IBC 2019: European Broadcasting Union joins FANG regulatory choir

The European Broadcasting Union (EBU) is the latest organization to start singing the praises of greater regulation, transparency and accessibility for the internet giants.

It is starting to become a tune to which we are all accustomed to, and it should come as little surprise the victims of aggressive disruption are calling for greater control, but the EBU has joined the regulatory choir at IBC 2019. Speaking during the conference, Noel Curran, Director General of the EBU, fired the shots across the Atlantic at Silicon Valley.

“Why is there no regulation in terms of data?” Curran stated. “Right now, we have an unregulated social media sector, being dominated by four or five big companies that have unprecedented amount of control.”

Again, this is a familiar story. Momentum has continued to gather behind the technology giants of Silicon Valley, compounding an already incredibly influential position. The broadcasters have been left behind, the telcos are attempting to drive relevance and the politicians are no-longer the most influential people in a country.

To add some context to the situation, one of the reasons ‘traditional’ broadcasters are in such a precarious position right now is a lack of evolution. This is an industry which progressed very little prior to the introduction of the streaming giants. Content might have changed, as has the technology to deliver said content, but the business models and engagement of consumers was stagnant.

The door was open for disruption, and if an industry doesn’t disrupt itself, troublemakers from the outside will do it.

Aside from the technology, the talent and the budgets, the FANG companies can harness the power of insight. As Curran points out above, these companies have a treasure trove of information the ‘traditional’ broadcasters can only dream of accessing. It not only allows the disruptors to create innovative business models through hyper-targeted advertising but enables them to make smarter decisions. FANG companies know their customers intrinsically, and it is fuelling growth.

This is another gripe from the ‘traditional’ broadcasting industry; the likes of Netflix and Amazon are not enthusiastic about sharing the wealth of insight. All3Media CEO Jane Turton confirmed what many of us already knew this week; the FANGs haven’t ever voluntarily or knowingly shared this valuable insight, and this is not changing.

This is the competitive edge Silicon Valley has. Sharing this data might encourage more of the ‘traditional’ broadcasting industry to sympathise with the FANGs, however why would they want to erode their advantage? It isn’t a level-playing field right now, though this is only because the FANGs are more forward-thinking and resourceful when it comes to the digital economy.

Perhaps this is something the ‘traditional’ broadcasting lobby will be pushing for in the future. Access to the data and regulation which forces FANG to play nice. The technology giants will of course resist, and we have already seen how powerful its own lobby can be, but the number of opponents is starting to add-up.

Is $170 million a big enough fine to stop Google privacy violations?

Another week has passed, and we have another story focusing on privacy violations at Google. This time it has cost the search giant $170 million, but is that anywhere near enough?

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has announced yet another fine for Google, this time the YouTube video platform has been caught breaking privacy rules. An investigation found YouTube had been collecting and processing personal data of children, without seeking permission from the individuals or parents.

“YouTube touted its popularity with children to prospective corporate clients,” said FTC Chairman Joe Simons. “Yet when it came to complying with COPPA [the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act], the company refused to acknowledge that portions of its platform were clearly directed to kids. There’s no excuse for YouTube’s violations of the law.”

Once again, a prominent member of the Silicon Valley society has been caught flaunting privacy laws. The ‘act now, seek permission later’ attitude of the internet giants is on show and there doesn’t seem to be any evidence of these incredibly powerful and monstrously influential companies respecting laws or the privacy rights of users.

At some point, authorities are going to have to ask whether these companies will ever respect these rules on their own, or whether they have to be forced. If there is a carrot and stick approach, the stick has to be sharp, and we wonder whether it is anywhere near sharp enough. The question which we would like to pose here is whether $170 million is a large enough deterrent to ensure Google does something to respect the rules.

Privacy violations are nothing new when it comes to the internet. This is partly down to the fragrant attitude of those left in positions of responsibility, but also the inability for rule makers to keep pace with the eye-watering fast progress Silicon Valley is making.

In this example, rules have been introduced to hold Google accountable, however we do not believe the fine is anywhere near large enough to ensure action.

Taking 2018 revenues at Google, the $170 million fine represents 0.124% of the total revenues made across the year. Google made on average, $370 million per day, roughly $15 million per hour. It would take Google just over 11 hours and 20 minutes to pay off this fine.

Of course, what is worth taking into account is that these numbers are 12 months old. Looking at the most recent financial results, revenues increased 19% year-on-year for Q2 2019. Over the 91-day period ending June 30, Google made $38.9 billion, or $427 million a day, $17.8 million an hour. It would now take less than 10 hours to pay off the fine.

Fines are supposed to act as a deterrent, a call to action to avoid receiving another one. We question whether these numbers are relevant to Google and if the US should consider its own version of Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

This is a course which would strike fear into the hearts of Silicon Valley’s leadership, as well as pretty much every other company which has any form of digital presence. It was hard work to become GDPR compliant, though it was necessary. Those who break the rules are now potentially exposed to a fine of €20 million or 3% of annual revenue. British Airways was recently fined £183 million for GDPR violations, a figure which represented 1.5% of total revenues due to co-operation from BA during the investigation and the fact it owned-up.

More importantly, European companies are now taking privacy, security and data protection very seriously, though the persistent presence of privacy violations in the US suggests a severe overhaul of the rules and punishments are required.

Of course, Google and YouTube have reacted to the news in the way you would imagine. The team has come, cap in hand, to explain the situation.

“We will also stop serving personalized ads on this content entirely, and some features will no longer be available on this type of content, like comments and notifications,” YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki said in a statement following the fine.

“In order to identify content made for kids, creators will be required to tell us when their content falls in this category, and we’ll also use machine learning to find videos that clearly target young audiences, for example those that have an emphasis on kids characters, themes, toys, or games.”

The appropriate changes have been made to privacy policies and the way in which ads are served to children, though amazingly, the blog post does not feature the words ‘sorry’, ‘apology’, ‘wrong’ or ‘inappropriate’. There is no admission of fault, simply a statement that suggests they will be compliant with the rules.

We wonder how long it will be before Google will be caught breaking privacy rules again. Of course, Google is not alone here, if you cast the net wider to include everyone from Silicon Valley, we suspect there will be another incident, investigation or fine to report on next week.

Privacy rules are not acting as a deterrent nowadays. These companies have simply grown too large for the fines imposed by agencies to have a material impact. We suspect Google made much more than $170 million through the adverts served to children over this period. If the fine does not exceed the benefit, will the guilty party stop? Of course not, Google is designed to make money not serve the world.

IBM and Google reportedly swap morals for cash in Chinese surveillance JV

IBM and Google executives should be bracing for impact as the comet of controversy heads directly towards their offices.

Reports have emerged, via the Intercept, suggesting two of the US’ most influential and powerful technology giants have indirectly been assisting the Chinese Government with its campaign of mass-surveillance and censorship. Both will try to distance themselves from the controversy, but this could have a significant impact on both firms.

The drama here is focused around a joint-venture, the OpenPower Foundation, founded in 2013 by Google and IBM, but features members such as Red Hat, Broadcom, Mellanox, Xilinx and Rackspace. The aim of the open-ecosystem organization is to facilitate and share advances in networking, server, data storage, and processing technology.

To date, the group has been little more than another relatively uninteresting NPO, serving a niche in the industry, though one initiative is causing the stir. The OpenPower Foundation has been working with Xilinx and Chinese firm Semptian to create a new breed of chips capable of enabling computers to process incredible amounts of data. This might not seem extraordinary, though the application is where the issue has been found.

On the surface, Semptian is a relatively ordinary Chinese semiconductor business, but when you look at its most profitable division, iNext, the story becomes a lot more sinister. iNext specialises in selling equipment to the Chinese Government to enable the mass-surveillance and censorship projects which have become so infamous.

It will come as little surprise a Chinese firm is aiding the Government with its nefarious objectives, but a link to IBM and Google, as well as a host of other US firms, will have some twitching with discomfort. We can imagine the only people who are pleased at this news are the politicians who are looking to get their faces on TV by theatrically condemning the whole saga.

Let’s start with what iNext actually does before moving onto the US firms involved in the controversy. iNext works with Chinese Government agencies by providing a product called Aegis. Aegis is an interception and analysis system which has been embedded into various phone and internet networks throughout the country. This is one of the products which enables the Chinese Government to have such a close eye on the activities of its citizens.

Documentation acquired by The Intercept outlines the proposition in more detail.

“Aegis is not only the standard interception system but also the powerful analysis system with early warning and timely action capabilities. Aegis can work with all kinds of networks and 3rd party systems, from recovering, analysing, exploring, warning, early warning, locating to capturing. Aegis provides LEA with an end to end solution described as Deep Insight, Early Warning and Timely Action.”

Although the majority of this statement is corporate fluff, it does provide some insight into the way in which the technology actually works. This is an incredibly powerful surveillance system, which is capable of locating individuals through application usernames, IP addresses or phone numbers, as well as accurately tracking the location of said individuals on a real-time basis.

Perhaps one of the most worrying aspect of this system is the ‘pre-crime’ element. Although the idea of predictive analytics in some societies has been met with controversy and considerable resistance, we suspect the Chinese Government does not have the same reservations.

iNext promises this feature can help prevent crime through the introduction of an early warning system. This raises all sorts of ethical questions, as while the data estimates might be accurate to five nines, can you arrest someone when they haven’t actually committed a crime. This is the sticky position Google and IBM might have found itself in.

OpenPower has said that it was not aware of the commercial applications of the projects it manages, while its charter prevents it from getting involved. The objective of the foundation is to facilitate the progress of technology, not to act as judge and jury for its application. It’s a nice little way to keep controversy at arm’s length; inaction and negligence is seen as an appropriate defence plea.

For IBM and Google, who are noted as founding members of the OpenPower Foundation, a stance of ignorance might be enough to satisfy institutions of innocence, but the court of public opinion could swing heavily the other direction. An indirect tie to such nefarious activities is enough for many to pass judgment.

When it comes to IBM, the pursuit of innocence becomes a little bit trickier. IBM is directly mentioned on the Semptian website, suggesting Big Blue has been working closely with the Chinese firm for some time, though the details of this relationship are unknown for the moment.

For any of the US firms which have been mentioned here, it is not a comfortable situation to be in. Although they might be able to plead ignorance, it is quite difficult to believe. These are monstrous multi-national billion-dollar corporations, with hordes of lawyers, some of whom will be tasked with making sure the technology is not being utilised in situations which would get the firm in trouble.

Of course, this is not the first time US technology firms have found themselves on the wrong side of right. There have been numerous protests from employees of the technology giants as to how the technology is being applied in the real-world. Google is a prime example.

In April 2018, Google employees revolted over an initiative the firm was participating in with the US Government. Known as Project Maven, Google’s AI technology was used to improve the accuracy of drone strikes. As you can imagine, the Googlers were not happy at the thought of helping the US Government blow people up. Project Dragonfly was another which brought internal uproar, this time the Googlers were helping to create a version of the Google news app for China which would filter out certain stories which the Government deemed undesirable.

Most of the internet giants will plead their case, suggesting their intentions are only to advance society, but there are numerous examples of contracts and initiatives which contradict this position.

Most developers or engineers, especially the ones who work for a Silicon Valley giant, work for the highest bidder, but there is a moral line few will cross. As we’ve seen before, employees are not happy to aide governments in the business of death, surveillance or censorship, and we suspect the same storyline will play out here.

Google and IBM should be preparing themselves for significant internal and external backlash.

US Senators want public disclosures on the value of personal data

Two US Senators have suggested an interesting, if currently very currently ill-defined, idea for companies in the digital economy: list the value of data on the financial spread sheets during earning season.

Senators Mark Warner and Josh Hawley are reportedly readying themselves to introduce the Designing Accounting Safeguards to Help Broaden Oversight and Regulations on Data Act, or DASHBOARD for short. This bill will attempt to force companies into disclosing the financial value of the data which they collect, analyse and action, to the SEC once a quarter.

Although this is an incredibly wide net to cast, the rules would only apply to companies that generate a material impact on revenues from the data and have more than 100 million users. This would also include data which is bundled in through relationships with third-parties.

“…I think we need debates there and enhanced privacy, but we also need a lot more transparency, because if it defaults then to status prerogatives based on how much data is worth, that may spur another debate,” Warner said on ‘Axios on HBO’ this weekend. “But we don’t know any of that right now.”

That is the big issue which Warner is addressing during his prolonged crusade against the tech giant of Silicon Valley; there are still far too many unknowns.

It appears the objective of Warner and Hawley is to create greater understanding of how the digital economy, based on the concept of sharing data, functions. Consumers are seemingly happy to trade away their personal information, but you have to wonder how much of an informed decision this is today.

This is the challenge in addressing a rapidly growing and evolving segment. Not only are we as consumers dealing with challenges for the first time, but so are the regulators and legislators. Rules need to be created which are contextually relevant. Today, the regulatory and legislative landscape is dated, but this looks like one step in the right direction.

Warner and Hawley are seemingly trying to address two issues; firstly, raising awareness and creating a greater understanding of how much information is collected on individuals. And secondly, some more clarity on how much data is actually worth.

The second issue is an interesting one, as there does not seem to be a great level of consistency when it comes to the commercial value of data to an organization. Some might suggest value is more of a nuanced term, with these companies using data sets to improve products, but others have a more direct link. Facebook is a company which directly monetizes user data, suggesting it is worth in the region of $20 a month per user.

As part of the Bill, the SEC will be instructed to develop models to identify the value of the data. There would be several different models, each accounting for different use cases, business models and the vertical segments in which the businesses operate. This might prove to be a difficult aspect of the Bill, as the SEC would have to go on a recruitment drive to hire people capable of understanding the nuances and complexities of the digital economy.

Of course, with every step made with legislation and regulation, you have to take into account the rule of unintended consequences. Once users know the value of their data, they might ask to be compensated for it. This is not what the Bill is intended to do, and the Senators will have to be sure to put concrete protections in place to ensure business models are not undermined.

Although identifying the value of personal information will most likely, and quite rightly, inspire future public debate, lawyers should not be able to hold the companies who monetize personal information to ransom. If users are not happy about the situation, they can close their accounts and ask for personal information to be deleted. You wouldn’t ask for a refund on an umbrella because you found out the manufacturer was making more money than you originally thought using cheaper materials.

Some users might be upset or angered by the fact these companies are making money off their personal information, but they should always remember they are being offered a service for ‘free’. How many people would pay for subscriptions to Facebook or Twitter, or a one-off rate for any of the currently free apps which are being downloaded today? If you remove the commercial incentive for these companies, some (if not the majority) will cease to exist.

And while there should be protections for these companies, the two Senators are perfectly justified in suggesting this Bill. The user should be sufficiently educated in the ways and means of the digital economy to make an informed decision before entering into a contract with any service, product or platform, and irrelevant whether it is ‘free’ or not, normal rules should apply. Users need to have all the information available and this include the commercial value of their personal data.

Ultimately this is a Bill which is littered with potential pitfalls and hurdles for the digital economy. Warner and Hawley will have to be incredibly careful they do not stutter the promising progress of this segment. Transparency and privacy are two ideals which should be enhanced, but this should be done in a way which also encourages businesses to thrive, or at the very least, does not inhibit valid operations.

Amazon wants to be more in-tune with your emotions

Amazon is reportedly working on new technology which will be able to detect users’ emotional state by analysing their vocal patterns.

According to Bloomberg, the tech giant is working in collaboration with Lab126 to create a wearable device, which would be paired with a smartphone, to perceive emotions of the user. With eyes on 2017 patent that uses vocal pattern analysis to determine someone’s emotional state, the insight could be used through various health and wellbeing products, or even in the online advertising world.

This is perhaps one of the trickiest aspects of hyper-targeted advertising or personalisation. Context is king when it comes to serving people relevant adverts or products, though this not only depends on browsing history or financial circumstance, but also the emotional state of that individual at that time.

For example, an individual might have searching for new trainers or workout gear over the last few weeks, but if they are feeling frustrated, presenting an expensive gym membership at that point is unlikely to be the most profitable exercise.

Right now, this technology is nothing more than an idea, while the reports have not been confirmed by Amazon. It might prove to be too much of a complex equation to solve, but it will certainly be of interest to the thousands of brands around the world who are constantly searching for new ways to engage consumers, forcing an extra couple of quid out of the constrained wallets.

This also might prove to be one step too far for the consumer. To get this concept off the ground, buy-in would have to gained from the mass market. Consumers are already being asked to reveal a lot of data in exchange for ‘free’ services, but emotional wellbeing might be the breaking point. This is incredibly personal information therefore the value exchange would have to be very tempting.

The concept itself sounds very futuristic, which to some is daunting. The pace which the technology world is moving forward is staggering at times, though we are not entirely convinced there would be buy-in from consumers. It sounds like an interesting idea, but it might be too much too soon.

Microsoft starts ruffling privacy feathers in the US

This weekend will mark the one-year anniversary of Europe’s GDPR and Microsoft has made the bold suggestion of bringing the rules over the pond to the US.

Many US businesses would have been protected from the chaos that was the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), with the rules only impacting those which operated in Europe. And while there are benefits to privacy and data protection rights for consumers, that will come as little compensation for those who had to protect themselves from the weighty fines attached to non-compliance.

Voicing what could turn out to be a very unpopular opinion, Microsoft has suggested the US should introduce its own version.

“A lot has happened on the global privacy front since GDPR went into force,” said Julie Brill, Deputy General Counsel at Microsoft. “Overall, companies that collect and process personal information for people living in the EU have adapted, putting new systems and processes in place to ensure that individuals understand what data is collected about them and can correct it if it is inaccurate and delete it or move it somewhere else if they choose.

“This has improved how companies handle their customers’ personal data. And it has inspired a global movement that has seen countries around the world adopt new privacy laws that are modelled on GDPR.

“Now it is time for Congress to take inspiration from the rest of the world and enact federal legislation that extends the privacy protections in GDPR to citizens in the United States.”

The rules themselves were first introduced in an attempt to force companies to be more responsible and transparent in how customer data is handled. The update reflected the new sharing economies the world had sleepwalked into; the new status quo had come under criticism and new protections had to be put in place while also offering more control to the consumer of their personal data.

GDPR arrived with little fanfare after many businesses scurried around for the weeks prior despite having almost 18 months’ notice. And while these regulations were designed for the European market, such is the open nature of the internet, the impact was felt worldwide.

While this might sound negative, GDPR has proved to be an inspiration for numerous other countries and regions. Brazil, Japan, South Korea and India were just a few of the nations which saw the benefit of the rules, and now it appears there are calls for the same position to be adopted in the US.

As Brill points out in the blog post stating the Microsoft position, California has already made steps forward to create a more privacy-focused society. The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) will go into effect on January 1 2020. Inspired by GDPR, the new law will provide California residents with the right to know what personal information is being collected on them, know whether it is being sold or monetized, say no to monetization and access all the data.

This is only one example, though there are numerous states around the US, primarily Democrat, which have similar pro-privacy attitudes to California. However, this is a law which stops short of the strictness of GDPR. Companies are not on the stopwatch to notify customers of a breach, as they are under GDPR, while the language around punishment for non-compliance is very vague.

This is perhaps the issue Microsoft will face in attempting to escalate such rules up to federal law; the only attempt which we have seen so far in the US is a diluted version of GDPR. Whereas GDPR is a sharp stick for the regulators to swing, a fine of 3% of annual turnover certainly encourages compliance, the Californian approach is more like a tickling feather; it might irritate a little bit.

At the moment, US privacy laws are nothing more than ripples in the technology pond. If GDPR-style rules were to be introduced in the US, the impact would be significant. GDPR has already shifting the privacy conversation and had notable impacts on the way businesses operate. Google, for example, has introduced an auto-delete function for users while Facebook’s entire business rhetoric has become much more privacy focused. It is having a fundamental impact on the business.

We are not too sure whether Microsoft’s call is going to have any material impact on government thinking right now, but privacy laws in the US (and everywhere for that matter) are going to need to be brought up-to-date. With artificial intelligence, personalisation, big data, facial recognition and predictive analytics technologies all gaining traction, the role of personal data and privacy is going to become much more significant.

Facebook’s privacy conundrum

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has to do something about his firm’s reputation for data privacy, but it could it require destroying its own core business model.

At the F8 developer conference this week, Zuckerberg has been making claims no-one is surprised to hear. Facebook is all about user privacy, its not about making money anymore, just about offering a service its users care about. The PR machine is shifting through the gears, Facebook has to save its reputation before it’s too late.

This is perhaps the worst kept secret in Silicon Valley; Facebook does not care about data privacy, or at least it hasn’t cared in the past. It cares it was caught flamboyantly prancing around, above and all over the concept, but few will be surprised executives prioritized profits over privacy.

But here is the crossroads the firm faces; be disrupted or destroyed.

This of course sounds very dramatic, and perhaps we are taking poetic licence, but there is at least an element of accuracy to the statement. Zuckerberg needs to fundamentally redefine the business, moving away from the tried and tested business model, before regulators and legislators take Facebook out at the knees.

At the conference, Zuckerberg has been outlining Facebook’s journey forward. Updates will focus on creating a more ‘private’ experience, ushering users towards groups and chat locations which, theoretically, will prevent Facebook from fuelling its data machine. It seems the new business will be focused around two of the companies most popular applications, Messenger and WhatsApp, though this could potentially kill the tried and tested Facebook business model; hyper-targeted advertising.

One example of this is an update which will allow users to invite connections to watch videos in a private message or group. In years gone, this would be sacrilege to Facebook executives. If it is private, how can it be used to tune the advertising machine? Where is the opportunity to make money?

This is the risk Facebook is facing up to; its traditional business model is under threat. Its reputation for handling privacy is in tatters and the world is turning against Facebook. If it continues on the path of collecting and harvesting data in this manner, someone will eventually step in and stop it. Governments and regulators are cracking down on the data sharing economy, and Facebook has been made enemy number one.

But all is not lost. Facebook still has a couple of tricks up its sleeve. Firstly, the core social media platform is salvageable. It might look like a digital Yellow Pages today, but it by-gone years, it was a genuinely engaging platform. Somewhere along the line executives got grabby and started prioritising advertising over engagement, and the platform suffered as a result. If Facebook can rediscover the magic of old, all will be forgiven, such is the short-term memory of many consumers.

This might mean having to sacrifice the hyper-targeted advertising model, but if Zuckerberg’s claims on privacy are to be believed, Facebook might be moving away from it anyway.

Fortunately, with a reinvigorated platform, which people trust and enjoy, Facebook can bolt services on and beside it, as opposed to through it. This is perfectly feasible business model; running the platform as a loss-leader, maintaining a more transparent advertising business and also using the credibility to monetize premium services. And it might be a sensible direction for Facebook to go. It has worked before and will work again.

To make this idea work, Facebook will need a few things. Firstly, the ambition to explore news ideas. Secondly, smart people. And finally, R&D funds. Facebook has all these things in abundance.

Facebook has already shown its ambition with the launch of AR/VR, video platforms, online market places, dating applications and enterprise services (just to name a few). It has and will continue to attract some of the worlds most intelligent engineers and business people. And finally, Facebook has bags of cash.

This of course is taking Zuckerberg at his word. This might be nothing more than a ploy to generate positive PR. The hyper-targeting advertising model might simply be evolving with the help of small print and clever distractions. But, Zuckerberg surely is smarter than this. Another case of misleading the general public would surely be a step too far.

Zuckerberg might be waking up to the fact he cannot hide from this horrid and distasteful reputation he and his firm has developed. Perhaps Facebook has realised it needs to fundamentally change its business model. Maybe Zuckerberg wants to disrupt his own business before governments and regulators try to destroy it.

If 52% don’t understand data-sharing economy, is opt-in redundant?

Nieman Lab has unveiled the results of research suggesting more than half of adults do not realise Google is collecting and storing personal data through usage of its platforms.

The research itself is quite shocking and outlines a serious issue as we stride deeper into the digital economy. If the general population does not understand the basic principles behind the data-sharing economy, how are they possibly going to protect themselves against the nefarious intentions from the darker corners of the virtual world?

You also have to question whether there is any point in the internet players seeking consent if the user does not understand what he/she is signing up for.

According to the research, 52% of the survey respondents do not expect Google to collect data about a person’s activities when using its platforms, such as search engines or YouTube, while 57% do not believe Google is tracking their web activity in order to create more tailored advertisements.

While most working in the TMT industry would assume the business models of the Google and the other internet are common knowledge, the data here suggests otherwise.

66% also do not realise Google will have access to personal data when using non-Google apps, while 64% are unaware third-party information will be used to enhance the accuracy of adverts served on the Google platforms. Surprisingly, only 57% of the survey respondents realise Google will merge the data collected on each of its own platforms to create profiles of users.

Although this survey has been focused on Google, it would be fair to assume the same respondents do not appreciate this is how many newly emerging companies are fuelling their spreadsheets. The data-sharing economy is the very reason many of the services we enjoy today are free, though if users are not aware of how this segment functions, you have to question whether Google and the other internet giants are doing their jobs.

The ideas of opt-in and consent are critically important nowadays. New rules in the European Union, GDPR, set about significant changes to dictate how companies collect, store and use personal information collected by the service providers. These rules were supposed to enforce transparency and encourage the user to be in control of their personal information, though this research does not offer much encouragement.

If the research suggests more than half of adults do not understand how Google collects personal information or uses it to enhance its own advertising capabilities, what is the point of the opt-in process in the first place?

Reports like this suggest the opt-in process is largely meaningless as users do not understand what they are giving the likes of Google permission to do. The blame for this lack of education is split between the internet giants, who have become experts at muddying the waters, and the users themselves.

Those who use the services for free but do not question the continued existence of ‘free’ platforms should forgo the right to be annoyed when scandals emerge. Not taking the time to understand, or at least attempt to, the intricacies of the data-sharing economy is the reason many of these scandals emerge in the first place; users have been blindly handing power to the internet giants.

The internet players need to do more to educate the world on their business models, however the user does have to take some of the responsibility. We’re not suggesting everyone becomes an internet economy expert, but gaining a basic understanding is not incredibly difficult. However, it does seem ignorance is bliss.

Google caves in to employee activism… this time

The Silicon Valley search giant has decided to dissolve its AI ethical council, one week after it was created, in response to opposition from its own employees. But it’s not always so responsive to their concerns.

A week after the Advanced Technology External Advisory Council (ATEAC) was created, Google told  VOX that it has decided to cancel the project. Controversy has been following the project from the start, especially surrounding one council member Google enlisted. This prompted an internal petition that attracted the signatures of more than 2,300 employees and the resignation of one Council member. The sole purpose of ATEAC, with its members unpaid and the body without any decision-making power, seems to generate good PR. In that respect it represents a spectacular own-goal, so Google has bravely run away.

“It’s become clear that in the current environment, ATEAC can’t function as we wanted. So we’re ending the council and going back to the drawing board. We’ll continue to be responsible in our work on the important issues that AI raises, and will find different ways of getting outside opinions on these topics.” Google sent this statement to VOX.

This is not the first time that Google has “listened to employees”. In June 2018, Google famously “ditched contract with the US military” after more than 3,000 employees protested the company’s AI technology being used for military surveillance, the so-called project Maven.

But Google has not always respected its employees’ views. After almost exactly a year after he disclosed that Google was secretly working on a censored version of search engine for China, Ryan Gallagher, the reporter for The Intercept, kept the interested readers updated with the news that Google was closer to readiness with the so-called project Dragonfly. Some senior executives were said to be doing a secret “performance review” of the product, contrary to Google’s normal practice of involving large numbers of employees when assessing upcoming products.

Despite that more than 1,400 employees have condemned project Dragonfly and some have resigned, in addition to Google’s CEO having to testify in front of the Congress, Google looks to be rather determined to push forward with its China re-entry strategy. The Financial Times reported that the search and online advertising giant has recently suspended serving ads on two Chinese websites that evaluate VPNs, which would have helped users inside the Great Firewall to bypass the blocking. A local research firm told the FT that, considering the acrimonious nature of Google’s departure from China nine years ago, the company “may feel compelled to make additional efforts to curry favour and get back in the good graces to get approval to re-enter the market.”

So it is not clear whether it was due to the number of employees protesting against project Dragonfly being smaller or the resignations lower-profile that Google has decided not to back down, or it is simply more convenient to disband a rubber-stamp council or to discontinue a contract with the American military than resisting the temptation of the Chinese market and standing up to the censorial demands of the Chinese authorities.

Microsoft and BMW pair up for IoT Open Manufacturing Platform

Microsoft has partnered up with the BMW Group to launch a new initiative aimed at stimulating growth for IoT in the smart factory segment.

The Open Manufacturing Platform (OMP) will be built on the Microsoft Azure cloud platform, aiming to have four to six partners by the end of the year, to help grow an ecosystem and build future Industry 4.0 solutions. The smart factory segment is promising much with the emergence of 5G, but with every new concept there is scepticism; someone always needs to drag it towards the finish line.

“Microsoft is joining forces with the BMW Group to transform digital production efficiency across the industry,” said Scott Guthrie, EVP of the Microsoft Cloud and AI Group. “Our commitment to building an open community will create new opportunities for collaboration across the entire manufacturing value chain.”

“We have been relying on the cloud since 2016 and are consistently developing new approaches,” said Oliver Zipse, a board member at BMW. “With the Open Manufacturing Platform as the next step, we want to make our solutions available to other companies and jointly leverage potential in order to secure our strong position in the market in the long term.”

BMW is already a significant customer of Microsoft Azure, with over 3,000 machines, robots and autonomous transport systems connected with through the BMW Group IoT platform, which is built on Microsoft Azure cloud.

Openness is one of the key messages here as the pair bemoan data silos and slow productivity created by complex, proprietary systems. The OMP aims to break down these barriers through the creation of an open technology framework and cross-industry community.

For both, the objective of this group is relatively simple. At BMW, the team wants to improve operational efficiencies and reduce costs, partly by taking back control of the supply chain, while Microsoft just wants more people, processes and data on Azure. The more accessible the smart factory is, more companies will become cloud-first, and the more successful the OMP becomes, the more customers Azure gains.

The OMP will provide community members with a reference architecture with open source components based on open industrial standards and an open data model. Through openness, the pair claim data models will be standardised to enable more data analytics and machine learning scenarios and usecases. For Microsoft and the manufacturers, its great news, for the suppliers not so much.

Openness sounds like a great idea, but with any fundamental change comes consequence. There will be numerous companies who benefit considerably from proprietary technologies and processes, especially in traditional industries like manufacturing, though those who resist change will be the losers in the long-run. The world is evolving to a new dynamic, where openness rules the roost, resistance only means future redundancy.