US bolsters AI ambitions with Open Government Data Act

President Trump has signed the Open Government Data Act into law, potentially unleashing a tsunami of data for AI applications to be trained with.

The bill itself has been bouncing around Washington for some time now, though it has officially been signed into law. Within one year, all government agencies will have to ensure data sets are open and accessible to the general public and businesses, as well as being presented in a format that can be easily processed by a computer without human intervention. The act also hopes to make the data more accessible through smartphones.

“The government-wide law will transform the way the government collects, publishes, and uses non-sensitive public information,” said Sarah Joy Hays, Acting Executive Director of the Data Coalition, a public interest group which promotes transparency in government and business.

“Title II, the Open Government Data Act, which our organization has been working on for over three and a half years, sets a presumption that all government information should be open data by default: machine-readable and freely-reusable.”

For the digital ecosystem, such a bill should be welcomed with open arms. For any AI application to work effectively it needs to be trained. For years, many have claimed data is the new oil, although we suspect they did not mean in this manner. If the US is to create a leadership position in the developing AI ecosystem, its applications will need to be the best around and therefore will have to have the appropriate data sets to improve performance and accuracy.

Open data is of course not a new idea however. Back in September during Broadband World Forum in Berlin, we sat through several entertaining presentations from individual cities laying out their smart city ambitions. There was one common theme throughout the session; open data. These local governments realise the potential of empowering local digital ecosystems through open data, and the initiatives are proving to be successful.

This new law will force all federal agencies to make all non-sensitive data public in a machine-readable format and catalogue it online. New individuals must be appointed as Chief Data Officers to oversee the process, and new procedures will be introduced. While it seems incredibly obvious, when proposing new laws or regulations agencies will now have to justify the changes with supporting data. As it stands, only a handful of agencies are required to do this, the FCC is one of them, though this law ensures the validation and justification of new rules through data is rolled out across the board.

As with everything to do with data, there are of course privacy concerns. The text of the bill does seem to take this into account, one clause states any data released to the public will have to adhere to the Privacy Act of 1974, though there is bound to be a few blunders. Such a tangent should compound the importance of hiring a Chief Data Officer and a team of individuals who are appropriately trained. We suspect there will be few current employees in the agencies who could ensure compliance here.

Of course, this is not a law which will make an immediate impact. With any fundamental changes, such as this, procedures and systems will have to be updated. The procurement process is most likely, or at least we hope, underway and there will certainly be growing pains.

That said, if the US wants to make a meaningful dent on the AI world, the right tools and data need to be put in the hands of the right people. This is a step in the right direction.

Where is the evidence of Huawei espionage?

Before we get carried too carried away with the recent arrest in Poland, let’s remember something; this is a Huawei employee accused of espionage, not Huawei.

Right now, Huawei is the world’s whipping boy. This is a company which is taking the punishment for the nefarious activities of the Chinese government. In Poland, a Huawei employee and another from Orange have been arrested, accused of espionage. But the condemnation should be directed towards the Chinese government and these individuals, not necessarily Huawei.

For the record, we are not suggesting Huawei is completely blameless. The company might be in bed with Beijing, but as it stands there is no concrete evidence to support this theory. The arrest in Poland is circumstantial, evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact. It most judicial systems, reasonable doubt is tied into circumstantial evidence meaning it can contribute to a verdict, but alone it is rarely enough to assign guilt.

Huawei could well be a puppet with strings attached to Beijing, but evidence needs to be produced to ensure ‘democratic’ nations are not presuming guilt, a contraction of their legal principals.

The prospects for Huawei are not currently looking good. Effectively banned from any meaningful work in the US, banned in Australia and Japan, under close watch in the UK, ignored in South Korea, condemned by the European Union and in a very suspect position in New Zealand. Eastern Europe was one area where it looked like business was safe, but now the Polish are talking about a ban as well.

With all this heart-ache and headaches for the Huawei executives you have to question how much evidence there has been of espionage. As far as we are aware, nothing of note.

This is of course not to say there isn’t any but look at the situation. The US government is trying to rally the world against Huawei and China on the whole, it has been for years now, and you have to think it would use evidence to turn the tides if it had any. Back in 2012, a House Intelligence Committee told the US government Huawei was a ‘National Security Threat’, but in the six years since this point no evidence has been produced to support this statement. Yet this report has been used as the foundation of all negative sentiment directed towards China and Huawei.

This report, which was the result of a yearlong investigation by the committee, came to the conclusion Huawei and ZTE were a national security threat because of their attempts to extract sensitive information from American companies and their loyalties to the Chinese government. The report stated it had obtained internal documents from former Huawei employees suggesting it supplied services to a ‘cyberwarfare’ unit in the People’s Liberation Army, but this evidence has never made it to the public domain.

For most, the sustained rhetoric of espionage could be viewed as politically and economically motivated. Chinese companies are making an impression on the world and Silicon Valley’s vice-like grip on the technology industry is loosening. This would be incredibly damaging for the US economy on the whole, which has partly relied on the dominance of this segment for success in recent years. In recent months it has been flexing its muscles and some are bending to its will. Deutsche Telekom is an excellent example.

Only last month, DT suggested it was reviewing its relationship with Huawei to ease concerns from the US government. It just so happens government agencies are reviewing its US businesses potential merger with Sprint. Breaking ties with the Chinese vendor would certainly gain favour with Washington, but is this culture of paranoia and finger-pointing something we should be encouraging?

Again, this is not to say there is no evidence to support the accusations. However, if the US government had the smoking gun, surely it would have shown it to the world. Some might suggest it had an obligation to inform its allies of such nefarious activities. Some even more sceptical individuals might also suggest that if there was classified evidence, it would have been leaked by someone over this period. In today’s world it is impossible to keep big secrets secret. Just look at Edward Snowdon’s revelations.

Over in Germany, the Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) has said it would take this very approach. Arne Schoenbohm, President of BSI, said that for his agency to consider banning Huawei from the country he would have to see evidence. This statement came at the same time a US delegation had been meeting with officials from the Foreign Ministry to discuss a ban. As no ban has emerged, it would appear the US delegation was unable to table any evidence.

Going back to the arrest in Poland, some might suggest this is enough evidence to ban Huawei from operating in the nation. However, governments have been catching spies for decades and punishing individuals. There is little (or any) precedent to ban the company than individual works for unless there is a direct link between the organization and the nefarious government. Over in the UAE, 31-year-old PhD student at Durham University has been arrest for espionage also, but the University has not been punished. MI5 and MI5 catch spies and potential terrorists every year, but the companies they work for are not accused of espionage.

We suspect the Chinese government is obtaining information through reprehensible means, but if the world is to hold China accountable, ‘western’ governments need to stand by their principles and not undermine the foundations of fair society. The principle which is being forgotten today is the assumption of innocence until a party has been proven guilty.

Two wrongs do not make a right, and we have to ask ourselves this question; are we any better than the oppressive governments if we forget this simple principle of a fair and reasoned judicial system; innocent until proven guilty.

DCMS launches new initiative to bring elderly into digital

The Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) has announced the launch of a new initiative to help older and disabled people get digital skills and reap the benefits of the digital era.

The scheme will see digitally savvy older people open their homes up to be kitted out in the latest technologies, before allowing others to visit and learn first-hand from their peers how to make the most of smart technology to control household appliances, book GP appointments online, contact friends and family by video, and shop online. In short, you can get some free kit, but you have to let Edna and Harold from down the road parade around your home.

“We are committed to improving the digital skills of people of all ages and abilities, so everyone can enjoy the benefits of modern technology,” said Minister for Digital, Margot James. “These innovative projects will not only help some of the hardest to reach people live healthier and happier lives but also boost our mission to make the UK the best place in the world to start and grow a digital business.”

Funded by the Digital Inclusion Innovation Fund, this scheme will initially receive £400,000 and will be championed in rural West Essex by a partnership led by Uttlesford Council for Voluntary Service.

“Organisations across Essex are backing the Digital Boomers which will see older people redesign their relationship using technology to become even more tech confident and retain their independence for longer,” said Clive Emmett, chief executive of Uttlesford Council for Voluntary Service.

“Thanks to the Digital Inclusion Fund, our exciting Living Smart Homes and Digital Buddies pilots will help us rethink how older people use digital to support their health, wellbeing and independence.”

While some might turn their nose up at this idea, it is very easy to forget the older generations need to be taken forward into the digital economy as well. These are people who in all likelihood weren’t forced into the digital mindset through work or society and therefore need all the assistance possible to make sure they feel the benefits.

The UK government has not necessarily shown itself to be the most forward-thinking in the world, but this is an initiative which we quite like the look of.

German Gov told to sell DT stake

The Chief of the Monopolies Commission in Germany has suggested the German government should sell its stake in Deutsche Telekom over conflict of interest fears.

Achim Wamback, the President of the Monopolies Commission, has made the call on the grounds the German government is currently sitting in a suspect position on both sides of the fence, according to local newspaper Wirtschafts Woche. Although there is no suggestion this position is currently being abused, owning a notable share of a major telco, while simultaneously exercising regulatory power over the industry could lead to market abuse. With the 5G auction set to take place in the immediate future, Wamback’s call will make for awkward reading in the Bundestag.

As it stands, the German government owns roughly 31% of DT, the profits of which will contribute to national coffers, meaning there is less of an emphasis on taxing the general public to raise funds. This will only be a minor impact on the taxation strategies, but every little helps for a governing party which has struggled to maintain power and influence in recent years.

If you try to take a purely impartial approach to the situation, you can see Wamback’s point; this is a conflict of interest. Nationalised businesses are always a talking point for the more left-leaning members of society, but they are deeply unpopular when things are going well in the economy.

This is not the first time the German government’s position in DT has been called into question however. During 2017, when Chancellor Angela Merkel’s grip on government was starting to loosen following federal elections, two potential coalition partners pushed for the sale as well. The Freedom Party and the Greens were unsuccessful with their ambition then, though the idea was never quashed.

Part or fully state-owned telcos are certainly not an unusual fixture on the global telco scene, though you have to question whether it aligns with the pro-competition sensitivities of the European Union.

US starts whispering to Germany about China ban

The anti-China road-trip has finally made it to Europe as representatives of the US government have met with German counterparts to argue the case to ban Chinese vendors from the 5G deployment.

The Trump administration has quickly been working away around the world to spread anti-China propaganda, and it has been successful. Australia was the first domino to fall, but New Zealand has seemingly followed, as has Japan. South Korea will evade China’s grasp for other reasons, and it looks like Taiwan’s public sector is off limits as well. Now the parade has entered Europe and Germany.

According to Bloomberg, a US delegation has been meeting with officials from the Foreign Ministry to discuss a ban. These talks will of course be very hushed, but whether any concrete evidence is going to be presented remains to be seen. Earlier this week, Germany stepped forward and said it would need to see evidence before any actions would be taken against China.

“For such serious decisions like a ban, you need proof,” said Arne Schoenbohm, President of Germany’s Federal Office for Information Security (BSI).

This is the big question. Has the Trump administration masterminded a campaign of hate in the interest of national security, or does it believe crippling the prospects of Huawei and ZTE will protect the US position of dominance as the 5G dawn breaks. We are slightly pessimistic about the intentions of the Oval Office and believe the national security element is a thinly veiled disguise to push China’s tech leaderships challenge off-course.

What is worth noting is this meeting has taken almost immediately after Deutsche Telekom’s decision to re-examine its use of Huawei equipment in its network. DT has gone big on Huawei in previous years, therefore any ban against Chinese companies could have potentially impacted the speed of 5G rollout across Germany, perhaps explaining why the government is slightly resistant to joining the anti-China gang. That said, with DT potentially shunning Huawei in pursuit of White House favour (the Sprint/T-Mobile merger is reaching a critical point), the pressure might be lifted from the government.

This is also a government which might be swayed to the anti-China gang under the right conditions. The government has been discussing new legislation which would impact the role of Chinese service providers in the country, while reports of someone tapping Chancellor Angela Merkel in by-gone years are still fresh. Espionage is a sensitive subject.

While we will not defend the Chinese government, and we strongly suspect there are some nefarious activities going on behind the Great Firewall to extend the government’s eyes internationally, no proof has been tabled. The countries which are condemning China are acting without proof and assuming guilt without trial, betraying one of the base foundations of a democratic society; innocent until proven guilty.

In fact, ‘innocent until proven guilty’ it is an international human right under the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11. Admittedly this is directed towards criminal law, however the same principles apply. If there is evidence, this needs to be presented to the world. If there is no evidence, some needs to be found. We suspect the US government does not have the evidence yet, but it is out there somewhere.

Banning countries and presuming guilt on suspicions and paranoia is a dangerous path to walk, and you have to question whether we are any better than the freedom-crushing Chinese government. Supposed Democratic nations are betraying their own values in pursuit of punishing the ‘enemy’; two wrongs do not make a right.

T-Mobile/Sprint edge towards finish line following Huawei snub

T-Mobile US and Sprint are reportedly rubbing regulators the right way, in the continued effort to get the prolonged merger approved, by overtly shunning Chinese kit vendor Huawei.

The statement should be viewed as more symbolic than anything else, as considering the clauses which have been inserted into the Defense Authorization Act during August, it would have been highly unlikely the pair would have considered Huawei for any meaningful work in US networks. What this could be viewed as is a PR move from the pair, allowing the US to demonstrate to the world how serious it is about the espionage claims.

According to Reuters, Deutsche Telekom and Softbank, parent companies of T-Mobile US and Sprint respectively, have confirmed they will not be working with Huawei moving forward. Neither US telco currently has any Huawei kit in its network, though it is hoped this statement from the international telcos will have the bureaucrats hand edging closer to the green button for the $26 billion merger.

For the US government, this is somewhat of a PR win. The Trump administration has been incredibly aggressive in making moves against the Chinese, and this could be viewed as a medal credited to the crusade. Not only can the US government effect change in its own telcos and other governments around the world, it can also influence non-domestic private firms. The long arm of the Oval Office is tickling opinion in places it really shouldn’t be able to.

Unfortunately for the US, each incremental step taken in the trade war against China seems to question how dearly the White House holds principles and values. All of these individual circumstances are starting to look like pawns in President Trump’s game of chess against Beijing. Trump is living up to his reputation as a deal-maker, with the promise of aiding the battle against the Chinese enough for the President to make concessions elsewhere.

The evidence being stacked up against the T-Mobile/Sprint merger was starting to climb pretty high, though perhaps this might be enough of a ‘concession’ to twist the White House’s perspective on the transaction. Trump has already shown he is capable of looking at the big picture, with the recent arrest of Huawei’s CFO another excellent example.

Having been arrested in Canada while in transit back to China, Trump promised to intervene in the court case should it help his pursuit of a more favourable trade relationship with China. This statement from Trump makes somewhat of a mockery of the whole arrest and demonstrates how little he thinks of the Canadian judicial system. If there is a benefit to the US economy, Trump can talk to the right people and make the whole saga disappear. It questions the validity of the arrest in the first place, but also the credibility of the Canadian courts; why does Trump believe they can be convinced to drop the case so easily?

Trump is starting to show his heritage; anything for the deal. This is a businessman in control of the White House, and his ability to ignore small print give the impression of a wheeler-dealer.

UK’s slowest street gets 0.14 Mbps, but who’s fault actually is it?

New research from uSwitch suggests the slowest broadband in the UK is 0.14 Mbps, while 5% of the UK are not able to reach 5 Mbps, though this could be their own fault.

With the government aiming to have every available premise on 10 Mbps broadband speeds before too long, news such as this will come as a worry. But, to be fair to the government and and the telcos, there is only so much which can be done. Those who choose to have slow broadband cannot complain when they have slow broadband.

Broadband can be somewhat of a postcode lottery, though the research suggests that 35% of those individuals who are on the slowest streets do have superfast broadband services available to them. There will be a variety of reasons for not connecting their home to a faster broadband line, but there aren’t many people left to blame in this situation. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.

“Recent Ofcom research has found that the average household is doubling its data consumption every two years, be it watching online video or accessing government services, and so adequate broadband is swiftly becoming vital,” said Jeremy Chelot, CEO of Community Fibre.

The slowest street for broadband across the UK was Greenmeadows Park in Bamfurlong, Gloucestershire, though this is one of the streets which did not have access to superfast broadband. Poplar Avenue in Oldham and Chesham Road in Wilmslow collect second and third place at the slow end of the table, with respective speeds of 0.221 Mbps and 0.249 Mbps, but in both of these cases superfast broadband is available.

Looking at the prices, for Poplar Avenue customers could get a Onestream Fibre Broadband deal, offering speeds of 38 Mbps for £19.95 per month, while TalkTalk offers 36 Mbps for £22.50 per month. The same deals are available in Chesham Road along with a host of others. If these prices are too high, there were also several other, lower priced, options for 11 Mbps contracts.

The telcos and government are clearly not blameless in many situations where connectivity is poor, but in some cases you have to question what more can be done. The service is available and affordable, but the residents are not plugging in.

Aussies determined to undermine security with anti-encryption law

Ten of the world’s largest tech brands have banded together to denounce a recent law passed by the Australian government which could be viewed as the first step towards a Big Brother government.

With the world turning against China and Chinese companies due to the threat of espionage, you have to question whether the Australian’s have a leg to stand on anymore, as personal privacy takes a heavy blow with this legislation.

The signs have certainly been worrying over the last 18 months. Australia might well be one of the first to pass such controversial legislation, but it is certainly not alone. France, Germany, the UK and the US have all made it clear they all have ambitions to make our world less secure and less private with their own attempts. The privacy damn was set to burst, and the Aussies caved. Privacy has taken a backwards step down-under.

The statement below, signed by Apple, Evernote, Dropbox, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Oath, Snap and Twitter, signals the opposition from the technology industry.

“One of the core principles of the Reform Government Surveillance coalition (RGS) is that strong encryption of devices and services protects the privacy and data security of our users, while also promoting free expression and the free flow of information around the world,” a joint statement declares.

“RGS has consistently opposed any government action that would undermine the cybersecurity, human rights, or the right to privacy of our users – unfortunately, the Assistance and Access Bill that was just passed through the Australian Parliament will do just that. The new Australian law is deeply flawed, overly broad, and lacking in adequate independent oversight over the new authorities. RGS urges the Australian Parliament to promptly address these flaws when it reconvenes.”

The law itself will allow the Australian police to issue technical notices, compelling technology companies to assist the government to hack, implant malware, undermine encryption and even insert backdoors into security software. Those who resist would face financial penalties. The justified concerns with the legislation are two-fold.

Firstly, the idea of a backdoor or writing algorithms which allow encryption software to be undermined completely defeats the purpose. The presence of such features should be seen as nothing more than a weakness in the software, a weak link in the chain. Whenever there is a vulnerability, nefarious individuals always expose it. It is just a matter of time before cyber criminals identify these vulnerabilities and it doesn’t matter how well they are hidden. It might happen after months of searching, or it might happen by accident.

Secondly, the law is flawed in that it is full of loop-holes and contradictions which leave it open to abuse and mission creep.

The initial remit of the technical notices will be for serious crimes, such as sex offenders, terrorists, homicide and drug offenses, though critics have pointed towards weak and vague language which opens the door for mission creep. And when there is an opportunity to push the boundaries of acceptable, there are people who will do this.

Another example of the problematic rules is the difference between Technical Capability Notices (TCNs) and Technical Assistance Notices (TANs). Both are used to compel technology companies into assistance for pretty much the same exercises and violations of privacy, though TCNs require approval by the Attorney-General, a consultation period and can only be used by the agency which submitted the request. TANs do not but can wield almost exactly the same amount of power.

“As Government and Labor MPs work today to craft amendments to the Assistance and Access Bill, it appears that one of the biggest flaws in the proposed legislation will not be addressed,” said Communications Alliance CEO, John Stanton on the differences between TCNs and TANs.

These are only a couple of examples of the criticism which the bill has faced over the last couple of weeks, though even after public consultation (which attracted 15,000 comments) few amendments were made to the original draft before being passed into law.

“The Australian government has ignored the expertise of researchers, developers, major tech companies, and civil liberties organizations by charging forward with a disastrous proposal to undermine trust and security for technology users around the world,” the Electronic Frontier Foundation said it a statement.

“The issue isn’t whether the Australian government read the 15,000 comments and ignored them or refused to read them altogether. The issue is that the Australian government couldn’t have read the 15,000 comments in such a short time period. Indeed, the bill’s few revisions reflect this—no security recommendations are included.”

In the pursuit of making life easier for the Australian police force, the government has betrayed the consumer and made the digital landscape a haven for hackers. We are unable to think of any examples of genuine encryption software being hacked or compromised to date, but the Australian government has just made life a lot easier for nefarious actors by voluntarily introducing vulnerabilities.

And this is without addressing the opportunity for abuse and violation of individuals human right to privacy.

There have been countless examples from around the world of individuals, either in private organizations or government agencies, being able to respect privacy rights when given the opportunity. Uber employees used the location tracking features of the app to stalk ex’s and celebrities, while Edward Snowden exposed how the CIA illegally undermined the privacy of thousands of its own citizens.

The Australian government has not done anywhere near enough to ensure the rights of citizens will be maintained, or that actions will be entirely justified. This is a very worrying sign for the world, especially with the likes of the US and UK watching very carefully.

Australia is part of the Five Eyes intelligence fraternity, which traces its origins back to the 50s. This intelligence alliance, comprising of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and the US, generally work hand-in-hand when it comes to intelligence and security, and tend to implement very similar legislation. With Australia setting the pace of making the world a less safe place, it would not be a surprise to see other nations follow suit.

International politics is generally like a dominoes set. All ‘Western’ governments have similar laws, and when one breaks rank usually it back-tracks or the rest get in line. In this case with governments around the world all showing Big Brother ambitions, we suspect it might not be too long before more of these bills are being discussed elsewhere.

UK Gov pulls back the curtain on Facebook data policies

With pressure mounting against Facebook over the last few months it was only a matter of time before a treasure trove of treachery was unveiled; the UK government has done just that.

Considering the breadth and depth of the information revealed by Damian Collins, a MP and Chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, and the likelihood this is only scratching the surface, it’ll be some time before we discover the full impact. But, the door has been opened. For Facebook, the PR machine will have to find another gear as this will take some battling.

“As we’ve said many times, Six4Three – creators of the Pikinis app – cherrypicked these documents from years ago as part of a lawsuit to force Facebook to share information on friends of the app’s users,” Facebook said in a statement. “The set of documents, by design, tells only one side of the story and omits important context.”

Facebook is standing by changes made in 2014 which prevented developers seizing personal information of user’s friends, those who had not opted in. This is effectively the saga which kicked off the entire Cambridge Analytica scandal. Facebook argues Six4Three didn’t receive a temporary extension, allowing the app to continue operating while the changes were implemented, and the court case is manufactured revenge.

The Six4Three lawsuit is where Collins and his Committee managed to get their hands on the documents which have been unveiled here. Officials compelled Six4Three CEO Ted Kramer to hand over the documents while on a business trip to London. The documents were obtained as part of a legal discovery process brought about through Six4Three’s lawsuit against Facebook.

The documents are quite damning, suggesting Facebook used user personal information as a commodity, offering the team a useful bargaining chip to secure more attractive contracts, while also nipping any competitive threats before momentum was gathered. For Facebook, this should be considered a nightmare, and it seems investors agree. At the time of writing share price had dropped by 2.7% in overnight trading.

While these reports might not come as a surprise to those who work in the technology space, the general public are unlikely to find these reports very appealing. Facebook crafts an image of itself as a business which wants to help society, though these documents creates a perception of millionaires viewing the user as nothing more than a number, trading away information which doesn’t really belong to them. This idea will not be well-received by the general public.

Looking at the specifics of the documents, apps were invited to use Facebook just as long as it improved the Facebook brand, while some competitors were not allowed to use Facebook tools without the specific sign-off of CEO Mark Zuckerberg himself. One of these examples is Vine, which could be viewed as a means to obstruct rivals. Those who are legally-minded will know this could cause all sorts of problems for the social media giant.

Facebook has clearly recognised this is an issue as well. As part of its statement, Facebook has said it prevented apps which replicate the core functionality of its platform from reaping the full benefits, though it plans to remove this ‘out of date’ policy as soon as possible.

This is of course on concession Facebook is making, though there will have to be a hell of a lot more over the coming months. These documents are damning of the attitudes towards data privacy and also Facebook’s own policies. The lawmakers are sharpening their sticks and it won’t be long before they start taking more accurate aims at a firm which has done little to aid investigations, dodging meaningful questions like perfectly crafted PR ninjas.

One of the biggest recurring themes of the documents is the value which has been placed on data obtained through user’s friends. The idea of linking financial value to the developer’s ability to gain access to friend’s data is one of the key issues being raised by Collins. Some might suggest this goes against repeated statements from Facebook that it was unaware its platform was being abused.

This is the issue. Facebook has continually proclaimed its innocence, accepting criticisms that it should have done more, but ultimately the blame for abuse should be directed elsewhere. These documents suggest the social media giant was not only aware of the abuses but debated and understood the controversial nature. This does appear to be a complete contradiction of the firm’s previous stance.

Another example of this is an update made to changes to its policies on the Android mobile phone system, which enabled the Facebook app to collect a record of calls and texts sent by the user.

Perhaps this suggests a breach of trust during internal meetings and email exchanges, but it also damages the brand credibility of Facebook moving forwards. Facebook is in a hole right now, there’s no doubt about that.

Italy floats the idea of a nationalised broadband network

With a suspiciously positioned government, perhaps we should not be surprised Italy is going against popular trends by proposing a nationalised broadband network.

Italian government minister Alessandro Morelli has suggested forming a new, state-controlled company, which would merge Telecom Italia’s broadband network and state-owned Open Fiber’s assets, according to Reuters. Few European states would consider such a proposition, though with the current political landscape in Italy, perhaps we should have expected such an idea.

After this year’s election resulted in a hung-parliament, law professor Giuseppe Conte was appointed as the prime minister despite not having run for office. Conte currently has the support of both League and the Five Star Movement, two fringe political parties who have found themselves with a surprising amount of influence. ‘Fight the power’ political parties are gathering support across Europe, though few have the potential to have a material impact on its country as League and the Five Star Movement.

Earlier this month, League leader Matteo Salvini suggested the government should be in control of assets which deal with public data, though this is the first time where the broadband assets have been specifically mentioned. While there are examples of nationalised networks around the world, there are few examples in Europe.

For those who do not like the idea of nationalised networks, rest assured this situation will not emerge in the UK, not under the current government at least. Speaking at The Great Telco Debate in London, Ofcom’s Director of Strategy, Clive Carter, underlined the regulators position of private competition.

“In the UK, we want to see multiple, competing networks in the vast majority of the UK,” said Carter. “Why do we want that? Why is the idea of nationalisation and a single monopoly bad? I think what has been shown right across Europe is that competition is what drives investment. Its the risk and fear that someone else is going to come along and eat your lunch that pushes you to invest and innovate.”

Some might suggest a nationalised network is the best route towards closing the digital divide and creating a full-fibre network, though that is not the position in the UK. The idea of a company which is not under quarterly financial pressure does sound good in theory, though there are few examples of successfully reversing privatisation to quote.