts of GDPR, means that organizations need to consider users’ privacy at the initial design stages of new products. Privacy by default, another key concept, means that a system’s default settings should be the most privacy friendly ones. 

Lastly, measures such as Data Protection Impact assessments (DPIAs) or Privacy Impact Assessments (PIAs) while planning IoT projects, would enhance businesses’ credibility and professionalism.

While demonstrating compliance to every single case is extremely difficult, establishing trust is integral to the future of IoT. If we really want an interconnected world, firstly we will have to ensure that it will be a user-centered one.

[eternalistic]

Apple CEO Slams Tech Giants Ahead of New Privacy Features

Apple Inc. Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook lambasted tech giants for “data exploitation” and called for reform around the practices of selling user data to target ads.

The iPhone maker is rolling out new privacy features that restrict how mobile apps such as those from Facebook Inc. and Alphabet Inc.’s Google gather data about users to target ads.

“If a business is built on misleading users, on data exploitation, on choices that are not choices at all, then it doesn’t deserve our praise, it deserves reform,” Cook said Thursday at the online Computers, Privacy & Data Protection Conference.

Without naming specific businesses, Cook criticized companies’ algorithms for perpetuating the spread of disinformation and conspiracy theories for the sake of user engagement. He warned that such systems have the power to degrade social fabric.

Keep reading

[theblobject]

The history of Big Tech and data exploitation is not anything new. Users and the general public have been complaining about this issue for years, although in practice it seems that our voice is becoming more and more irrelevant - from concession to concession we ended up from refusing to openly give access to our data to just asking for more transparency. This greatly showcases how social media and smart technology have come to define our everyday selves. We simply cannot live without these toys anymore. Is there a way to block the data-driven endless march of what seems to be the real life specter of Wallace’s “Infinite Jest”? Cook may have raised some interesting points, and it is absolutely true that user engagement has severe costs, but I express my fears on whether we have entered an irreversible path - the path of dopamine and distraction, the triumph of constant satisfaction over traditional values of dignity. Let us hope it is not too late.

[theblobject]

CBDCs and the future of money

Within the global banking field, virtual currencies arguably constitute the most widespread trend over the last few years. Its proponents have argued that central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) are going to define future banking, as they combine the efficiency of digital payments with the safety of central banks. As of now, over 85% of central banks are investigating the possibility of their issuance.

CBDCs around the world:

Source: Updated as of July 2021 based on R Auer, G Cornelli and J Frost (2020), "Rise of the central bank digital currencies: drivers, approaches and technologies", BIS working papers, No 880. Notes: BS = The Bahamas; ECCB = Eastern Caribbean Central Bank, HK = Hong Kong SAR; JM = Jamaica; SG = Singapore

In Europe, specifically, the European Central Bank (ECB), claims that a digital euro would guarantee “costless access to a simple, universally accepted, safe and trusted means of payment”, not replacing cash but functioning as a needed complement which would encourage accessibility, inclusion and innovation. As Fabio Panetta, member of the ECB Executive Board has stated: “We will engage with the European Parliament and other European decision-makers and inform them regularly about our findings. Citizens, merchants and the payments industry will also be involved”.

The project was officially launched in July 2021. The investigation phase started in October and will last for about two years before a final decision is made, testing key features such as design, distribution and impact, while also confronting illicit activities.

What ECB principally tries to do is to raise people’s confidence in central banks and move them away from crypto-assets such as Bitcoin. This is why one of the major issues they focus on is the lack of price volatility, something very common among crypto markets. Moreover, a digital euro could use blockchain technology in order to enhance anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorist financing (CTF), in a way similar to law enforcement practices, which are using such technologies against criminal activities and networks.

However, the project is not without its flaws and risks. One major criticism contends that the ECB will have a hard time complying with AML and CTF regulations without affecting the privacy of its users. While the ECB has tried to address these issues by discussing the possibility of a decentralized model, which would give more power to end-users and the private sector, the consequences that inexperienced intermediaries could potentially cause during transaction processing remains a troubling scenario.

On the upside, CBDCs might limit the use of physical notes and coins. The pressure will then be felt in the shadow economy, the cash-driven activities of which would appear increasingly anomalous and uncovered when compared to legitimate cash transactions. This could turn out to be a crucial step towards fighting financial crime.

It is still unclear what the future will bring, as the issuance of a digital euro might take up to five years to be completed, and potential digital euro-related legislative changes within the EU law could delay the process even further. With proper implementation, however, CBDCs could give birth to long-term opportunities and drastically reshape the nature of European financial transactions.

[thetechtin]

TV Piracy Increased 30% This Year With Help From “Squid Game”

TV Piracy Increased 30% This Year With Help From “Squid Game”

There is little doubt that, for many people, streaming services have become the standard for watching TV-shows. This is no surprise, since subscription-based streaming services are among the best and most convenient alternatives to piracy at this point. However, the appeal of the streaming model becomes diluted when there are too many ‘Netflixes.’ Most people gladly sign up for one or two…

View On WordPress

[theblobject]

I have to admit that I am impressed. The most striking part of this article is that USA actually tops China and India in pirate site visits, despite having many more popular shows available. How can we explain this? Does it have to do with the degree of internet regulation or are there different reasons?

[theblobject]

Phantom Menace or False Alarm? Online content filtering following the Delfi case

Implications between freedom of expression and other fundamental rights go a long way back, but soon after the discourse entered the cyberspace, things got a lot more complicated. There have been numerous legal attempts to strike an ideal balance within the European Union, with the E-Commerce Directive being among the most defining ones. Among other provisions, this Directive is famous for establishing the limited liability principle (especially on Article 15). While the US legal framework, for instance, awards active internet hosts through the CDA’s Good Samaritan principle, the EU framework remains neutral - some would say impassive - essentially exempting online hosts from general filtering obligations provided that they fulfill certain requirements.

The Delfi AS v. Estonia case, which is analyzed here, came to highlight another crucial difference: even in Europe, there is no interpretational harmonization between the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights, as the latter focuses on the European Convention on Human Rights and is not essentially obliged to follow EU law. While the CJEU in the earlier SABAM  case had argued against general content filtering, the ECHR ruled that holding a media host liable for lack of effective content filtering does not necessarily violate freedom of expression (as enshrined in Article 10 of the Convention). The decision received strong criticism, raising fears of general content filtering obligations which would greatly endanger freedom of expression and diminish investments in online platforms and media entities.

 Were these fears confirmed? Well, not exactly. The ECHR issued a string of subsequent decisions (see MTE and Index v. Hungary for instance), somehow mitigating the chilling effect of Delfi. This does not mean, however, that the question on filtering has been deemed irrelevant. The problem of harmonization between CJEU and ECHR still exists, and online hosts are still troubled by the potential consequences of their filtering activities - or lack thereof. Because of these complexities, large and economically potent platforms have decided to tackle the problem on their own (like Facebook and Twitter). While there have been suggestions on an interpretational distinction regarding the definition of hosts so that liability is differentiated between them - mainly to protect smaller companies - it is still unclear what the future will bring regarding online content filtering. 

 The liability of online platforms for poor filtering policies is a concept that seems to be gaining even more ground. Instead of the whip, though, maybe the carrot proposal would be more suitable and modest. If companies were eager to play a more active role in filtering - while still enjoying the perks of the limited liability regime that has defined the EU framework for over 20 years -  then we would manage to merge the best of both worlds: more responsible platforms and reassured users – not only receivers, but creators as well.  

For a short introduction to intermediary liability, watch this:

[theblobject]

Feels Good Man! Pepe, copyright, and NFTs

In 2005 artist Matt Furie created four cartoon characters for a cartoon called Boy’s Club: Andy, Brett, Landwolf, and Pepe. You’d be forgiven if you were not familiar with the first thr…

From the alt-right Infowars website to the OpenSea platform, the infamous prodigal son of the online meme community has once again grabbed the attention of the legal world. Pepe the Frog has officially entered the burgeoning NFT market, and copyright claims (courtesy of the character’s creator Matt Furie) are here to perplex the situation. Whether this dispute will have a positive impact for online artistic expression, and especially regarding NFT works, remains to be seen. 

[gbusinessline]

US Supreme Court sides with Google in copyright fight with Oracle

The United States Supreme Court is now the size of Google in a copyright dispute with Oracle. On Monday the technology had a sigh of relief after the supreme court gave final results. #Oracle #Google #copyright

Years-long dispute has been finally settled and won by Google. The issue was over the creation of Android. And now the court said Google did nothing wrong in the code to develop the Android operating system. This system is now being used on most smartphones and helps people to operate seamlessly.  The United States Supreme Court is now the size of Google in a copyright dispute with Oracle. On…

View On WordPress