Digital Privacy: Smart Technology and the Naive Consumer

By Leonel Mata

Recent reports concerning the extent to which companies, such as Facebook, have been acquiring and disseminating information of individuals across the world have highlighted the fact that privacy issues do not only concern how governments make use of personal information, but how private companies have been making use of it as well. The pervasiveness of technology, combined with its necessity in the modern world, has made issue of convenience versus protection an all-important debate.

To be a part of the modern world one must be connected to it constantly. The main way of achieving this is through the internet, and the main way the internet is accessed is through our cellphones. Long gone are the days when you could easily get by using physical mail and a landline telephone. While the rise of smartphones has made our lives easier, creating a quick and easy way to access information and to contact others almost instantaneously, it has also become a way to gather information on the individual in ways that were impossible before. As technology has advanced so too has the amount of information that is being acquired by both private and government entities. Despite this rapid scaling of access to personal information, the law has been slow to react and protect the individual in an adequate manner.

In China, one can see how advancements in technology have provided infinite gold-mines of information. China’s government has taken a keen interest in controlling how social media works on popular platforms, such as WeChat, Baidu Tieba, and Sina Weibo, out of a belief that information being disseminated on these platforms can disrupt social order and lead to the violation of laws.

China has also enacted a policy known as “real-name registration” where users must register their personal information with the necessary provider before they can do things like post comments on forums or articles. China’s step toward erasing anonymity is done under the guise of making the community safer and holding individual’s accountable for their statements and actions. However, it also has the effect of dissuading individuals from stating contrary views to those in charge. Naturally, this creates an additional barrier for individuals’ who seek to advocate for change, but it also has a chilling effect on the ability for a community to be able to discuss issues freely and openly without fear of retribution.

Out of a desire to access a larger market, companies regularly acquiesce to rules and regulations imposed by countries such as China. While it is true that Google has rejected some of China’s more restrictive and invasive policies, they have announced that they would be returning to China. Even without American companies such as Google, local companies such as Baidu have grown tremendously and have had no issue agreeing to the terms stipulated by the Chinese government.

Often overlooked is the fact that concern for one’s privacy is not merely an issue for those who live or visit countries such as China. Governments and companies alike in western democracies have increasingly made use of the pervasiveness of technology in order to acquire as much information as they can on each individual. In the United States, people have seen the rise of the National Security Agency and its ability to invade the privacy of individual’s when the government can justify that it is necessary. However, what is more alarming is the increase in the acquisition of personal information by private companies, such as Facebook, or internet service providers, such as Comcast.

In our daily lives we are regularly giving away bits and pieces of our privacy. When we use Fitbit, the company is given access to where and when you have been somewhere. Most shocking to the public has been the realization that when we participate in social media, such as Facebook, we give away an enormous amount of data that then has the potential to be misused and abused by companies.. These issues are not new ones, in fact, Facebook has been involved in privacy violations before, but has been able to come out of each one relatively unscathed because, when it comes to technology, the public prefers convenience.

While privacy advocates have been up in arms regarding the increasingly invasive nature of governments and companies across the globe, the public has been less concerned. Traditionally, when dealing with privacy our protections were written taking into account physical invasions into our space as well as physical collecting of our data. However, the world has changed significantly since these protections were written. Nowadays, an invasion of privacy can occur out of sight and out of mind. This has made the public much more accepting of giving away their privacy because it does not noticeably affect them. Recently, thanks to scandals surrounding companies such as Cambridge Analytica and Grindr, people have become more concerned regarding the extent to which their data is being used. It is unclear as to whether this will be enough to finally force governments to act to properly protect the rights of the individual against blatant misuses of their personal information.

It is true that certain companies have taken a number of steps to better safeguard the personal information of their customers, often to the government’s annoyance, but even these companies have proven to be susceptible to the demands of the government if there is a significant financial incentive to do so. This demonstrates that it cannot be left to companies to self-regulate how they protect the data of individuals. Thus, in order to safeguard our rights, governments must act to pass legislation imposing harsher personal privacy regulations and harsher penalties for those who do not comply with these regulations. The EU has done just this when it passed the General Data Protection Regulation back in 2016. Unsurprisingly, there has already been pushback from companies about enacting the EU requirements globally.

As for governments, such as China, who are more frequently the abuser rather than the protector of rights, the public should engage not only domestically, but at an international level  in order to create change in how abusive governments are treating their citizens’ right to privacy. Even for government’s that are more receptive to public criticism, one must be vigilant as they continue to squeeze away at one’s privacy. If action is not taken at the local, national, and international levels, then the right to privacy will soon be a thing of the past as individuals are taken advantage of by both public and private entities.

Leonel Mata is a third-year law student at The University of Texas School of Law. He is a member of the 2017-2018 Working Paper Series Committee, Submissions Editor of the Texas Journal of International Law, and a member of the Jessup International Moot Court team.

The Downsides of Take-downs: Online Content Regulation and Human Rights Fact-Finding

by Anna Banchik

19 MAR 2018

Once lauded as purveyors of free expression and “technolog[ies] for liberation”[1] given their role in powering the Arab Spring and subsequent pro-democracy movements, social media sites[2] have, in 2017, unquestionably met their reckoning.

The year witnessed Facebook, Twitter, and Google (which owns YouTube) coming under intense scrutiny for their failure to remove hate speech, extremist content, and inaccurate information spread intentionally (disinformation) or unintentionally (misinformation) from their sites.[3] Members of the United States Congress have demanded that the companies ramp up their content moderating efforts in the midst of ongoing investigation into their facilitation of Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. elections. For their part, European lawmakers concerned with the widespread dissemination of hate speech and extremist content are also applying pressure. On January 1, 2018, new German legislation came into effect which fines social media sites up to 50 million euros ($59 million) for failing to remove “manifestly unlawful” posts within 24 hours. The “Facebook Law,” as it is colloquially known, targets posts involving incitement to hatred and other prohibited forms of speech.[4] The European Commission has warned it is considering similar measures for targeting terrorist and extremist content.[5]

However, aggressive content moderation is not universally embraced. First Amendment activists in the U.S. and internet rights groups more broadly have argued that empowering social media companies to arbitrate what constitutes hate speech or extremist content would be a dangerous move, particularly in response to government requests that accounts be censored or shuttered.[6] Moreover, while cautioning that severe fines may have a chilling effect on online speech, Facebook has itself acknowledged the inherent difficulties in determining “the intent behind one post, or the risk implied in another.”[7] Imagine that “[s]omeone posts a graphic video of a terrorist attack,” writes Monika Bickert, Facebook’s Head of Global Policy Management. “Will it inspire people to emulate the violence, or speak out against it?”[8] That such difficulties arise in the case of human review brings into stark relief the added complications entailed in training machine learning algorithms to properly detect the context, intended meaning, and potential consequences of online content.

Overshadowed in this debate are the voices of a growing body of human rights groups who rely on social media sites to find and corroborate possible evidence of abuses. The widening accessibility of camera phones, participatory media, remote-sensing imagery, and other information and communication technologies have multiplied and diversified the sources of human rights-related information available for advocacy and legal accountability efforts. The International Criminal Court recently issued its first arrest warrant based largely on evidence collected from social media. The warrant cites seven videos documenting Libyan commander Mahmoud Mustafa Busayf Al-Werfalli shooting or ordering the execution of 33 civilians or wounded fighters.[9] Had these videos been quickly removed, they might have never made it to court or been preserved.

Such is the worry over a staggering volume of content from Syria and Myanmar taken down from YouTube and Facebook in recent months. Modifications in YouTube’s machine learning algorithms in August 2017 resulted in the swift removal of 900 YouTube channels posting videos of the Syrian conflict.[10] A month later, Facebook removed videos and images documenting a wave of attacks against the Rohingya, a Muslim ethnic minority in Myanmar,[11] while keeping “fake news” and hate speech directed against the group on its platform.[12]

The conundrum defies easy fixes. Recuperating channels and content can involve a lengthy process of appeals which may not be possible for the most vulnerable users posting content and attempting to document and expose human rights abuses. Numerous mobile apps have been developed to enable eyewitnesses to anonymously send content along with its metadata directly to legal experts and NGOs.[13] However, their adoption pales in comparison to that of Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. For now, human rights groups will continue, as best they can, to track companies’ disappearing acts.

Work Cited

[1] Samidh Chakrabarty, “Hard Questions: What Effect Does Social Media Have on Democracy?” Facebook Newsroom. January 22, 2018. https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/01/effect-social-media-democracy/

[2] By “social media site,” I refer here to both social media platforms including Twitter and Facebook and user-generated content websites like YouTube.

[3] See Claire Wardle, “Fake news. It’s complicated,” Medium. February 16, 2017. https://medium.com/1st-draft/fake-news-its-complicated-d0f773766c79

[4] Linda Kinstler, “Can Germany Fix Facebook?” The Atlantic. November 2, 2017. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/11/germany-facebook/543258/

[5] Samuel Gibbs, “EU Warns Tech Firms: Remove Extremist Content Faster or Be Regulated.” The Guardian. December 7, 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/dec/07/eu-warns-tech-firms-facebook-google-youtube-twitter-remove-extremist-content-regulated-europ.

[6] Glenn Greenwald, “Facebook Says It Is Deleting Accounts at the Direction of the U.S. and Israeli Governments.” The Intercept. December 30, 2017. https://theintercept.com/2017/12/30/facebook-says-it-is-deleting-accounts-at-the-direction-of-the-u-s-and-israeli-governments/

[7] Monika Bickert. “Facebook’s Community Standards: How and Where We Draw the Line.” Facebook Newsroom. May 23, 2017. https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2017/05/facebooks-community-standards-how-and-where-we-draw-the-line/. See also supra note 4.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Prosecutor v. Al-Werfalli, Case No. ICC-01-11-01/17-2, Public Warrant of Arrest. August 15, 2017. https://www.icc-cpi.int/CourtRecords/CR2017_05031.PDF.

[10] Avi Asher-Schapiro, “YouTube and Facebook are Removing Evidence of Atrocities, Jeopardizing Cases Against War Criminals.” The Intercept. November 2, 2017. https://theintercept.com/2017/11/02/war-crimes-youtube-facebook-syria-rohingya/.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Facebook did, however, recently remove the account of one of Myanmar’s most outspoken voices against the Rohingya, Buddhist monk Wirathu. See Laignee Barron, “Nationalist Monk Known as the ‘Burmese bin Laden’ Has Been Stopped From Spreading Hate on Facebook.” February 28, 2018. http://time.com/5178790/facebook-removes-wirathu/. See also Megan Specia, “A War of Words Puts Facebook at the Center of Myanmar’s Rohingya Crisis.” October 27, 2017. https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/world/asia/myanmar-government-facebook-rohingya.html?_r=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fm.facebook.com.

[13] E.g., the International Bar Association’s eyeWitness to Atrocities app (http://www.eyewitnessproject.org/) and The Whistle, based at the University of Cambridge (http://www.thewhistle.org/)

Anna Banchik is a PhD candidate in the Department of Sociology at the University of Texas at Austin, conducting interdisciplinary research at the intersections of science and technology studies (STS), visual media, and human rights. She is also a member of the Working Paper Series Editorial Committee.