Information Technology Management (ITM): Criticism

Four technology companies — Google, Amazon, Facebook and Apple — known as Big Tech have transformed how people around the world shop, communicate and gather information. These economic powerhouses have a combined market value of more than $6 trillion, larger than the gross national product of any country except the United States and China. Their CEOs point out that the companies have brought millions of low-cost products and services to billions of customers, but critics say they are powerful monopolies that treat competitors unfairly and stifle innovation. Critics also say the companies' control of social media and online searches endangers democracy by fostering divisiveness and spreading alarming conspiracy theories. The U.S. Department of Justice has sued Google and Facebook for alleged antitrust activities, and the European Union is suing or investigating all four for alleged violations of antitrust or privacy laws. Meanwhile, bipartisan support is growing in Congress for restricting or dismantling the tech giants. Supporters, however, say the benefits the companies provide depend on their large size and breaking them up could do more harm than good.

Advocates of an unfettered internet are fighting to restore Obama-era regulations requiring Comcast, Verizon, AT&T and other internet service providers (ISPs) to treat all internet traffic equally in terms of speed, access and cost. The so-called net neutrality rules, instituted in 2015 when Democrats controlled the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), were repealed in December 2017 after Republicans regained control of the agency. The FCC is led by former telecommunications lawyer Ajit Pai, a free-market champion of deregulation who has criticized the net neutrality rules as burdensome and unnecessary. More than 20 states are suing to preserve net neutrality, arguing that federal regulations are needed to keep the large ISPs from becoming too powerful. But defenders of the FCC vote say net neutrality harms the ability of the ISPs to improve their networks and ultimately hurts consumers and businesses. The European Union, meanwhile, has passed laws protecting net neutrality and labeled equal access to the internet a basic right.

Algorithms increasingly shape modern life, helping Wall Street to decide stock trades, Netflix to recommend movies and judges to dispense justice. But critics say algorithms — the seemingly inscrutable computational tools that help give artificial intelligence (AI) the ability to “think” and “learn” — can lead to skewed results and sometimes social harm. AI might help mortgage companies decide whom to lend to, but qualified borrowers can be rejected if the underlying algorithms are faulty. Companies might use AI to screen job applicants, but skilled talent can be turned away if the algorithms reflect racial or gender bias. Moreover, the use of algorithms is raising difficult questions about who — if anyone — is liable when AI results in injury. The technology is even stirring fears of an AI apocalypse in which computers become so powerful and autonomous that they threaten humankind. Some experts want the federal government to strictly regulate AI to ensure it is not misused, but critics fear more rules would stifle the technology.

Internet-based services enjoy broad legal protections over the third-party content they distribute, a safeguard offered by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Signed into law in 1996 when social media was in its infancy, Section 230 grants immunity to social media companies from virtually any form of civil litigation, including defamation, for third-party content on their platforms. The law also allows the companies to restrict content that violates their terms of service if they act in “good faith.” But as social media platforms' influence grows, critics across the political spectrum argue that Section 230 needs to be amended. Victims of online harassment say tech companies should be held accountable for violent or deceptive content they allow on their platforms. Some Republican lawmakers accuse social media companies of moderating user content with an anti-conservative bias. Yet free speech advocates argue that Section 230 is among the most valuable protections for free expression and innovation online. The result is a robust debate over whether Congress should weaken — or even eliminate — the protections offered by Section 230.

United States antitrust enforcers have held off on rigorous enforcement actions of some of the largest US technology companies for years, but now the tide is turning. This year, the FTC launched the Technology Task Force and the Division opened investigations into online platforms. Areas of likely increased antitrust scrutiny, and potentially enforcement include the collection and use of Big Data and the review of acquisitions of nascent competitors. Although some are pushing for new legislation to specifically address tech titans, antitrust agencies stress that the current enforcement laws are sufficient to address any potential antitrust issues in the technology industry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Google, Apple, Amazon, and Facebook are feeling the heat as U.S. officials start aggressively investigating whether the companies violated antitrust laws. The Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission have reportedly agreed to start inquires into whether the companies stifled competition and limited consumer choice, according to the Wall Street Journal. The DOJ will examine Google and Apple while the FTC will oversee probes into Facebook and Amazon, the report said. Meanwhile, the House Judiciary Committee announced on Monday its own antitrust investigation into the tech giants.

For two years, Toronto has been the flashpoint for an epic battle over the future of cities worldwide. It may be premature to say that Toronto has won, but the new Sidewalk Labs plan unveiled Thursday is a clear sign that it has held its own. Big Tech's efforts to drive innovation at the local level - everything from autonomous vehicles and smart transit to flexible architecture and engineered outdoor microclimates, all enabled by high-speed networks, futuristic algorithms and sensors - is forcing municipalities to rethink everything from regulatory oversight to public-realm data privacy to the complex dynamics of public-private infrastructure partnerships. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The rumors spread like wildfire: Muslims were secretly lacing a Sri Lankan village’s food with sterilization drugs. Soon, a video circulated that appeared to show a Muslim shopkeeper admitting to drugging his customers—he had misunderstood the question that was angrily put to him. Then all hell broke loose. Over a several-day span, dozens of mosques and Muslim-owned shops and homes were burned down across multiple towns. In one home, a young journalist was trapped, and perished.

Doing no harm in an age of mass displacement, mass surveillance and “big data” - International Review of the Red Cross
This article considers the key data protection challenges facing humanitarian organizations providing assistance to refugees, internally displaced persons and migrants. These challenges are particularly significant for several reasons: because data protection has come relatively late to the humanitarian sector; because humanitarian organizations are under pressure to innovate rapidly; because the global communications architecture on which many of these innovations depend is inherently vulnerable to State surveillance; and because States are deploying increasingly sophisticated and coercive means to prevent irregular forms of migration and/or subjecting humanitarian organizations to surveillance and disruption. The first part of the article outlines the fundamental rights challenges presented by contemporary data-driven migration control paradigms. The second outlines concerns about “data-driven humanitarianism” and “mass surveillance” to show how humanitarian organizations risk inadvertently exacerbating these problems. The third assesses specific data protection challenges that humanitarian organizations face and the policies and practices they have developed in response. The article concludes with some brief observations on the technical and political dynamics shaping their efforts to comply with their legal and ethical obligations, and calls for the sector to work together to extend data protection norms and outlaw cyber-attacks by State actors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]