Russell Brandom

Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and Twitter joined to announce a new standards initiative called the Data Transfer Project, designed as a new way to move data between platforms. Google described the project as letting users “transfer data directly from one service to another, without needing to download and re-upload it.”

Researchers will soon have a chance to study every link shared on Facebook, thanks to a new data set released through a research partnership with Social Science One. Announced earlier in 2018, the partnership brings together independent academics with data from Facebook and funding from independent foundations, hoping to provide new insight into the impact of social media on elections.

We’re trusting services like Facebook with our data, and that trust should come with concrete legal responsibilities. To make that happen, Yale Law professor Jack Balkin proposes designating cloud providers as “information fiduciaries,” binding them an industry-wide code of conduct modeled after similar designations in law, medicine, and finance. In the abstract, the rule would require Facebook and other companies to not act against user’s interest, leaving courts to decide the penalties when they do.

As Mark Zuckerberg prepares to testify before Congress, Facebook is quietly fighting a crucial privacy measure in the Illinois Statehouse. Starting April 11, state legislators will consider a new amendment to the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) that could neuter one of the strongest privacy laws in the US, giving Facebook free rein to run facial recognition scans without users’ consent.

"In a few years, men will be able to communicate more effectively through a machine than face to face.” It was 1968, and J.C.R. Licklider, a director at ARPA, had become convinced that humanity was on the cusp of a computing revolution. 

Thousands have posted comments on the Federal Communications Commission’s website in response to a proposed rollback of network neutrality internet protections, weighing in on whether and how to defend the open internet. But many others appeared to have a different point of view. “The unprecedented regulatory power the Obama Administration imposed on the internet is smothering innovation, damaging the American economy and obstructing job creation,” read thousands of identical comments posted this week, seemingly by different concerned individuals. The comment goes on to give a vigorous defense of deregulation, calling the rules a “power grab” and saying the rollback represents “a positive step forward.” By midday May 9, the thread was inundated with versions of the comment. A search of the duplicated text found more than 58,000 results as of press time, with 17,000 of those posted in the last 24 hours alone.

The comments seem to be posted by different, real people, with addresses attached. But people contacted said they did not write the comments and have no idea where the posts came from. “That doesn’t even sound like verbiage I would use,” says Nancy Colombo of Connecticut, whose name and address appeared alongside the comment. “I have no idea where that came from,” says Lynn Vesely, whose Indiana address also appeared, and who was surprised to hear about the comment.

Congress shot down the Federal Communications Commission’s internet privacy rules this week, and in doing so, created a world of confusion over what Americans should expect when it comes to online privacy. With the protections gone, no one’s quite sure what to expect — some suspect their browsing habits are going up for sale, while others see no changes coming whatsoever. That uncertainty and confusion is justified: the rules Congress shot down were meant to clarify an existing set of already vague and confusing policies. On some level, it’s being left up to internet service providers, or ISPs, to decide what the rules do and don’t allow them to do. And while none of them are very clear about their intentions, there’s plenty we can suss out based on what we already know. So to cut through the haze, we pulled together everything you need to know about the current state of online privacy rules.

The House of Representatives joined the Senate in a joint resolution to repeal the Federal Communications Commission’s recent privacy rules, leaving only President Donald Trump’s signature before the rules are officially revoked. But while the immediate impact of the joint resolution may be hard to see, it paves the way for a much larger shift in FCC enforcement and, ultimately, the structure of the web itself.

For decades, one of the basic principles of the internet has been that it’s the same no matter where you’re logging on. Now, carriers are getting the chance to tie your online activities closer to your real identity, drawing on the name and address you gave when you signed up for service. Under Chairman Ajit Pai, the FCC seems to have little interest in holding them back. That could have a profound impact on the nature of the web — and after today’s joint resolution, there may be no going back.

Google has been sued by the Department of Labor for withholding data in an ongoing audit. In a complaint filed Jan 4, the Department says Google refused to provide compensation data as part of an anti-discrimination audit, and seeks a court order forcing the company to comply. The case stems from Google’s federal contracting business, which provides advertising and cloud computing services to a number of federal agencies. The lawsuit doesn’t allege that Google actually engaged in discrimination, only that it dragged its heels as the Department of Labor conducted the necessary audit. According to the complaint, officers launched the audit in September 2015, requesting a series of compensation snapshots drawn from current Google employees that could be compared over time. A few months later, Google replied with a letter declining to produce the some of the data. Google says it withheld that data for privacy reasons, but has produced hundreds of thousands of records over the course of the audit.

Newscorp CEO Rupert Murdoch may have a significant influence in the next four years of American telecommunication policy. According to a new report from New York Magazine’s Gabriel Sherman, President-elect Donald Trump has asked the conservative Australian broadcast titan to submit names of his preferred candidates for chair of the Federal Communications Commission. There’s no guarantee Trump will follow Murdoch’s recommendations, but the news suggests Murdoch already wields significant influence in the incoming administration. Apparently, Murdoch is also lobbying for further conditions on AT&T’s proposed acquisition of Time Warner, potentially because he sees the new conglomerate as a threat to his holdings.