Big Tech Launches Campaign to Defend AI Use; The Hollywood Reporter, June 6, 2024

 Winston Cho , The Hollywood Reporter; Big Tech Launches Campaign to Defend AI Use

"Chamber of Progress, a tech industry coalition whose members include Amazon, Apple and Meta, is launching a campaign to defend the legality of using copyrighted works to train artificial intelligence systems.

The group says the campaign, called “Generate and Create” and unveiled on Thursday, will aim to highlight “how artists use generative AI to enhance their creative output” and “showcase how AI lowers barriers for producing art” as part of an initiative to “defend the longstanding legal principle of fair use under copyright law.”"

Testing Ethical Boundaries. The New York Times Sues Microsoft And OpenAI On Copyright Concerns; Forbes, December 29, 2023

 Cindy Gordon, Forbes; Testing Ethical Boundaries. The New York Times Sues Microsoft And OpenAI On Copyright Concerns

"We have at least seen Apple announce an ethical approach to discussing upfront with the US Media giants their interest in partnering on AI generative AI training needs and finding new revenue sharing models.

Smart Move by Apple...

The court’s rulings here will be critical to advance ethical AI practices and guard rails on what is “fair” versus predatory.

We have too many leadership behaviors that encroach on others Intellectual Property (IP) and try to mask or muddy the authenticity of communication and sources of origination of ideas and content.

I for one will be following these cases closely and this also sends a wake -up call to all technology titans, and technology industry leaders that respect, integrity and transparency on operating practices need an ethical overhauling.

One of the important leadership behaviors is risk management and looking at all stakeholder views and appreciating the risks that can be incurred. I am keen to see how Apple approaches these dynamics to build a stronger ethical brand profile."

The Patent Fight That Could Take Apple Watches Off the Market; The New York Times, October 30, 2023

  Peter Coy, The New York Times; The Patent Fight That Could Take Apple Watches Off the Market

"Masimo argues that Apple’s reputation for innovation is undeserved and that the company has made a practice of “efficient infringement” — using other companies’ technologies without permission and dealing with the legal fallout as necessary. The company points to something that Steve Jobs, Apple’s co-founder, said in 1996: “Picasso had a saying. He said, ‘Good artists copy; great artists steal.’ And we have, you know, always been shameless about stealing great ideas.”

Apple, of course, rejects this characterization and says the company respects other companies’ intellectual property. In Apple’s defense, it’s fair to assume that Jobs was speaking metaphorically, and not copping to a crime, when he said that the company stole."

AirTags are being used to track people and cars. Here's what is being done about it; NPR, February 18, 2022

MICHAEL LEVITT, NPR; AirTags are being used to track people and cars. Here's what is being done about it

""As technology becomes more sophisticated and advanced, as wonderful as that is for society, unfortunately, it also becomes much easier to misuse and abuse," she told NPR. "I wouldn't say that we've necessarily seen an uptick with the use of AirTags any more or less than any cutting edge technology."

Williams said that what was rare was a technology company taking the issue seriously and moving to address it.

"[Apple is] not only listening to the field, but actively reaching out at times to do safety checks. That in and of itself might sound like a very small step, but it's rare," she said.

Still, Galperin thinks that Apple should have done more to protect people ahead of time. 

"The mitigations that Apple had in place at the time that the AirTag came out were woefully insufficient," Galperin said. 

"I think that Apple has been very careful and responsive after putting the product out and introducing new mitigations. But the fact that they chose to bring the product to market in the state that it was in last year, is shameful.""

Google plans privacy change similar to Apple’s, which wiped $230 billion off Facebook’s market cap; CNBC, February 16, 2022

Jessica Bursztynsky , CNBC; Google plans privacy change similar to Apple’s, which wiped $230 billion off Facebook’s market cap

"Google on Wednesday announced it’s adopting new privacy restrictions that will cut tracking across apps on its Android devices, following a similar move made by Apple last year that upended several firms’ advertising practices."

Congress forced Silicon Valley to answer for its misdeeds. It was a glorious sight; The Guardian, July 30, 2020

Matt Stoller, The Guardian; Congress forced Silicon Valley to answer for its misdeeds. It was a glorious sight

"As David Cicilline put it: “These companies as they exist today have monopoly power. Some need to be broken up, all need to be properly regulated and held accountable.” And then he quoted Louis Brandeis, who said, “We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.”"

Facebook has been paying teens $20 a month for access to all of their personal data; Vox, January 30, 2019

Kaitlyn Tiffany, Vox; Facebook has been paying teens $20 a month for access to all of their personal data

"The shocking “research” program has restarted a long-standing feud between Facebook and Apple.

 

"Facebook, now entering a second year of huge data-collection scandals, can’t really afford this particular news story. However, it’s possible the company just weighed the risks of public outrage against the benefits of the data and made a deliberate choice: Knowing which apps people are using, how they’re using them, and for how long is extremely useful information for Facebook."

Apple Was Slow to Act on FaceTime Bug That Allows Spying on iPhones; The New York Times, January 29, 2019

Nicole Perlroth, The New York Times; Apple Was Slow to Act on FaceTime Bug That Allows Spying on iPhones


"A bug this easy to exploit is every company’s worst security nightmare and every spy agency, cybercriminal and stalker’s dream. In emails to Apple’s product security team, Ms. Thompson noted that she and her son were just everyday citizens who believed they had uncovered a flaw that could undermine national security." 

“My fear is that this flaw could be used for nefarious purposes,” she wrote in a letter provided to The New York Times. “Although this certainly raises privacy and security issues for private individuals, there is the potential that this could impact national security if, for example, government members were to fall victim to this eavesdropping flaw."

FaceTime Is Eroding Trust in Tech Privacy paranoiacs have been totally vindicated.; The Atlantic, January 29, 2019

Ian Bogost, The Atlantic;

FaceTime Is Eroding Trust in Tech

Privacy paranoiacs have been totally vindicated.

"Trustworthy is hardly a word many people use to characterize big tech these days. Facebook’s careless infrastructure upended democracy. Abuse is so rampant on Twitter and Instagram that those services feel designed to deliver harassment rather than updates from friends. Hacks, leaks, and other breaches of privacy, at companies from Facebook to Equifax, have become so common that it’s hard to believe that any digital information is secure. The tech economy seems designed to steal and resell data."

Batman: Damned’s Digital Release Censors Bruce Wayne’s Naughty Bits; Comic Book Resources, September 19, 2018

Justin Carter, Comic Book Resources; Batman: Damned’s Digital Release Censors Bruce Wayne’s Naughty Bits

[Kip Currier: Tensions related to intellectual freedom, free expression, and censorship in comics and other media formats raise thorny questions about the nebulous distinctions sometimes made between content that is included and omitted in analog and digital formats. Case in point: the new comic, Batman: Damned. These kinds of decisions about free expression and censorship vis-a-vis analog and digital formats have implications for intellectual freedom and the historical record, as well as for diverse domains and activities involving creativity, knowledge, and research.

During a chat today with Mr. Wayne Wise, a graphic novels course instructor as well as a comics historian and creator with Pittsburgh's Oakland-based Phantom of the Attic, Mr. Wise flagged Brian K. Vaughan and Fiona Staples' popular comic book Saga as another example where free expression and censorship have come into conflict. The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund (CBLDF) has a summary of the 2013 Saga controversy here. A thought-provoking quote from that CBLDF case study lays out the larger implications of censorship and self-censorship in the digital age:

Although the removal of Saga #12 was temporary, the circumstances surrounding the case, including Apple’s vague and subjective content policy, lend themselves to a much larger and more frightening issue: To what extent does one need to self-censor in order to make their books available on digital platforms?"]

[Excerpt from Comic Book Resources article]

"CBR has been informed that, while Black Label is an imprint for mature readers, it was decided Bruce Wayne’s nudity was not additive to the story. Thus, the digital version blacked out the scenes. Additionally, CBR has confirmed that future printings of the issue will use the altered panels."

What Does It Mean to Ban Alex Jones?; The Atlantic, August 7, 2018

Alexis C. Madrigal, The Atlantic; What Does It Mean to Ban Alex Jones?

"In banning the Infowars page, Facebook took the next logical step in restricting access to Infowars content, but it still hasn’t outright banned the domain, and it has not disclosed how the News Feed algorithm is dealing with URLs from Infowars.com.  

All of which is to say: There are many kinds of bans, and they each represent a different tool technology companies can use to police speech. Platforms can weaken the distribution of content they don’t like. They can ban the discovery of content they don’t like, as Apple has with Jones’s podcasts. Platforms can decline to host content they don’t like, as YouTube and Facebook have with InfoWars videos and pages, respectively. Or platforms can ban the presence of content they don’t like, regardless of where it is hosted or discovered."

Twitter will not ban InfoWars conspiracy theorist Alex Jones; BBC, August 8, 2018

BBC; Twitter will not ban InfoWars conspiracy theorist Alex Jones

"In a series of tweets on Tuesday, Twitter CEO and co-founder Jack Dorsey explained the platform's decision, confirming it would not be following in the footsteps of others like Apple and Spotify and removing Mr Jones' and InfoWars' content...

Mr Dorsey said the accounts had not violated the platform's rules, but vowed to suspend them if they ever did so.

In his explanation, Mr Dorsey said it would be wrong to "succumb and simply react to outside pressure" instead of sticking to the company's codified principles.

He also implied one-off actions risked fuelling new conspiracy theories in the long-run, and said it was critical for journalists to "document, validate and refute" unsubstantiated rumours like the ones spread by Mr Jones "so people can form their own opinions"."

Apple CEO Tim Cook slams Facebook: Privacy 'is a human right, it's a civil liberty'; NBC, March 28, 2018

Elizabeth Chuck and Chelsea Bailey, NBC; Apple CEO Tim Cook slams Facebook: Privacy 'is a human right, it's a civil liberty'

"Privacy to us is a human right. It's a civil liberty, and something that is unique to America. This is like freedom of speech and freedom of the press," Cook said. "Privacy is right up there with that for us."

His comments are consistent with Apple's long-held privacy stance — which the company stood by even in the face of a legal quarrel with the U.S. government a couple of years ago, when it refused to help the FBI unlock an iPhone belonging to the man responsible for killing 14 people in San Bernadino, California, in December 2015."

What price privacy when Apple gets into bed with China?; Guardian, March 4, 2018

John Naughton, Guardian; What price privacy when Apple gets into bed with China?

"Corporations can blather on all they like about corporate responsibility and human rights, but, in the end, maximising shareholder value is all that counts. And Apple is determined to get to that trillion-dollar valuation no matter what. So if you’re an Apple user in China, you now have a simple choice: junk your iPhone, iPad and fancy Macbook laptop; or accept that your autocratic rulers can access your data at their convenience. In which case, whatever you say, say nothing – as they used to say in Belfast."

How Apple and Amazon Are Aiding Chinese Censors; Slate, August 2, 2017

April Glaser, Slate; How Apple and Amazon Are Aiding Chinese Censors

"Over the weekend, Apple took a small step to help shore up the Great Firewall of China: It deleted more than 60 apps used to route around internet filters from its App Store in China.

The removed apps are virtual private networks, or VPNs, which are used to tunnel web traffic through another computer, often hosted in other countries. VPNs allow Chinese users to circumvent government censorship by essentially letting people use the internet as if they weren’t in China.

The move came after the Chinese government began enforcing a cybersecurity law that prohibits the use of unregistered VPN apps, Apple CEO Tim Cook said on a call with investors on Tuesday."

The Great A.I. Awakening; New York Times, 12/14/16

Gideon Lewis-Kraus, New York Times; The Great A.I. Awakening:

"Google’s decision to reorganize itself around A.I. was the first major manifestation of what has become an industrywide machine-learning delirium. Over the past four years, six companies in particular — Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft and the Chinese firm Baidu — have touched off an arms race for A.I. talent, particularly within universities. Corporate promises of resources and freedom have thinned out top academic departments. It has become widely known in Silicon Valley that Mark Zuckerberg, chief executive of Facebook, personally oversees, with phone calls and video-chat blandishments, his company’s overtures to the most desirable graduate students. Starting salaries of seven figures are not unheard-of. Attendance at the field’s most important academic conference has nearly quadrupled. What is at stake is not just one more piecemeal innovation but control over what very well could represent an entirely new computational platform: pervasive, ambient artificial intelligence."

Why the World Is Drawing Battle Lines Against American Tech Giants; New York Times, 6/1/16

Farhad Manjoo, New York Times; Why the World Is Drawing Battle Lines Against American Tech Giants:

"Over the last decade, we have witnessed the rise of what I like to call the Frightful Five. These companies — Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft and Alphabet, Google’s parent — have created a set of inescapable tech platforms that govern much of the business world. The five have grown expansive in their business aims and invincible to just about any competition. Their collective powers are a source of pride and fear for Americans. These companies thoroughly dominate the news and entertainment industries, they rule advertising and retail sales, and they’re pushing into health care, energy and automobiles.

For all the disruptions, good and bad, Americans may experience as a result of the rise of the Frightful Five, there is one saving grace: The companies are American. Not only were they founded by Americans and have their headquarters here (complicated global tax structures notwithstanding), but they all tend to espouse American values like free trade, free expression and a skepticism of regulation. Until the surveillance revealed by the National Security Agency contractor Edward J. Snowden, many American tech companies were also more deferential to the American government, especially its requests for law enforcement help.

In the rest of the world, the Americanness of the Frightful Five is often seen as a reason for fear, not comfort. In part that’s because of a worry about American hegemony: The bigger these companies get, the less room they leave for local competition — and the more room for possible spying by the United States government."

Taking a bite at the Apple; The Economist, 2/27/16

The Economist; Taking a bite at the Apple:

"“WE FEEL we must speak up in the face of what we see as an overreach by the US government.” With those words Tim Cook, head of Apple, the world’s biggest information-technology (IT) company, explained on February 16th why he felt his firm should refuse to comply with an FBI request to break into an iPhone used by Syed Farook, a dead terrorist. Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik, who were sympathisers with Islamic State, shot and killed 14 people in California in December, before both were themselves killed by police. The FBI’s request, Mr Cook said, was “chilling”.

Ever since 2013, when Edward Snowden’s leaks pushed privacy and data security into the public eye, America’s IT firms have been locked in battle with their own government. The issue at stake is as old as mass communication: how much power should the authorities have to subvert the means citizens and companies use to keep their private business private?"

The Apple Case Will Grope Its Way Into Your Future; New York Times, 2/24/16

Farhad Manjoo, New York Times; The Apple Case Will Grope Its Way Into Your Future:

"To understand what’s at stake in the battle between Apple and the F.B.I. over cracking open a terrorist’s smartphone, it helps to be able to predict the future of the tech industry.

For that, here’s one bet you’ll never lose money on: Digital technology always grows hungrier for more personal information, and we users nearly always accede to its demands. Today’s smartphones hold a lot of personal data — your correspondence, your photos, your location, your dignity. But tomorrow’s devices, many of which are already around in rudimentary forms, will hold a lot more...

But if Apple is forced to break its own security to get inside a phone that it had promised users was inviolable, the supposed safety of the always-watching future starts to fall apart. If every device can monitor you, and if they can all be tapped by law enforcement officials under court order, can anyone ever have a truly private conversation? Are we building a world in which there’s no longer any room for keeping secrets?

“This case can’t be a one-time deal,” said Neil Richards, a professor at the Washington University School of Law. “This is about the future.”

Mr. Richards is the author of “Intellectual Privacy,” a book that examines the dangers of a society in which technology and law conspire to eliminate the possibility of thinking without fear of surveillance. He argues that intellectual creativity depends on a baseline measure of privacy, and that privacy is being eroded by cameras, microphones and sensors we’re all voluntarily surrounding ourselves with."

Apple's Standoff With FBI Raises Questions About How Americans View Privacy; NPR, 2/18/16

Ari Shapiro, NPR; Apple's Standoff With FBI Raises Questions About How Americans View Privacy:

"NPR's Ari Shapiro talks with Lee Rainie, director of Internet, Science and Technology at Pew Research Center, about the general public's opinion on digital privacy and government surveillance."