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.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS