"Even as businesses in Pittsburgh compete to commercialize artificial
intelligence and give machines the human quality of “learning,” just a
three-hour drive away people struggle with dial-up connections — if
there are internet connections at all.
More than 24 million Americans — 800,000 in Pennsylvania and mostly
in rural areas — lack an internet connection that meets a federal
minimum standard for speed. The result is a yawning divide in commerce,
education and medicine that’s splitting America into the digital haves
and have-nots.
“We’re basically being cut off from the 21st century,” Huntingdon County Planning Director Mark Colussy said."
Robert Pear, The New York Times; Drug Company ‘Shenanigans’ to Block Generics Come Under Federal Scrutiny "At a time when researchers are using sophisticated science to develop new treatments and cures, the fight over physical samples — a few thousand pills — sounds mundane. But it has huge implications for consumers’ access to affordable medicines. The F.D.A. says it has received more than 150 inquiries from generic drug companies unable to obtain the samples needed to show that a generic product works the same as a brand-name medicine. Some of the disputes over samples involve drugs that are costly to patients and to the Medicare program and that have experienced sharp price increases in recent years. “Without generic competition, there is no pressure to drive down the costs of these medications,” the food and drug agency said. Under current law, it said, it cannot compel a brand-name drug manufacturer to sell samples to a generic company."
The Editorial Board, The New York Times; Facebook Is Not the Problem. Lax Privacy Rules Are. "Many businesses will struggle to comply with the European Union’s new rules, and officials in member countries will have a hard time enforcing it consistently. “We will have a learning curve,” saidIsabelle Falque-Pierrotin, who heads France’s privacy regulator, the Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés. “We will have to adjust.” But it is increasingly clear that businesses will figure out how to live with and make money under tougher privacy rules. Some companies are also planning to apply some or all of the data protection requirements to all of their customers, not just Europeans. And other countrieshave or are considering adopting similar rules. Throughout history, meatpackers, credit card companies, automakers and other businesses resisted regulations, arguing they would be ruined by them. Yet, regulations have actually benefited many industries by boosting demand for products that consumers know meet certain standards. Facebook and other internet companies fear privacy regulations, but they ought not to. Strong rules could be good for them as well as for consumers."
"Technology companies seem to have a bad reputation at the moment. Whether through honest mistakes or more intentional oversights, the likes of Apple, Facebook, Google and Twitter have created distrust among consumers.
But as technology develops, and as we hand over more control to artificial intelligence and machines, it becomes difficult for developers to foresee the negative consequences or side-effects that might arise.
In October 2017, the AI company DeepMind, a subsidiary of Google, created an ethics group made up of employees and external experts called DeepMind Ethics & Society.
But are these groups any more than a PR strategy? And how can we train technology students to preempt an ethical disaster before they enter the workforce?
To discuss these issues, Jordan Erica Webber is joined by Dr Mariarosaria Taddeoof the Oxford Internet Institute, Prof Laura Norén of NYU and student Kandrea Wade."
Sara Fischer, Kim Hart, Axios; Companies brace for European privacy rules "U.S. companies are largely unprepared for what's about to hit them when sweeping new EU data laws take effect next year. The regulation — the General Data Protection Regulation (or GDPR) — is intended to give users more control of how their personal data is used and streamline data processes across the EU. Companies that fail to comply with the complex law will face steep fines of up to 4% of their global annual revenue. Why it matters:Europe has by far taken the most aggressive regulatory stance on protecting consumer privacy and will in many ways be a litmus test for regulating the currency of the data economy. It impacts a huge number of businesses from advertisers to e-commerce platforms whose data flows through EU countries. That means everyone from Google to your neighbor who sells shoes on eBay could be affected."
Daisy Contreras, NPR Illiois; Illinois Issues: The Battle Over Transparency And Privacy In The Digital Age "Privacy experts like John Verdi from the Future of Privacy Forum says that he believes much of the debate between opponents and proponents comes from the nature of the topic, which is in of itself a complicated issue because of the patchwork of legislation across different states. “It is a vastly complicated space, where you have potential benefits from data to consumers, to businesses, to the economy — to governments. And you also have real concrete privacy and security risks for individuals.”... For the time being, some consumers and privacy advocates like Carolyn Parrish, just want website owners and app developers to establish consensus about what might be considered too much data sharing and to establish ground rules for transparency with consumers. “Giving people greater visibility into what’s happening behind the scenes—it’s useful. Knowledge is helpful to people to help them make educated choices.”"
"“For the machine to know you’re talking to it, it has to be taking that voice information that it’s recording and sending it back and processing,” said [cyber security expert Sean Lawson. "The technology is really cool, especially if you grew up watching ‘The Jetsons’ or ‘Star Trek.’ The problem is, I also know how they work and the privacy implications. The costs versus the benefits of what this device will do for me is just not worth paying in terms of the privacy you give up. But everyone needs to make that decision for themselves.”"
Jennifer Schlesinger, CNBC; Robocalling soars despite 'Do Not Call' registry, as scammers 'couldn't care less' about bothering consumers [Kip Currier: Posting this in response to a timely question from an attendee at the Jewish Federation of Greater Pittsburgh's "Conversations That Count" "Privacy in a Digital Age" program, for which I was a co-panelist last night.] ""The 'Do Not Call' registry actually works for legitimate businesses," said Alex Quilici, CEO of YouMail. "The problem is all the people who don't respect it, who are the scammers who [couldn't] care less."
The calls are often coming from overseas, where scammers try to stay out of the reach of regulatory authorities, according to the FTC...
Register your number on the Do Not Call List, donotcall.gov. "After that if you get a call that is trying to sell you a good or service, you have a pretty good idea that that call is illegal and the person behind that call is a law violator, and so you have a good sense of knowing that that's a call that you don't want to engage in," Kopec said.
Report illegal robo-sales calls to the FTC at complaints.donotcall.gov. The government passed on these numbers to services that block calls."
Mickey Mouse, as a property of Disney, enjoys bipartisan support in Congress. He was created in 1928, and under the existing copyright regime of the time, Disney’s right to Mickey should have ended in 1956 at the soonest, 1984 at the latest. Yet with some Disney magic, without fail, Congress expands copyright protections every time the Mickey is about to lapse into the public domain.
The hypocrisy coming from Disney is staggering. It has gained its immense wealth by monetizing properties in the public domain – like Cinderella, a centuries old fairy tale owned by no one – lobbying for copyright protections for those properties, and then reworking properties while constantly expanding the lifetime of their protections. It is a company that has managed to exercise artistic reinterpretation of cultural touchstones while making it nearly impossible for others to do the same. In fact, Disney has made its wealth by making movies on at least 50 works in the public domain."
Simon Crosby, Forbes; GDPR: EU Goes Against The Global Grain To Protect Privacy "Could it be that the EU is about to save the internet? At a time when internet users worldwide are increasingly under surveillance by governments, service providers, advertising networks and social media websites, it seems that one of the internet’s greatest promises -- open communication for all -- has been lost. But the EU has an opportunity to sway the outcome with the recently adopted General Data Protection Regulation, which will become law next year. The EU’s implementation of GDPR has an opportunity to become the most important globally recognized set of principles to protect online privacy. In recent developments, President Donald Trump and his administration promised to mandate rapid improvements in U.S. cybersecurity, but they quickly acquiesced to commercial interests by overriding regulations that the Federal Communications Commission had set up to legitimize the sale of subscriber information by ISPs. What does GDPR mean for consumers? In short, it will strengthen the practice of fundamental privacy rights of individuals and put users back in control of their personal data. This level of regulation will apply to both corporations and governments and will have the potential to inherently disrupt the protocols for data protection on a global scale."
Art Neill, Los Angeles Times; How a rigid fair-use standard would harm free speech and fundamentally undermine the Internet "In a recent Times op-ed article, Jonathan Taplin of the USC Annenberg Innovation Lab claimed that an “ambiguous“ fair use definition is emboldening users of new technologies to challenge copyright infringement allegations, including takedown notices. He proposes rewriting fair use to limit reuses of audio or video clips to 30 seconds or less, a standard he mysteriously claims is “widely accepted.” In fact, this is not a widely accepted standard, and weakening fair use in this way will not address copyright infringement concerns on the Internet. It would hurt the music, film and TV industries as much as it would hurt individual creators... Fair use is inextricably linked to our 1st Amendment right to free speech. We are careful with fair use because it’s the primary way consumers, creators and innovators share new ideas. It’s a good thing, and it is worth protecting."
"Americans value their privacy, but they are also resigned to giving up their personal data in order to transact with a company. Is there a better way for both sides to get what they want? This opinion piece by Kartik Hosanagar(@khosanagar)andTai Bendit examines that question. Hosanagar is a professor of technology and digital business at Wharton. He was previously a cofounder of online marketing firm Yodle Inc. Bendit is a senior at Wharton studying economics with a concentration in operations, information, and decisions. He is joining LinkedIn as a business strategy and analytics analyst.
A version of this article was previously published on LinkedIn."
Klint Finley, Wired; Telco-Backed Politician Wants to Restore Privacy Rules She Helped Kill "...[L]ast week Representative Blackburn, Republican chair of the House Communications and Technology Subcommittee, introduced theBROWSER Act(yes, it’s an acronym: Balancing the Rights of Web Surfers Equally and Responsibly). Not only would the bill apparently reinstate the ban on internet providers selling data without opt-in permission; it would also subject “edge providers”—websites apps, in other words—to the same restrictions. That’s right: The bill would require any internet company to get opt-in permission before sharing sensitive information such as health data, your social security number, or internet browsing history. Simply allowing users to opt out wouldn’t cut it. What’s more, companies wouldn’t be able to make opting in a requirement to use their services."
The rise in health information technology and wearable devices has brought innovative models of healthcare delivery, as well as increasing privacy risks and compliance concerns. Join our expert faculty as they discuss privacy issues confronting emerging technologies.
Topics will include:
Applicability of HIPAA to technology companies
Office for Civil Rights (OCR) guidance on HIPAA and cloud computing
Increasing Focus on Patient Right of Access
Recent enforcement settlements affecting emerging health care technologies and developers
Privacy considerations in the era of the Internet of Things (IoT)/Wearables
Conor Dougherty, New York Times; Push for Internet Privacy Rules Moves to Statehouses "Last year, Nebraska and West Virginia passed laws that limit how companies can monitor employees’ social media accounts, while legislators in Hawaii, Missouri and elsewhere are pushing similar bills for employees, as well as for students and tenants. “More and more, states have taken the position that, if Congress is not willing or able to enact strong privacy laws, their legislatures will no longer sit on their hands,” said Chad Marlow, a lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union. Online privacy is the rare issue that draws together legislators from the left and the far right. At the state level, anyway, some of the progress has come from a marriage between progressive Democrats and libertarian-minded Republicans, who see privacy as a bedrock principle, Mr. Marlow said."
Jim Puzzanghera, Los Angeles Times; Senate votes to kill privacy rules meant to protect people's sensitive data from their Internet providers "The rules, which have not yet gone into effect, require AT&T Inc., Charter Communications Inc.,Comcast Corp.and other broadband providers to get customer permission before using or sharing sensitive personal data, such as Web browsing or app usage history and the geographic trail of mobile devices. Companies use consumer data to target advertising. Privacy advocates worry that Internet service providers are assembling detailed dossiers on their customers without their consent...
Republicans and broadband companies opposed the rules because they imposed tougher restrictions on high-speed Internet providers than on websites and social networks, which also collect and use such data."
"The United States Copyright Office has released a study that finds that existing copyright laws are sufficient to cover issues arising over software embedded in everyday consumer products. But it does call for some flexibility for consumers to tinker with their devices.
The report, which followed hearings and research in the field, is available here. The report was requested by Sens. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), the chair and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee."
"What’s clear is that news consumers must be extra-vigilant in selecting news sources, while also being self-critical about those choices. The mainstream media need to work harder at presenting balanced reporting to rebuild trust. And education programs aimed at teaching students how to evaluate news, such as those created by the News Literacy Project, need greater public support and an accelerated timeline."
"AARP, which represents seniors, is part of the Campaign for Sustainable Rx Pricing, along with Anthem Inc., one of the U.S.’s biggest health insurers, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. The coalition has proposed having drugmakers submit for government review any price increases over 10 percent, and making it easier for generics to come to market.
Health insurers, who just six years ago were painted as villains during the passage of Obamacare, are relishing the turnabout now that drugmakers are the focus.
“These increases have got to stop,” said John Bennett, chief executive officer of Capital District Physicians’ Health Plan Inc., or CDPHP, a not-for-profit health insurer in Albany, New York. Last year, 22 percent of the premiums Capital took in for its commercial plans was spent on drugs.
“They are unsustainable for us as a society and they are morally wrong,” Bennett said in a telephone interview. “They are extracting profit out of a scarce resource that people need to survive.”
