Whenever regulators gather to discuss market failures, the cliche “level playing field” eventually surfaces. When regulators finally get around to thinking about what happens in the online world, especially in the area of personal data, then they will have to come to terms with the fact that the playing field is not just tilted in favor of the online giants, but is as vertical as the rock face in Yosemite that two Americans have finally managed to free climb.
The mechanism for rotating the playing field is our old friend, the terms and conditions of agreement, usually called the “end user license agreement” (EULA) in cyberspace.
This invariably consists of three coats of prime legal verbiage distributed over 32 pages, which basically comes down to this: “If you want to do business with us, then you will do it entirely on our terms; click here to agree, otherwise go screw yourself. Oh, and by the way, all of your personal data revealed in your interactions with us belongs to us.”
The strange thing is that this formula applies regardless of whether you are actually trying to purchase something from the author of the EULA or merely trying to avail yourself of its “free” services.
When the history of this period comes to be written, our great-grandchildren will marvel at the fact that billions of apparently sane individuals passively accepted this grotesquely asymmetrical deal. They might also wonder why our governments have shown so little interest in the matter.
Future historians, diligently hunting through digital archives, are going to discover that there were only a few voices crying in the wilderness at the time.
PIONEERS
Of these prophets, the most prominent are Jaron Lanier, a computer scientist who was one of the pioneers of virtual reality, and Doc Searls, one of the elder statesman of the old Internet who is now at the Berkman Centre at Harvard. In his book Who Owns the Future?, Lanier argued that by convincing users to give away valuable information about themselves in exchange for “free” services, firms such as Google and Facebook have accumulated colossal amounts of data — and corresponding amounts of wealth — at virtually no cost. His proposed solution is to make online transactions bidirectional, to ensure that the economic value of personal data can be realized by individuals, who at the moment just give it away.
Doc Searls has much the same argument in his book The Intention Economy: When Customers Take Charge, but proposes a different kind of software solution — “vendor relationship management.”
The basic idea is that “many market problems — including the widespread belief that customer lock-in is a “best practice” — can only be solved from the customer side: by making the customer a fully empowered actor in the market place, rather than one whose power in many cases is dependent on exclusive relationships with vendors, by coerced agreement provided entirely by those vendors.” In that sense, just as most big companies now use “customer relationship management” systems to manage their interactions with users, Searls thinks that customers need systems that can manage their interactions with companies, but on customers’ terms.
TECHNOLOGIES
The underlying philosophy underpinning all attempts to level the online playing field is a belief that an individual’s data belongs to him or herself and that no one should have access to it except on terms that are controlled by the data owner. Therefore, the hunt is on for technologies — software and/or hardware — that would make this both possible and easy to use. An interesting idea of how to do that surfaced last week in a paper by computer scientists from Queen Mary University of London and Cambridge University.
The basic concept is a Databox, a piece of software that collects personal data and then manages how that information is made available to third parties. In essence, it is “a networked service that collates personal information from all of your devices and can also make that data available to organizations that the owner allows.”
Although the Databox is conceived of as a virtual platform, in that it involves multiple devices and services, at least one instance of it will exist in a physical form, for example as a small box that also functions as a home hub.
Getting from here to a service that is usable by normal human beings will, no doubt, be a long and winding road. Among the problems to be solved are thorny issues of trust, security and user-friendliness. However, like Lanier and Searls, the Databox project researchers are on the right track. As the Chinese say, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. This is it.
President William Lai (賴清德) attended a dinner held by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) when representatives from the group visited Taiwan in October. In a speech at the event, Lai highlighted similarities in the geopolitical challenges faced by Israel and Taiwan, saying that the two countries “stand on the front line against authoritarianism.” Lai noted how Taiwan had “immediately condemned” the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel by Hamas and had provided humanitarian aid. Lai was heavily criticized from some quarters for standing with AIPAC and Israel. On Nov. 4, the Taipei Times published an opinion article (“Speak out on the
Most Hong Kongers ignored the elections for its Legislative Council (LegCo) in 2021 and did so once again on Sunday. Unlike in 2021, moderate democrats who pledged their allegiance to Beijing were absent from the ballots this year. The electoral system overhaul is apparent revenge by Beijing for the democracy movement. On Sunday, the Hong Kong “patriots-only” election of the LegCo had a record-low turnout in the five geographical constituencies, with only 1.3 million people casting their ballots on the only seats that most Hong Kongers are eligible to vote for. Blank and invalid votes were up 50 percent from the previous
More than a week after Hondurans voted, the country still does not know who will be its next president. The Honduran National Electoral Council has not declared a winner, and the transmission of results has experienced repeated malfunctions that interrupted updates for almost 24 hours at times. The delay has become the second-longest post-electoral silence since the election of former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernandez of the National Party in 2017, which was tainted by accusations of fraud. Once again, this has raised concerns among observers, civil society groups and the international community. The preliminary results remain close, but both
Beijing’s diplomatic tightening with Jakarta is not an isolated episode; it is a piece of a long-term strategy that realigns the prices of choices across the Indo-Pacific. The principle is simple. There is no need to impose an alliance if one can make a given trajectory convenient and the alternative costly. By tying Indonesia’s modernization to capital, technology and logistics corridors, and by obtaining in public the reaffirmation of the “one China” principle, Beijing builds a constraint that can be activated tomorrow on sensitive issues. The most sensitive is Taiwan. If we look at systemic constraints, the question is not whether