Huawei uses Davos to defend itself

Huawei Chairman Liang Hua has turned up at the World Economic Forum jamboree in Davos to defend his company over security concerns.

Addressing widespread allegations that Huawei is under pressure to collude with the Chinese government, Liang said “We operate our business globally, and in every country we fully comply with local laws and regulations,” according to Reuters. “We don’t see any evidence … to say that Huawei is not safe. Cybersecurity is a common challenge. It is not an issue about any single company.”

To show how open and transparent Huawei is Liang apparently invited foreign officials to visit Huawei’s labs. It’s not clear what that will achieve, however, as they’re hardly going to leave any potentially incriminating stuff lying about the place. On the flip side it’s hard to see what else Huawei can do to convince the rest of the world that its gear doesn’t constitute a security threat.

Liang also addressed the matter of Huawei’s CFO, who is currently stuck in Canada on bail, waiting to see if the US is going to get around to applying for her extradition on charges of violating US sanctions. Understandably he wants them to get a move on.

Meanwhile the BBC is reporting that Liang had also used the event to imply Huawei might just not bother with countries that are giving it a hard time and only go where it’s welcome. If Huawei faced further obstacles to doing business “…we would transfer the technology partnership to countries where we are welcomed and where we can have collaboration with,” he is quoted as saying.

That seems like a slightly redundant statement as it’s already being banned from participating in some of the infrastructure of those countries, so maybe he’s saying Huawei would pull out entirely. If so that threat would appear to be a bit of an own-goal as it would serve to illustrate how disruptive Huawei could be to the markets in question if it feels like it.

Lobbying on the up as Silicon Valley feels the regulatory squeeze

The internet giants have started filing their lobbying reports with the Center for Responsive Politics with records being shattered all over the place.

Each quarter US companies are legally required to disclose to Congress how much has been spend on political lobbying. Although the figures we are about to discuss are only for the US market, international players will certainly spend substantially more, it gives a good idea of the pressure which the internet players are facing. Governments are attempting to exert more control and Silicon Valley doesn’t like it.

Looking at the filings, having spent $4.9 million in the final three months, Google managed to total $21.2 million across the whole of 2018, a new high for the firm. This compares to $18.3 million spent across 2017.

Facebook is another which saw its lobby bill increase. In its latest filing, Facebook reported just over $3 million for Q4, and totalled almost $13 million across the year. In the Facebook case it should hardly be surprising to see a massive leap considering the scale and the depth of the Cambridge Analytica scandal which it has not been able to shake off.

More filings will be due over the next couple of days, the deadline for the fourth quarter period was January 22, though the database search tool is awful. What is worth noting is this is set to be the biggest year for internet lobby spend, however it is still nothing compared to the vast swathes which are spend elsewhere.

Lobby tableIn total, the internet industry might have spent a whopping $68.7 million on lobbying Washington over 2017 (2018 data is still not complete), but that is nothing compared to more mature industries. The Oil and Gas segment spent $126 million, while Insurance pumped $162 million into the lobbyists pockets, but the winner by a long was the pharmaceutical industry spending an eye-watering $279 million on lobbyists across the year (see image for full list).

As you can see, the ceiling has been set very high for lobbying and it will almost certainly increase over the next couple of years. All around the world governments and regulators are attempting to exert more control over the internet industry, and while the lobbying process isn’t necessarily attempting to block these new rules, the aim will be to get the best deal possible.

In comparison to other industries, the internet specifically and technology on the whole is relatively new. You have to take into account the internet as a mass market tool is only in its teen years and is demonstrating the same rebellious tendencies as young adults do. New ideas are being explored and boundaries are being pushed; with some breakthroughs rules do not exist, while the emergence of new business models means companies fall into the grey areas of regulation. The internet has been operating relatively untethered over the last few years, though this is changing.

2018 was a year where it all started to hit home. Countless data breaches demonstrated the digital world is one where security has not been nailed, while data privacy scandals have shown how dated some regulations are. It doesn’t help that Silicon Valley seems to operate behind a curtain which only the privileged few are allowed to peak behind, but even if this barrier was thrown open, only a small percentage of the world would actually understand what was going on or how to regulate it effectively.

GDPR was a step in the right direction in handing control of personal information back to the user, but this only applies to European citizens. Other countries, such as India, are learning from these regulations with the ambition of creating their own, but it is still very early days. The rules and regulations of the digital economy are being shaped and the internet giants will certainly want to influence proceedings to ensure they can still continue to hoover up profits in the manner which they have become accustomed to.

Looking at where money has been spent, data privacy and security concerns is a common theme with all the internet players who want to protect their standing in the sharing economy, though mobile location privacy issues is another shared concern. With data getting cheaper, more people will be connected all the time, opening the door for more location-based services and data collection. This could be big business for the internet giants, though it has been targeted by privacy advocates looking to curb the influence of Silicon Valley. Other issues have included tax reforms, antitrust and artificial intelligence.

So yes, a remarkable amount of cash is being spent by the likes of Google and Facebook at the moment, but this will only grow in time as regulators and legislators become more familiar with the business of the internet and, more importantly, how to govern it.

France fines Google for being vague

The French regulator has swung the GDPR stick for the first time and landed it firmly on Google’s rump, costing the firm €50 million for transparency and consent violations.

The National Data Protection Commission (CNIL) has been investigating the search engine giant since May when None Of Your Business (NOYB) and La Quadrature du Net (LQDN) filed complaints suggesting GDPR violations. The claims specifically suggested Google was not providing adequate information to the user on how data would be used or retained for, while also suggesting Google made the process to find more information unnecessarily complex.

“Users are not able to fully understand the extent of the processing operations carried out by Google,” the CNIL said in a statement.

“But the processing operations are particularly massive and intrusive because of the number of services offered (about twenty), the amount and the nature of the data processed and combined. The restricted committee observes in particular that the purposes of processing are described in a too generic and vague manner, and so are the categories of data processed for these various purposes.”

This seems to be the most prominent issue raised by the CNIL. Google was being too vague when obtaining consent in the first instance, but when digging deeper the rabbit hole become too complicated.

Information on data processing purposes, the data storage periods or the categories of personal data used for the ad personalization were spread across several pages or documents. It has been deemed too complicated for any reasonable member of the general public to make sense of and therefore a violation of GDPR.

When first obtaining consent, Google did not offer enough clarity on how data would be used, therefore was without legal grounding to offer personalised ads. Secondly, the firm then wove too vexing a maze of red-tape for those who wanted to understand the implications further.

It’ll now be interesting to see how many other firms are brought to the chopping block. Terms of Service have been over-complicated documents for a long-time now, with the excessive jargon almost becoming best practise in the industry. Perhaps this ruling will ensure internet companies make the legal necessities more accessible, otherwise they might be facing the same swinging GDPR stick as Google has done here.

For those who are finding the NOYB acronym slightly familiar it might be because the non-profit recently filed complaints against eight of the internet giants, including Google subsidiary YouTube. These complaints focus on ‘right to access’ clauses in GDPR, with none of the parties responding to requests with enough information on how data is sourced, how long it would be retained for or how it has been used.

As GDPR is still a relatively new set of regulations for the courts to ponder, the complaints from NOYB and LQDN were filed almost simultaneously as the new rules came into force, this case gives some insight into how sharp the CNIL’s teeth are. €50 million might not be a monstrous amount for Google, but this is only a single ruling. There are more complaints in the pipeline meaning the next couple of months could prove to be very expensive for the Silicon Valley slicker.

Anonymous targets Zimbabwe after government crack-down

International hacktivist group Anonymous has targeted the Zimbabwe government after it attempted to halt nationwide protests through various means including blocking social media sites.

The protests have been directed towards rising diesel and petrol prices across the country, with police crackdowns resulting in the death of 12 people. One tactic from the government to regain control saw legal action directed at the three mobile networks to block access to Facebook, WhatsApp, YouTube and Twitter, according to Bloomberg.

In reaction to the internet shut-down, Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and the Zimbabwe unit of the Media Institute of Southern Africa has filed a lawsuit against the government order, suggesting it has resulting in loss of income and threats to life. Although largely unconfirmed, some are suggesting the government has initiated a full internet shutdown in various places.

While such lawsuits are unlikely to worry the government at this time, the attention of Anonymous might be more of a concern. On the Ghostbin website, the group left the following message:

“Greetings Zimbabwe, we are Anonymous. We have previously seen innocent people being killed in Zimbabwe. We have seen oppression and tyranny. We have seen people being oppressed for fighting for freedom. We cannot tolerate that. As we did with the Sudanese government, we have successfully taken down 72+ Zimbabwe government websites. This is only a start. Your banking system will also fall soon. Zimbabwe government, you have become an enemy of Anonymous! Your systems are in danger! In the face of oppression, rebellion become our duty.”

Some of the websites which have been targeted so far include the Ministry of ICT, the Housing Ministry, the Justice Department and the Ministry of Defence. You can see the full list of targets here.

While the scope of the group is relatively limited for the moment, the threat of wider retaliation could bring the country to its knees. In Sudan, the group attacked more than 200 websites, while also targeting the government’s services for electronic payments. Should the group target the banking system as promised in the above message, things could go from uncomfortable to disastrous.

Cybersecurity investments on the up but not sustainable – study

Research from Strategic Cyber Ventures points to an increased appetite for cyber security investments, but the euphoria sweeping the segment forward is not sustainable.

On numerous occasions we have commented security is the ugly duckling of the technology world. It is critical to ensure the industry, and digital society on the whole, functions appropriately, though more often than not it is ignored. There will be numerous reasons for this, perhaps because security is a thankless and often impossible task, but the data suggests 2018 might have been a watershed year.

Not only did 2018 see $5.3 billion in global venture capital funding, 81% more than 2016, M&A activity increased as did private equity investments. On the M&A side of things, Cisco made a bang with a $2.4 billion acquisition of Duo Security, while Blackberry acquired Cylance for $1.4 billion. These are two of the larger deals, though there was increased activity in the segment across the period.

In terms of private equity, Barracuda Networks was acquired for $1.6 billion by Thoma Bravo, Bomgar by Francisco Partners for $739 million, while Blackrock spent $400 million on Cofense. Elsewhere in the more complicated financial world, Skyhigh Networks acquired McAfee with assistance from its financial sponsors Thoma Bravo and TPG Capital.

Cybersecurity one

Overall, the trends for the security segments are heading in the right direction. Perhaps now this is an area which will be taken more seriously by the industry, with adequate investments heading into security department.

That said, Strategic Cyber Ventures has warned the trends from a funding perspective are not exactly the most favourable. The amount of cash being invested is increasing, though it does not appear the rewards are reflecting this. Some of these companies have raised funds through big rounds, but growth has slowed, perhaps due to vendor fatigue or increased competition. The risk here is firms cannot raise additional funds at increased valuations from prior rounds, meaning they will have to lean on existing investors. Eventually these parties will grow tired of keeping them alive for minimal rewards.

The issue here is the need and hype around security. Its critical to secure the expanding perimeter of the digital economy, creating the need for the segment, while executives constantly talk about security being a number one priority of firms, creating the hype. This would seem to be the perfect recipe for investment in security companies and start-ups. However, the segment hasn’t taken off, perhaps due to the preference of customers investing in technologies which will make the company money as opposed to more secure?

This is maybe the most accurate assumption on why the security segment has faltered continuously over the years. Companies have limited spending power with executives choosing to invest in areas which will make the company more profitable, such is the pressure from investors and shareholders. However, consumer attitudes might be changing.

While many would have ignored the security risks of the digital economy in years gone, today’s consumer is more educated. Privacy scandals have demonstrated the power of data forcing the consumer to consider security more critically. This might have an impact on future buying decisions.

According to research by Onbuy.com 60% of US and 44% of UK consumers believe there is a risk to personal safety in the sharing economy, while 58% of all the respondents believed the risks outweigh the benefits in the sharing economy. Such attitudes will force companies to consider their security credentials as there is now a direct link back to the bottom line.

What this means for VC funding and investments from around the ecosystem remains to be seen, though the tides are turning in favour of the security segment. As Strategic Cyber Ventures notes, the current levels of investment are unsustainable, but there certainly are rewards.

Orange steps further into the convergence game

Orange has announced a new partnership with Groupama, adding another branch to the convergence strategy with a home telesurveillance service.

Everyone in the industry is talking about convergence as a means to improve revenues, but few have created quite a splash in the deep-end as the cannon-balling French telco. This latest partnership with Groupama will see the creation of Protectline, a joint platform for the operation and management of home telesurveillance services.

“The upcoming launch of our home telesurveillance service is an important part of Orange’s multi-service operator strategy,” said Stéphane Richard, CEO of Orange. “To deliver the best product possible, we have again chosen to work with Groupama to pool our skills and resources, following on from our Orange Bank partnership.”

With Orange owning 51% of the new venture, it’s a very clever way for the telco to diversify revenue streams. Groupama is already a well-established player in this segment, but Orange has something which every business wants; a humongous subscriber base to potentially sell added-value services into. This is where this partnership is a stroke of genius and an excellent foundation for future convergence growth.

Orange has built a successful business and large customer base through doing what it does very well. Until recently it has focused exclusively on markets which it has a pedigree in; connectivity. Recently it has explored banking, cyber-security, entertainment and smart home services, though each has relevant-industry partners under-pinning the venture, as well as a direct tie back to the core business.

Protectline is another example of how the Orange business is embracing convergence in a low-risk, high-reward manner. Groupama has the expertise while Orange has the sales and marketing capabilities. Each is supplemented the other, leaning on the skills which are brought to the table. Its sounds incredibly simple, because it is, but it is effective. Of course, you have to wonder why there aren’t more in the industry doing this and the answer is relatively simple.

When splitting the risk, you have to split the spoils. If Protectline becomes a roaring success, Orange can only collect 51% of the riches. This might not sound attractive to other telcos, some of which have chosen to go solo on diversification to varying success; just have a look at BT’s attempt to rock Sky’s dominance in the premium TV segment.

Sky is another which has proven to be successful in the convergence and diversification game, branching out from the core TV services to offer broadband and mobile connectivity offerings. However, similar to the Orange example, the risk has been somewhat removed as the broadband offering runs over Openreach infrastructure and the Sky Mobile is a MVNO. The high-risk elements of these diversification ambitions, the CAPEX heavy infrastructure, has been removed from the equation. Sky focuses on what it does best, maintaining a relationship with its customers.

The buzz around convergence has been dying down a bit recently, as while it is an effective strategy few has realised the bonanza which was initially promised. Orange is one of those few who are reaping the considerable benefit, but only because it is not going alone.

The question which remains is whether Orange can nail the customer experience element. This would have been the big hurdle for the banking product, though it seems to have passed with flying colours. Groupama can take the operational risk away from the telco, but customer experience is slightly different in every vertical; Orange will have to prove its worth by being engaging and intuitive if this is to be a success.

Orange has realised where its strengths are and by offering this massive subscriber base as leverage is any future partnerships, it is proving the low-risk convergence game can be a very profitable one.

Judge says no to police forcing phone unlocks with face

A judge in the District Court for the Northern District of California has denied the police a warrant which would force suspects to open their phones through biometric authentication.

While it might seem like somewhat of an unusual scenario, we’re sure many of you are imagining a man pinned to the ground with a phone being waved in his face, it is important to set precedent in these matters. Just as law enforcement agencies cannot be granted a warrant forcing an individual to hand over his/her password, suspects or criminals cannot be forced to open devices through the biometric sensors according to the ruling.

The case itself focuses on two individuals, who are suspected of attempting to extort money from a third person through Facebook Messenger. The pair are threatening to release an embarrassing video of the third person should the funds not be transferred.

Northern California Federal District Judge Kandis Westmore ruled the authorities did not have probable cause for the warrant, perhaps due to the reason said messages and threats could be read through the third persons account, and the request was too broad. This is another example of authorities over reaching and not being specific, leaving too much room for potential abuse.

While this case might sound odd, the world should be prepared for more such rulings in the future.

“The challenge facing the courts is that technology is far outpacing the law,” the ruling from Judge Westmore states. “In recognition of this reality, the United States Supreme Court recently instructed courts to adopt rules that ‘take account of more sophisticated systems that are already in use or in development’.

“Courts have an obligation to safeguard constitutional rights and cannot permit those rights to be diminished due to the advancement of technology.”

In short, the rules and regulations of the land are not in fitting with today’s technology and society, but this does not mean law enforcement authorities can take advantage of the grey areas. This is perhaps an obvious statement to make, but it does hammer home the need for reform to ensure rules and regulations are contextually relevant.

While progress has been slow, there have been a few breakthroughs for privacy advocates in recent months. Last June, the US Supreme Court ruled in Carpenter versus US case that the collection of mobile location data on individuals without a warrant was a violation of data privacy and the Fourth Amendment of the US constitution.

The issue which many courts are facing is precedent. Lawyers are arguing for certain cases and warrants using precedent which is from another era. Theoretically, these rules can be applied, but when you consider the drastic and fundamental changes which have occurred in the communications world, you have to wonder whether anything from previous decades is relevant anymore.

As Judge Westmore points out, technology is vastly outpacing the pace of change in public sector institutions. This presents a massive risk of abuse, but slowing innovation is not a reasonable option. A tricky catch-22.

58% of UK business can’t detect IoT security breach – study

Digital security vendor Gemalto claims the IoT euphoria might be hitting the UK before its ready, as research shows 58% of businesses are not able to detect a breach.

First and foremost, we need to put a disclaimer on this report. Gemalto is a security company and is thus incentivised do its best scaremongering to drive revenues. The more scared companies are about potential data breaches, and the punishments which follow the incidents, the more likely they are to buy security software. Making the world a big, bad, horrible place is an effective marketing strategy for security vendors.

That said, considering the lax approach most of the industry takes towards security and data protection, we suspect many of the statistics being discussed are pretty accurate.

“The push for digital transformation by organisations has a lot to answer for when it comes to security and bad practices,” said Jason Hart, CTO of Data Protection at Gemalto. “At times it feels organisations are trying to run before they can walk, implementing technology without really understanding what impact it could have on their security.”

The most shocking figure from the report is the 42% of UK companies who are capable of detecting an IoT breach, with only France worse off at 36%. Considering the role IoT has been touted to play over the next few years as 5G hits the streets, this is an incredibly worrying statistic.

While spending on IoT security has increased from 11% of the overall IoT budget to 13%, you have to wonder what direction this money is heading. Perhaps even more concerning for those companies involved, is that 90% of them accept this will be a major buying motivator for customers. At least they are aware that security can have a direct impact on the revenues of the business now, a concept which has taken years to hammer home.

“Given the increase in the number of IoT-enabled devices, it’s extremely worrying to see that businesses still can’t detect if they have been breached,” said Hart. “With no consistent regulation guiding the industry, it’s no surprise the threats – and, in turn, vulnerability of businesses – are increasing. This will only continue unless governments step in now to help industry avoid losing control.”

IoT is set to be one of the biggest winner of the 5G bonanza, while the segment is also predicted to be the major catalyst of 6G. If predictions are anywhere near accurate, 5G networks will soon not be able to cope with the strain of IoT, driving the case for 6G due to the sheer number of ‘things’ connected to the network.

Looking at the predictions, IDC believes the IoT market will grow to be worth more than $1.2 trillion by 2022, with consumer devices expected to account for the largest share at 19%. Ericsson has forecasted the number of cellular IoT connections to reach 3.5 billion in 2023, increasing at a CAGR of 30%.

Security remains a major challenge for the industry, though the buzz around blockchain could provide a suitable means to meet the expectations of the consumer. In the absence of regulation, Gemalto notes the adoption of blockchain technologies has doubled from 9% to 19% in the last 12 months, with 23% of the respondents to this survey believe the technology would be an ideal solution to use for securing IoT devices. 91% who are not using blockchain are considering it for the future.

“Businesses are clearly feeling the pressure of protecting the growing amount of data they collect and store,” said Hart.

“But while it’s positive they are attempting to address that by investing in more security, such as blockchain, they need direct guidance to ensure they’re not leaving themselves exposed. In order to get this, businesses need to be putting more pressure on the government to act, as it is them that will be hit if they suffer a breach.”

While research like this does indicate security is becoming a more serious topic in the world of telecoms and technology, it also confirms there is a very wide gap to close. Security has long been the ugly duckling of the industry, many seemingly choosing to ignore the challenges because they are too difficult to solve, though new regulations such as GDPR has perhaps forced the issue up the agenda.

Interestingly enough, should the telcos get serious about security there would certainly be a revenue generating opportunity to capitalise on. With cyber security incidents and data breaches becoming more prominent in the news, consumers are gradually becoming more aware of the risks of the internet and the emerging digital society. While the industry has played down the risk in recent years, the incidents speak for themselves.

An excellent example of turning this scenario into a business opportunity lies with Orange, the master of the convergence strategy. Here, the team have invested heavily in cyber security capabilities and are now offering security services to customers as a bolt on to other connectivity packages. The move has proven to be a success as while it is generally becoming accepted that 100% secure is impossible nowadays, more people are willing to do something about it.

Security is a topic which has always been in and around the news, but few want to do anything proactive about it. Unfortunately, with the perimeter expanding so rapidly as IoT penetration grows, these statistics are incredibly worrying. Perhaps regulators will get the chance to swing the GDPR stick before too long after all.

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.

US operators belatedly act to protect user location data

AT&T and Verizon announced that they will terminate all remaining commercial agreements that involve sharing customer location data, following a report exposing the country’s mobile carriers’ failure to control data sharing flow.

Jim Greer, a spokesman for AT&T, said in a standard email to media: “Last year, we stopped most location aggregation services while maintaining some that protect our customers, such as roadside assistance and fraud prevention.” Referring to the Motherboard exposé, Greer continued, “In light of recent reports about the misuse of location services, we have decided to eliminate all location aggregation services — even those with clear consumer benefits.”

This is similar to the position T-Mobile’s CEO John Legere adopted when responding to the criticism from the US Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). Verizon also announced that the company will sever four remaining contracts to share location data with roadside assistance services. After this Version will need to get customers’ explicit agreement to share their data with these third-party assistance companies. Sprint, which was also caught out by the Motherboard report, is the only remaining nation-wide carrier that has not announced its plan on the issue.

This is all good news for the American consumers who are concerned with the safety of their private data. On the other hand, mobile operators have hardly been the worst offenders when it comes to compromising the privacy and security of customer data. Earlier, Google was exposed to have continued tracking users’ location even after the feature had been switched off, while Facebook has been mired in endless privacy controversies.

Monetising user data is only a side and most likely insignificant “value-add” business for the mobile operators, because they live on the service fees subscrbers pay. But it is the internet heavyweights’ lifeline. This may sound fatalistic but it should not surprise anyone if the Facebooks and the Googles of the world come up with more innovative measures to finance the “free” services we have benn used to.