After a decade of free Alexa, Amazon now wants you to pay; The Washington Post, August 27, 2024

Shira Ovide , The Washington Post; After a decade of free Alexa, Amazon now wants you to pay

"There was a lot of optimism in the 2010s that digital assistants like Alexa, Apple’s Siri and Google Assistant would become a dominant way we interact with technology, and become as life-changing as smartphones have been.

Those predictions were mostly wrong. The digital assistants were dumber than the companies claimed, and it’s often annoying to speak commands rather than type on a keyboard or tap on a touch screen...

If you’re thinking there’s no chance you’d pay for an AI Alexa, you should see how many people subscribe to OpenAI’s ChatGPT...

The mania over AI is giving companies a new selling point to upcharge you. It’s now in your hands whether the promised features are worth it, or if you can’t stomach any more subscriptions."

Bizarre AI-generated products are in stores. Here’s how to avoid them.; The Washington Post, September 18, 2023

  Heather Kelly, The Washington Post; Bizarre AI-generated products are in stores. Here’s how to avoid them.

"However, in situations where AI’s involvement is not obvious or desired, a product can be a scam, outright fraud and even dangerous, experts say...

When it comes to books, incorrect information can be dangerous. Amazon recently removed a guide on foraging for mushrooms that some readers claimed was generated by AI and could have given incorrect advice about what mushrooms were edible or poisonous.

“The accuracy problem is real,” said Ravit Dotan, an AI ethics researcher and adviser. “People don’t understand that textual generated AI is not optimized to generate truth. It’s optimized to generate text that’s compelling.”"

Those 10,000 5-star reviews are fake. Now they’ll also be illegal.; The Washington Post, June 30, 2023

Geoffrey A. Fowler, The Washington Post ; Those 10,000 5-star reviews are fake. Now they’ll also be illegal.

"The Federal Trade Commission on Friday proposed new rules to take aim at businesses that buy, sell and manipulate online reviews. If the rules are approved, they’ll carry a big stick: a fine of up to $50,000 for each fake review, for each time a consumer sees it."

Opinion: A lawsuit against Google points out a much bigger privacy problem; The Washington Post, February 14, 2022

Editorial Board, The Washington Post; Opinion: A lawsuit against Google points out a much bigger privacy problem

"The phenomenon the recent suits describe, after all, is not particular to Google but rather endemic to almost the entirety of the Web: Companies get to set all the rules, as long as they run those rules by consumers in convoluted terms of service that even those capable of decoding the legalistic language rarely bother to read. Other mechanisms for notice and consent, such as opt-outs and opt-ins, create similar problems. Control for the consumer is mostly an illusion. The federal privacy law the country has sorely needed for decades would replace this old regime with meaningful limitations on what data companies can collect and in what contexts, so that the burden would be on them not to violate the reasonable expectations of their users, rather than placing the burden on the users to spell out what information they will and will not allow the tech firms to have.

The question shouldn’t be whether companies gather unnecessary amounts of sensitive information about their users sneakily — it should be whether companies amass these troves at all. Until Congress ensures that’s true for the whole country, Americans will be clicking through policies and prompts that do little to protect them."

FCC unanimously approves ‘nutrition labels’ for broadband services; The Verge, January 27, 2022

Makena Kelly, The Verge; FCC unanimously approves ‘nutrition labels’ for broadband services

"Understanding your broadband speeds could be just as simple as reading the nutrition label on the back of the food you buy at the grocery store as soon as the end of this year.

The Federal Communications Commission voted unanimously on Thursday to press forward on a new plan that would require internet providers, like Comcast and Verizon, to offer new labels disclosing an internet plan’s price, speed, data allowances, including introductory rates and later price hikes, as well as network management practices, like throttling, at the point of sale. This allows for greater transparency into market rates and could lead to lower prices down the line."

Virginia governor signs nation’s second state consumer privacy bill; The Washington Post, March 2, 2021

Cat Zakrzewski The Washington Post ; Virginia governor signs nation’s second state consumer privacy bill

"Gov. Ralph Northam signed data privacy legislation into law on Tuesday, making Virginia the second state in the nation to adopt its own data protection rules.

The law, known as the Consumer Data Protection Act, had broad support from the tech industry, including Amazon, which is building an Arlington, Va., headquarters. The legislation will allow residents of the commonwealth to opt out of having their data collected and sold, similar to a California law that went into effect last year. Under the new law, Virginia residents can also see what data companies have collected about them, and correct or delete it. (Amazon founder and chief executive Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post.)

The Virginia law is widely viewed as more industry friendly than the California provision, however, and privacy advocates have called for Virginia to adopt some of California’s provisions that make it easier for people to opt out of data collection from multiple companies. The Virginia law also does not allow individuals to bring lawsuits against tech companies for violations and will be enforced by the state’s attorney general, not a separate enforcement agency."

The Ethical Data Dilemma: Why Ethics Will Separate Data Privacy Leaders From Followers; Forbes, March 31, 2020

Stephen Ritter, Forbes; The Ethical Data Dilemma: Why Ethics Will Separate Data Privacy Leaders From Followers

"Companies themselves should proactively take a principled stand on how they will handle the personal data they collect. There’s a saying that if a product or service is free, then the users themselves are the product. It’s a disheartening view, but unfortunately one that’s been validated too many times in recent years.

Because the commoditization of consumer data isn’t likely to end anytime soon, it’s up to the businesses that gather and profit from this data to engage directly with their customers and establish data protections they will trust."

Your DNA is a valuable asset, so why give it to ancestry websites for free?; The Guardian, February 16, 2020

Laura Spinney, The Guardian; Your DNA is a valuable asset, so why give it to ancestry websites for free?

"The announcement by 23andMe, a company that sells home DNA testing kits, that it has sold the rights to a promising new anti-inflammatory drug to a Spanish pharmaceutical company is cause for celebration. The collected health data of 23andMe’s millions of customers have potentially produced a medical advance – the first of its kind. But a few weeks later the same company announced that it was laying off workers amid a shrinking market that its CEO put down to the public’s concerns about privacy.

These two developments are linked, because the most intimate data we can provide about ourselves – our genetic make-up – is already being harvested for ends we aren’t aware of and can’t always control. Some of them, such as better medicines, are desirable, but some of them should worry us...

These are the privacy concerns that may be behind layoffs, not only at 23andMe, but also at other DTC companies, and that we need to resolve urgently to avoid the pitfalls of genetic testingwhile [sic] realising its undoubted promise. In the meantime, we should all start reading the small print."

Consumer DNA Testing May Be the Biggest Health Scam of the Decade; Gizmodo, November 20, 2019

Ed Cara, Gizmodo; Consumer DNA Testing May Be the Biggest Health Scam of the Decade

"This test, as well as many of those offered by the hundreds of big and small DNA testing companies on the market, illustrates the uncertainty of personalized consumer genetics.

The bet that companies like 23andMe are making is that they can untangle this mess and translate their results back to people in a way that won’t cross the line into deceptive marketing while still convincing their customers they truly matter. Other companies have teamed up with outside labs and doctors to look over customers’ genes and have hired genetic counselors to go over their results, which might place them on safer legal and medical ground. But it still raises the question of whether people will benefit from the information they get. And because our knowledge of the relationship between genes and health is constantly changing, it’s very much possible the DNA test you take in 2020 will tell you a totally different story by 2030."

The collapse of the information ecosystem poses profound risks for humanity; The Guardian, November 19, 2019

Lydia Polgreen, The Guardian; The collapse of the information ecosystem poses profound risks for humanity

"When the scientists behind the Doomsday clock published their yearly assessment of how close we are to planetary doom, they added a new dimension to the dual threats of nuclear proliferation and climate change, namely “the intentional corruption of the information ecosystem on which modern civilization depends”.

What we’ve seen in recent years isn’t just the collapse of informational authority. It is the destruction of the pact between the purveyors of quality information and the businesses that wanted to reach the consumers of that information...

Just as companies decarbonize their businesses, they should think carefully about how they contribute to the destruction of our information ecosystem and choose to reach consumers on platforms that slow rather than increase the pace of information ecosystem collapse."

The biggest lie tech people tell themselves — and the rest of us; Vox, October 8, 2019

Rose Eveleth , Vox;

The biggest lie tech people tell themselves — and the rest of us

They see facial recognition, smart diapers, and surveillance devices as inevitable evolutions. They’re not.

"With great power comes great responsibility

Often consumers don’t have much power of selection at all. Those who run small businesses find it nearly impossible to walk away from Facebook, Instagram, Yelp, Etsy, even Amazon. Employers often mandate that their workers use certain apps or systems like Zoom, Slack, and Google Docs. “It is only the hyper-privileged who are now saying, ‘I’m not going to give my kids this,’ or, ‘I’m not on social media,’” says Rumman Chowdhury, a data scientist at Accenture. “You actually have to be so comfortable in your privilege that you can opt out of things.” 

And so we’re left with a tech world claiming to be driven by our desires when those decisions aren’t ones that most consumers feel good about. There’s a growing chasm between how everyday users feel about the technology around them and how companies decide what to make. And yet, these companies say they have our best interests in mind. We can’t go back, they say. We can’t stop the “natural evolution of technology.” But the “natural evolution of technology” was never a thing to begin with, and it’s time to question what “progress” actually means."

The Last Hope for Net Neutrality; Slate, October 1, 2019

April Glaser, Slate; The Last Hope for Net Neutrality

A federal appeals court upheld the FCC’s repeal of the open-internet rules. But it allowed for states to save them. 

 

"It’s confirmed: Net neutrality is legally dead. On Tuesday morning, a federal appeals court reaffirmed the Federal Communications Commission’s repeal of Obama-era net neutrality rules that prohibited internet providers from blocking, slowing down, or speeding up access to websites. In a 200-page decision, the judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit agreed with FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, who in 2017 vowed to “fire up a weed whacker” and destroy the regulations, which had only been on the books for about two years at the time.

 

While it’s been legal for internet providers to block access to websites since June 2018, when the FCC’s net neutrality repeal hit the books, advocates and website owners who depend on unfettered consumer access to the web were hopeful that the court would invalidate the repeal. Now, internet providers like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T can do whatever they want with their customers’ connections and web access as long as they state that they reserve the right to do so in their terms of service. That doesn’t mean the internet is going to change tomorrow, or that Comcast will start throttling with abandon anytime soon. But by allowing telecom companies to sell faster speeds to the websites that can afford it, the deregulation threatens the ideal of the open web—a level playing field that allows anyone to build a website that can reach anyone. 

 

There is a significant silver lining in Tuesday’s ruling, however: The court struck down the part of the FCC’s 2017 rules that attempted to preempt state net neutrality rules. That reaffirms legislation and executive orders across the country that seek to preserve the pre-2017 status quo in which companies could not mess with websites’ and customers’ access to the internet. Nine states—Hawaii, Montana, New York, New Jersey, Washington, Rhode Island, California, Montana, and Vermont—have passed their own net neutrality rules. Another 27 states have seen legislation proposed to protect net neutrality. More than 100 mayors of cities across the country likewise have pledged not to sign contracts with internet providers that violate net-neutrality principles."

Time to Build a National Data Broker Registry; The New York Times, September 13, 2019

Jordan Abbott, The New York Times; Time to Build a National Data Broker Registry

A federal clearing house would help separate the good and bad actors who deal in data.

"It’s time for a national data privacy law, one that gives consumers meaningful rights — to know who has their data, how it is used and how to opt out. It’s in our country’s best interest to have a national standard that, done thoughtfully, benefits both consumers and businesses by providing transparency, uniformity and certainty without deterring innovation and competition...

There is much work to do to ensure the ethical use of information in our economy. With a concerted effort to engage in mutual understanding, we can address consumer privacy on the one hand, while supporting the inventive, valuable and responsible uses of data on the other.

Jordan Abbott is the chief data ethics officer for Acxiom."

Nobel laureate takes stance against allowing research to be intellectual property; The Auburn Plainsman, April 11, 2019

Trice Brown, The Auburn Plainsman; Nobel laureate takes stance against allowing research to be intellectual property

"George Smith, recipient of a 2018 Nobel Prize for Chemistry, spoke to a crowd of students and faculty about the problems that arise from making publicly funded research intellectual property.

Smith said one of the greatest problems facing the scientific research community is the ability of universities to claim intellectual property rights on publicly funded research.

“I think that all research ought not to have intellectual — not to be intellectual property,” Smith said. “It’s the property of everyone.”"

With fitness trackers in the workplace, bosses can monitor your every step — and possibly more; The Washington Post, February 16, 2019

Christopher Rowland, The Washington Post; With fitness trackers in the workplace, bosses can monitor your every step — and possibly more

[Kip Currier: This article--and case study about the upshots and downsides of employers' use of personal health data harvested from their employees' wearable devices--is a veritable "ripped from the headlines" gift from the Gods for an Information Ethics professor's discussion question for students this week!... 

What are the ethics issues? 

Who are the stakeholders? 

What ethical theory/theories would you apply/not apply in your analysis and decision-making?

What are the risks and benefits presented by the issues and the technology? 

What are the potential positive and negative consequences?  

What are the relevant laws and gaps in law?

Would you decide to participate in a health data program, like the one examined in the article? Why or why not?

And for all of us...spread the word that HIPAA does NOT cover personal health information that employees VOLUNTARILY give to employers. It's ultimately your decision to decide what to do, but we all need to be aware of the pertinent facts, so we can make the most informed decisions.
See the full article and the excerpt below...]   


"Many consumers are under the mistaken belief that all health data they share is required by law to be kept private under a federal law called HIPAA, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. The law prohibits doctors, hospitals and insurance companies from disclosing personal health information.

But if an employee voluntarily gives health data to an employer or a company such as Fitbit or Apple — entities that are not covered by HIPPA’s [sic] rules — those restrictions on disclosure don’t apply, said Joe Jerome, a policy lawyer at the Center for Democracy & Technology, a nonprofit in Washington. The center is urging federal policymakers to tighten up the rules.

“There’s gaps everywhere,’’ Jerome said.

Real-time information from wearable devices is crunched together with information about past doctors visits and hospitalizations to get a health snapshot of employees...

Some companies also add information from outside the health system — social predictors of health such as credit scores and whether someone lives alone — to come up with individual risk forecasts."

Meet the data guardians taking on the tech giants; BBC, January 29, 2019

Matthew Wall, BBC; Meet the data guardians taking on the tech giants

"Ever since the world wide web went public in 1993, we have traded our personal data in return for free services from the tech giants. Now a growing number of start-ups think it's about time we took control of our own data and even started making money from it. But do we care enough to bother?"

Big tech firms still don’t care about your privacy; The Washington Post, January 28, 2019

Rob Pegoraro, The Washington Post; Big tech firms still don’t care about your privacy

"Today is Data Privacy Day. Please clap.

This is an actual holiday of sorts, recognized as such in 2007 by the Council of Europe to mark the anniversary of the 1981 opening of Europe’s Convention for the Protection of Individuals With Regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data — the grandfather of such strict European privacy rules as the General Data Protection Regulation.

In the United States, Data Privacy Day has yet to win more official acknowledgment than a few congressional resolutions. It mainly serves as an opportunity for tech companies to publish blog posts about their commitment to helping customers understand their privacy choices.

But in a parallel universe, today might feature different headlines. Consider the following possibilities."

The AI Arms Race Means We Need AI Ethics; Forbes, January 22, 2019

Kasia Borowska, Forbes; The AI Arms Race Means We Need AI Ethics

"In an AI world, the currency is data. Consumers and citizens trade data for convenience and cheaper services. The likes of Facebook, Google, Amazon, Netflix and others process this data to make decisions that influence likes, the adverts we see, purchasing decisions or even who we vote for. There are questions to ask on the implications of everything we access, view or read being controlled by a few global elite. There are also major implications if small companies or emerging markets are unable to compete from being priced out of the data pool. This is why access to AI is so important: not only does it enable more positives from AI to come to the fore, but it also helps to prevent monopolies forming. Despite industry-led efforts, there are no internationally agreed ethical rules to regulate the AI market."

Our privacy regime is broken. Congress needs to create new norms for a digital age.; The Washington Post, January 5, 2019

By Editorial Board, The Washington Post; Our privacy regime is broken. Congress needs to create new norms for a digital age. 

 

"It is time for something new. Legislators must establish expectations of companies that go beyond advising consumers that they will be exploiting their personal information. For some data practices, this might call for wholesale prohibition. For all data practices, a more fundamental change is called for: Companies should be expected and required to act reasonably to prevent harm to their clients. They should exercise a duty of care. The burden no longer should rest with the user to avoid getting stepped on by a giant. Instead, the giants should have to watch where they’re walking."

Facebook’s Data Sharing and Privacy Rules: 5 Takeaways From Our Investigation; The New York Times, December 18, 2018

Nicholas Confessore, Michael LaForgia and Gabriel J.X. Dance, The New York Times;

Facebook’s Data Sharing and Privacy Rules: 5 Takeaways From Our Investigation

 

"You are the product: That is the deal many Silicon Valley companies offer to consumers. The users get free search engines, social media accounts and smartphone apps, and the companies use the personal data they collect — your searches, “likes,” phone numbers and friends — to target and sell advertising.

But an investigation by The New York Times, based on hundreds of pages of internal Facebook documents and interviews with about 50 former employees of Facebook and its partners, reveals that the marketplace for that data is even bigger than many consumers suspected. And Facebook, which collects more information on more people than almost any other private corporation in history, is a central player.

Here are five takeaways from our investigation."