Group items tagged

Mark’s influence is staggering, far beyond that of anyone else in the private sector or in government. He controls three core communications platforms — Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp — that billions of people use every day. Facebook’s board works more like an advisory committee than an overseer, because Mark controls around 60 percent of voting shares. Mark alone can decide how to configure Facebook’s algorithms to determine what people see in their News Feeds, what privacy settings they can use and even which messages get delivered. He sets the rules for how to distinguish violent and incendiary speech from the merely offensive, and he can choose to shut down a competitor by acquiring, blocking or copying it.

Mark is a good, kind person. But I’m angry that his focus on growth led him to sacrifice security and civility for clicks. I’m disappointed in myself and the early Facebook team for not thinking more about how the News Feed algorithm could change our culture, influence elections and empower nationalist leaders. And I’m worried that Mark has surrounded himself with a team that reinforces his beliefs instead of challenging them.

We are a nation with a tradition of reining in monopolies, no matter how well intentioned the leaders of these companies may be. Mark’s power is unprecedented and un-American.It is time to break up Facebook.

Initially, Berners-Lee’s innovation was intended to help scientists share data across a then obscure platform called the Internet, a version of which the U.S. government had been using since the 1960s. But owing to his decision to release the source code for free—to make the Web an open and democratic platform for all—his brainchild quickly took on a life of its own.

He also envisioned that his invention could, in the wrong hands, become a destroyer of worlds, as Robert Oppenheimer once infamously observed of his own creation. His prophecy came to life, most recently, when revelations emerged that Russian hackers interfered with the 2016 presidential election, or when Facebook admitted it exposed data on more than 80 million users to a political research firm, Cambridge Analytica, which worked for Donald Trump’s campaign. This episode was the latest in an increasingly chilling narrative. In 2012, Facebook conducted secret psychological experiments on nearly 700,000 users. Both Google and Amazon have filed patent applications for devices designed to listen for mood shifts and emotions in the human voice.

This agony, however, has had a profound effect on Berners-Lee. He is now embarking on a third act—determined to fight back through both his celebrity status and, notably, his skill as a coder. In particular, Berners-Lee has, for some time, been working on a new platform, Solid, to reclaim the Web from corporations and return it to its democratic roots.

Fed up with this heartless model, some tech activists are developing online workplaces that operate as worker-driven communities. Daemo, a pilot program incubated at Stanford University’s Crowd Research Collective, is one such worker-driven crowd-labor platform. Since 2015, Daemo’s developers have been building on MTurk’s interface with a communications system aimed at allowing for more equitable “matching” between work requesters and digital taskers. As a non-hierarchical, nonprofit framework where workers control the operations, Daemo is designed for fairer working conditions, with a minimum wage of $10 an hour, which is a major improvement on MTurk’s precarious labor-outsourcing system.

Some former participants in Daemo’s project recently aired sharp criticism of the platform in response to a largely favorable article in Wired. In a collectively authored article on Medium, they argued that, in their practical experience with the platform, decision-making power rests with a “platform team” of researchers and leading developers. Though Daemo has established a Constitution that theoretically is open to amendments and revision based on workers’ input, critics say the day-to-day management remains tightly controlled by researchers.

“Whenever they talk about the decentralization, they talk about technical decentralization, like block-chain or decentralized platforms, but most of the time they overlook the governance level, which is more important,” Hashim says. “So it’s about who takes the positions, it’s about who has the right to access information. If you don’t have a well-informed society, you don’t have democracy.”

Technology isn’t necessary for bars or farms to become better co-ops, but it can help.Two coalitions that embrace co-design — civic tech and online organizing — can offer lessons on how to build better tech.At the same time, co-op theory and history offer a model of how to own, control, and share the value generated by the tech we build.

While each area has its emphasis, each can learn from the other, too:Civic tech is a coalition for better citizenship, trying to achieve citizen engagement. An example is southbendvoices.com, an automated call-in system. Yet tweeting the city to shut off sprinklers after the rain is a far cry from building better neighborhoods. What could it add? Economic solidarity.Online organizing is a digital approach to social change, trying to achieve community power. An example is 18millionrising.org, a group running rapid-response campaigns for racial justice. What’s missing? Platforms that support lasting effort with multiple allies.The co-op movement is about democracy in the workplace, trying to achieve real ownership, control, and value for the people doing the labor. An example is the Arizmendi Association, an umbrella group supporting six worker-owned bakeries. It’s a model that only the Enspiral network has replicated in New Zealand. What potential remains untapped here? Widespread relevance.How might all three of these areas become better, together?

There are co-ops, and then there is cooperation. Shane from CCA asked “what counts as a co-op?” and Willow Brugh from Aspiration Tech described a multi-stakeholder project in Africa that supports self-determining small businesses. I mentioned how Enspiral exemplifies the first co-op principle of open and voluntary membership better than most legally-recognized co-ops with a quarterly auto-email to their 30 member organizations that simply asks, “Do you still feel like a member?”

Motivations for decentralizing the internet vary. These three keep coming up: Resilient - whether there’s a hurricane, a severed trans-atlantic cable or just a train line with a poor connection, we’d like to be able to carry on making phone calls and sharing documents. Private - as a company keeping our commercial secrets, or as an individual concerned about criminals and overreaching governments, we'd like our most personal messages not to be held in distant data centres. Competitive - we're often forced to use one dominant provider who restricts competition, we'd like to build communtities around new protocols, driving innovation of new services on top.

There have always been outsiders who criticized the tech industry — even if their concerns have been drowned out by the oohs and aahs of consumers, investors, and journalists. But today, the most dire warnings are coming from the heart of Silicon Valley itself. The man who oversaw the creation of the original iPhone believes the device he helped build is too addictive. The inventor of the World Wide Web fears his creation is being “weaponized.” Even Sean Parker, Facebook’s first president, has blasted social media as a dangerous form of psychological manipulation. “God only knows what it’s doing to our children’s brains,” he lamented recently.

To keep the internet free — while becoming richer, faster, than anyone in history — the technological elite needed something to attract billions of users to the ads they were selling. And that something, it turns out, was outrage. As Jaron Lanier, a pioneer in virtual reality, points out, anger is the emotion most effective at driving “engagement” — which also makes it, in a market for attention, the most profitable one. By creating a self-perpetuating loop of shock and recrimination, social media further polarized what had already seemed, during the Obama years, an impossibly and irredeemably polarized country.

The Architects (In order of appearance.) Jaron Lanier, virtual-reality pioneer. Founded first company to sell VR goggles; worked at Atari and Microsoft. Antonio García Martínez, ad-tech entrepreneur. Helped create Facebook’s ad machine. Ellen Pao, former CEO of Reddit. Filed major gender-discrimination lawsuit against VC firm Kleiner Perkins. Can Duruk, programmer and tech writer. Served as project lead at Uber. Kate Losse, Facebook employee No. 51. Served as Mark Zuckerberg’s speechwriter. Tristan Harris, product designer. Wrote internal Google presentation about addictive and unethical design. Rich “Lowtax” Kyanka, entrepreneur who founded influential message board Something Awful. Ethan Zuckerman, MIT media scholar. Invented the pop-up ad. Dan McComas, former product chief at Reddit. Founded community-based platform Imzy. Sandy Parakilas, product manager at Uber. Ran privacy compliance for Facebook apps. Guillaume Chaslot, AI researcher. Helped develop YouTube’s algorithmic recommendation system. Roger McNamee, VC investor. Introduced Mark Zuckerberg to Sheryl Sandberg. Richard Stallman, MIT programmer. Created legendary software GNU and Emacs.

We are writing you today as a group of technologists, human rights defenders, academics, journalists and Facebook users who are deeply concerned about the validity of Facebook’s promises to protect European users from targeted disinformation campaigns during the European Parliamentary elections. You have promised European lawmakers and users that you will increase the transparency of political advertising on the platform to prevent abuse during the elections. But in the very same breath, you took measures to block access to transparency tools that let your users see how they are being targeted.

In the company’s recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, Mark Zuckerberg wrote that the most important principles around data are transparency, choice and control. By restricting access to advertising transparency tools available to Facebook users, you are undermining transparency, eliminating the choice of your users to install tools that help them analyse political ads, and wielding control over good faith researchers who try to review data on the platform. Your alternative to these third party tools provides simple keyword search functionality and does not provide the level of data access necessary for meaningful transparency.

Specifically, we ask that you implement the following measures by 1 April 2019 to give developers sufficient lead time to create transparency tools in advance of the elections:Roll out a functional, open Ad Archive API that enables advanced research and development of tools that analyse political ads served to Facebook users in the EU.Ensure that all political advertisements are clearly distinguished from other content and are accompanied by key targeting criteria such as sponsor identity and amount spent on the platform in all EU countries.Cease harassment of good faith researchers who are building tools to provide greater transparency into the advertising on your platform.

The received wisdom was once that a unified, unbounded web promoted democracy through the free flow of information. Things don’t seem quite so simple anymore. China’s tight control of the internet within its borders continues to tamp down talk of democracy, and an increasingly sophisticated system of digital surveillance plays a major role in human rights abuses, such as the persecution of the Uighurs. We’ve also seen the dark side to connecting people to one another — as illustrated by how misinformation on social media played a significant role in the violence in Myanmar.

There’s a world of difference between the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation, known commonly as G.D.P.R., and China’s technologically enforced censorship regime, often dubbed “the Great Firewall.” But all three spheres — Europe, America and China — are generating sets of rules, regulations and norms that are beginning to rub up against one another.

The information superhighway cracks apart more easily when so much of it depends on privately owned infrastructure. An error at Amazon Web Services created losses of service across the web in 2017; a storm disrupting a data center in Northern Virginia created similar failures in 2012. These were unintentional blackouts; the corporate custodians of the internet have it within their power to do far more. Of course, nobody wants to turn off the internet completely — that wouldn’t make anyone money. But when a single company with huge market share chooses to comply with a law — or more worryingly, a mere suggestion from the authorities — a large chunk of the internet ends up falling in line.

Comme toutes les start-up, les projets étudiés cherchent, souvent par tâtonnement, des modèles de revenus aussi bien en marchés B2C que B2B. Côté B2C, Plume Labs et Smart Citizen disposent d’une source de revenus directs issus de la vente d’objets connectés (la distribution du « Flow », le capteur de Plume Labs, est annoncée pour juin 2018 et le capteur de Smart Citizen est en rupture de stock dans l’attente d’une nouvelle version plus accessible au grand public). C’est le cas également de 90 jours dans un modèle « premium ». Côté modèle d’audience, tous sont confrontés à la difficulté, classique dans l’économie du web, de réunir une masse critique d’utilisateurs.

Par comparaison avec d’autres start-up, celles-ci doivent faire face à des contraintes spécifiques. Ainsi, la levée de fonds auprès des capital-risqueurs est particulièrement laborieuse, ces derniers se montrant frileux à l’égard de ces entreprises poursuivant une finalité d’intérêt général dont ils anticipent des retombées financières limitées. Autre contrainte à l’égard des clients : l’exigence de cohérence entre stratégie de croissance d’une part et discours sur les finalités de l’autre. Afin de ne pas froisser sa communauté d’utilisateurs d’origine, Tinkuy raconte avoir refusé des financements de la société Total et décrit les réactions provoquées par le partenariat passé avec la société Nouvelles Frontières: « Quoi ? Vous faites partir des gens en avion, c’est quoi cette communauté ? »

La finalité poursuivie par ces entrepreneurs, tout comme la fragilité de leurs modèles économiques, n’est pas sans évoquer une autre famille de start-up d’intérêt général, les « civic techs » qui cherchent à améliorer la démocratie. Mais à la différence de ces dernières, les acteurs étudiés interagissent peu les uns avec les autres. Ils ne se retrouvent pas dans des événements communs, pas plus qu’ils ne se domicilient dans des incubateurs dédiés. La construction d’une narration collective semble pour l’heure absente de leur vision stratégique. Seule leur observation dans le temps permettra de dire si les transition techs choisiront de renforcer leur modèle économique pour pouvoir se pérenniser au risque de prendre de la distance avec la finalité d’intérêt général ou si au contraire elles affirmeront collectivement leur identité pour attirer investisseurs et utilisateurs. Un suivi s’avère essentiel pour le Groupe Orange, déjà engagé dans une démarche de sobriété énergétique, afin de pouvoir accompagner ses clients sur leur propre chemin de transition écologique, en soutenant le cas échéant les entreprises les plus prometteuses.

Take Alexa as another example, Amazon’s voice-controlled AI assistant. Alexa is female. Why? As children and adults enthusiastically shout instructions, questions and demands at Alexa, what messages are being reinforced? Professor Neff wonders if this is how we would secretly like to treat women: ‘We are inadvertently reproducing stereotypical behaviour that we wouldn’t want to see,’ she says.

In the home, AI assistance with a subservient role is female. In the realm of law or finance, AI assistance is coded as male, affording the male computer voice a context of authority and professionalism.

These scenarios of a gendered, humanised means of interacting with technology are on some level obvious. We hear the voice and see the avatar – our own imaginations make the leap to engage on a personal level with a machine and some code. This is something tangible and in the public realm. We can choose to embrace, reject, push back. However, the issues of gender and power balances go deeper still and further from sight.

Il serait commode de penser que l’humain du XXIe siècle a renoncé à sa vie privée. Mais il ne s’agit pourtant pas d’indifférence. Les sondages montrent avec insistance et sans ambiguïté que les internautes la chérissent encore à l’heure des réseaux sociaux et des smartphones. Comment, alors, expliquer cette apathie ?

Pendant des décennies, à raison, défendre la vie privée revenait à protéger l’individu. Aujourd’hui encore, on s’obstine à rechercher et mesurer les conséquences individuelles de cette collecte effrénée de données personnelles et de ces piratages à répétition. Mais le paradigme a changé : la question des données personnelle n’est pas un problème d’intimité. C’est un enjeu de liberté collective.

Prenez l’affaire Cambridge Analytica : le problème n’est pas que Donald Trump et son équipe de campagne ont consulté méthodiquement la liste d’amis de 87 millions d’utilisateurs de Facebook (dont plus de 200 000 Français). Mais qu’ils aient pu utiliser ces informations, agrégées à des millions d’autres, pour mener une campagne politique extrêmement personnalisée, quasi individualisée, en utilisant à plein l’invraisemblable machine à cibler des messages proposée par Facebook. L’impact de cette fuite de données personnelles n’est plus individuel, il est collectif. Il ne s’agit pas de l’intimité de son existence vis-à-vis d’une organisation politique, mais de la liberté collégiale de choisir en conscience son dirigeant politique ou ses conditions de vie commune.

“Today’s digital identity landscape is patchy, inconsistent and what works in one country often won’t work in another. We have an opportunity to establish a system that puts people first, giving them control of their identity data and where it is used,” says Ajay Bhalla, president, cyber and intelligence solutions, Mastercard. “Working with Microsoft brings us one step closer to making a globally interoperable digital identity service a reality, and we look forward to sharing more very soon.”

De fait nous semblons aujourd'hui n'avoir que deux choix fondés sur deux doctrines s'excluant mutuellement : Doctrine n°1 : La vie privée est une anomalie et si vous n'avez rien à vous reprocher vous n'avez rien à cacher. Soit le scénario d'une surveillance totale et globale de chacun de nos comportements par les grandes firmes tech en lien avec les états. Un projet au mieux de nature totalitaire et au pire de nature fasciste. Doctrine n°2 : La vie privée est un droit constitutionnel dont les états et les grandes firmes technologiques doivent être garants. Et là vous aurez toujours quelqu'un pour commencer à parler des exceptions, toujours un "oui mais" : "oui mais s'il s'agit de pédophilie ? De terrorisme ? D'empêcher un pilote d'avion mentalement déséquilibré de causer la mort de centaines de personnes ? A quel moment commence le "principe d'une surveillance de précaution" et quel aspect du droit fondamental à la vie privée doit-il fouler au pied ?" Et on ne s'en sort pas. 

Seul un troisième scénario pourra nous permettre d'éviter le pire. Il nécessite de passer par : la multiplication d'outils effectivement respectueux de notre vie privée dans le traitement technique des données qui y circulent (c'est la cas de DuckDuck Go, de Qwant, et de quelques autres) le déploiement de solutions alternatives à la toute puissance des GAFAM (comme l'initiative Dégooglisons internet le permet déjà, et comme le permettrait encore davantage la création d'un index indépendant du web combiné à la mutualisation déjà effective de ressources en Creative Commons) le soutien politique (et législatif) au déploiement du logiciel libre la formation à l'explicitation des enjeux de la surveillance ("Surveillance://" de Tristan Nitot en est un exemple magnifique) la prise de conscience que les données dont nous parlons sont avant tout celles de notre servitude volontaire

Demain peut-être, lorsque la dystopie se sera définitivement installée, ne nous faudra-t-il plus parler de "sans papiers" mais de "sans comptes". Des individus sans trace sociale numérique qui permette de les documenter. Ils ne seront plus "undocumented" mais "undigitized", non-numérisés. Et donc non-surveillables. Peut-être que ce sera une chance. Probablement même. De nouvelles formes de résistance documentaire émergeront, de nouvelles pédagogies contre la surveillance seront nécessaires. Et nous serons sans  peur, mais jamais sans reproche(s), car nous aurons compris que la doctrine selon laquelle "si nous n'avons rien à nous reprocher nous n'avons rien à cacher" est la source de tous les totalitarismes, que la vie privée est tout sauf une anomalie. Alors oui nous serons sans peur, dussions-nous pour cela rejoindre la cohorte de toutes celles et ceux qui sont, aujourd'hui, sans documents. Car cette humanité "undocumented" est bien plus qu'une humanité "sans papiers", elle est une humanité "non-documentée", en ce sens elle est aussi libre qu'elle permet de pointer et de mesurer notre propre asservissement aux nouveaux ordres documentaires. 

La population musulmane de la région est soumise à de nombreuses technologies de contrôle afin de mesurer le degré de croyance et de pratique religieuse des individus, notamment par le biais du big data et de la reconnaissance faciale.

Le quotidien de la minorité religieuse est ainsi fait de caméras statiques et de drones-colombes intelligents, ou d’agents officiels et secrets susceptibles de fouiller tout individu plusieurs fois par jours. Des fouilles corporelles ou numériquse,  soit directement par le biais du smartphone ou via les traces numériques semées sur le très surveillé réseau social WeChat.

En cette période de hajj, le pélerinage à La Mecque que tous les musulmans en capacité de le faire se doivent d'effectuer une fois dans sa vie, cette surveillance étouffante se poursuit pour les ressortissants chinois. Accompagnés durant tout le pèlerinage par un guide de l’Association Islamique Chinoise, dirigée par l’Etat, les pélerins sont également porteurs de « cartes intelligentes » nouées autour de leur cou et enregistrant leurs données de géolocalisation ainsi que leurs conversations.

Tout le monde, ou presque : le consentement des citoyens n’étant pas envisagé, impossible pour eux de refuser cette divulgation de données personnelles à l’entreprise chinoise, ni d’avoir aucune information sur ce qui sera fait de ces données après usage. Mais peut-être ces problèmes sont-ils encore secondaires lorsque l’on est, comme le peuple zimbabwéen, à la veille de l’installation d’une infrastructure de surveillance mise en place par un régime autoritaire. Et étant donnée la faible importance accordée au respects des Droits de l’Homme par ce régime au cours des quatre dernières décennies, difficile de croire le discours officiel justifiant l’arrivée de ces caméras intelligentes par l’éternelle excuse sécuritaire de vouloir réduire la criminalité. Surtout quand aucune loi ne protège l’accès aux données biométriques.

In California, Uber, Lyft, TaskRabbit, and a half-dozen other companies are lobbying to defang a court ruling that could make it difficult to avoid reclassifying such workers as employees. And in Washington, the Republican-dominated National Labor Relations Board has made moves to undo an Obama-era precedent that could make big employers legally liable for contract workers even if they have only indirect control over them.The GOP takeover in Washington is one reason the Temporary Workers of America, a union of bug testers for Microsoft Corp., gave up on what had been, for people in the software world, an almost unheard of unionization victory, says the group’s founder, Philippe Boucher.

Boucher and his ex-colleagues are among a growing population of tech workers, including many Uber drivers, Amazon.com warehouse loaders, and Google software engineers, who lack the rights and perks of those companies’ full-fledged employees.

Google parent Alphabet Inc. now has fewer direct employees than it does contract workers, some of whom write code and test self-driving cars.

Users should be in control of their data on the web, part of this is the ability to move their data. Currently users can download a copy of their data from most services, but that is only half the battle in terms of moving their data. DTP aims make move data between providers significantly easier for users.

DTP is still in very active development. While we have code that works for a variety of use cases we are continually making improvements that might cause things to break occasionally. So as you are trying things please use it with caution and expect some hiccups. Both our bug list, as well as documentation in each provider’s directory are good places to look for known issues, or report problems you encounter.