Hashtag Trending Antitrust probe of tech giants commences; North discontinues smart glasses; new workplace trends during the pandemic – IT World…

Major tech companies appear before the U.S. Congress in a monumental antitrust hearing, Ontario based smart glasses company discontinues product after Googles acquisition, and the shifting workplace due to the coronavirus.

Its all the tech news thats popular right now. Welcome to Hashtag Trending! Its Thursday, July 30, and Im your host, Baneet Braich.

Congress started a major antitrust hearing yesterday with Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon, and Google to determine whether they have abused their power in the online marketplace. All four are appearing among one another online due to COVID-19. In their opening remarks, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos and Google CEO Sundar Pichai discussed their immigrant backgrounds. Bezos told the story of his adopted father, who immigrated from Cuba. Pichai discussed India. Congress is expected to grill the tech giants with specific questions and evidence. The eyes are mainly on Bezos- the worlds richest man had never before testified in front of congress.

Ontario-based tech company North, which was acquired by Google last month, says that its smart glasses will no longer work after Friday. Moreover, North says its first generation of smart glasses will be discontinued. The company also says it has cancelled any plans to ship its second-generation Focals 2.0. Google did not respond to CTVNewss request for comment at the time of publishing. All to say in a few days the smart element of the glasses will be unusable. North will issue refunds.

The consequences of the coronavirus have led to significant changes in the workforce. The shift may significantly alter wages, career paths and how companies operate in the coming years, according to The New York Times. On one hand, there is more flexibility and higher disposable income. However, these fast changes may also mean a disaster for low-skilled labour, lowering wages and job security. Highly skilled workers may also not have the easiest time to band together over issues of pay and working conditions, says the Times.

Thats all the tech news thats trending right now. Hashtag Trending is a part of the ITWC Podcast network. Add us to your Alexa Flash Briefing or your Google Home daily briefing.Im Baneet Braich, thanks for listening.

Link:

Hashtag Trending Antitrust probe of tech giants commences; North discontinues smart glasses; new workplace trends during the pandemic - IT World...

Tech Giants ‘Killing Free Expression’, Block Trump Jr. and Hide Reports About Effective Treatment for COVID – Faithwire

By Andrea Morris

Social media giants Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook are banning or hiding posts about treatments for the coronavirus and the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine.

Despite a recent major study and a new report from a Yale epidemiological expert that verifies the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), the mainstream news media and tech giants are censoring the message. It seems HCQ has become a politically incorrect drug simply because President Trump once referred to it as a possible treatment for COVID-19.

Now Donald Trump Jr. has been notified that his access to Twitter is being restricted after he shared video pertaining to COVID-19 and medical interventions,CNBCreports.

The presidents son was advised that his actions had violated the social media platforms policy and that he was spreading misleading and potentially harmful information related to COVID-19.

BREAKING: @Twitter & @jack have suspended @DonaldJTrumpJr for posting a viral video of medical doctors talking about Hydroxychloroquine.

Big Tech is the biggest threat to free expression in America today & they're continuing to engage in open election interference full stop. pic.twitter.com/7dJbauq43O

Andy Surabian, a spokesman for Trump Jr. said, Twitter suspending Don Jr. for sharing a viral video of medical professionals discussing their views on Hydroxychloroquine is further proof that Big Tech is intent on killing free expression online and is another instance of them committing election interference to stifle Republican voices.

CBN Newsattempted to access a YouTube video with doctors talking about coronavirus medications and treatments, but the video had been removed for violating community standards.

Thevideothat is causing the controversy stems from a group of physicians calling themselves American Frontline Doctors who are speaking to the public in an effort to reduce fears over the coronavirus pandemic.

The doctors are attending a White Coat Summit this week which aims toclarify the misinformationAmericans are receiving from sources that lack awareness on key topics pertaining to the virus.

The physicians are determined to shine a light on some of the false claims and fears that are being spread about COVID-19.

Dr. Erickson spoke atthe eventon Monday and told the audience that, 99.8 percent of people get through this with little to no progressive or significant disease.

Physicians withAmerican Frontline Doctorsargue that there are treatments available for people who test positive for the virus, yet these resources are not being utilized.

This is the first time, historically, that weve told patients with a disease to go home in isolateits never happened before, one physician said. Its almost insanity. Were letting patients perish unnecessarily.

Several doctors who attended Mondays event saidsome of the deathsrelated to the coronavirus could have been prevented.

One female physician contends there is a medical cure for COVID-19 and another said that hydroxychloroquines use is being blocked because of politics and that the medication should be available over-the-counter.

The White Coat Summit was slated to broadcast on Facebook, but that link has also been removed.

Additional medical experts are reporting on the success that patients are having with hydroxychloroquine.

CBN Newsrecently reported that Dr. Harvey Risch with the Yale University Public School of Health said hydroxychloroquine, as an early treatment,is highly effective, especially when given in combination with the antibiotics azithromycin or doxycycline and the nutritional supplement zinc.

Risch explained that the drug works against the virus when taken early before it multiplies throughout the body. He said some physicians who prescribed hydroxychloroquine to patients are now being scrutinized for their actions.

And arecent major studyfrom the Henry Ford Health System in Michigan said the drug significantly cut the death rate of patients.

Treatment with hydroxychloroquine cut the death rate significantly in sick patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and without heart-related side-effects, thehealth organizationreports.

For more information on the White Coat Summit, clickhere.

Continued here:

Tech Giants 'Killing Free Expression', Block Trump Jr. and Hide Reports About Effective Treatment for COVID - Faithwire

Decision to force tech giants to pay for news will have ‘significant global ramifications’ – Sky News Australia

The decision to force Google and Facebook to pay for outside content will have huge global ramifications, both for the tech giants and for media companies, according to Sky News host Chris Kenny. Tech giants will be forced to pay Australian media companies for their content or else they will be ushered into binding arbitration if parties cannot agree within a three-month window. The world-first mandatory code was unveiled by Treasurer Josh Frydenberg today as he complained tech giants Google and Facebook had not made adequate progress towards paying companies for original journalism. Google alone has ripped hundreds and millions of dollars from Australian media companies in recent years and earned $4.3 billion in Australian advertising revenue in 2019. Mr Kenny said the decision is about fairness and protecting media jobs. This means companies like Sky News, News Corp newspapers and our competitors in Nine newspapers and other broadcasters, it means we'll share in some of the revenue the tech giants derive from sharing our content, if all goes well, Mr Kenny said.But that should be good for you, helping to guarantee a vibrant media industry, ensure proper journalism is funded and preventing local companies and jobs from being killed off by the global giants who suck up all the advertising revenue. "People love the services we get from search engines and social media. But this is all about redressing the balance, making sure content providers are paid fairly for what they do, and in the end protecting jobs in the news media.

Link:

Decision to force tech giants to pay for news will have 'significant global ramifications' - Sky News Australia

CNN’s Brian Stelter: Claims of anti-conservative bias by tech giants are not backed up by data or science – Media Matters for America

BRIAN STELTER (CNN CHIEF MEDIA CORRESPONDENT): And the conversation about Google was really interesting. When you or I search on Google now, when we type in a question, oftentimes the result is a Google answer. Google is finding the answer or directing you to a Google site. That is a change in the Google algorithm. And sothat is an example of possible consumer harm. However, Google says that's an improvement, that's a benefit to the customer, because it's the best, fastest answer. So there you go, that's the tension, that's the story.

And then there's this parallel track, where you have some Republican lawmakers accusing these companies of anti-conservative biasand trying to get them to make certain commitments and promises. Let's just all remember the claims about bias in tech platforms are anecdotal, not backed up by data or science. These are stories, not statistics. But we're probably going to hear more of that from the Republicans in the coming minutes.

The rest is here:

CNN's Brian Stelter: Claims of anti-conservative bias by tech giants are not backed up by data or science - Media Matters for America

Tech Giants Anti-Trust Hearing: Apple Wanted More than Just 30% Cut from Subscriptions, Emails Showed – Brinkwire

Emails shared by the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday (June 29) during the tech giant anti-trust hearing showed that Apple wanted a 40% cut from some third -party subscriptions accessible through its platforms.

Apple services chief Eddy Cue said in an email dated March,2011 that they should ask for 40% of the first year only but we need to work a few deals to see what is right.

Jai Chulani, another executive, also said that that the iPhone maker may be leaving money on the table if we just asked for about 30% of the first year of subscriptions.

Both executives were referring to Apples video streaming service Hulu and digital content apps like those being offered by sports leagues. It also applies to the Apple TV set-top box but not yet certain whether it is also applicable to apps running on the iPad and iPhone devices.

The tech giant enjoyed a 30% cut from app subscriptions when it launched the feature a few years back. It reduced the fee to 15% after the first year.

Since last year, Apples rules and fees on its App store have been subjected to regulators criticisms. Developers also had their fair share of complaints.

In the Anti-trust hearing, Apple CEO Tim Cook reiterated that their fees are competitive and that theyve got several competition trying to lure mobile consumers and developers.

READ ALSO: Apple Fined $27M in France For Slowing Old iPhones; Charged Deceptive!

This article is owned by Tech Times

Written by Krisana E.

See the original post here:

Tech Giants Anti-Trust Hearing: Apple Wanted More than Just 30% Cut from Subscriptions, Emails Showed - Brinkwire

Nasdaq Gains 173 Points to Kick Off Busy Week in Tech; Moderna Scores $472 Million for Coronavirus Vaccine Research – The Motley Fool

The major indexes gained on Monday amid optimism for another COVID-19 stimulus package following yesterday's comments by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin that lawmakers are approaching a deal for a $1 trillion bill. The proposal is expected to include another round of $1,200 checks and could potentially extend an eviction moratorium.

The Nasdaq Composite (NASDAQINDEX:^COMP) outpaced the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the S&P 500. The index rose 173 points, driven by gains in major tech stocks like Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) and Amazon.com (NASDAQ:AMZN).

CEO Tim Cook. Image source: Apple.

It's going to be a busy week for tech giants. The CEOs of Apple, Amazon, Facebook (NASDAQ:FB), and Alphabet (NASDAQ:GOOG) (NASDAQ:GOOGL) subsidiary Google have agreed to testify in front of the House Judiciary Committee as part of an historic antitrust hearing. The hearing was originally scheduled for today but was postponed to Wednesday in order for congressional lawmakers to pay their respects to Representative John Lewis, the civil rights icon that passed away earlier this month.

Antitrust scrutiny of large tech corporations has been intensifying in recent years, with critics arguing that the companies collectively wield too much market power and that different aspects of their respective businesses undermine competition in various ways. Lawmakers are expected to grill Tim Cook, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and Sundar Pichai as they gather evidence around those allegations as part of a broader antitrust probe that was launched last summer.

All four of those behemoths are then set to report earnings the following day after the market close.

Shares ofModerna (NASDAQ:MRNA) jumped by 9% after the biotech announced yesterday that it had secured an additional $472 million from the U.S. government's Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) in order to support a larger phase 3 program for Moderna's COVID-19 mRNA vaccine candidate, mRNA-1273. That funding comes after the biotech previously received $483 million from BARDA and brings the total value of awards to $955 million.

The expanded phase 3 program, which commenced today, will include 30,000 participants and be conducted in collaboration with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). Moderna says it remains on track to deliver 500 million doses per year starting in 2021, with the potential to ramp to 1 billion doses per year.

Image source: Getty Images.

"We thank BARDA for this continued commitment to mRNA-1273, our vaccine candidate against COVID-19." Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel said in a statement. "Encouraged by the Phase 1 data, we believe that our mRNA vaccine may aid in addressing the COVID-19 pandemic and preventing future outbreaks."

Toymaker Hasbro (NASDAQ:HAS) saw its stock lose 7% after announcing second-quarter earnings. The company missed revenue expectations because many retailers were closed due to the COVID-19 crisis. Revenue in Q2 fell 29% to $860.3 million, shy of the $992 million in sales that analysts were expecting. That led to adjusted net income of $2.7 million, or $0.02 per share.

Hasbro said it was unable to meet strong consumer demand due to store closures and product shortages. Partner factories in China, which represent 55% of the company's total production capacity, have now resumed operations and are operating at normal levels. Management is optimistic that conditions will improve throughout the rest of the year.

"While the full-year COVID-19 impact geographically remains unpredictable, as stores reopen and we begin to return to production for entertainment we expect the environment to improve in the third quarter and set us up to execute a good holiday season," said Hasbro CEO Brian Goldner.

Continued here:

Nasdaq Gains 173 Points to Kick Off Busy Week in Tech; Moderna Scores $472 Million for Coronavirus Vaccine Research - The Motley Fool

Concerns Around Data Access by Foreign Nations Should be Expanded Beyond the Current China Focus – Social Media Today

Should the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) be allowed to access the data of citizens from other countries, and what are the risks of allowing such?

This is the core question at the heart of calls to ban rising video app TikTok, which has come under increased scrutiny in several regions over its ties to the Chinese regime. To be clear, TikTok's Chinese-owned parent company ByteDanceis indeed beholden, under China's cybersecurity laws, to share its data with the CCP, if so requested. We don't know if such requests have been made in the past, but we do know that ByteDance has previously censored content and managed its platforms in line with CCP rule.

It remains likely that the CCP could request, and receive, data on TikTok users from around the world, for whatever purposes it may have in mind - but what are those purposes, really, and does that access really pose a threat?

The answer to this is both unknowable, and somewhat moot. The threat of China, which has gradually pushed its borders through violent conflicts of late, both in Hong Kong and India, is clearly a concern, but China itself should not be the key issue here. The concern highlighted by TikTok is more about personal data - who can access it and what it can be used for.

Yes, it's a concern that the CCP may be able to access data on foreign citizens, but should it not also be a concern that any nation is able to theoretically access the data of citizens in another?Facebook, a US-owned company, has more data on more people than any other company in history. LinkedIn has your professional and educational records. Google has your search data. While the concerns around data sharing in this respect is lessened due to regulatory measures and international agreements, if you don't think China should have access to your information, an argument could be made that all tech platforms should have to store user data locally.

And that could have other potential benefits.

This week, the CEOs of Facebook, Google and Amazon will all attend a House antitrust subcommittee in the US, which will examine the market dominance of these growing platforms, and consider whether it's beneficial to allow the tech giants to keep getting bigger.

The focus, in this sense, is more on facilitating market competition, and ensuring that they don't use their power to restrict opposing development, yet the hearing, in some ways, is also about what should be done, more generally, to limit the rising power of the tech giants.

And in many cases, nothing can be done - these are already some of the biggest companies in the world, with huge power and influence. Controlling them, in any form, will be difficult - but maybe, through closer analysis, it could open up a new discussion about potential changes to regulations, which may allow more security and innovation at a regional level.

Again, this comes back to how the tech giants operate, and TikTok may be the key example. On examination, maybe it would make more sense to force each tech platform to not so much split their apps and tools into separate companies, but to sub-license their regional entities separate organizations. For example, Facebook would need to create data centers in each nation that it operates, and hire a local team to manage its systems. Google would be required to do the same. That would then also mean that regional data restrictions could be implemented, enabling each nation to control the data of their own citizens.

If there were local concerns about antitrust and limiting innovation, they could be handled on a smaller scale, with specific rulings based on local laws. Already, data rulings like the CCPA and the GDPR have changed some local regulation of platforms. What if each company had to house each nation's data within that nation?

That would likely provide more protection, more security, and more capacity for localized control. And it would also provide one other key benefit.

One of the bigger challenges governments have faced as the tech giants have rose to become multi-billion dollar behemoths is in ensuring that they're also paying their fair share, in regards to local taxes. Which, in the majority, they are not.

Most of the tech giants find workarounds and loopholes to avoid paying tax in each region, which leads to frustration when local businesses, struggling to compete against their expanding service offerings, lose out, because they do have to fulfill their local tax obligations.

But if each platform was forced to operate within each nation, that would be different - that would mean that the Googles and Facebooks of the world could no longer utilize tax havens and legal technicalities to reduce their obligations, which would mean that each region could bring in a greater share of local tax revenue, equivalent to the rising usage of each system.

For example, back in April, the Australian Government proposed new lawswhich would essentially force Google and Facebook to share any revenue they generate as a result of news content that they use on their platforms with the relevant, local publishers of such material.

The idea here is to help these publishers stay afloat, by giving them a cut of Google and Facebook revenue, which publishers have argued is, at least in part, generated on the back of their work.

That proposal will not work. Several nations have tried similar, and Google and Facebook simply maneuver around such regulation - and rightly so, it's a poorly thought out strategy, which, while well-intentioned, doesn't take into account the balance of power in this relationship, and how much each is reliant on the other.

But what if, instead, the Australian Government sought to implement more effective tax systems, which then ensured that Google and Facebook paid their fair share? Both Google and Facebook have paid only marginal tax on their earningsin the Australian market because they've been able to funnel their expenses through lower-cost nations like Singapore, in order to reduce their tax burden - but what if they were actually forced to establish operations within the local market, which would not only see them store local user data there, but also require them to adhere to local tax rules?

With many publications struggling amid the pandemic, there's clearly a need for new funding to help them maintain operations where possible. Adequate taxing of the tech giants, in each region, could provide such, meaning that while they wouldn't have to share revenue direct with publishers, as such, they'd be doing so indirectly, with the funding outcomes essentially being the same.

That would be in addition to local jobs, local investment, and localized control of user data. So rather than concern about foreign companies accessing data on citizens, each region would be able to set legal parameters for data access, ensuring that they maintained control over their own information.

In essence, the TikTok/China case puts a spotlight on the new data battleground, which each nation needs to examine closely, especially in light of the ongoing voter manipulation efforts in the lead up to now virtually every national election. Data access allows for such, and the global conversation that happens on social platforms can indeed encourage people's views in other nations, and change electoral outcomes.

If each nation had more control over how their citizens'data was accessed and used, that could limit manipulative capacity, while also, as noted, ensuring that each company pays its fair share.

In which case, the conversation around the CCP accessing your data should really be broadened to any foreign government having access to user data from other regions. The implications of any such change would be far-reaching, but it could be the next step from the current state.

Continue reading here:

Concerns Around Data Access by Foreign Nations Should be Expanded Beyond the Current China Focus - Social Media Today

Have we given the tech giants the keys to our privacy and our medical secrets? – EURACTIV

For months, the world has been asking: how can we avoid a resurge of the pandemic, which would be catastrophic for our economies and well-being? Part of the answer lies in establishing a screening and tracking system for people who have been exposed, in order to prevent them from infecting those around them in turn, writes Pierre Pozzi Belforti.

Pierre Pozzi Belforti is a venture capital investor in the Silicon Valley and professor at Solvay Brussels Business School and at Sciences Politiques Paris.

Many European governments have turned to a digital solution, already established in China and other Asian countries: encouraging citizens to download a COVID-tracking application on their smartphone.

The question is, however, if these applications hide a fundamental problem. When downloading a tracing app, are we introducing a digital Trojan horse into our private lives? While the apps are called free, we should know that nothing is truly free in the digital world.

A customer will always pay for a service, one way or the other. In the digital world, this is often by giving unlimited access to all her or his personal information, possibly combined with a paid supplement via a subscription.

They say that the tracing apps will preserve our anonymity, because sensitive information is stored only on the smartphone. However, in reality, it is easy to associate the identity of the owner of a smartphone with his/her pseudonym.

It is striking to see how technology giants, not least two of the very largest, have seized on the opportunity to offer, together, an application to the authorities. We have never before seen a co-development agreement between the two fiercest competitors arise so quickly.

This willingness to cooperate is undoubtedly a testament to the desire to help build a screening system, but it might also hint at motives that are much more worrying for our free democratic societies.

Any tech entrepreneur and venture capital financier knows that the health sector offers some of the most lucrative income opportunities ahead for these companies. Investment bank Morgan Stanley estimates that the digital health businesses could generate annual revenues above $ 300 billion, just within the next seven years.

We should not take this lightly. Medical data is the kind of data we want and need to protect the most, as it is the ultimate frontier between our body, our most intimate data on our physical individuality, and the outside world.

Sadly, some tech companies are taking advantage of the COVID crisis and disarray it created with European governments to break a taboo and normalize the idea of access to the market for personal medical data by presenting it as a major help for detection of infected people, which was the true soft spot to approach and convince authorities given the urgency

All of this happened with very little open debate. National and European authorities, which pushed in good faith these mobile applications for COVID given the pandemic emergency, innocently and probably unknowingly contributed in opening the first breach on EU citizens most confidential data.

This should have resulted from a large and in-depth democratic debate at the European level very early on. There has certainly been debate in France, in the National Assembly, and it is ongoing in the House of Representatives in Belgium and in some other European countries.

However, a few national debates do not resolve the moral, ethical, social, and eminently strategic problems on Data sovereignty facing the European Union and its citizens.

No independent audit system has been put in place to ensure that collected medical information is deleted in a definitive way after use

No new EU rules have been imposed ensuring that it is not sold to other platforms or data processors, nor any penalties or fines in the event of breaches have been introduced as with GDPR.

Unfortunately, it is today a fait accompli that this highly sensitive data of EU citizens is being captured by the American or Chinese tech giants through apps available on their platforms

The Hippocratic Oath taken by all doctors include the phrase

I will never cheat on their trust and will not use the power inherited from circumstances to force conscience.

I will give care to the needy, and whoever asks for it. I will not be swayed by the thirst for gain or the quest for glory.

Accepted in the privacy of people, I will withhold the secrets that will be entrusted to me. Received inside the houses, I will respect the secrets of the homes, and my conduct will not be used to corrupt manners.

Like doctors, todays tech giants penetrate the most intimate parts of our lives; they are by our side day and night via the digital tools, which continuously accompany and monitor us.

Nevertheless, none of them seem ready to voluntarily follow the rules laid out by Hippocrates 25 centuries ago.

Tech giants do not promise to respect household secrets, not mislead trust, or exploit the power inherited from the circumstances.

On the contrary, their business models are based on surveillance capitalism, which captures all our most private information, including this additional breach into medical data, to exploit them commercially and, even more worryingly, to enhance personal profiling to the extreme with no respect for Privacy and in contravention of basic democratic laws and principles protecting each EU citizen.

In our democratic countries any law enforcement entity, from Police to European Drug Enforcement Agency to tax authorities, are subject to strict laws and existing jurisprudence, and mostly need a Court decision to be able to enter into our home, listen and record our conversations, read our correspondence, capture information on our medical data, etc.

Digital platforms do all this without limitations, without being subject to any legislation protecting our privacy except GDPR (which is not sufficient anymore and needs enlargement of scope and enhanced implementation by national authorities), without any sovereign public control nor independent audit over time.

How was this made possible, and are we still in time for our national and European politicians to turn the scales by firmly ensuring our values and principles to protect the individuals freedom and right not to be subject to such rapacious unlimited harvesting of private information and detailed profiling?

We must protect European citizens from a drift towards what some renowned specialists, like Harvard Professor Emeritus Shoshana Zuboff, have called surveillance capitalism,.

In addition to the unacceptable capture of all our information on our lives, now we risk additional seizing by the digital platforms of medical data that is private for us and truly strategic in terms of enhancing knowledge for Machine Learning and Data gathering, which are two key components of Artificial Intelligence sovereignty.

This will dramatically enhance their future intangible technological power over us, alongside another exponential growth of their financial profits, whilst imprisoning our EU citizens into applications that will be more and more impossible to renounce over time as they gain strength and presence in our daily lives, particularly when capturing the strategically vital digital Med-tech market share

Just on July 16, 2020 we learned that the US government is envisaging a ban on Chinese TikTok social media gaming application because it gathers too much private information from 37.2 million American users of the application in 2019, along with some other 60 applications.

The US is following India that, a few days earlier, has already banned TikTok and 60 other Chinese applications as well.

Clearly, this proves how far these digital applications, even as benign as gaming, can go without the public at large understanding the issues and the risks, whilst the authorities slowly realize the immensity of the hidden world of massive rapacious information gathering that exists behind the scene of supposedly benign, free applications.

Its amazing and very sad to notice that, when it is a matter of protecting US citizens privacy, all measures are conceivable by its government including drastic one like banning an application, whereas not much has been done as of today within the EU on the massive data harvesting that EU citizens have been victims for over two decades by US and Chinese online platforms.

The EU Court of Justice ruling published on July 16, 2020, denouncing the US-EU data-sharing deal Privacy Shield as it fails to protect EU citizens Privacy, is clearly a signal that we need to dramatically strengthen our EU protection policies and avoid being too accommodating as the stakes are extreme.

Indeed, it is a new and unexpected massive geostrategic and vital challenge for the EU, of a scale that has no common ground with other challenges like immigration, terrorism or the new EU budget.

This challenge is emerging from the US and Chinas highly competitive technological race for world supremacy, one that needs to be quickly understood by our top EU decision-makers in all its intricacies, fully grasped, and wisely confronted without delay by elaborating a clear, long-term vision and implementation strategy.

We must set up a system within the EU to ensure ultimate sovereignty and governance over technology within the European Union.

Only in this way can we protect our citizens freedom and full privacy, prevent possible social and economic discrimination, and avoid strategic enslavement of the EU by foreign technology platforms massively harvesting all our data and ultimately imposing unparalleled domination of our societies by foreign countries/blocs.

Last but not least, it is also the mother of all battles to ensure Ultimate Mankind Sovereignty over the emergence of a potentially ubiquitous and dominating Artificial Intelligence that is on the horizon within 15 to 20 years, unless we take an assertive role and adopt an appropriate legislative framework to protect ourselves and our sovereignty both as humans and as EU citizens.

Politicians in Europe have a duty to tackle it quickly and without procrastination.

James Freeman Clarke, an American theologian, and author from the 19th century, said: a politician thinks of the next election, a statesman thinks of the next generations.

When projecting a vision for the EU into the 21st centurys increasingly unstable and unpredictable world, we definitely need more statesmen and stateswomen in Europe having the vision and courage to take our future in our hands.

In the coming 10 years, we must build a technologically sovereign and independent Europe, able to compete on equal footing with the other two main blocs wanting to dominate AI and Data, and be respected for its actions and admired for the defence of the Ultimate Sovereignty of its universal human and democratic values.

View post:

Have we given the tech giants the keys to our privacy and our medical secrets? - EURACTIV

Dont Ban TikTok. Make an Example of It. – The New York Times

For a while, it seemed that TikTok might dodge the techlash. After all, what could be problematic about a short-form video app featuring a bunch of teenagers and 20-somethings doing choreographed dances, roller skating, hanging out in influencer mansions and cutting into photorealistic cakes?

The answer turns out to be: Plenty.

In the past year, as it has become one of the most popular apps in the world, TikTok has accumulated many of the same problems that other large-scale social networks have. In addition to all the harmless Gen Z fun, there are TikTok conspiracy theories, TikTok misinformation and TikTok extremism. There are even activists using TikTok to influence our elections, including a network of teenagers and K-pop fans who claimed they used the app to sabotage President Trumps rally in Tulsa, Okla., last month by registering for tickets under false identities.

All of this might have been overlooked or forgiven, except for one fact. TikTok is owned by ByteDance, one of the largest tech companies in China.

TikToks Chinese ownership has become a subject of intense scrutiny by lawmakers, regulators and privacy activists in recent weeks. Mr. Trump is considering taking steps to ban the app in the United States. Companies including Wells Fargo, and government agencies including the Transportation Security Administration, have instructed their employees to delete TikTok from their work phones because of concerns that it could be used for surveillance or espionage.

In response to the mounting pressures, TikTok is wrapping itself in the American flag. The company has hired a small army of lobbyists in Washington, has brought in an American chief executive (the former Disney executive Kevin Mayer) and is reportedly exploring selling a majority stake in the company to American investors.

Jamie Favazza, a TikTok spokeswoman, said in a statement that in addition to the chief executive, the social network had an American as its chief information security officer and another as its head of safety.

Weve tripled the number of employees in the U.S. since the start of 2020, she said, with plans to hire 10,000 more people over the next three years in places like Texas, New York and Florida.

There are legitimate concerns about a Chinese-owned company capturing the attention and data of millions of Americans especially one like ByteDance, which has a history of bending the knee to the countrys ruling regime. Like all Chinese tech companies, ByteDance is required to abide by Chinese censorship laws, and it could be forced to give user data to the Chinese government under the countrys national security law. Lawmakers have also raised concerns that TikTok could be used to promote pro-China propaganda to young Americans, or censor politically sensitive content.

Ms. Favazza said TikTok stored American user data in Virginia and Singapore. She added that the companys content moderation efforts were led by U.S.-based teams and not influenced by any foreign government, and that TikTok had not and would not give data to the Chinese government.

There are also reasons to be skeptical of the motives of TikToks biggest critics. Many conservative politicians, including Mr. Trump, appear to care more about appearing tough on China than preventing potential harm to TikTok users. And Silicon Valley tech companies like Facebook, whose executives have warned of the dangers of a Chinese tech takeover, would surely like to see regulators kneecap one of their major competitors.

Ill be honest: I dont buy the argument that TikTok is an urgent threat to Americas national security. Or, to put it more precisely, I am not convinced that TikTok is inherently more threatening to Americans than any other Chinese-owned app that collects data from Americans. If TikTok is a threat, so are WeChat, Alibaba and League of Legends, the popular video game, whose maker, Riot Games, is owned by Chinas Tencent.

And since banning every Chinese-owned tech company from operating in America wouldnt be possible without erecting our own version of Chinas Great Firewall a drastic step that would raise concerns about censorship and authoritarian control we need to figure out a way for Chinese apps and American democracy to coexist.

Heres an idea: Instead of banning TikTok, or forcing ByteDance to sell it to Americans, why not make an example of it by turning it into the most transparent, privacy-protecting, ethically governed tech platform in existence?

As a foreign-owned app, TikTok is, in some ways, easier to regulate than an American tech platform would be. (One way of regulating it, a national security review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States of ByteDances 2017 acquisition of Musical.ly, TikToks predecessor app, is already reportedly underway.) And there is plenty more the U.S. government could do to ensure that TikTok plays a responsible role in our information ecosystem without getting rid of it altogether. It could require the company to open-source key parts of its software, including the machine-learning algorithms that determine which posts users are shown. It could pressure TikTok to submit to regular audits of its data-collection practices, and open up its internal content moderation guidelines for public comment. As Kevin Xu, the author of Interconnected, a blog about United States-China relations, points out, ByteDance could impose strict internal controls to prevent its Chinese employees from accessing any of TikToks systems, and open-source those controls so that outsiders could verify the separation.

Samm Sacks, a cyberpolicy fellow at the centrist think tank New America, told me that some of the solutions being proposed for TikTok such as selling itself to American investors wouldnt address the core problems. An American-owned TikTok could still legally sell data to third-party data brokers, for example, which could then feed it back to the Chinese authorities.

Instead, Ms. Sacks said, the American government should enact a strong federal privacy law that could protect TikTok users data without banning the app altogether.

Lets solve for the problems at hand, she said. If the concern is data security, the best way to secure the data is to put TikTok under the microscope, and put in place really robust and enforceable rules about how theyre using and retaining data.

Forcing TikTok to operate in a radically transparent way would go a long way toward assuaging Americans fears. And it could become a test case for a new model of tech regulation that could improve the accountability and responsibility of not just Chinese-owned tech companies but American ones, too.

At its core, a lot of the TikTok fear factor comes down to a lack of information. In March, TikTok announced that it would open transparency centers where independent auditors could examine its content moderation practices. The company has also begun releasing transparency reports, similar to those issued by Facebook and Twitter, outlining the various takedown requests it gets from governments around the world.

But we still dont know how TikToks algorithms are programmed, or why theyre showing which videos to which users. We dont know how its using the data its collecting, or how it makes and enforces its rules. We should know these things not just about TikTok, but about American social media apps, too.

After all, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Twitter and Snapchat are playing a huge role in the lives of millions of Americans, and for years, they have operated with a degree of secrecy that few other companies of their importance have been allowed. What little we understand about these platforms inner workings is often learned years after the fact, gleaned from insider leaks or repentant former employees.

Some experts see TikToks current predicament as a chance to change that.

I think TikTok is a bit of a red herring, Alex Stamos, Facebooks former chief security officer and a professor at Stanford University, told me in an interview. Ultimately, Mr. Stamos said, the question of what to do about TikTok is secondary to the question of how multinational tech giants in general should be treated.

This is a chance to come up with a thoughtful model of how to regulate companies that operate in both the U.S. and China, no matter their ownership, he said.

The debate over TikToks fate, in other words, should really be a debate about how all of the big tech companies that entertain, inform and influence billions of people should operate, and what should be required of them, whether theyre based in China or Copenhagen or California.

If we can figure out how to handle TikTok an app with a genuinely creative culture, and millions of American young people who love it well have done a lot more than preserving a world-class time-waster. Well have figured out a model for getting big tech platforms under control, after years of letting them run amok.

See the original post here:

Dont Ban TikTok. Make an Example of It. - The New York Times

Uber drivers fight for employment rights and access to their data – Business Insider

Uber is facing an uprising from drivers in Europe who want both increased stability and greater freedom and are demanding stronger employment rights and access to their data.

On the employment-rights front, two Uber drivers continue to fight for basic guarantees in the UK's Supreme Court. Uber drivers are classified as independent contractors, which means they are not entitled to sick pay or the minimum wage.

But in 2016, British drivers James Farrar and Yaseen Aslam successfully argued that Uber should give drivers "worker status," which grants them rights like paid holidays and the national minimum wage. Uber has continually appealed that decision and now taken its fight to the UK Supreme Court, where a ruling is expected in October.

It could be a landmark decision for gig-economy workers and a costly outcome for Uber.

Uber's argument is that its platform only connects passengers with drivers, who are given the flexibility to log into the app when they please and turn down rides they don't want to take.

Farrar is a former Uber driver who is involved in both legal cases. He's now the founder of Worker Info Exchange, an organization that hopes to help gig-economy workers in Europe obtain their data.

Worker Info Exchange is one of the founding members of the International Alliance of App-Based Transport Workers, a union fighting for the rights of gig-economy workers. It was formed in January and already has delegates across 23 countries and multiple platforms, including Lyft, Ola, and Bolt, as well as Uber.

In an interview with Business Insider, Farrar countered Uber's depiction of the platform and painted a darker picture of long hours and poor pay. He said he was forced to take all the rides he was offered to chase a 4.4-star average to avoid seeing his account deactivated.

"Uber gives me work, but also I'm obliged to do that work for Uber," Farrar said. "Uber will say you can cancel the job if you like, but you can't do that without incurring some kind of a penalty. If I was truly self-employed, I could cancel all the work I wanted to. It wouldn't make any difference; it's my choice."

He added: "It strikes me as Uber trying to justify a fairly complicated shell game, which ultimately cheats workers. If you're at the lowest rung, and you're vulnerable to terrible exploitation like you can be in the gig economy, then you need the protection of a minimum wage."

Uber says it has changed its model since the 2016 tribunal. For example, it introduced free insurance for its drivers.

Farrar is also part of a second high-profile lawsuit filed on July 20 against Uber in Amsterdam, where the company is headquartered for all of its non-US operations.

This lawsuit seeks to force Uber to release the personal data of drivers, which it claims is hidden in profiles tagged with information about late arrivals, cancellations, and complaints about attitude and inappropriate behavior from customers.

Uber drivers say they believe that the algorithm uses the tags to manage their performance.

"The app decides millions of times a day who's going to get which ride and who gets the nice rides, who gets the short rides," Anton Ekker, the lawyer representing the Uber drivers in the lawsuit, said.

"It's all about the distribution of power. So Uber is exerting control through data and automated decision-making, and it's blocking the access to that," he said, adding that this is a problem throughout the gig economy. "If Uber is forced by the courts to provide more data, this will contribute to workers' rights, to balancing this power relation."

Uber said it had responded to all requests for data.

"Drivers, and anyone else using our app, can request access to the data that we can legally provide," an Uber spokesperson said. "We will give explanations when we cannot provide certain data, such as when it doesn't exist or disclosing it would infringe on the rights of another person under GDPR."

The data-privacy lawsuit is directly connected to the UK Supreme Court case: Farrar said he became aware of what he characterized as hidden driver profiles from the internal communications Uber submitted for its defense case.

The release of such data could be a blow to Uber's argument that its drivers are independent contractors, as it could show that the app does more than just connect self-employed drivers with paying customers.

The lawsuits against Uber are part of a perceived power imbalance in the gig economy, where workers feel they answer to black-box algorithms rather than human managers.

Uber says that using location information to match passengers with drivers leads to more business for drivers, but Farrar said he believed the increasing reliance on algorithms could work against drivers' interest and result in unfair outcomes.

"Uber has a rule that if you reach 4.4 in your ratings, you're deactivated. So basically Uber has outsourced management to the discriminatory view of their customer," Farrar said. "The question then becomes who reaches 4.4 faster? If I'm a white European man from Ireland, am I going to reach 4.4 faster than a migrant worker from West Africa?"

Uber doesn't publicly disclose which rating results in drivers being booted off its platform, but prior reporting from Business Insider put the number at 4.6.

Understanding the data and how it is used by the algorithms is the first step in addressing the asymmetric power between gig-economy workers and tech giants like Uber, according to Farrar.

"The long, hard road that we are on now is how do we organize the dispersed digital workforce? And what is the currency for our organizing? The gateway in the future to worker rights is through digital rights," he said.

A win against Uber could open the floodgates for data-privacy challenges against other apps.

The need to assert the rights of gig-economy workers is now more important than ever, Farrar said, with delivery apps expected to be some of the biggest winners in the post-pandemic economy.

Global customer volume in the digital gig economy is projected to grow to $455 billion in 2023, from $204 billion in 2018, according to Mastercard.

See the original post here:

Uber drivers fight for employment rights and access to their data - Business Insider

Apple is going fully carbon neutral by 2030 will other tech giants follow suit? – TrustedReviews

Apple has committed to taking the entire company carbon neutral by 2030 as it seeks to set new environmental standards for the tech industry and beyond.

The iPhone maker says it is setting a roadmap for other companies with its plans to reduce carbon emissions by 75%, while outlining new solutions to offset the other 25% of its footprint.The company says that by the time 2030 rolls around, every device you buy from Apple will be 100% carbon neutral.

In a media release, CEO Tim Cook said the commitment represents the dawn of a new era of innovative potential that will have plenty of benefits beyond progress in the fight against climate change.

Businesses have a profound opportunity to help build a more sustainable future, one born of our common concern for the planet we share, Cook said.

The innovations powering our environmental journey are not only good for the planet theyve helped us make our products more energy efficient and bring new sources of clean energy online around the world. Climate action can be the foundation for a new era of innovative potential, job creation, and durable economic growth. With our commitment to carbon neutrality, we hope to be a ripple in the pond that creates a much larger change.

Apple says recycled materials will become and increasingly important part of its product development, while improving its manufacturing process for a greater reliance on carbon-free techniques.

The firm explains: Apple is supporting the development of the first-ever direct carbon-free aluminium smelting process through investments and collaboration with two of its aluminium suppliers.Today the company is announcing that the first batch of this low carbon aluminium is currently being used in production intended for use with the 16-inch MacBook Pro.

Apple is also investing in multiple energy efficiency and renewable energy initiatives while making big commitments to carbon removal projects.

The firm writes: In partnership with Conservation International, the company will invest in new projects, building on learnings from existing work like restoring degraded savannas in Kenya and a vital mangrove ecosystem in Colombia. Mangroves not only protect the coasts and help support the livelihood of those communities where they grow, but they also can store up to 10 times more carbon than forests on land.

Apples data centres have been powered by 100% renewable energy since 2014. We would like to see the company do more in reducing the precious earth materials it uses for its phones and tablets, but Apple is continues to take a leadership role.

Apple adds: All iPhone, iPad, Mac, and Apple Watch devices released in the past year are made with recycled content, including 100 percent recycled rare earth elements in the iPhone Taptic Engine a first for Apple and for any smartphone.

Chris Smith is a freelance technology journalist for a host of UK tech publications, includingTrusted Reviews. He's based in South Florida, USA.

Unlike other sites, we thoroughly review everything we recommend, using industry standard tests to evaluate products. Well always tell you what we find. We may get a commission if you buy via our price links.Tell us what you think email the Editor

Read this article:

Apple is going fully carbon neutral by 2030 will other tech giants follow suit? - TrustedReviews

US Congress to question heads of tech giants on Wednesday – Yahoo News Australia

A highly anticipated congressional hearing on anti-competitive practices, bringing together the heads of four US technology giants, has been rescheduled for noon (1600 GMT) Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee has announced.

The heads of Google, Amazon, Facebook and Apple -- the world's biggest technology companies -- will be testifying at a time of growing complaints about their dominance and amid calls by some politicians and activists to break them up.

The hearing, originally set for Monday, was rescheduled. The committee did not offer a reason, but civil rights icon and long-time congressman John Lewis will be lying in state in the US Capitol on Monday and Tuesday.

Because of the coronavirus pandemic, the four tech leaders -- Jeff Bezos (Amazon), Tim Cook (Apple), Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook) and Sundar Pichai (Alphabet, the parent company of Google and YouTube) -- will be allowed to appear virtually if they wish.

It will be a first congressional appearance for Bezos, who also owns The Washington Post.

Pressure has been growing both from the right and the left -- and sometimes internally -- to do something about the overwhelming dominance of the internet platforms.

The Judiciary Committee has spent more than a year conducting a sweeping investigation into the four companies to determine whether they are guilty of any antitrust abuses and, if so, to consider possible remedies.

This file photo shows the logos of the four giant tech firms whose heads will testify before the US Congress on July 29, 2020, amid rising pushback against their market dominance

(L-R) Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg; Google/Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai; Apple CEO Tim Cook and Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos -- the four are to testify before a US congressional committee on July 29, 2020

See the original post:

US Congress to question heads of tech giants on Wednesday - Yahoo News Australia

Zuckerberg, Bezos, Other Tech CEOs Testify on Competition – The New York Times

WASHINGTON Four Big Tech CEOs Facebooks Mark Zuckerberg, Amazons Jeff Bezos, Google's Sundar Pichai and Apple's Tim Cook will answer for their companies practices before Congress at a hearing Wednesday by the House Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust.

The panel has conducted a bipartisan investigation over the past year of the tech giants market dominance and their effect on consumers.

Its the first such congressional review of the tech industry. It has aimed to determine whether existing competition policies and century-old antitrust laws are adequate or if new legislation and more funding for enforcement are needed.

The four CEOs are expected to testify remotely.

The hearing originally was set for Monday. It was rescheduled to allow lawmakers who are committee members to participate in commemorations at the U.S. Capitol on Monday and Tuesday for Rep. John Lewis, the civil rights icon and longtime Georgia congressman who died July 17.

Go here to see the original:

Zuckerberg, Bezos, Other Tech CEOs Testify on Competition - The New York Times

Podcast of the Week: Land of the Giants – 9to5Mac

Land of the Giants season one was a very interesting look at how Amazon is impacting our daily lives. Season 2 is now underway, and its looking at Netflix.

9to5Macs Podcast of the Week is a weekly recommendation of a podcast you should add to your subscription list

Facebook. Apple. Amazon. Netflix. Google. These five tech giants have changed the world. But how? And at what cost? Netflix now has nearly 200 million subscribers, and the biggest companies in media and tech are racing to catch up. In our new season, The Netflix Effect, Recodes Peter Kafka and Rani Molla examine the unique ways the company has disrupted entertainment and completely changed the way we watch

In episode two, Netflixs culture is discussed at length. One of the discussions I really enjoyed is how Netflix looks at employees like football teams do their players: if you can get a better player, why would you not?

Is working on a team of all-stars, excellent pay, and unlimited vacation worth the stress of constant criticism from co-workers and the knowledge that your boss is considering whether to replace you? Netflix execs will tell you that their internal culture is the key to their success.

Ive posed that question to a number of people in the weeks since, and while I dont agree 100%, I do think its an interesting question to answer. Netflix changed a lot with how TV shows and movies are created and consumed, so looking at their past is very interesting.

Subscribe to Land of the Giants on Apple Podcasts, Overcast, Castro, Pocket Casts, Spotify, or RSS.

Dont forget about the great lineup of podcasts on the 9to5 Network.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Check out 9to5Mac on YouTube for more Apple news:

Read more here:

Podcast of the Week: Land of the Giants - 9to5Mac

TikTok lures Google and Facebook employees to fuel aggressive expansion plans – CNBC

TikTok has been raiding the offices of U.S. tech giants on both sides of the Atlantic as it looks to significantly increase the size of its global workforce.

Despite the threat of a U.S. ban from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, TikTok announced this week that it plans to hire 10,000 people in the country over the next three years. Its largest U.S. offices are in Mountain View, California, and New York.

The Chinese-owned video sharing app, which already employs 1,400 people in the U.S., has hired dozens of staff from Google and Facebook including several high-profile executives. TikTok and Facebook declined to comment. Google did not immediately respond to CNBC's request for comment.

Worldwide, TikTok employs 172 ex-Googlers and 165 ex-Facebookers, according to analysis on LinkedIn. Breaking out the U.S. numbers, TikTok employs 79 people who used to work at Google and 79 who used to work at Facebook. Some of them left Google and Facebook years ago but many of them have recently quit the Silicon Valley firms to join TikTok, which has become wildly popular in the last year.

Notable hires include Blake Chandlee, who was Facebook's vice president of global partnerships until recently. He left in January after more than 12 years at the company to become TikTok's VP of global business solutions, based in New York.

There's also Chen-Lin Lee, who left Facebook last year after nine years and now works as TikTok's director of partnerships in Mountain View. Prior to Facebook he worked at Google.

TikTok is also hiring recruiting professionals from U.S. tech giants to help it expand in the country. Kim Louie, a recruiting manager at Facebook until March, is TikTok's head of talent acquisitions, based in New York. Louie was a technical sourcer at Google before she joined Facebook.

Raymond Chen left his technical recruiter role at Google's New York office last month to join TikTok's talent acquisition team and hunt out security talent.

It's a similar story in Europe, where Facebook lost another veteran to TikTok recently.

Trevor Johnson, who spent over 11 years at Facebook before becoming Instagram's director of market operations in EMEA, joined TikTok as head of marketing and global business solutions in Europe this year.

Theo Bertram, Google's senior manager of public policy in Europe, left in December to join TikTok, where he is now director of government relations and public policy for Europe.

David Hoctor, who worked in Facebook's global accounts team in London, joined TikTok in April 2019 to work on building the company's partnerships with brands.

None of the TikTok hires immediately responded to CNBC's request for comment.

Timothy Armoo, chief executive of Fanbytes, a company that helps brands advertise through social video, told CNBC that people at Google and Facebook have the playbook for building a large advertising business.

"TikTok is at this crucial position where it's opening up commercially to the brand world, and they need people who can execute on this vision," he said.

Armoo also noted how Facebook has "been through the privacy rite of passage" that every dominant social network goes through. "By equipping themselves with people who understand this dynamic, they are making sure they are future proof," he said. "With the level of momentum they have, I think they can be a real challenge to the duopoly."

Elsewhere, TikTok has hired 57 people who used to work at Amazon and 40 who used to work at Apple, according to LinkedIn analysis.

TikTok has a total of 4,658 employees, according to LinkedIn. However, the actual number could be slightly more or slightly less than this.

TikTok is owned by Beijing-based ByteDance, which reportedly made a profit of $3 billion on $17 billion of revenue last year.

ByteDance, which employs over 60,000 people worldwide, said in March it wants to have 100,000 by the end of the year.

Staff at the U.S. tech giants are paid some of the best salaries in the world.

However, TikTok is also offering big salaries. The company is willing to pay a lead machine-learning engineer an annual basic salary of 200,000 ($246,000), according to a tech worker who claims to have been approached for the role and spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the discussions.

Matthew Brennan, a China-based social media analyst, told CNBC that aggressive hiring practices and poaching of staff from rivals is the norm in the Chinese tech industry.

"Yet,even within that environment, ByteDance is notorious for its persistence and assertiveness," he said. "In the company's early years, the key technical talents were all poached from Baidu,the Chinese search equivalent of Google. The company is well known to offer generous above-market compensation to lure away those it wants."

See the article here:

TikTok lures Google and Facebook employees to fuel aggressive expansion plans - CNBC

Tech Is About Power. And These Four Moguls Have Too Much of It. – The New York Times

But a focus on the wealth also obscures the unprecedented accumulation of power by tech giants and the lack of any significant regulation or incentives for real accountability. They are always going to be very rich, so get used to it, but they dont necessarily have to be as powerful if we act now.

And this must be the main topic of a congressional hearing on Monday when the House Judiciary Committees antitrust subcommittee questions the four top tech leaders: Mr. Bezos, Mr. Zuckerberg, Tim Cook of Apple and Sundar Pichai of Alphabet, owner of Google and YouTube.

The gathering of all four chief executives is a big deal, even if some think that appearing as a group will give each individual leader cover, resulting in less substantive questioning. And there are worries that the event will lack the usual drama, since it is likely to be largely remote, due to the coronavirus.

But its critical that lawmakers block out all the noise that has grown around the industry and aim at only discussing the repercussions of unfettered power. All the major problems related to tech stem directly from this, whether it be privacy violations or hate speech and misinformation or unfair market dominance or addiction or fill in the blank.

We must think of it all as systemic, fueled by complete control over certain areas by tech companies, without adequate guardrails from publicly elected officials, which every other major industry has been subject to. Tech does not play by the rules only because there are no rules to speak of. So why shouldnt they do as they please?

Tristan Harris, a former design ethicist at Google who more recently co-founded the Center for Humane Technology, put it perfectly in a podcast interview with me last year: We need to move from this disconnected set of grievances and scandals, that these problems are seemingly separate: tech addiction, polarization, outrage-ification of culture, the rise in vanities, micro-celebrity culture, everyone has to be famous. These are not separate problems. Theyre actually all coming from one thing, which is the race to capture human attention by tech giants.

And it has become a completely fixed race. Because of their heft, these behemoths block every lane and there is no space for innovative small companies to pass them, especially those that are faster or with better ideas. The debate about breakup or levying fines or writing regulations should also be a debate about innovation. What about all of the useful inventions that do not happen when there is only one or maybe two real games in town in social media, in search, in online video, in apps and in e-commerce.

View post:

Tech Is About Power. And These Four Moguls Have Too Much of It. - The New York Times

Anti-trust hearing into Tech giants spoils market, Microsoft and Tesla continue to drive forward and IT is a big mover – Finfeed

Australian ASX Small Cap stocks | Why Finfeed.com is Australias leading small cap publication

Founded seven years ago, Finfeed.com is Australias leading and longest standing website for investor and finance news, education and expert opinion.

Published by StocksDigital, Finfeed was created to report daily on the comings and goings of ASX listed stocks in the small cap market.

As the first digital publication dedicated specifically to this space, Finfeed soon became the most trusted publication in the market, quickly garnering over two million page views a number that continues to rise.

Finfeed.com provides its readers with informative articles that tackle the latest in market moving #ASX small cap news, plus exclusive content you wont find anywhere else. It is aimed at those with an interest in investing, market education, company performance, start-ups and much more.

Finfeed.com is the only media organisation operating under the strength of a Financial Services License and is backed by leading journalists and analysts all with brands of their own.

The website aims to inform, educate and entertain with content that drills down into the heart of financial matters.

Finfeed is a leading source of investor and market information, with everything investors need to know about how to invest written in a way that anyone can understand.

Over the years, the website has expanded beyond exclusively reporting on small caps, to profile Australias leading ASX listed small, mid and large caps as well as some of the countrys most successful CEOs and business leaders to find out what makes them tick.

Every day you will find fresh content covering:

Fast Facts

Over 4,000 articles published

Over 2.3 Million Page Views and counting

Over 10,000 followers on social media

Subscriber list growing by 2% monthly

Continue reading here:

Anti-trust hearing into Tech giants spoils market, Microsoft and Tesla continue to drive forward and IT is a big mover - Finfeed

Tech Giants, Anti-trust and ESG – Morningstar

On July 27 the chief executives of four of the worlds most prominent technology companies,Alphabet (GOOGL), Amazon (AMZN), Apple (AAPL) and Facebook (FB.), will appear before the US Congress as part of an ongoing antitrust investigation into their market power.

This is the latest in a series of developments that includes federal and state-level investigations in the US into the market practices of these companies. Back in 2018, as part of the Sustainalytics publication, ESG Risks on the Horizon, it was noted that the antitrust related scrutiny of major technology companies is likely to persist given the market concentration these companies had established within the digital economy.

While there is significant uncertainty as to the ultimate regulatory response, given the outsized position of these four companies in the S&P 500 and sustainability indices, this type of regulatory and market scrutiny is an area that is important for investors to examine in terms of long-term risks to the enterprise value of these companies.

Apple has just pledged to go carbon neutral across its entirebusiness, manufacturing supply chain, and product life cycle by 2030 (it's already carbon neutral in its global operations).

Businesses have a profound opportunity to help build a more sustainable future, one born of our common concern for the planet we share,says its chief executive Tim Cook. This covers the "E" of ESG, but how do these tech companies score on the social and governance aspects of their business?

When it comes to online business models, the European Commission became the first regulatory agency to look into the market practices of tech companies when it launched a formal investigation into Google in 2010. Starting in 2017, the EC levied three multi-billion-dollar fines against Google totalling more than $9 billion, along with requiring changes to how it does business in certain segments.

The crux of the European regulatory view was and remains that Googles dominance has a negative effect on the online ecosystem as it prevents smaller competitors from offering comparable goods and services and reduces consumer choice. A similar view did not take hold in the US until recently as the existing antitrust regulatory framework there largely relies on pricing as a signal to determine abuse of market power.

Over the past year, tech companies have been at the forefront of several controversies related to anti-competitive behaviour. Indeed, 2019 marked the start of major anti-trust investigations led by both the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and the European Commission. The hearing on July 27 is the first time that chief executives from all four tech companies will be in front of US lawmakers and marks the first time that Amazon boss Jeff Bezos takes part in a congressional hearing.

All four companies have to been able to leverage the network effect to secure leading market positions for their offerings making it increasingly challenging for smaller players to succeed in the digital ecosystem. The network effect refers to the economic concept that states that a service becomes more valuable as more people utilise it, a characteristic that is particularly valuable in the digital ecosystem.

For example, Alphabets Google has established a competitive economic moat from network effects as the gateway to the internet through its online search offering. As a result, it has been able to secure leading positions for its comparison shopping, online advertising, and mobile offerings. This has, without doubt, created benefits for consumers in terms of convenience and cost, a point that is hard to argue against. However, there are implications to the market.

Our research indicates that all four companies have weak management of business ethics-related risks, which includes anti-competitive practices along with issues such as taxation. This, in part, stems from a combination of inadequate management systems to mitigate antitrust concerns over the long term but also the frequency of investigations, fines and lawsuits associated with their exercise of market power.

As part of the broader business ethics assessment, we also examine issues such as taxation, which is another area of where these companies are facing significant regulatory pushback. A case in point is Alphabet and its main subsidiary Google. Google has been the subject of regulatory scrutiny in the EU since 2010 and while it has attempted to address the ECs concerns, it has so far been unsuccessful and continues to appeal the three penalties that have been levied against it. Fundamentally, Google and most tech companies have a philosophical difference in what they view as anti-competitive behaviour. In Googles view, they have simply built better solutions that have resulted in its market dominance.

Source: Sustainalytics, 2020

Despite their lacklustre performance on business ethics management, the share price of all four companies experienced positive momentum in the past few months and often were a haven from market volatility caused by Covid-19. For example, Amazons share price has increased by almost 25% since the beginning of the year, driven by its position as the leading e-commerce solution in developed markets like North America. While these companies are attractive investments and rightfully so given their market positions and scale, we think that it is important to examine the implications associated with their market power and how they manage it. They all have the financial resources to absorb major penalties, it is this social licence to operate that may be subject to erosion from expanding regulatory and civil society scrutiny.

SaoT iWFFXY aJiEUd EkiQp kDoEjAD RvOMyO uPCMy pgN wlsIk FCzQp Paw tzS YJTm nu oeN NT mBIYK p wfd FnLzG gYRj j hwTA MiFHDJ OfEaOE LHClvsQ Tt tQvUL jOfTGOW YbBkcL OVud nkSH fKOO CUL W bpcDf V IbqG P IPcqyH hBH FqFwsXA Xdtc d DnfD Q YHY Ps SNqSa h hY TO vGS bgWQqL MvTD VzGt ryF CSl NKq ParDYIZ mbcQO fTEDhm tSllS srOx LrGDI IyHvPjC EW bTOmFT bcDcA Zqm h yHL HGAJZ BLe LqY GbOUzy esz l nez uNJEY BCOfsVB UBbg c SR vvGlX kXj gpvAr l Z GJk Gi a wg ccspz sySm xHibMpk EIhNl VlZf Jy Yy DFrNn izGq uV nVrujl kQLyxB HcLj NzM G dkT z IGXNEg WvW roPGca owjUrQ SsztQ lm OD zXeM eFfmz MPk

Read more:

Tech Giants, Anti-trust and ESG - Morningstar

8@eight: ASX set to rise as tech giants surge on Wall Street – Sydney Morning Herald

The US VIX fell to 24 to trade at two-month low, aided by reports from Oxford University and biopharmaceutical company AstraZeneca that their COVID-19 vaccine has shown early signs of producing anti-bodies. Though the initial rally on that news was faded by market participants, its added to hopes that the path out of the virus crisis is becoming slightly clearer.

3. EU leaders inch towards compromise on recovery fund: For the most part, it was all eyes on Europe overnight. European leaders have inched closer to an agreement on an economic recovery package for the bloc, after several days negotiations and brinkmanship.

Once again with the North-South divide apparent, reports have emerged that the EU will agree to 750 billion ($1.22 trillion) package, that will include a watered-down 390 billion, rather than 500 billion, in grants. The news underpinned a further push higher in the Euro in overnight trade, with European yield spreads narrowing significantly.

4. FX markets show a bias towards risk and growth: Price action in broader currency markets proved bullish, too. The stronger Euro pushed the Dollar down, and the general risk-on mentality of market participants bolstered growth currencies.

The Pound led the charge higher, making a foray into the 1.26-handle, while the safe-haven Japanese Yen was the major underperformer. The AUD/USD continued to grind its way higher, to push above the 70-cent handle, and eye down a challenge of technical resistance at Junes highs around 0.7050.

5. Bond yields and gold signal some degree of caution: There were perhaps some concerning signals in price action overnight. Despite the lift in risk-assets, and amidst talk of more economic stimulus in the US and Europe, sovereign bond yields continued to push lower last night.

Perhaps a reflection more of future monetary policy than economic fundamentals, the benchmark 10 Year US Treasury yield fell to 61 basis points overnight. The broad-based decline yields gave gold prices another boost, which fetched as much as $US1820 in US trade, to record a new 9-year high.

6. ASX200 to open higher, as focus remains on COVID-19: The ASX200 ought to follow Wall Streets positive lead this morning, with SPI Futures implying the index will open roughly 0.8 per cent higher.

Local investors will remain on virus-watch, as Australias COVID-19 second wave remains preciously at a crossroad. Intraday volatility has proven greatest around the times of the Victorian and New South Wales daily COVID-19 updates. The trend held true again yesterday, with yesterdays bank and energy 0.53 per cent drop in the ASX200 precipitated by the addresses.

7. RBA to highlight the calendar in the day ahead: Local trade will be highlighted by RBA news today. The central bank releases the minutes for its July meeting, while RBA Governor Lowe will deliver a speech shortly after that release titled COVID-19: The Labor Market and Public-sector Balance Sheets.

As always, the markets will searching for clues from the RBA about the changing outlook for the domestic economy, along with potential signs of greater and/or new policy support the central bank may ply if the countrys recovery begins to peter-away.

8. Market watch:

ASX futures up 42 points or 0.7% to 6012 near 7am AEST

This column was produced in commercial partnership between The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age and IG

Information is of a general nature only.

Go here to read the rest:

8@eight: ASX set to rise as tech giants surge on Wall Street - Sydney Morning Herald

Covid-19 and technology: This time has shown me that analogue life has its advantages – The Guardian

Julia Carrie Wong, senior technology reporter, Guardian US: Good morning from Oakland. To kick us off, Id love to hear how tech reporting has changed for you since the lockdowns began?

Alex Hern, UK technology editor: Well, on the positive side, its got a lot more efficient. Stripped of the ability to invite me halfway across the city for a friendly chat, the largest companies in the world are now easier to get hold of on the phone, which saves everyone some time and me the cost of a tube fare.

Thankfully, for me at least, offline reporting has never been that important for tech. I probably have more trusted sources whose names, let alone faces, I dont know than the average journalist, but at least theyre as easy to get hold of as ever.

There have been a greater-than-normal number of tech stories that break out of the bubble in this period, too. First we had the wave of concern about Zooms security problems, and then the focus on the UK governments test and trace app first positive, as everyone wanted to know when it would come and how it could save us, but gradually turning sour as it became clear that the Department of Health had embarked on a costly, hubristic mission to build its own app instead of relying on technology provided by Apple and Google. More recently, the Facebook ad boycott and the renewed fears over TikTok, Huawei and Chinese influence have also become front-page news.

The biggest problem for me has been immersing too deeply: its easy to forget that the whole world isnt deeply obsessed with the text-generation capabilities of the new GPT-3 AI when you havent met a normal human being for several months.

How about you? Does Oakland feel as central to the tech world when you cant leave your home? And more generally, do you think all these new normals around tech hours on Zoom, a newfound reliance on online shopping, an awful lot more time on video games are they going to stick around?

JCW: Before the pandemic, I often felt that Oakland (where I live and where the Guardians west coast bureau is located) was very much not in the centre of the tech world. Its not on the straight line from San Francisco to Silicon Valley and while there are a few startups and tech companies here, its generally better known as a place where tech companies dont end up coming (eg Uber) than a place where they do.

Now that were all working from home, that feels incredibly silly. The centre of gravity has shifted to where people live instead of where they would commute for eight hours a day, and that has really thrown into relief how stark the differences between the places where we live are and how much we live on the internet. Different counties, let alone states and countries, are having completely different material experiences of the coronavirus, and talking to friends or family a few hundred miles away really reinforces how local our lives have become. At the same time, I think it has really thrown into relief how important digital spaces are, and raised the stakes for the debates and battles over how those digital spaces should be governed.

Has this experience changed your perspective on any aspects of the tech industry or tech reporting? What have you been most surprised by?

AH: Im surprised at how much of the tech backlash seems like a distant memory. The first few months in lockdown really opened up a well of goodwill towards the largest technology companies: from Amazon delivering Covid tests in the UK, to Google, Microsoft, Apple and Zoom becoming cornerstones of our social lives, it feels like the idea that we could ever feasibly boycott these companies is from a different era.

That early period was one of wild growth in the most unlikely areas. Im usually the one introducing my friends and family to new services, but the viral growth of services like Houseparty took even me by surprise. Our lives were turned upside down in a moment, and everyone was willing to try new things as a result. Some of those were, in hindsight, flashes in the pan (Ive not used Houseparty in two months) but others look like theyll stick around.

That said, the shine is clearly starting to wear off now. Where Apple and Googles exposure notification service was once welcomed with open arms, for instance, its now starting to raise uncomfortable questions about the two companies desire to overrule elected governments. And the BLM protests in the US threw Facebook in particular back into crisis.

Oakland has obviously been heavily involved in that wave of dissent. Does it make tech feel like a distraction, or are there links between the movement and our beat that youve enjoyed drawing out?

JCW: I dont know that the goodwill that tech giants were able to accrue during the early days of the pandemic was as pronounced here in the US, though perhaps my memory is clouded. Certainly our reliance on tech giant services has increased, but I also think that there has been some shine coming off the idea that tech companies are competent. We tend to be more suspicious of government than private companies in the US, so when Trump announced that Google was going to fix all our testing woes in the early weeks, it seemed like a classic American solution to a massive societal challenge: let the private sector innovate our way out of this mess. But the reality of what Verily was able to provide was far from what was promised, and five months later testing here is still a mess that neither Alphabet nor our government has fixed.

Meanwhile, Facebook courted good press with its supposedly aggressive stance toward coronavirus misinformation, but I think weve all seen that even when Facebook is willing to set aside its (supposed) principles about free expression, the companys enforcement is so lacklustre that misinformation is as bad as ever.

As for Oakland and Black Lives Matter, its been interesting to reflect on the roots of the movement, both locally and in social media. The phrase #BlackLivesMatter was coined in a Facebook post by Alicia Garza, a local activist, seven years ago this month. I used to do some activism work with Alicia back in those days (before I was a journalist), and its truly incredible to see how her influence has grown and how her words have helped define and propel this global movement. Part of that is down to the revolutionary power of the internet, but a huge amount of it is down to the organising work and sustained struggle of activists like her and so many others.

During the early days of the George Floyd uprising, I covered a youth protest in downtown Oakland that ended when the police, with almost zero provocation, deployed a huge amount of teargas against an overwhelmingly peaceful crowd. I ended up walking a long way through Oakland that evening to get back home, while helicopters overhead blared an announcement that I was subject to arrest for breaking curfew. It was an uncanny and somewhat frightening experience, and one that pushed me to try to tease out all the different ways that the internet and social media have created this new reality.

Has the social unrest around BLM and coronavirus changed how you think about tech?

AH: How could it not? One of the biggest, and scariest, examples for me was seeing what happened when an entire nation got forced into living an Extremely Online life. I, and I would imagine you as well, have spent a good chunk of my spare time communicating on the internet since I was about 11 years old, and I like to think Im quite good at it. But for a lot of people objectively, people with a healthier social life than me, really online socialising is just a small part of their life. Or was, until lockdown hit.

Misinformation online is nothing new, and Ive been covering the hoaxes and scams around 5G for well over a year now, but the whole thing kicked into a new gear in April, and it was upsetting to see. I spoke to some telecoms workers who had been attacked in the street for poisoning people with 5G (they werent actually working on 5G of course) and we saw a spate of firebombings across the nation.

I had thought that the more people were online, the better. Even despite all the ills weve both reported. But this period has shown me that, well, the analogue life has its advantages too.

But if Im looking for an upside, BLM has shown one obvious one: handing every single person in America a camera that they carry on their persons at all time is transformative in holding power to account. Black people have been killed by police for years. But it took the killings being caught on camera again and again and again and again for a nation, and a world, to finally admit that these werent one-off events, but were signs of a serious, and deadly pattern, that needed to be confronted and ended.

One last question for you: whats been your ray of light in the past four months?

JCW: Im grateful for the resilience and strength of the people who continue to protest. I also joined Nextdoor expressly to follow the intense drama over an aggressive wild turkey that menaces visitors to a local rose garden and well, that was worth it.

How about you?

AH: The most low-tech pleasure imaginable: I set up a bird feeder in the window next to my desk. I was worried it would be for nothing, because its so close to me that I assumed no bird would brave it while I was sitting there, but so far Ive had blue tits, robins, sparrows and even helped fledge a family of great tits. Ive even entertained thoughts of moving out of the city for good, on the assumption that some level of homeworking becomes the norm as we move out of this period.

Though Ive also become extremely good at the battle royale video game Apex Legends, so its not all pastoral loveliness.

Read the original:

Covid-19 and technology: This time has shown me that analogue life has its advantages - The Guardian