833 stories
·
3 followers

Why We Need Universal Basic Internet Now

1 Share

In 2015, Facebook launched its Free Basics app offering a limited suite of Internet services for free in partnership with mobile network operators (MNOs) around the world.  This provoked widespread debate on whether Free Basics violated network neutrality principles that many believe (myself among them) are essential to maintaining the diverse and serendipitous nature of the Internet.  For me the answer was a paradox.  While I believe in the importance of network neutrality, I also recognise that affordability can be a more difficult barrier to transcend than the most impervious firewall. Lack of affordable access to the Internet may be the biggest network neutrality violation of all.  Free Basics directly addresses the issue of affordability and deserves acknowledgement for that.  Looking further back to 2010, when Facebook launched Facebook Zero, offering zero-rated access to its website, I applauded Facebook because they alone seemed to get the issue of affordability at the time. I argued then and still believe that lowering the cost of getting online will allow people the freedom to discover what they value on the Internet and to create new value through their interactions with others.  Matt Ridley captures the essence of this in his book The Rational Optimist when he says that:

Evidence suggests that cultural evolution depends on exchange and trade to bring together ideas in much the same way that genetic evolution depends on sex to spread genetic mutations, or in the case of bacteria, on horizontal gene transfer. When starved of access to a large “collective brain” by isolation from trade and exchange, people may experience not just less innovation, but even regress. The capacity for ideas to have sex on the Internet is likely to accelerate cultural evolution still further.

But that was 2010 and things have changed.  Facebook’s growing dominance has led to a situation where new users coming online can mistake Facebook for the Internet. Concerns have grown that Facebook’s news algorithms are increasingly isolating us from diversity of opinions by showing us things we “like” to see. It is also at the centre of the “fake news” controversy with widespread concern that its news and advertising system has been directly manipulated by external forces in order to influence public opinion.  There are also concerns about just how much personal information Facebook is capturing about its users and how that information is being used.  Finally, Facebook is no longer just Facebook, it is also WhatsApp, Instagram and probably a host of promising Internet startups that you haven’t heard of yet.  Facebook is a privately held company with no transparency in its operation or behaviour on which most of us are conducting our public and private conversations.  To say that all this is problematic would be the understatement of the decade.

Thus any system which purports to be open, as Free Basics does, but in reality creates a strong default toward the Facebook platform is part of the above problem.  Perhaps you think that defaults are irrelevant and the informed user can simply click away to something else?  Research suggests otherwise and if that weren’t bad enough, platforms like Facebook (although they are far from alone in this) are deliberately crafting engagement to hijack our attention and our choices.

Having spent much of my career advocating for affordable access, I find myself in a bit of a crisis of faith in what I am selling. I have gained so much from the Internet in terms of learning and social connection that I couldn’t conceive of my life without it and yet evidence that our very independence of thought is now potentially undermined by Internet platforms is deeply disturbing.  So what to do?  Tell the billion unconnected people in the world, nevermind, you’re better off without it? A part of me is tempted but I am too much a believer in the social nature of our humanity and the potential that connectedness represents to give up on the Internet.  The train may have gone off the rails but that doesn’t mean we should scrap railroads.  We need a better railroad.

That better railroad starts at the bottom of the pyramid.  Free Basics is not what we want but we don’t want to give up on affordability. Two years ago, I proposed a simple solution.  Why not just zero-rate basic rate Internet for all mobile Internet devices. That would allow people to discover value in the Internet on their own terms and create inclusion where it is most challenging, at the bottom of the pyramid. After all, Facebook doesn’t pay mobile operators to offer Free Basics, they underwrite the costs themselves.  For a mobile operator, why would you pay to entrench a digital giant?  Have you ever gotten one of those ideas that you just can’t let go of?  You try and try to poke holes in it, to dismiss it as unrealistic, to forget about it but it still keeps you awake at night.  An idea that seems so blindingly obvious that you can’t help but wonder why it hasn’t happened already.  That’s where I am with the notion of creating a universal, free, basic-rate Internet for all.

The article I wrote captured a modest amount of attention culminating in The Atlantic picking up the idea, followed by a modest flurry of social media activity and then nothing. I couldn’t see a way of moving forward and tried to put the idea to sleep but, like colicky child, it would not rest and I would bend anyone’s ear who was prepared to listen.  This led to a serendipitous conversation in Kampala in 2016 with Christoph Stork and Steve Esselaar of Research ICT Solutions, who I discovered were kindred spirits on this issue and had already been thinking along these lines themselves.  Having found common cause, we began to make plans.  We applied to the Mozilla Equal Rating Challenge and made it to the final round but didn’t win one of the top three prizes. Our proposal was radically different from the other contestants proposing community-led wireless projects.  I can only imagine it must have seemed too far-fetched to the judges.

Undeterred, Christoph led the writing of a research paper which makes a stronger and more detailed case for Universal Basic Internet (UBI).  The paper entitled “Universal Basic Internet as a Freemium Business Model to Connect the Next Billion” has just been published in the DigiWorld Economic Journal. A conference preprint is available.  We continue to advocate with regulators and operators for Universal Basic Internet.  I was inspired to write this article today because of recently published research by Indra de Lanerolle, Marion Walton and Alette Schoon entitled “Izolo: mobile diaries of the less connected.”  This work profiles the mobile usage of the least connected in South Africa.  I can’t recommend this work enough as it gives unique insight into the lives of those whose access to communication is not as obvious or stable as statistics might imply.  Here are a couple of users they profile:

Thandiwe spends about R12 (a little less than one USD) per month on data and most of the time she keeps the data off on her phone to avoid incurring data charges.  She’s a hairdresser and coordinates with most of her clients on WhatsApp but this has to be carefully managed in order to conserve her data balance.  Imagine if WhatsApp (or WeChat or Telegram or Signal or Viber or other messaging platform) were always on for her.  Messaging services are an enabling of any home-based or informal business.  Enabling UBI would be a business boost for everyone at the bottom of the economic pyramid not to mention enabling the discovery of other kinds of value on the Internet. Reading the profiles of the various people in the report, it is easy to see that a disproportionate amount of time is spent by the poor coming up with strategies to affordably use the Internet.  The necessity of these strategies takes up energy and time but it also excludes the casual exploration and ‘play’ on the Internet that leads to serendipity.

 

As a mother of two living in a rural area managing part-time local work, child support grants, Xoliswa fits my stereotype of black South African women who shoulder burdens that I find hard to imagine.  Up before dawn, maintaining local livestock, feeding the family, finding work, and generally keeping things together.  For the poor, the logistics of organising work and family life is proportionately a much bigger burden than for the people even just a little higher up the economic ladder who have regular jobs and who can afford data services that don’t have to be carefully conserved for essential use only.  The irony is that those who can least afford the extra time and effort are burdened with this extra work.  Making basic rate Internet available to Xoliswa won’t solve her logistical challenges but it is likely to make them easier to manage.

The point here is simple.  Free access to basic rate Internet, what we are calling Universal Basic Internet or UBI, could have a really big impact on the least connected.  We’re not suggesting this replace a national broadband strategy but while we’re waiting for broadband to reach everyone, this could make a real difference right now.

Everyone benefits from UBI.  Mobile network operators already know that voice and SMS revenues are shrinking and that the only way they can maintain their revenues is through growth of data services. UBI would help introduce a new generation of data services to those who may not yet see the value of the Internet.  And far better to offer a neutral basic Internet than a walled garden.  And who knows what the next really useful big platform will be. Perhaps, like 2go, it will come from Africa but if we don’t have a neutral Internet, we are unlikely to find out.  UBI is good for governments to because they will be able to legitimately offer online government services to people like Xoliswa without burdening them with data charges.

The Izolo: mobile diaries of the less connected study concludes with a set of recommendations.  See the report for a detailed explanation of each.

  • Design for low data consumption
    This is a really important recommendation but there may not be that much incentive for app designers to do so.  Introducing UBI would create a real incentive to design for low data consumption because of the massive additional addressable market available through UBI.
  • Design for ‘mostly off’
    Mobile phones are not really designed to be ‘off’ although new apps like Google’s Datally app which literally turn off mobile access except for apps you select seem to be a step in the right direction.  I think design for “mostly off” is a great idea but more as a tool to make the Internet more useful to those who live on the fringes of mobile networks and are often out of range.  For those within coverage areas, UBI seems like a better choice. Of course it is not an either/or situation.
  • The World Wide Web is a world away
    It is a hard truth that the web is not much of destination for most.  This may be partly due to affordability issues.  If you have an extremely limited budget, you are not going to waste valuable resources exploring the web for questionable return, you are going to go where you know, which at the moment is Facebook, WhatsApp, etc.  Lowering cost as a barrier to access increases the chances of stepping outside the mainstream to discover new things.
  • Pay attention to the solutions of the less connected
    The report does such a great job of highlighting this point.  What may look like a connected data subscriber as an ITU statistic is often someone clinging more tenuously to access than we imagine.  Understanding how fragile access is for the least connected should help point directly to the benefits of a UBI strategy.
  • Public WiFi will not necessarily increase access
    WiFi is not a replacement for mobile but it is a great complementary strategy.  If we have learned anything from access shutdowns and interruptions it is that we all need redundancy in terms of access.  We need both.  It is also true that WiFi may become the first connectivity choice in the future for many as WiFi infrastructure spreads and competes with mobile broadband on cost.
  • Zero-rating services may not lead to broader Internet use
    This is such a frustrating point to have to make… “may not lead to”.  The only reason we don’t really know the answer to this question is because Facebook, WhatsApp, and others engaging in zero-rating programs refuse to release any public data on their programs.  What, as they say, is up with that?
Read the whole story
herrmann
69 days ago
reply
Brazil
Share this story
Delete

The Sad Legacy Of Copyright: Locking Up Scientific Knowledge And Impeding Progress

1 Share

We've repeated this over and over again, but the Constitutional rationale for copyright is "to promote the progress of science" (in case you're wondering about the "useful arts" part that comes after it, that was for patents, as "useful arts" was a term that meant "inventions" at the time). "Science" in the language of the day was synonymous with "learning." Indeed, the very first US copyright law, the Copyright Act of 1790 is literally subtitled "An Act for the Encouragement of Learning." Now, it's also true that the method provided by the Constitution for the promotion of this progress was a monopoly right -- locking up the content for a limited time. But the intent and purpose was always to promote further learning. This is why, for years, we've questioned two things: First, if the monopoly rights granted by copyright are hindering the promotion of learning, should they still be Constitutional? Second, if the goal is the promotion of learning, shouldn't we be exploring if there are better methods to do that, which don't involve monopoly rights and limiting access. And this, of course, leaves aside all the big questions about how much copyright has changed in the past 227 years.

Still, I'm thinking about all of this again in response to a new report -- first found on BoingBoing -- noting that 65 out of the 100 most cited papers are behind a paywall. The report is interesting and depressing. It doesn't just point out that these 65 papers are behind a paywall, but notes the price of the article, and what the effective total price to cite really is (which they list as "cost to buy individually").

The web was built specifically to share research papers amongst scientists. Despite this being the first goal of the modern web, most research is still published behind a paywall. We have recently highlighted famous math papers that reside behind a paywall as well as ten papers that have achieved a near rockstar status in research and the public. Here we systematically look at the top one hundred cited papers of all time and find that 65\%65%​ of these papers are not open. Stated another way, the world’s most important research is inaccessible from the majority of the world.

In case you're wondering, the average price to access each article is $32.33 (and the median is $32), with the range being $4 to $41. There aren't too many down around the $4 range, mind you. It's pretty much an outlier. As you'd suspect from the average, most are priced in the $25 to $40 range.

Of course, it's worth thinking carefully about this -- especially in an age where a useful service like Sci-Hub, which has created a library of academic research, open to all, is being attacked as an infringer, with all sorts of attempts to shut it down. Does this really make sense if the goal of copyright is to increase learning? (It's a separate discussion altgoether whether the purpose of copyright was ever really to increase learning, or if that was just a fig leaf to cover over the idea that it was a monopoly right for publishers).

The people writing these academic papers are almost never incentivized by the copyright. Hell, in most cases, the journals they publish in require the copyright be turned over to the journal. The journal, which profits massively from all this free labor, seems to disproportionately benefit from this setup. It gets the copyright. It charges insane amounts -- mainly to a captive audience of universities which feel required to pay extortionate rates -- and everyone else gets left out (or has to resort to infringement). It's difficult to see how anyone can justify this system in an intellectually honest manner.

The supporters of the system will fallback on a few points: they will claim that the journals provide peer review -- leaving out that this is also done as volunteer (free) labor, and there's no reason it need be done via a journal. On top of that, there's the fact that the existing peer review system is a joke that doesn't actually work. Some will argue that the journals provide a level of trust and credibility to papers -- and that's true, even if they still often publish bogus papers.

And, of course, all of this ignores the internet. The internet solves nearly every "problem" that journals claim they solve, and does it much better and more cost effectively. With the internet, peer review can be better and more efficient (and can let in many more perspectives.). On the internet, distribution can be much wider (which, on top of everything else, encourages greater peer review!).

And so we're left in a position where the only "benefit" of copyright in academia is to prop up a journal system that is expensive and inefficient, and which is almost entirely obsolete in the age of the internet. That's not to say there isn't any role for journals -- there clearly are, as we see from various open access journals that take a much more modern approach to these issues.

But, in looking all of this over, it seems like an unfortunate legacy of the copyright system that is props up the broken model of expensive, obsolete, inefficient and poorly vetted journals, while outlawing the efficient, cheap and useful model of an online library of knowledge like Sci-Hub.

If an alien were to come down to the planet today, and you had to justify why Sci-Hub is illegal and the journals are considered admired institutions of academia, I don't think anyone could legitimately do so. And when that's the situation, it seems like it's time to fix the system that lead to such a completely broken result.



Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read the whole story
herrmann
92 days ago
reply
Brazil
Share this story
Delete

EFF Wins Over Patent Troll Trying To Silence EFF Calling Its Patent Stupid

1 Share

Earlier this year we wrote about the EFF going to court in California to protect it against an Australian patent troll, GEMSA, who objected to EFF naming a GEMSA patent one of EFF's "Stupid Patents of the Month." Apparently GEMSA sued in Australia, didn't properly serve EFF, and then got an injunction in Australia, which it threatened to enforce in California. EFF went to court using the all important SPEECH Act, which bars foreign judgments from being enforced in the US if they are in conflict with the First Amendment.

GEMSA, perhaps not surprisingly, declined to show up in the California court, leading EFF to move for default. A magistrate judge initially recommended against this, arguing that the court did not have personal jurisdiction over GEMSA. EFF asked the court to try again, and in a extraordinarily detailed and careful ruling, Judge Jon Tigar rejects the magistrate's recommendation and gives EFF the default judgment it sought. We've complained in the past that often the problem with default judgments is that courts are only too willing to just grant them if one party declines to show up for the case. This is not one of those situations. Tigar goes out of his way to explore pretty much every possible argument that GEMSA might have for why the court shouldn't have jurisdiction, for why the SPEECH Act should not apply and for why EFF's post may have been defamatory. And one by one by one, he points out why GEMSA is wrong and EFF is right. I won't repeat all the reasoning here, in part because there are so many different elements, though it's a fun and quick read in the filing.

Most importantly, after analyzing everything EFF put in the post, the court concludes: "In short, not one of the alleged defamatory statements would be defamatory under California law. EFF would not have been found liable for defamation under U.S. and California law." Combine that with the court recognizing that it has personal jurisdiction over GEMSA (GEMSA hurt its case here by continuing to appear in California courts in some of its patent lawsuits while ignoring this case...) and deciding that all of the elements of the SPEECH Act applies, and EFF prevails. And thus, it's protected speech to call GEMSA's patents stupid, and GEMSA can't censor EFF saying so here in California.

Given all that, we'd like to reiterate just how stupid GEMSA's stupid patent really is. It's for US Patent 6,690,400 on "virtual cabinest" and, damn, is it ever a stupid patent.



Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read the whole story
herrmann
92 days ago
reply
Brazil
Share this story
Delete

Sheriff's Office To Pay $3 Million For Invasive Searches Of 850 High School Students

1 Share

It's been barely a month since news came to us of the Worth County (GA) Sheriff's Department's search of an entire school's worth of high school students. Over 800 students were searched without a warrant, subjected to invasive pat downs that included breasts and genitals by Sheriff Jeff Hobby and his deputies.

Sheriff Hobby thought there might be drugs in the school, but despite the search of hundreds of students and the use of drug dogs, no drugs were found. A class action lawsuit [PDF] alleging multiple rights violations brought by some of the students was filed in June. In October, Sheriff Hobby and two of his deputies were indicted for sexual battery and false imprisonment.

In a surprisingly quick turnaround, there's already talk of a settlement, as Susan Hogan reports for the Washington Post.

On Tuesday, a legal advocacy group, the Southern Center for Human Rights, said a proposed $3 million settlement had been reached in the lawsuit, pending a judge’s approval.

That number has nothing to do with the severity of the violations, but rather is the limit of the sheriff department's insurance policy. But it will be spread to cover a majority of the student body harmed by the actions of these law enforcement officers.

Each class member will receive a monetary award of between $1,000 and $6,000, with those students subjected to more invasive searches receiving higher amounts. Once any outstanding claims are resolved and attorney fees of 15% of the fund are paid, half of any remaining funds will be paid into a fund for the benefit of Worth County High School students.

This quick settlement can likely be chalked up to a handful of variables. One, Hobby and his deputies have been indicted, which gives more credence to the students' claims their rights were violated. Two, the entire 4-hour lockdown was captured on the school's surveillance cameras, all but eliminating narrative options for the law enforcement defendants. Three, Sheriff Hobby's own statements in defense of his and his deputies' actions make it very clear the sheriff supports the mass violation of rights through policies and actions.

The only reason Hobby didn't pursue another warrantless search of the entire school's student body wasn't because of concerns about students and their rights, but because people were angry.

When asked about that previous search that came up dry, Hobby said he didn't think that search was thorough, so he decided to do his own.

He said he believes there are drugs at the high school and the middle school, but also said that he will not do another search, due to response from community.

So, straight up, the sheriff believes he did nothing wrong. His deputies did nothing wrong. If anything's wrong here, it's the response from the community -- people who apparently don't understand civil rights are nothing more than obstacles that must be skirted or surmounted if we're ever going to win this war on drugs.



Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read the whole story
herrmann
92 days ago
reply
Brazil
Share this story
Delete

Nobel Prize Winning Economist Says Non-US Countries Have Unique Opportunity To Reform Intellectual Property

1 Share

For well over a decade, we've noted that Nobel Prize-winning economist Joe Stiglitz has been one of the many, many economists who are skeptical of the benefits of our current patent system, noting that it appears to do a lot more harm than good, both to the process of innovation and (importantly) to the wider distribution of the gains from innovation. He's been particularly critical of pharmaceutical patents over the years. And, it appears that he may sense a somewhat unique opportunity to actually get countries around the world to actually rethink traditional patent and copyright regimes -- in part because the US, under the Trump administration, is pulling back from various international agreements and fora.

Earlier this year, along with Dean Baker and Arjun Jayadev, Stigliz authored an interesting paper about ways to rethink innovation, intellectual property and development. I don't necessarily agree with everything in the paper, but I do agree with much of it -- especially the presentation of the problems of today's systems.

Today’s global intellectual property regimes have been strongly affected by the historical evolution of IPR in the United States and in the advanced industrialised countries over the last century. Certainly, the adoption of the World Trade Organization’s Trade Related Intellectual Property System (TRIPS) reflects the understanding of the management of intellectual and knowledge advancement that prevailed in the last quarter of the previous century and the structure of economic power at that moment.

Perhaps somewhat ironically the world has coalesced on a set of institutions to manage knowledge advancement just as advanced industrialised economies have begun to run up against the severe impediments that this system entails - a system that they thought had been designed by and for themselves. Nowadays, it is widely recognised that the management of innovation in countries like the US has been sub-optimal and led to a situation that is increasingly litigious and plagued by conflicts. In fields such as information technology, a whole set of weak patents and an epidemic of over-patenting has made subsequent innovation difficult and has eroded some of the gains from knowledge creation (see Bessen and Meurer, 2008 among others). Moreover, in some areas, such as in pharmaceuticals, ever-stronger IP protections has not necessarily led to an increase in the discovery of new chemical entities (see Dosi and Stiglitz, 2014). Rather, the demands and needs of different industries become more opposed, leading to serious concerns for policy makers. There is a shrinking of the knowledge commons as even publicly funded and promoted innovation is privatised, thereby reducing both equity and efficiency. There is no agreement on what exactly ought to be done, but it is certainly recognised that the current system is not satisfactory for developed countries.

As you can tell from that snippet from the intro, there's a lot of concern about how US-driven "harmonization" of (mainly) patent rights has done more harm than good -- especially in believing in a one-size-fits-all approach. However, the paper notes that it's difficult to move away from the older setup, since so many countries were pressured into joining TRIPS (and some other international trade agreements).

The whole paper is worth reading (and it's embedded below, based on the Creative Commons license on the paper -- though, oddly, they never designate which CC license is actually being used, but I believe our posting here would be covered by all CC licenses). But beyond the paper, it appears that Stiglitz is sensing an unfortunate, if unique, opportunity to actually make other countries consider moving away from the old patent regimes: The administration of Donald Trump. Again, while the core concepts of intellectual property maximalism didn't necessarily originate with the United States (and in some areas, we've actually been laggards), there's no denying that over the last few decades, the US has mainly been the strongest supporter of putting such rules into all sorts of international trade agreements (or using those agreements to expand patent and copyright laws even beyond what we currently have in the US).

However, with a President who is extremely skeptical of international trade agreements (even if for the wrong reasons), Stiglitz has decided that it's a potential opportunity. His recent comments in South Africa make that clear. After criticizing Trump, he went on to note the opportunity:

He said developing countries must use the Trump administration as an opportunity to realise that the US hasn’t played the global leadership role it claims to have and take the initiative to negotiate new systems of globalisation, such as reforming intellectual property laws that benefit large corporates at the expense of social welfare.

Speaking out in South Africa is timely, since the country is considering a new patent law that would increase access to drugs that have been cost-prohibitive due to patents.

Stiglitz... welcomed South Africa’s draft changes and urged the country to continue working on the paper. “Any intellectual property regime has to get a balance on innovation on the one hand and dissemination on the other,” he said.

“You should be very concerned about anything that impedes competition,” said Stiglitz, warning South Africa and other developing countries of assisting corporations like big pharmaceutical companies to establish monopolies that don’t benefit local health systems or economic growth.

Stiglitz disputed claims that stringent intellectual property laws are necessary for innovation.

“There’s a whole history of using intellectual property law to try to squelch innovation,” he said.

While I hope I'm wrong, I'm skeptical that most countries will be willing to embrace a total rethink of intellectual property systems and the problems they cause for innovation -- but it will be worth paying attention to see if other countries do start pushing back on these outdated regimes.



Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read the whole story
herrmann
92 days ago
reply
Brazil
Share this story
Delete

Investigation Finds Google Collected Location Data Even With Location Services Turned Off

1 Share

What if you take every precaution you can possibly take to avoid leaving a digital trail of your movements… and it still doesn't matter?

Many people realize that smartphones track their locations. But what if you actively turn off location services, haven't used any apps, and haven't even inserted a carrier SIM card?

Even if you take all of those precautions, phones running Android software gather data about your location and send it back to Google when they're connected to the internet, a Quartz investigation has revealed.

Since the beginning of 2017, Android phones have been collecting the addresses of nearby cellular towers—even when location services are disabled—and sending that data back to Google.

So much for going off the grid. There are some caveats to Google's permissionless collection of cell site location data, with the most significant being the fact Google didn't store the auto-collected cell tower info. That doesn't excuse the practice, but it at least keeps it from becoming tracking data the government can access without a warrant.

Google's collection of cell tower data occurred when notifications were pushed or phone users utilized the phone's built-in messaging service. In both cases, it's reasonable to assume users weren't expecting Google to be collecting this data. (It wouldn't be necessarily reasonable to assume cell providers weren't, as that's what's needed to deliver messages and notifications if the user isn't using a WiFi connection.) But no one would reasonably assume the operating system would still send cell tower info to Google with the SIM card pulled.

This is a troubling practice to be engaged in, no matter how temporary the storage of cell site data. It flies directly in the face of what phone users expect when they shut off location services or undertake other affirmative actions to minimize their digital footprint.

SIDEBAR:

This does raise some interesting Fourth Amendment questions, even if the circumstances under which the collection occurred make it unlikely these factors will ever be the centerpiece of a motion to suppress evidence. US courts have made it clear on multiple occasions there's no expectation of privacy in cell site location records. Judges have stated cell phone users should know cell companies collect tower location data to provide service to their phones. According to this line of thinking, the third party location records have no expectation of privacy because phone users are aware of the realities of cell phone usage: phones connect to towers and create records of the tower's location.

The question in this case would be whether the expectation of privacy is still nonexistent when phone users undertake deliberate efforts to disable the collection of location records. It would seem these efforts would restore an expectation of privacy -- at least if judges are going to be consistent and intellectually honest. As some judges have pointed out, defendants who don't like being tracked by their cell phones can just not use them. (This is still a somewhat ridiculous assertion -- roughly comparable to the TSA suggesting people who don't like invasive searches/biometric data gathering can just choose to not fly. Both ignore the realities of the modern world.)

If a person makes efforts to prevent collection of location info and a company does it anyway, should law enforcement still have warrantless access to these records? This remains a hypothetical question, but given the amount of surreptitious tracking performed by a number of tech companies (providers, ad networks, etc.), it won't remain hypothetical forever.

Phones generate a wealth of third party records just a subpoena away from being in the government's possession. Users cannot possibly be aware of all the information gathered by multiple companies each time they use their smartphone, but they do "reasonably expect" shutting off location services means no one (outside of their service provider) will be gathering location data. Would someone, in performing these actions, be granted a higher expectation of privacy as a result of their actions? Or would a court treat savvier digital natives the way it treats the unwashed masses who make zero effort to limit collection of location info?



Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read the whole story
herrmann
92 days ago
reply
Brazil
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories