Big Tech rolls on as investors shrug off regulatory pressure

WASHINGTON - Pressure is rising on Big Tech firms, signaling tougher regulation in Washington and elsewhere that could lead to the breakup of the largest platforms. But you'd hardly know by looking at their share prices.

Shares in Apple, Facebook, Amazon and Google parent Alphabet have hovered near record highs in recent weeks, lifted by pandemic-fueled surges in sales and profits that have helped the big firms extend their dominance of key economic sectors.

The Biden administration has given signs of more aggressive regulation with appointments of Big Tech critics at the Federal Trade Commission. 

But that has failed to dent the momentum of the largest tech firms, despite tough talk and antitrust litigation in the United States and Europe, with US lawmakers eyeing moves to make antitrust enforcement easier.

Big Tech critics in the United States and the EU want Apple and Google to loosen the grip of their online app marketplaces; more competition in a digital advertising market dominated by Google and Facebook; and better access to Amazon's e-commerce platform by third-party sellers.

One lawsuit tossed out by a judge but in the process of being refiled could force Facebook to spin off its Instagram and WhatsApp platforms, and some activists and lawmakers are pressing for breakups of the four tech giants.

All four have hit market valuations above $1 trillion, with Apple over $2 trillion. Alphabet shares are up some 80 percent from a year ago, with Facebook up nearly 40 percent and Apple almost 30 percent. Amazon shares are roughly on par with last year's level after breaking records in July.

Microsoft, with a $2 trillion valuation, has largely escaped antitrust scrutiny, even as it has benefitted from the cloud computing trend.

The surging growth has stoked complaints that the strongest firms are extending their dominance and squeezing out rivals. 

Yet analysts say any aggressive actions, in the legal or legislative arena, could take years to play out and face challenges. 

Fast-moving environment 

"Breakup is going to be nearly impossible," said analyst Daniel Newman at Futurum Research, citing the need for controversial legislative changes to antitrust laws.

Newman said a more likely outcome would be multibillion-dollar fines that the companies could easily absorb as they adjust their business models to adapt to problematic issues in a fast-moving environment.

"These companies have more resources and know-how than the regulators," he said.

Dan Ives at Wedbush Securities said any antitrust action would likely require legislative change -- unlikely with a divided Congress.

"Until investors start to see some consensus on where the regulatory and law changes go from an antitrust perspective, it's a contained risk, and they see a green light to buy tech," he said.

Other factors supporting Big Tech include a massive shift to cloud computing and online activities that allow the strongest players to benefit, and a crackdown in China on its large technology firms.

"The China regulatory crackdown has been so massive in scale and scope, it has driven investors from Chinese tech to US tech," Ives said. 

"Even though there is regulatory risk in the US, it pales in comparison to the crackdown we're seeing from Beijing."

Analysts say the big tech firms are also well-positioned to deal with tougher regulations.

Tracy Li of the investment firm Capital Group, in a recent blog post that the tech giants face major risks in regulation around privacy, content moderation and antitrust.

"Concerns related to privacy or content may actually strengthen, rather than weaken, the moats of the largest platforms," Li said. 

"These companies often boast well-established protocols and have more resources to tackle privacy and legal matters."

Facebook 'gold mine' 

Other analysts point to the swift movement by tech firms to adapt their business models in contrast to the slow efforts to regulate. 

Facebook, for example, is adapting to changing conditions by moving into the "Metaverse" of virtual and augmented reality experiences, noted Ali Mogharabi at Morningstar.

Mogharabi said Facebook's vast data collected from its 2.5 billion users gives it the ability to withstand a regulatory onslaught.

"Antitrust enforcement and further regulations pose a threat to Facebook's intangible assets, data," the analyst said in a July 29 note.

"However, increased restrictions on data access and usage would apply to all firms, not just Facebook."

Independent analyst Eric Seufert said in a tweet that "regulatory changes will have a significant impact on Facebook's business, but the sheer scale of Facebook and the growth trajectory of digital advertising ameliorate that. Facebook's gold mine is far from depleted."

Newman said the large tech firms have expanded during the pandemic by delivering innovative services, extending a trend that has seen the strong get stronger.

"These platforms have created better experiences for consumers, but it is extremely difficult for new entrants," he said.

For investors, Newman added, "that means no one is creating revenue and profit growth faster." 

Agence France-Presse

  

Facebook sparks row by cutting off researchers

WASHINGTON - Facebook has cut off some academic researchers for "scraping" data from the platform, sparking a fresh controversy about the leading social network's transparency to outside experts studying misinformation and abusive content.

The California tech giant acted late Tuesday to block the research from New York University's Ad Observatory Project, citing privacy concerns.

Facebook product management director Mike Clark said the accounts from the project were disabled "to stop unauthorized scraping and protect people's privacy in line with our privacy program."

The NYU project had been at loggerheads for months with Facebook over the program, which used a browser tool to collect data on ads spreading political hoaxes, violence and Covid-19 misinformation.

"Research cannot be the justification for compromising people's privacy," Clark said in a blog post, arguing that the researchers were collecting user names, ads, and links to user profiles even for people who did not install the browser tool or consent to the collection.

But the Facebook move prompted an angry response from researchers and free-speech activists who argued the social network is blocking independent access to its internal tools.

"Over the last several years, we've used this access to uncover systemic flaws in the Facebook Ad Library, to identify misinformation in political ads, including many sowing distrust in our election system, and to study Facebook's apparent amplification of partisan misinformation," said Laura Edelson, the NYU researcher heading the project.

"By suspending our accounts, Facebook has tried to shut down all this work. Facebook has also effectively cut off access to more than two dozen other researchers and journalists who get access to Facebook data through our project, including our work measuring vaccine misinformation."

The row marked the latest clash for Facebook, which has sought to clamp down on third parties with access to private user data while at the same seeking to enable outside researchers to study its inner workings. 

Facebook claims it took the action in compliance with a 2019 settlement with US regulators on user privacy in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal in which data was scraped for political ad targeting.

But critics said Facebook needs more transparency.

"We can't allow Facebook to decide what the public gets to know about Facebook. Independent research that respects user privacy is absolutely crucial right now," said Alex Abdo of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.

"It's essential to figuring out how disinformation spreads on the platform, how advertisers exploit Facebook's micro-targeting tools, and how Facebook's system of amplification may be pushing us further apart."

Matt Bailey of the writers' free expression group PEN America said the action "is part of a larger pattern of Facebook seeking to undercut or silence anyone analyzing the platforms' practices from the outside."

Agence France-Presse

Facebook out to loosen Apple's grip on App Store: report

SAN FRANCISCO, United States - Facebook is readying a lawsuit aimed at loosening Apple's grip on the App Store that serves as an exclusive gateway onto iPhones, a tech news outlet reported on Thursday.

The leading social network is preparing an anti-trust civil suit accusing Apple of abusing its control of the App Store by requiring outside developers to abide by rules not applied to its own software, The Information reported.

"As we have said repeatedly, we believe Apple is behaving anti-competitively by using their control of the App Store to benefit their bottom line at the expense of app developers and small businesses," Facebook told AFP, declining to confirm or deny the report.

Apple did not reply to a request for comment.

The dispute between the tech giants centers on changes in the latest version of Apple's iOS operating software, which include a tracking transparency feature that Facebook claims will cripple its ability to serve up targeted ads.

Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg said during a conference call with investors on Wednesday that Apple was becoming one of his company's biggest competitors.

"Apple has every incentive to use their dominant platform position to interfere with how our apps and other apps work, which they regularly do to preference their own," Zuckerberg said.

"Apple may say that they're doing this to help people but the moves clearly track their competitive interests."

Facebook is not alone among those complaining about how Apple rules the App Store, where it collects 30 percent of sales or subscription fees third-party offerings.

Some developers say Apple takes too big a bite of the revenue and maintains rigid policies that may hamstring services competing with those of the iPhone maker. Fortnite-maker Epic Games has taken Apple to court over the practice.

Apple has argued its App Store delivers billions to independent developers, and that its practices are reasonable compared with other digital marketplaces.

Agence France-Presse

TikTok violated children's privacy rules, US consumer consent decree: group

WASHINGTON - A group of privacy advocacy organizations is filing a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission on Thursday alleging that the popular app TikTok violated a consent decree and a law protecting children's privacy online.

The Center for Digital Democracy, Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood and others said TikTok had failed to take down all videos made by children under the age of 13, as it agreed to do under a consent agreement with the FTC announced in February 2019.

At the time, the FTC said that TikTok, then known as Musical.ly, had known that young children used the app and had failed to get parental consent to collect their names, email addresses and other personal information. It paid a fine of $5.7 million.

But, the privacy advocates said, TikTok failed to delete personal information about users age 12 and younger as they promised as part of the consent agreement.

"We found that TikTok currently has many regular account holders who are under age 13, and many of them still have videos of themselves that were uploaded as far back as 2016, years prior to the consent decree," they said in their complaint.

TikTok's decision to create accounts for children age 12 and under that have less functionality failed to meet requirements of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act because the company still collects information, which it shares with third parties that want it for advertising. Also, children can easily avoid using the kids version of the app by being dishonest about their age, the groups said.

In addition, TikTok fails to post on its homepage an easy-to-find link to its privacy policy, the groups said.

"TikTok continues to be one of the most popular apps in the world, and it is widely used by children and teens in the United States, so it is especially important that the FTC promptly and thoroughly investigate TikTok’s practices and take effective enforcement action," the groups said in their complaint.

Other groups signing on to the complaint include Berkeley Media Studies Group, Consumer Action, Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Reports and Electronic Privacy Information Center. 

-reuters-

Facebook to face renewed privacy lawsuit over user tracking

A federal appeals court on Thursday revived nationwide litigation accusing Facebook Inc of violating users' privacy rights by tracking their internet activity even after they logged out of the social media website.

The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said Facebook users could pursue several claims under federal and California privacy and wiretapping laws.

A spokeswoman for Facebook said the proposed class action was without merit, and the Menlo Park, California-based company will continue defending itself.

Facebook users had accused the company of quietly storing cookies on their browsers that tracked when they visited outside websites containing "like" buttons, and then selling personal profiles based on their browsing histories to advertisers.

US District Judge Edward Davila in San Jose, California had dismissed the lawsuit in 2017, including claims under the federal Wiretap Act, and said the users lacked legal standing to pursue economic damages claims.

But in Thursday’s decision, Chief Judge Sidney Thomas wrote for a 3-judge panel that users had a reasonable expectation of privacy, and had sufficiently alleged a "clear invasion" of their right to privacy.


The panel also said California law recognized a right to recoup unjustly earned profits, regardless of whether a defendant's conduct directly caused economic harm.

"Facebook's user profiles would allegedly reveal an individual's likes, dislikes, interests, and habits over a significant amount of time, without affording users meaningful opportunity to control or prevent the unauthorized exploration of their private lives," Thomas wrote.

Citing Facebook’s data use policy, he also said the plaintiffs "plausibly alleged that Facebook set an expectation that logged-out user data would not be collected, but then collected it anyway."

-Reuters-

Google to publish user location data to help governments tackle virus

PARIS, France - Google will publish location data from its users around the world from Friday to allow governments to gauge the effectiveness of social distancing measures put in place to combat the COVID-19 pandemic, the tech giant said.

The reports on users' movements in 131 countries will be made available on a special website and will "chart movement trends over time by geography," according to a post on one of the company's blogs. 

Trends will be display "a percentage point increase or decrease in visits" to locations like parks, shops, homes and places of work, not "the absolute number of visits," said the post, signed by Jen Fitzpatrick, who leads Google Maps, and the company's chief health officer Karen DeSalvo.

"We hope these reports will help support decisions about how to manage the COVID-19 pandemic," they said.

"This information could help officials understand changes in essential trips that can shape recommendations on business hours or inform delivery service offerings."

Like the detection of traffic jams or the measurement of traffic on Google Maps, the new reports will use "aggregated, anonymized" data from users who have activated their location history. 

No "personally identifiable information," such as a person's location, contacts or movements, will be made available, the post said.

The reports will also employ a statistical technique that adds "artificial noise" to raw data, making it harder for users to be identified. 

From China to Singapore to Israel, governments have ordered electronic monitoring of their citizens' movements in an effort to limit the spread of the virus, which has infected more than a million people and killed over 50,000 worldwide. 

In Europe and the United States, technology firms have begun sharing "anonymised" smartphone data to better track the outbreak. 

Even privacy-loving Germany is considering using a smartphone app to help manage the spread of the disease.

But activists say authoritarian regimes are using the coronavirus as a pretext to suppress independent speech and increase surveillance.

And in liberal democracies, others fear widespread data harvesting and intrusion could bring lasting harm to privacy and digital rights.

jub/soe/rma/dl

Agence France-Presse

Video-conferencing app Zoom under scrutiny in US over privacy, porn hacks

NEW YORK - Video conferencing app Zoom, which has seen its popularity skyrocket in the coronavirus pandemic, is in hot water after users complained to the FBI of being startled by porn during meetings.

New York Attorney General Letitia James sent a letter to the in-vogue California enterprise "with a number of questions to ensure the company is taking appropriate steps to ensure users' privacy and security," a spokesman said.

He refused to give further information on the contents but added Tuesday that James's office was "trying to work with the company" to resolve any problems.

The investigation comes after the FBI's Boston office warned on Monday that it had "received multiple reports of conferences being disrupted by pornographic and/or hate images and threatening language."

The FBI listed two examples where hackers had "Zoom-bombed" schools which have closed because of the deadly virus and which are now teaching classes online.

A Massachusetts high school reported that an unidentified individual dialed into the virtual classroom and yelled a profanity at the teacher before shouting the teacher's home address.

Another school in the same state reported the appearance of an unknown person with swastika tattoos.

Using the hashtag "zoombombed," social media users have testified that they suddenly saw pornographic or racist images on their screens while using the app.

The FBI recommended that Zoom users make all meetings private and avoid screen sharing to combat would-be hackers.

Silicon Valley-based Zoom said it "takes its users' privacy, security, and trust extremely seriously.

"During the COVID-19 pandemic, we are working around-the-clock to ensure that hospitals, universities, schools, and other businesses across the world can stay connected and operational," a spokesperson told AFP.

"We appreciate the New York Attorney General's engagement on these issues and are happy to provide her with the requested information."

Zoom saw US downloads surge by 252 percent to 4.2 million during the week of March 16 -- when strict stay-at-home measures began being rolled out across America -- compared to the previous week, according to research firm Sensor Tower.

They increased by another 66 percent the following week to reach seven million downloads.

The app has seen similar growth in Europe, with downloads hitting 6.5 million at the end of March, according to Sensor Tower.

Agence France-Presse

Facebook says it can locate users who opt out of tracking

SAN FRANCISCO -- Facebook can determine where users are even if they opt out of having their whereabouts tracked, the company revealed in a letter sent to US senators.

In the missive, which was widely shared on social media Tuesday, Facebook explained ways it can still figure out where people are after they have selected not to share precise location data with the company.

The social network, which was responding to a request for information by two senators, contended that knowing a user's whereabouts has benefits ranging from showing ads for nearby shops to fighting hackers and battling misinformation.

"There is no opting out. No control over your personal information," Republican Senator Josh Hawley said in a tweet.

"That's Big Tech. And that's why Congress needs to take action."

Facebook said that clues for figuring out a user's location include being tagged in a photo at a specific place or a check-in at a location such as at a restaurant during a dinner with friends.

People may share an address for purchases at a shopping section at Facebook, or simply include it in their profile information.

Along with location information shared in posts by users, devices connecting to the internet are given IP addresses and a user's whereabouts can then be noted.

Those addresses include locations, albeit a bit imprecise when it comes to mobile devices linking through telecom services that might only note a town or city.

Facebook said knowing a user's general location helps it and other internet firms protect accounts by detecting when suspicious login behavior occurs, such as by someone in South America when a user lives in Europe.

IP addresses also help companies such as Facebook battle misinformation by showing the general origin of potentially nefarious activity, such as a stream of politically oriented posts which might be aimed at a particular country.

Facebook said recently that it is ready for a data privacy law that is to go into effect in its home state of California at the start of next year.

The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) will give internet users the right to see what data big tech companies collect and with whom it is shared.

source: news.abs-cbn.com

Google, Facebook business models threat to human rights: Amnesty

SAN FRANCISCO -- The data-collection business model fueling Facebook and Google represents a threat to human rights around the world, Amnesty International said in a report Wednesday.

The organization argued that offering people free online services and then using information about them to target money-making ads imperils a gamut of rights including freedom of opinion and expression.

"Despite the real value of the services they provide, Google and Facebook's platforms come at a systemic cost," Amnesty said in its report, "Surveillance Giants."

"The companies' surveillance-based business model forces people to make a Faustian bargain, whereby they are only able to enjoy their human rights online by submitting to a system predicated on human rights abuse."

With ubiquitous surveillance, the two online giants are able to collect massive amounts of data which may be used against their customers, according to the London-based human rights group.

The business model is "inherently incompatible with the right to privacy," Amnesty contended.

The report maintained that the two Silicon Valley firms have established "near-total dominance over the primary channels through which people connect and engage with the online world," giving them unprecedented power over people's lives.

"Google and Facebook dominate our modern lives -- amassing unparalleled power over the digital world by harvesting and monetizing the personal data of billions of people," said Kumi Naidoo, Amnesty International's secretary general.

"Their insidious control of our digital lives undermines the very essence of privacy and is one of the defining human rights challenges of our era."

The report called for governments to implement policies that ensure access to online services while protecting user privacy.

"Governments have an obligation to protect people from human rights abuses by corporations," Amnesty maintained.

"But for the past two decades, technology companies have been largely left to self-regulate."

DISPUTE ON FINDINGS

Facebook pushed back against what it contended were inaccuracies in the report, saying it strongly disagreed with its business model being characterized as surveillance-based.

"Our business model is what allows us to offer an important service where people can exercise foundational human rights -- to have a voice (freedom of expression) and be able to connect (freedom of association and assembly)," said a letter from Facebook privacy and public policy director Steve Satterfield in an annex to the Amnesty report.

"Facebook's business model is not, as your summary suggests, driven by the collection of data about people."

Facebook spotlighted its measures implemented which limit data information used for ad targeting; controls provided to users regarding their data; and steps taken to restrict abuses by apps on the social network.

"As you correctly note, we do not sell data; we sell ads," Facebook said.

Facebook chief and co-founder Mark Zuckerberg has called for governments to implement uniform rules regarding data-handling instead of leaving private companies to make crucial social decisions such as the limits of free speech.

Google did not offer a specific written response.

But the Amnesty report noted that Google announced this month it would limit data that it shares with advertisers through its ad auction platform, following the launch of an inquiry by the Irish data protection authority and had launched a new feature allowing users to delete location data.

source: news.abs-cbn.com

Google antitrust probe to expand into Android

The several dozen attorneys general investigating advertising practices at Alphabet Inc's Google are planning to expand their antitrust probe into the unit's flagship Android business, CNBC reported on Thursday, citing people familiar with the matter.

The investigation, led by the Texas attorney general's office, is known to have focused on Google's search and digital advertising businesses since it began in September.

Google has said it is cooperating with the probe by US states and territories and that previous investigations have considered similar issues without charging the company with wrongdoing. It did not have further comment on Thursday.

The Alphabet unit also faces 2 other major inquiries — a US Justice Department investigation and a probe by the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee — both of which have broad reviews of the big internet companies underway.

Last year, Google was fined 4.34 billion euros by the European Commission, which said the tech giant gave itself an unfair advantage by pre-installing its Chrome browser and Google search app on Android smartphones and notebooks.

source: news.abs-cbn.com

US opens national security probe of Chinese-owned app TikTok: report

The US government has opened a national security investigation into the Chinese-owned video app TikTok, the New York Times reported Friday.

The report, citing anonymous sources, said the review by an intergovernmental panel may be looking into whether the app, popular for its music videos, was sending data to China.

The investigation is led by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a government panel that reviews acquisitions in the United States by foreign companies, the report said.

The news comes after lawmakers called for a review of the national security risks of TikTok, warning it could be used for spying by Beijing.

A review could look into the acquisition in 2017 of TikTok, which at the time was known as Musical.ly, by Beijing-based ByteDance.

The deal gave the Chinese company the app, which has been popular with youth for homemade karaoke videos and which now has an estimated 500 million users worldwide.

Senator Marco Rubio welcomed news about the review.

"Last month I asked @USTreasury to conduct a CFIUS review of @tiktok_us," Rubio tweeted.

"Because any platform owned by a company in #China which collects massive amounts of data on Americans is a potential serious threat to our country."

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer and Republican Senator Tom Cotton last week suggested that TikTok's owner ByteDance could be forced to share user information with Chinese intelligence.

"With over 110 million downloads in the US alone, TikTok is a potential counterintelligence threat we cannot ignore," the two senators said in a letter to acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire.

The senators also warned that TikTok could potentially be used to influence voters in next year's election in the same way Russians manipulated US social media in the 2016 campaign.

Queried by AFP, TikTok said it could not comment on any regulatory matter but noted that it "has made clear that we have no higher priority than earning the trust of users and regulators in the US."

Last week, TikTok sought to distance itself from China, saying "we are not influenced by any foreign government, including the Chinese government."

The company's data centers are located outside China and "none of our data is subject to Chinese law," it said.

The US Treasury, which coordinates CFIUS reviews, said it could not comment on whether or not a review was in the works.

"By law, information filed with CFIUS may not be disclosed by CFIUS to the public," a Treasury spokesman said.

source: news.abs-cbn.com

Google wants safeguards for information in antitrust fight

SEATTLE — Google fired its opening salvo in what is expected to be a protracted antitrust fight with four dozen states, demanding more protections before it hands over confidential business documents sought by investigators.

In a petition filed Thursday in Texas state court of Travis County, Google, along with its parent company Alphabet, sought a protective order against Ken Paxton, the attorney general of Texas, who is spearheading the multistate antitrust investigation into the company.

The petition said Paxton had not provided sufficient safeguards for how his office shares Google’s sensitive business documents with outside consultants to the investigation. Google said some of those outside consultants were also working for competitors or complainants.

It is first legal challenge made by Google since the attorneys general from 48 states as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico said in September that they were starting an antitrust investigation into the market power and corporate behavior of Google, with Paxton taking the lead.

On the same day it announced the investigation, Paxton’s office served Google with a civil investigative demand, seeking what the company called “highly proprietary, competitively sensitive, and otherwise confidential business information” including internal planning memos, strategic documents and white papers. Google has until Nov. 9 to start producing documents related to the 233 requests made by the office.

“Given the breadth of confidential business information sought by the (attorney general’s office) and the heightened risks of leaks and disclosure to Google’s competitors and complainants in this and other regulatory proceedings, a protective order is appropriate and necessary,” Google wrote.

Google’s petition is largely a procedural move, but it offers insight both into who is helping the attorneys general and what Google is worried about as it enters what could be a long legal tussle. In addition to the state inquiries, House and Senate committees, the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission are also looking into the company’s business practices.

In a statement, the Texas attorney general’s office said it was caught off-guard by Google’s petition “challenging our right to employ many of the most knowledgeable in this complex field.” It said it had been working with Google to discuss “appropriate confidentiality provisions” to ensure that the information would not be used by the company’s competitors, but what Google wanted would compromise the investigation.

“Google’s petition is nothing more than an effort to hamstring the investigation. But Google is not entitled to choose the states’ expert or run the states’ investigation,” Marc Rylander, communications director for Paxton, said in a statement.

Google said it wanted to be notified in advance before the attorney general’s office shared its confidential company information with third parties such as consultants and sought limits on the ability of outside consultants with access to those documents from working with Google’s competitors.

Google also asked for a “cooling-off” period to prevent consultants from jumping into another job advising competitors based on what it learned during the course of the investigation.

Google pointed to the background of two of the three consultants to the investigation as particularly worrisome. One had served as a consultant to companies that have been vocal in their criticism of Google, including News Corp. and the Russian search engine Yandex. The other, a former lawyer for Microsoft, had also represented clients in other antitrust and other cases against Google.

“This is an extraordinarily irregular arrangement and it’s only fair to have assurances that our confidential business information won’t be shared with competitors or vocal complainants,” said Jose Castaneda, a Google spokesman.

It is not unusual for government investigations to coordinate antitrust arguments with competitors of the company it is investigating. This also happened in the monopoly case against Microsoft in the 1990s.

“This looks like a sideshow,” said David Segal, executive director at Demand Progress, an activist group focused on issues of corporate power and internet freedom. He called Google’s actions “standard delay and deflect tactics by which one of the most powerful corporations in the history of the world” was trying to avoid scrutiny.


2019 The New York Times Company

source: news.abs-cbn.com

Google wins EU fight against worldwide 'right to be forgotten'

LUXEMBOURG - Google is not required to apply an EU "right to be forgotten" to its search engine domains outside Europe, the EU's top court ruled Tuesday in a landmark decision.

The European Court of Justice handed victory to Google in the case, seen as crucial in determining whether EU online regulation should apply beyond Europe's borders or not. 

The US internet giant had argued that the removal of search results required under EU law should not extend to its google.com domain or its other non-EU sites.

The court ruled that, while a search engine operator such as Google must carry out "de-referencing" of links as demanded by a regulator or court in an EU state to all European versions of its sites, that "right to be forgotten" did not need to go further.

"There is no obligation under EU law" for search engine operators such as Google "to carry out such a de-referencing on all the versions of its search engine," the court said.

But it did stress that de-referencing on EU sites must include measures to "seriously discourage" a European internet user being able to get around the "right to be forgotten" by accessing unrestricted results from a search engine on a non-EU domain.

That demands "geo-blocking", which Google says it already uses effectively in Europe. 

FRANCE SEES LOOPHOLE 

But it was unclear the legal battle over the issue is entirely over.

The French data regulator CNIL, whose fight since 2014 to have Google apply the "right to be forgotten" to all its search domains sparked the EU court case, reacted by saying the ruling did not expressly prevent it demanding worldwide de-referencing.

"If EU law does not impose global de-referencing, it does not forbid it either," CNIL said in a statement.

"As a result, a regulatory authority, and therefore CNIL, is competent to demand a search engine to de-reference results on all its search engine versions if that is justified, in certain cases, to guarantee the rights of the person concerned," it said.

CNIL also said it was up to France's highest court to deem whether Google's geo-blocking technology was sufficient.

CNIL in 2016 fined Google 100,000 euros ($110,000) for not complying with its order to apply the "right to forget" everywhere. The regulator argues that, for de-referencing to be effective on the internet, it must apply to all domains wherever they are.

Google appealed to France's highest court, which in turn referred to the European Court of Justice, leading to Tuesday's ruling.

GOOGLE HAILS WIN 

The EU court case was seen as pitting individuals' rights to privacy online against freedom of information.

If France had won Tuesday, it could have deepened a rift between Europe and the United States, which is home to most of the internet's behemoths and whose President Donald Trump has railed against what he sees as EU meddling in US business.

Google hailed the decision by the EU court.

"It's good to see that the court agreed with our arguments," its lawyer, Peter Fleischer, said in a statement, adding that Google has worked "to strike a sensible balance between people's rights of access to information and privacy".

The US company and other stakeholders had warned that authoritarian countries outside Europe could abuse global de-referencing requests to cover up rights violations.

Google's position was bolstered in January by a non-binding opinion from the EU court's top legal adviser, advocate general Maciej Szpunar, who recommended judges "should limit the scope of the de-referencing that search engine operators are required to carry out, to the EU".

The case had been closely watched, especially as Europe has also already emerged as a global rule-setter in terms of data protection on the internet. 

A 2016 General Data Protection Regulation it enacted that covers all EU citizens and residents has forced many sites and companies around the globe to comply.

source: news.abs-cbn.com

US states launch antitrust probe of Facebook

A coalition of US states announced Friday an antitrust investigation of Facebook, in the first of what is expected to be a wave of action against dominant technology firms.

New York state Attorney General Letitia James released a statement announcing the action on behalf of seven other states and the District of Columbia to probe "whether Facebook has stifled competition and put users at risk."

The move marks the first official US antitrust action against one of the so-called Big Tech companies -- although a landmark case had targeted Microsoft back in the 1990s.

"Even the largest social media platform in the world must follow the law and respect consumers," James said.

"We will use every investigative tool at our disposal to determine whether Facebook's actions may have endangered consumer data, reduced the quality of consumers' choices, or increased the price of advertising."

Joining the action were attorneys general of Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, and Tennessee, said James.

Facebook did not immediately respond to an AFP query on the announcement.

- Federal review underway -

Earlier this year the US Justice Department said it would launch a "review" of major online platforms to determine if they have stifled innovation or reduced competition.

It was not immediately clear if the states would be working in coordination with federal officials.

Facebook, by far the largest social network, in the past has claimed it is not a monopoly and that consumers have many choices for how to connect with people online.

The new probe "shows how unease with large tech companies is spreading beyond Congress and the federal government agencies to the states. With each passing day, there are greater fears about these companies controlling our online lives," said Michael Carrier, a professor antitrust law at Rutgers University.

- Sign of 'techlash' -

The case may be the first in a series of antitrust actions against Big Tech firms and highlights growing "techlash," based on worries about dominant platforms which control the flow of information.

A separate coalition of states was set to launch an antitrust action, with Google reportedly a target.

The office of the Texas attorney general scheduled an event Monday in Washington with a "broad coalition of states" to unveil a multistate probe into "whether large tech companies have engaged in anticompetitive behavior that stifled competition, restricted access, and harmed consumers."

Asked about the move, Google spokesman Jose Castaneda said: "Google's services help people every day, create more choice for consumers, and support thousands of jobs and small businesses across the country. We continue to work constructively with regulators, including attorneys general, in answering questions about our business and the dynamic technology sector."

- What's the remedy? -

Maurice Stucke, a University of Tennessee law professor, said he expects one of the areas being investigated will be online advertising markets, which are dominated by Google and Facebook.

"This is a great area to look at because the market has been criticized as being opaque," Stucke said.

But Stucke said the investigations may go further by looking at how tech platforms control data, potentially examining "the intersection between competition law and privacy."

Amazon and Apple may also be in the crosshairs. Critics have complained that Amazon wields too much power in online retail, and that Apple may disadvantage rivals offering services in its app store.

In the European Union, Google has faced a series of antitrust actions and Amazon is now being targeted by enforcers.

Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren has made a breakup of the big tech firms a part of her campaign platform.

But some analysts say the case against the tech firms faces challenges because the companies have in many cases provided services for free and brought prices down, making it hard to prove they harmed "consumer welfare," the legal standard applied under judicial precedent.

Wedbush Securities analyst Daniel Ives said in a recent research note that "a broad movement to break up companies solely because they are large will fail without a change to existing antitrust laws," which he said is "exceedingly unlikely."

But Stucke said it would be wrong to view antitrust law as solely focused on consumer prices, and that it may be applied to questions of competition and innovation.

The probes could end up with a variety of outcomes including fines, restrictions on conduct or a breakup, Stucke maintained.

"You'd have to show how the remedy would address the concerns," he said.

source: news.abs-cbn.com

Google to pay $170M fine for collecting YouTube data from kids

CAPTION: FILE PHOTO: People are silhouetted as they pose with laptops in front of a screen projected with a Google logo, in this picture illustration taken in Zenica October 29, 2014. This logo has been updated and is no longer in use. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/File Photo]


WASHINGTON - Google agreed Wednesday to pay $170 million to settle charges that it illegally collected and shared data from children on its YouTube video service, a deal critics said was too soft on the internet giant.

The settlement with the Federal Trade Commission and the New York state Attorney General is the largest amount in a case involving the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, a 1998 federal law, officials said.

Officials said YouTube violated the law that requires child-directed websites and online services to obtain parental consent prior to collecting personal information from children under 13 which may be used for advertising.

The company marketed itself as a destination for children and benefitted by selling advertising to toymakers and others seeking to connect with young audiences, according to the FTC.

FTC chairman Joe Simons said the settlement "prevents YouTube and Google from turning a blind eye to the existence of kids-directed content" on its platform.

Simons said the settlement makes Google liable for violations by third-party content creators, going beyond federal law that requires the platform to have knowledge that videos are directed at children.

"No other company in America is subject to these requirements," he said.


Change to business practices

Letitia James, the New York attorney general, said the deal calls for "major reforms" to YouTube's business practices in addition to the fines.

"Google and YouTube knowingly and illegally monitored, tracked, and served targeted ads to young children just to keep advertising dollars rolling in," said James. 

YouTube outlined how it would change the way it handles children's content under the agreement.

"We will treat data from anyone watching children's content on YouTube as coming from a child, regardless of the age of the user," YouTube chief Susan Wojcicki said in a statement.

"This means that we will limit data collection and use on videos made for kids only to what is needed to support the operation of the service. We will also stop serving personalized ads on this content entirely, and some features will no longer be available on this type of content, like comments and notifications."

Wojcicki added that Google would create a $100 million fund "dedicated to the creation of thoughtful, original children's content on YouTube and YouTube Kids globally."


'Insufficient' remedies

The settlement, which must be approved by a federal court, calls for the FTC to receive $136 million and New York state the remaining $34 million.

The deal was approved by a 3-2 vote of the FTC commissioners, with the two Democrats calling for tougher penalties.

The deal "repeats many of the same mistakes from the flawed Facebook settlement: no individual accountability, insufficient remedies to address the company's financial incentives, and a fine that still allows the company to profit from its lawbreaking," Democratic commissioner Rohit Chopra said in a dissent.

"The terms of the settlement were not even significant enough to make Google issue a warning to its investors."

Activists who filed a complaint last year against YouTube also said the deal falls short.

"We are gratified that the FTC has finally forced Google to confront its longstanding lie that it wasn't targeting children on YouTube," said Jeff Chester of the Center for Digital Democracy, one of the groups in the complaint.

The "paltry financial penalty of $170 million" is a mere slap and "sends a signal that if you are a politically powerful corporation, you do not have to fear any serious financial consequences when you break the law," Chester said.

Josh Golin of the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood said it was "disappointing that the FTC isn't requiring more substantive changes or doing more to hold Google accountable for harming children through years of illegal data collection."

Simons said that it would be difficult to get a harsher penalty imposed in court, which would require proving that Google knew about its violations from third parties.

The regulatory chief added that the settlement "sends a strong signal about the importance of children's privacy."

source: news.abs-cbn.com

Facial recognition becomes opt-in feature at Facebook

SAN FRANCISCO - Facebook on Tuesday said facial recognition technology applied to photos at the social network will be an opt-in feature.

The change that began rolling out to users around the world came as the leading social network remains under pressure to better protect privacy and user data, including biometric information.

Nearly 2 years ago, Facebook introduced a face recognition feature that went beyond suggesting friends to tag in pictures or videos but could let user know when they were in images they had permission to see elsewhere on the service.

Facebook is doing away with a "tag" suggestion setting in favor of an overall facial recognition setting which will be off by default, according to a post by artificial intelligence applied research lead Srinivas Narayanan.

"Facebook's face recognition technology still does not recognize you to strangers," Narayanan said.

"We don't share your face recognition information with third parties. We also don't sell our technology."

People new to Facebook or who had the "tag" feature operating will get word from the social network about the face recognition setting along with an easy way to turn it on if they wish, according to Narayanan.

"People will still be able to manually tag friends, but we won't suggest you to be tagged if you do not have face recognition turned on," Narayanan said.

"If you already have the face recognition setting, you won't receive a notice."

The move comes amid growing concerns about facial recognition technology by law enforcement and government agencies, and with widespread use of the system for surveillance in parts of the world including China.

source: news.abs-cbn.com

Messaging app Telegram moves to protect identity of Hong Kong protesters

WASHINGTON - Telegram, a popular encrypted messaging app, will allow users to cloak their telephone numbers to safeguard Hong Kong protesters against monitoring by Chinese authorities, according to a person with direct knowledge of the effort.

The update to Telegram, planned for release over the next few days, will allow protesters to block Chinese authorities from discovering their identities in the app's large group chats.

Thousands of Hong Kong protesters take their cues from more than 100 groups on Telegram. Protesters use encrypted apps like Telegram to mobilize swiftly through multiple group chats, with less risk of police infiltration, Reuters found in a report published earlier this month.

The groups are used to post everything from news on upcoming protests to tips on dousing tear gas canisters fired by the police to the identities of suspected undercover police and the access codes to buildings in Hong Kong where protesters can hide.

Protesters have grown concerned that Chinese authorities could use the movement's reliance on Telegram to monitor and arrest organizers. Telegram chat groups used to organize public protests are often accessible to anyone and participants use pseudonyms.

But a feature in Telegram's design may have allowed Chinese authorities to learn the real identities of users, according to a group of Hong Kong engineers who posted their finding on a online forum earlier this month.

Telegram allows users to search for other users by uploading phone numbers. This function allows a new user to quickly learn whether those in her phone's contact book are already using the app, the group said.

Protesters believe Chinese security officials have exploited the function by uploading large quantities of phone numbers.

The app automatically matches phone numbers with the user names in the group. Chinese authorities then only need to request the owners of the phone numbers from the local telecom service in order to learn the users' true identities.

Telegram has detected evidence that Chinese authorities may have uploaded numbers to identify protesters, said a person with direct knowledge of the situation. But it is unclear whether Chinese authorities have successfully used this tactic to locate protesters.

Government authorities in Hong Kong did not respond to a request for comment.

The fix Telegram is working on would allow users to disable matching by phone number. That option represents a balance between making it easy for users to find their contacts and the privacy needs of those who rely on the app for protection against state security agents.

Telegram hopes to help protect Hong Kong protesters with the update, the source said. But wide adoption of the optional security setting would make the app far harder to use for the vast majority of its more than 200 consumers who rely on uploading phone contacts to identify friends and family members on the app, the source said.

The move by Telegram comes as Hong Kong police arrested a number of prominent activists and 3 lawmakers on Friday. Nearly 900 people have been arrested since the demonstrations began three months ago.

With protesters and authorities at an impasse and Hong Kong facing its first recession in a decade, speculation has grown that the city government may impose emergency law, giving it extra powers over detentions, censorship and curfews.

The government would consider using “all laws” to prevent violence, Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam, who has become a lightning rod for protesters’ anger, said this week.

source: news.abs-cbn.com

Google to pay up to $200 million to FTC on YouTube probe - source

WASHINGTON - Alphabet Inc's Google will spend up to $200 million to settle a Federal Trade Commission investigation into YouTube's alleged violation of a children's privacy law, a person briefed on the matter told Reuters.

Politico reported the settlement is expected to be between $150 million and $200 million. The settlement is set to be announced next week and will be the largest ever fine imposed for violating the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule by collecting personal information from kids without parental consent.

Google declined to comment.

The FTC voted 3-2 to approve the settlement and sent it to the justice department as part of the review process, Reuters confirmed, citing a person familiar with the matter. The Washington Post reported the settlement's approval in July but did not detail the amount of the civil penalty.(https://politi.co/2ZtIM5G)

The settlement will far surpass the previous record set in February, a $5.7 million civil penalty imposed on Musical.ly, which did not ask for users' ages for three years. The online library for Musical.ly – now known as TikTok – features music popular with kids.

Sen. Ed Markey, a Democrat, said Friday "the FTC appears to have let YouTube off the hook with a nominal fine for violating users’ privacy online. And in this case, Google’s intrusions on kids' personal info are at issue. We must come down hard on companies that infringe on children’s privacy."

On Thursday, Google launched YouTubeKids. The company said it built the site "to create a safer environment for kids to explore their interests and curiosity, while giving parents the tools to customize the experience for their kids."

Parents can select from three different age groups to choose age-appropriate content - preschool, ages 5-7 and 8-12. Katharina Kopp, deputy director of the Center for Digital Democracy, said Friday "a settlement amount of $150-200 million would be woefully low, considering the egregious nature of the violation, how much Google profited from violating the law, and given Google’s size and revenue."

She added the fine "would effectively reward Google for engaging in massive and illegal data collection."

In April 2018, the center, joined by other groups, filed an FTC complaint alleging YouTube profited from kids "without first providing direct notice to parents and obtaining their consent as required by law. Google uses this information to target advertisements to children across the internet and across devices." 

source: news.abs-cbn.com

Facebook listened to users' conversations: report

SAN FRANCISCO -- Facebook has paid hundreds of contractors to listen to and transcribe snippets of users' conversations, US media reported on Tuesday, amid heightened scrutiny of the social network's data collection practices.

Facebook acknowledged the transcriptions, which were first reported by Bloomberg, telling the news agency in a statement that they were made with users' permission, but that the practice has nonetheless been stopped.

"Much like Apple and Google, we paused human review of audio more than a week ago," the company said.

Facebook did not respond to a request for comment from AFP.

The contractors were testing the ability of the social network's artificial intelligence to interpret messages, and the only users affected were those on Facebook Messenger app who had opted to have their voice chats transcribed.

Bloomberg said the contractors working on the project were "rattled" by listening to private audio whose origin wasn't disclosed and which sometimes contained vulgar content.

The contractors also weren't told the reason why they were doing the transcribing, the news agency reported.

Amazon, Apple and Google -- all companies offering voice assistants -- have previously acknowledged collecting conversations for the purpose of improving their products.

Apple and Google have in recent weeks said they've halted the practice, while Amazon gives users the option of blocking the collection of their voice by Alexa, the artificial intelligence driving their Echo voice assistant.

Facebook, which just settled a record $5 billion fine with the US Federal Trade Commission for misusing users' private data, has given differing responses to reports that it uses audio recordings to better target ads or make its pages more attractive.

"You're talking about this conspiracy theory that gets passed around that we listen to what's going on on your microphone and use that for ads," Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said in US Senate testimony last year.

"We don't do that," he said.

But the company later told lawmakers in writing that it does actually collect conversations if users have specifically allowed it to do so and are using certain audio features.

The company didn't specify what it did with the audio afterwards.

source: news.abs-cbn.com

Apple, Google pause review of audio recordings from voice assistants

Apple Inc. and Alphabet Inc.'s Google have globally suspended reviewing recordings from users interacting with their voice assistants, as concerns over data privacy mount.

Apple said on Friday it had paused the program called "grading," where it reviewed anonymized recordings of conversations people had with its Siri voice assistant.

The decision comes after the Guardian last week reported that the company's contractors tasked with reviewing the recordings regularly heard confidential information and private conversations.

Increased public and political scrutiny of data privacy practices have forced greater transparency from Silicon Valley companies, with Google pausing reviews of audio recordings from its Google assistant service for all purposes in all languages, after a leak of Dutch audio data.

Proposals being weighed by lawmakers in the United States and elsewhere would limit how internet companies track and distribute consumer information as voice assistants such as Siri and Amazon.com Inc's Alexa become a bigger part of people's everyday lives.

"While we conduct a thorough review, we are suspending Siri grading globally," an Apple spokesperson said in a statement, adding that users would be able to opt out of the program in a future software update.

Contractors graded Siri's answers to user queries as part of efforts to perform quality checks, the Guardian reported. They also looked at whether the response was triggered accidentally, the newspaper said.

Users can turn off storing audio data to their Google account completely, or choose to auto-delete data after every 3 months or 18 months, a Google spokesperson told Reuters.

Amazon also said it allows users to opt-out of having their voice recordings used to help develop new Alexa features.

The company will update the information provided to customers to make the practices more clear, an Amazon spokesperson said in an emailed statement.

Microsoft Corp. did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the status of reviews from its Cortana voice assistant.

source: news.abs-cbn.com