Group items tagged

Populists in both parties share privacy concerns for U.S. citizens—not to mention what China can do with the data it gets from tech companies. Steve Bannon even suggested that users’ data should be controlled by a public trust.

Why don’t House Democrats help him deliver his promised $1 trillion plan for roads, ports, transit, the grid and more? This time around, Democrats could eschew the Solyndras and other political pipe dreams, avoid making unrealistic “shovel ready” promises, and instead stick to locally vetted projects. These projects would also create well-paying construction jobs and help a broad array of communities and workers, including union members.

They can succeed, however, in heightening the tension between Mr. Trump’s populist instincts and conservative orthodoxy, showing that populism does not have to be a uniquely Republican force in 2020. And don’t worry that these policies could cause more harm than benefit. House Democrats are unlikely to resist the temptations of impeachment and prioritize substance over style

1. Gen Z doesn’t distinguish between online and IRL

for my generation, interacting digitally is still ‘in real life.’”

Ms. Sharp says that psychologically, she’s half present in real life and half present on Instagram, Twitter and other social channels where she connects directly with her friends and fans. “I count my followers as being a really impactful force in my life

2. Privacy online? LOL

For them, Instagram is the new Facebook—the first place they share by default. On Instagram, everyone’s a content creator, says Ms. Havighorst, which means almost everything they put up is a deliberate act of personal branding

Real-life conversations and phone calls have become the only way to convey thoughts in a way that’s truly privat

3. Facebook is out, Instagram is in

“Facebook for my generation solely exists so that other generations can see that I’m still alive,”

For the most part, members of Gen Z expect that everything they ever type into a keyboard or capture with a camera is forever and could easily end up all over the internet. Many feel that, at any point in their lives, they could be judged by their most impulsive posts, so they can never let down their guard.

4. Social media is how they stay informed

In a focus group that included 20 members of her generation from across the U.S., she found their news consumption was almost entirely driven by social media. They weren’t seeking out the news, only happening on it, and they read a lot of headlines.

The same culture of influencers that guides their consumer tastes shapes what information they consume and how they stay informed. In politics, for example, those who get this succeed disproportionately with this generation, whether it’s Donald Trump or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

5. Video is important, but it isn’t everything

This generation is definitely more visually oriented, says Drake Rehfeld, a 21-year-old former Snapchat engineer who founded a startup that serves influencers. It’s a natural consequence of their having more access to devices that can display, record and edit images and video than any generation before, he adds.

that doesn’t mean they don’t also like to read. According to Pew, Gen Z is likely to become the best-educated generation ever.

Some members of Gen Z are left feeling the media is obsessed with the negative impacts of tech and doesn’t talk enough about how it empowers their generation.

Whether it’s helping them stay connected with friends when their helicopter parents won’t let them out of the house, says Ms. Havighorst, or find people who share similar interests, says Ms. Sharp, the mobile internet is a powerful force for making this generation aware of the breadth of experiences of their peers.

7. But they’re still susceptible to tech addiction and burnout Still, members of this generation are acutely aware that this level of engagement isn’t always sustainable. Some take breaks from social media, others wonder how it’s changing their brains. They also report having trouble knowing where the line between healthy and unhealthy use should be.

her subjects reported occasional compulsive use of their mobile devices, no matter their age. They were most likely to get sucked into social media and casual games, even though they found them the least satisfying.

“I definitely think we all know that we’re addicted to our phones and social media,” says Ms. Baker. “But I also think we’ve just come to terms with it, and we think, that’s just what it is to be a person now.”

In one of the most subtle early analyses of what he tellingly called “Liberation Technology,” Larry Diamond argued that new digital tools would empower “citizens to report news, expose wrongdoing, express opinions, mobilize protest, monitor elections, scrutinize government, deepen participation, and expand the horizons of freedom.” Diamond’s article was published in the summer of 2010.

Twitter, Andrew Sullivan wrote in The Atlantic, had proven to be a “critical tool for organizing.” In twenty-first-century conflict, Nicholas Kristof echoed in The New York Times, “government thugs firing bullets” would increasingly come up against the resistance of “young protesters firing ‘tweets.’”

As Clay Shirky argued in Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations, even in longstanding democracies like the United States the power of digital technology made it much easier for activists to coordinate

thanks to Twitter, Donald Trump did not need the infrastructure of traditional media outlets. Instead, he could tweet messages directly to his millions of followers. Once he had done so, established broadcasters faced a stark choice: ignore the main subject of conversation and make themselves irrelevant—or discuss each tweet at length, thereby amplifying Trump’s message even as they ostensibly scrutinized it. Perhaps unsurprisingly, they chose the latter course of action.

Breathless claims about digital technology’s liberating potential turned into equally breathless prognostications of doom. Social media was declared the most dangerous foe of liberal democracy.

The truth about social media is not that it is necessarily good or bad for liberal democracy. Nor is it that social media inherently strengthens or undermines tolerance.

On the contrary, it is that social media closes the technological gap between insiders and outsiders.

At times, this meant marginalizing passionate critics of the status quo—and thus making it harder for the weak and powerless to make their voices heard. At other times, it meant declining to publish conspiracy theories, outright lies, or racist rants—and thus stabilizing liberal democracy

The credibility of those claims depends on what they are compared to. So long as the memory of absolute monarchy was recent, and a more directly democratic system seemed unfeasible, liberal democracies could claim to empower the people.

One response has been to put pressure on Twitter and Facebook to change their algorithms and enforce stricter community guidelines; this is the tack that most tech critics have taken in the United State

Another response has been to limit what can be said on social media platforms by coercive legislation; this is the stance that European governments have adopted, with remarkable speed.

it seems at least as plausible to think that Americans won’t be willing to compromise on their First Amendment rights; that they will decamp to more freewheeling alternatives if existing social media platforms are tamed; and, indeed, that more subtle, yet no less powerful, forms of hate will continue to spread on existing platforms even if its most outrageous manifestations are suppressed.

There is, then, a very real possibility that the rise of digital technology, and the concomitant spread of essentially costless communication, have set up a direct clash between two of our most cherished values: freedom of speech and the stability of our political system.

the challenge is even more fundamental.

Rather, the daily experience of liking and sharing posts on social media may habituate users to a simulated form of direct democracy that makes the existing institutions of representative democracy appear intolerably outmoded.

Could digital natives—reared on the direct efficacy of social media—simply be less willing to tolerate the slow, indirect workings of analogue institutions designed in the eighteenth century?

And might they therefore be more resistant to accepting the democratic myth that has long underwritten the stability of the American Republic?

The political systems of countries like Great Britain and the United States were founded not to promote, but to oppose, democracy; they only acquired a democratic halo in retrospect, thanks to more recent claims that they allowed the people to rule.

the rise of the Internet and social media is making the ideological foundation of liberal democracy—which has had a tight hold over our imagination for the better part of two centuries—look increasingly brittle.

This held true for the century or so during which democracy enjoyed an unprecedented ideological hegemony. In the age of the Internet, it no longer does. As a result, the democratic myth that helped to make our institutions look uniquely legitimate is losing its hold.

The undemocratic roots of our supposedly democratic institutions are clearly on display in Great Britain. Parliament was not designed to put power in the hands of the people; it was a blood-soaked compromise between a beleaguered monarch and the upper echelons of the country’s elite

Because the US was founded in a more ideologically self-conscious manner, the same history is even more evident here. For the Founding Fathers, the election of representatives, which we have come to regard as the most democratic way to translate popular views into public policy, was a mechanism for keeping the people at bay

In short, the Founding Fathers did not believe a representative republic to be second best; they found it far preferable to the factious horrors of a true democracy.

It was only in the nineteenth century, as egalitarian sentiment rose on both sides of the Atlantic, that a set of entrepreneurial thinkers began to dress an ideologically self-conscious republic up in the unaccustomed robes of a born-again democracy.

Only gradually did the US make real improvements to its democratic process.

And crucial to that transformation was a story about the limits of democratic governance under modern conditions.

In ancient Athens, so the story went, the people—or at least those who were regarded as the people, which is to say adult male citizens—could rule directly because there were relatively few of them, because the territory of the state was so small, and because they had leisure to govern since so many of them owned slaves who took care of their daily needs

As John Adams noted, the people “can never act, consult, or reason together, because they cannot march five hundred miles, nor spare the time, nor find a space to meet.” In industrial nations that expanded over a huge territory direct democracy was thought to be impossible.

While representative institutions had been founded in ideological opposition to democracy, they were now re-described as the closest instantiation of that ideal possible under modern conditions. Thus, the founding myth of liberal-democratic ideology—the improbable fiction that representative government would facilitate the rule of the people—was born.

we have not even started to address the issue of how to make the democratic promise of our political system ring true for a new generation.

or a long century, the founding myth of liberal democracy retained sufficient footing in reality to keep a deep hold over the popular imagination, and help one political system conquer half the globe. But that basis is now crumbling

With the advent of the Internet, John Adams’s worry about the people’s inability to deliberate together has come to seem quaint

The physical agora of ancient Athens could be replaced by a virtual agora that would allow millions to debate and vote on policy proposals with even greater ease. As a result, citizens now have a much more instinctive sense that our democratic institutions are highly mediated.

They know that if we wanted to design a system of government that truly allowed the people to rule, it would not look much like the representative democracy of today.

The rise of the Internet and social media has thus created a giant mismatch between the direct efficiency of our digital lives and the cumbersome inefficiency of our formal institutions—and that has accentuated the contrast between our system’s promise to let the people rule and the reality that the people rarely feel as though they can have a real impact on the most important decisions facing their country

The Internet threatens to end the hegemony of liberal democracy not only by amplifying the voice of a small band of haters and extremists, but also by alienating a much larger number of digital natives from the decidedly analogue institutions by which they are governed.

We have only just begun to face up to the first big corrosive influence of digital technology on our politics: the way in which social media has helped to mainstream extremists

We’re only beginning to understand how we can stop vast platforms like Facebook and Twitter from spreading hate and fake news—and whether that will even prove possible without sacrificing constitutive elements of our political system

The rising tide of egalitarian sentiment during the nineteenth century should, by rights, have come into conflict with a set of avowedly aristocratic institutions. Instead, its fresh packaging gave the representative institutions of the United States and the United Kingdom a new lease on life. It pleased the elites who continued to get their way on the most important issues as much as it pleased the egalitarians who came to see it as a realization of their aspirations.

the widespread frustration with the state has less to do with excessive bureaucracy or overly cumbersome processes than it does with the underlying reality of the economy and the welfare state: what political scientists call the “performance legitimacy” of our political system has suffered from a combination of rising living costs, stagnating real wages, growing inequality, and dwindling social services.

More important, the real barrier to public participation in politics has always been interest, time, and expertise as much as it has been technology

Even if it were easy to weigh in, even vote, on every decision made at the local, county, state, and federal level, most citizens would hardly marshal the enthusiasm to be so intimately engaged with such a wide variety of questions of public policy.

Nor would most citizens miraculously develop the expertise to assess, for example, what kinds of regulations are needed to keep a power plant safe

A dozen years after the invention of Facebook, by contrast, the new technology has spread to every corner of the globe. Some two billion people actively use the platform.

there can be little doubt that, in the short run—which is to say, for the rest of our lives—it will make for a more chaotic world.

Unfettered by the constraints of the old media system, and buoyed by a growing popular cynicism about democracy’s promise, the demagogues have been willing to say whatever it takes to get elected—to flatter and deceive, to obfuscate, and even to incite hatred of their fellow citizens. Perhaps their rhetoric will prove to be unstoppable. As one state legislator recently pointed out to me, it is difficult for a rational politician to win a debate with a three-sentence answer when his rival is offering a one-sentence answer—especially when the other candidate can blast his simplistic take all over Twitter and Facebook.

All is not lost. But to revitalize liberal democracy in the digital age, it will not be enough to think carefully about how to enforce privacy rights or stifle the most hateful voices on the Internet. We must also think anew about how to fill the democratic promise with meaning for a new generation that has lost the belief in the democratic myth that long provided legitimacy for our political system.

They’ve become, as predicted, a nearly web-wide system for tracking all users—even when you don’t click the button.

“If you downloaded this file [of sites Facebook knows you visited], it would look like a quarter to half your browsing history,” Mr. Garcia-Martinez adds.

Another reason Facebook doesn’t give you this data: The company claims recovering it from its databases is difficult.

In one case, it took Facebook 106 days to deliver to a Belgian mathematician, Paul-Olivier Dehaye, all the data the company had gathered on him through its most common tracking system. Facebook doesn’t say how long it stores this information.

When you opt out of interest-based ads, the system that uses your browsing history to target you, Facebook continues tracking you anyway. It just no longer uses the data to show you ads.

There is more data Facebook collects that it doesn’t explain. It encourages users to upload their phone contacts, including names, phone numbers and email addresses

Facebook never discloses if such personal information about you has been uploaded by other users from their contact lists, how many times that might have happened or who might have uploaded it.

This data enables Facebook not only to keep track of active users across its multiple products, but also to fill in the missing links. If three people named Smith all upload contact info for the same fourth Smith, chances are this person is related

Facebook now knows that person exists, even if he or she has never been on Facebook. And of course, people without Facebook accounts certainly can’t see what information the company has in these so-called shadow profiles.

“In general, we collect data on people who have not signed up for Facebook for security purposes,” Mr. Zuckerberg told Congress

There’s also a form of location data you can’t control unless you delete your whole account. This isn’t the app’s easy-to-turn-off GPS tracking. It’s the string of IP addresses, a form of device identification on the internet, that can show where your computer or phone is each time it connects to Facebook.

Facebook says it uses your IP address to target ads when you are near a specific place, but as you can see in your downloaded Facebook data, the log of stored IP addresses can go back years.

Location is a powerful signal for Facebook, allowing it to infer how you are connected to other people, even if you don’t identify them as family members, co-workers or lovers

All this data, plus the elements Facebook lets you control, can potentially reveal everything from your wealth to whether you are depressed.

That level of precision is at the heart of Facebook’s recent troubles: Just because Facebook uses it to accomplish a seemingly innocent task—in Mr. Zuckerberg’s words, making ad “experiences better, and more relevant”— doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be worried.

Regulators the world over are coming to similar conclusions: Our personal data has become too sensitive—and too lucrative—to be left without restraints in the hands of self-interested corporations.

Facebook, Alphabet Inc.’s Google and a host of smaller companies that compete with and support the giants in the digital ad space have become addicted to the kind of information that helps microtarget ads.

The number of what Facebook calls “undesirable” accounts is growing rapidly. The company estimates that there were as many as 87 million fake accounts in the last quarter, according to financial filings — a dramatic jump over 2016, when an estimated 18 million accounts were fake.

Facebook’s failure to spot obvious counterfeit accounts has highlighted one of the company’s more embarrassing public ills. During chief executive Mark Zuckerberg’s hearing before a Senate committee last month, Sen. Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.) said that his friends — including old classmates from law school and Delaware’s attorney general — had alerted him that morning to a fake Facebook account

“Isn’t it Facebook’s job to better protect its users?” Coons asked Zuckerberg. “And why do you shift the burden to users to flag inappropriate content and make sure it’s taken down?”

Zuckerberg responded in the hearing that “it’s clear that this is an area . . . we need to do a lot better on.” He added: “Over time, we’re going to shift increasingly to a method where more of this content is flagged up front by AI tools that we develop.

The site is using that technological promise to encourage more users to consent to expanded ­facial-recognition rules. In its new privacy settings revealed last month, users are told, “If you keep face recognition turned off, we won’t be able to use this technology if a stranger uses your photo to impersonate you.” Facebook users who want to avoid impersonation but not have their name suggested for tagging in someone else’s photo are not allowed the choice.

But in the months since that feature was announced, scam profiles that took the names, photos and other information from legitimate accounts continued to spread

Some critics question why a $500 billion company with so many top engineers still struggles to protect its users’ identities

Many of the fake accounts appear to be built by copying, or “scraping,” the photos and biographical details from users’ Facebook profiles.

Analysts say the site could face an existential threat if unnerved users shy away from posting photos there for good. “There is some skepticism that they know where all of the fakes are,” said Brian Wieser, a senior analyst at Pivotal Research

or past disclosures of American national security intelligence and other confidential information.

President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia insisted on Wednesday that his nation was being falsely accused.

Clinton, the Republican candidate said: “Maybe there is no hacking. But they always blame Russia,” he said, as part of an effort to “tarnish me.”

Based on a few emails plucked from the account, Mr. Trump and his team have accused Clinton aides of improperly receiving inside information from the Obama administration

the campaign received an update from the Department of Justice about the timing of the release of Mrs. Clinton’s State Department emails

Republican allies say he has come to believe that WikiLeaks could yield a critical mass of negative and destructive information — if not a smoking gun — that drives up Mrs. Clinton’s already high unfavorable ratings with voters and perhaps even derails her candidacy.

Republicans have previously condemned WikiLeaks and similarly blasted the leaks by Edward J. Snowden, a National Security Agency contractor, and said they were evidence of carelessness by the Obama administration

The Clinton campaign is trying its own political jujitsu with the hacks,

there was “the possibility that Trump’s allies had advance knowledge of the release of these illegally obtained emails.”

emails began to appear on Friday afternoon, just hours after the director of National Intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security issued a statement attributing previous hacks to the Russian government

if he keeps on pressuring on it, it really will help,”

touched off a feverish debate over government invading people’s privacy,

aggressively pushed the Clinton camp emails in news media briefings and cable news appearances

Democrats showed no compunction about using unauthorized material when it came to Mr. Trump’s 1995 tax returns, or a leaked NBC audio recording of Mr. Trump boasting about groping

information that WikiLeaks and other outlets had made public from hacking collectives is “relevant.”

“But for this information, a number of revelations would remain secret — how Hillary Clinton really feels, how paranoid she really was about an Elizabeth Warren challenge, her ability to articulate a message that’s cohesive and credible,”

insisted showed “bias” toward Catholics.

the Clinton campaign seemed uncertain about how to navigate the disclosures,

Democrats expressed deep concern about how much more widespread the breaches could be.

WikiLeaks email will do little to help Mr. Trump attract more undecided voters, especially women, or reassure wavering Trump supporters.

“They ought to spend less time figuring out how to reinforce those people and more time trying to add to his vote column.”

He said the emails “make more clear than ever, just how much is at stake in November and how unattractive and dishonest our country has become.”

“I thought what Snowden did was disgraceful, treasonous. But the reality is the information is out there, and if Hillary doesn’t deny it then to me it certainly has to be used.”

“reaffirmed” comments that he has made as a candidate about the two-faced nature of politicians and alleged malfeasance in government.

“It’s really backing up what the people have been feeling all of this time about the corruption of government, embedded, just the trickle-down corruption.”

the emails are highly unlikely to influence undecided voters

But 55 to 60 percent of the country is open to a Clinton presidency and wants to see the next president get to work with Congress to help the country.”

What is recertification? Recertification of the nuclear deal is a two-part process. Verifying that Iran is in compliance with the nuclear deal is part of it. However, the second part involves the White House certifying that the nuclear deal remains in the US national security interest.

Why does Trump dislike the deal?Mr Trump's repeated excoriation of the JCPOA as the "worst deal ever" while electioneering sought to depict the Obama administration as weak.When he refused in October to continue to recertify the deal, the p

What next?The waiver suspends sanctions on Iran for 120 days. Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said his department is weighing further sanctions in light of the protests.

Henry was the sixth child and fourth son of Henry II and Catherine de’ Medici

France had been embroiled in a civil war between the crown and its Protestant or Huguenot subjects since 1562. In 1567 Henry took command of the royal army

He travelled to Poland with an entourage, but during the summer of 1574 he was informed of the death of his brother, Charles IX. He thus became king of both France and Poland

Without so much as bidding adieu to his Polish subjects, Henry made haste to  return to France by way of Austria and northern Italy

In February 1575 he married Louise de Vaudémont, a princess of the House of Lorraine, whose beauty had dazzled him on the eve of his departure for Poland

The situation had been aggravated by the accidental death of Henry II in 1559, which had left the kingdom in the hands of his widow, Catherine de’ Medici, and her young sons. As queen mother under Francis II, then as regent under Charles IX

In the absence of Henry begetting a son, the heir to the throne was his brother-in-law Henry of Navarre (1553-1610), who, as a Huguenot, was unacceptable to the Catholic majority in France. In 1576, a group of cities headed by Paris had formed an armed association, called the Catholic League, aimed at excluding Navarre from the throne. It chose Charles, cardinal of Bourbon,

As king, Henry III was apparently well-intentioned towards his subjects regardless of their faith. As he returned to Lyon from Poland in 1574, he declared a wish to be at peace with them all, and he seemed better equipped than his recent predecessors to succeed. He was probably the most intellectually gifted of the later Valois kings

The task of ruling France that the king faced in 1574 was far from easy, as so much hatred had arisen between Catholics and Huguenots

The court’s extravagance at a time of severe economic crisis incurred much criticism

He believed that his authority would be enhanced by distancing himself from his subjects

Although Henry III valued privacy, he liked to surround himself with a select group of intimate friends, mostly men of his own generation who came to be known as mignons

Whereas Charles IX had taken part in 109 civic entries during his ‘Grand Tour of France’ in 1564-66, Henry had only four in his entire reign

The king of France is so familiar with his subjects that he treats them all as his companions and no one is ever excluded from his presence, so that even lackeys of the lower sort are bold enough to wish to enter his privy chamber in order to see all that is going on there and to hear all that is being said… This familiarity, if it makes the nation insolent and arrogant, nevertheless inspires love, devotion and loyalty to its prince.

The supreme irony of Henry III’s reign was his failure to win over the capital by his presence

aloofness, extravagance and eccentricity

Believing Guise to be plotting a coup d’etat, Henry decided to exterminate him. Having lured the duke to his antechamber at Blois, the king stood by as his guards hacked Guise to death

This cold-blooded murder was by far Henry’s biggest blunder

Henry III’s only hope of regaining control of the capital was to join forces with  his appointed heir, the Huguenot leader, Henry of Navarre

Henry III on his deathbed appointing Navarre as his successor

Neither intellect nor good intentions had been sufficient to gain Henry III the love of his subjects. His life had been a tragedy

it could signal the beginning of a new era of virtual assistants that will redefine our relationships with intelligent machines.

providing someone with valuable insights about their productivity, stress levels during meetings or lifestyle habits that impact their ability to perform their job

“We set out to discover whether there was a way to move the needle from an almost backward way of assessing people’s workplace performance to using more objective measures.

research shows that conscientious people, who are often more detailed-oriented and disciplined, tend to be more productive

If it was possible to predict someone’s mental health by analyzing their social media feeds and smartphone data, Campbell wondered, could similar data be leveraged to improve employee performance evaluations?

The workers were fitted with a wearable fitness tracker that monitored heart functions, sleep, stress, and measurements such as weight and calorie consumption, as well as a smartphone app that tracked their physical activity, location, phone usage and ambient light.

Location beacons placed in the home and office measured participants time at work and breaks from their desk, giving researchers a comprehensive window into their day from one hour to the next.

The information was processed by cloud-based machine-learning algorithms that classified performance using factors such as the amount of time spent at the workplace, quality of sleep, physical activity and phone usage

“We want to use that information to empower workers to tell them whether they’re being influenced by levels of stress or sleep or other factors that may not be immediately obvious to them.”

What the research does not explain, he said, is what habits make someone conscientious in the first place, leaving a gap in knowledge that researchers hoped to fill.

“Very often when people try to detect what drives performance, they rely on personality, which actually reveals little about someone’s ability to do their job well,” he said. “Evaluations can be biased because they are infused with stereotyping of people or political influences inside an office. But when you can extract a pattern over weeks and months, we can be more certain that assessment is objective and neutral.

the results showed, perhaps not surprisingly, that high performers tended to have lower rates of phone usage.

They also experience deeper periods of sustained sleep and are more physically active than their lower performing colleagues.

Researchers discovered that high-performing supervisors tended to be more mobile during the day, but they visited a smaller number of distinct places during their working hours

High-performing non-supervisors, meanwhile, tend to spend more time at work during the weekends,

Future versions, they said, could be tailored to individual jobs and provide workers with meaningful information about changes in their mental well-being during meetings or suggestions for reducing stress each week

But they also acknowledge that the valuable private data could prove volatile if it falls into a company’s hands without employee consent. Campbell suggested there might be a middle ground, such as companies offering incentives to employees who opt into a program that treats precise assessment data as one tool among several for evaluating performance.

“If there was any point down the road where I could have an application on my phone that could provide an objective assessment of my performance, that might be an incentive for workers to use it," he said. “Imagine being able to say, ‘Here’s the evidence that I deserve to be promoted or that my boss is standing in my way.’"

“I can’t really look into a crystal ball, but I’m hopeful this passive sensing technology will be used to empower the workforce rather than used against them," he added.

At the extreme end of the scale, ISIS notoriously burned over 100,000 rare books and manuscripts housed in the Mosul Public Library, some dating back a millennium.

Regimes are expending so much energy attacking books because their supposed limitations have begun to look like strengths: With online surveillance, digital reading carries with it great risks and semi-permanent footprints; a physical book, however, cannot monitor what you are reading and when, cannot track which words you mark or highlight, does not secretly scan your face, and cannot know when you are sharing it with others.

There is an intimacy to reading, a place created in which we can imagine the experiences of others and experiment with new ideas, all within the safety and privacy of our imaginations

Research has proved that reading a printed book, rather than on a screen, generates more engagement, especially among young people

Books make us empathetic, skeptical, even seditious. It’s only logical then that totalitarian regimes have made their destruction such a visible priority. George Orwell knew this well: the great crime that tempts Winston in “1984” is the reading of a banned book.

The tepid response of the Trump administration to the murder and dismemberment of the Saudi critic Jamal Khashoggi is just the most egregious example of why the global defense of freedom of the press and speech is no longer an American priority

In classic dystopian novels of the near-future — “Brave New World,” “1984,” “Fahrenheit 451” — the digital world is ubiquitous. The ghostly absence of books, and the freethinking they seed, is the nightmare. For much of the world, it’s not an impossible fate

When can concerns about “national security” slip into bids for unchecked power?

What entails effective “oversight” if the public is kept in the dark?

The comments

Malware that was created for the explicit purpose of prying into private online communications, also known as spyware, has become a $1 billion industry.

smaller companies also sell simpler versions of the software for as little as $10, allowing people to snoop on their spouses or children.

The May 2018 message that contained the innocuous-seeming video file, with a tiny 14-byte chunk of malicious code, came out of the blue, according to the report and additional notes obtained by The New York Times. In the 24 hours after it was sent, Mr. Bezos’ iPhone began sending large amounts of data, which increased approximately 29,000 percent over his normal data usage

The FTI report was not definitive about the hack, but said it had “medium to high confidence” that the message from the prince’s WhatsApp account was the culprit. In notes to the report, FTI said it was still attempting a more thorough analysis of the iPhone, including by jailbreaking it, or bypassing Apple’s control system on the phone.

the episode was “a wake-up call to the international community as a whole that we are facing a technology that is very difficult to track, extremely powerful and effective, and that is completely unregulated.”

She said Mr. Bezos’ experience should sound alarms because even with his wealth and resources, it took months of investigation by specialists to figure out what had happened — a luxury few others have.“It basically means that we are all extremely vulnerable,”

“If we’re out there handing out masks and gloves, and we’ve got Covid, then they’re contaminated,” said Mr. Reaves, referring to the disease caused by the coronavirus.

The concern over the health and safety of FEMA employees comes as the agency is already stretched thin by three years of major natural disasters.

The virus, however, is forcing the agency to rethink that approach. It has urged its staff to work from home when possible, and distance themselves from their colleagues when it isn’t. FEMA has also restricted the number of disaster victims who are allowed inside its field offices at once, and has made it easier for states to shelter victims in hotels or other settings where they don’t have to be crammed together.

“FEMA has taken every precaution recommended by the C.D.C. to protect all employees,” Ms. Litzow added, referring to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Mr. Reaves said that at least two other people who worked in the office had since told him that they were self-isolating out of concern that they were exposed.

Some FEMA officials had grown concerned over how crowded its headquarters had become since President Trump tapped the disaster agency to lead his administration’s response to the coronavirus.

FEMA’s communications office did not say if any employees are self-isolating because they have symptoms.

The office also didn’t comment on its decision to decline the union’s request to find out which offices have had confirmed cases.

In its letter to the union, the agency suggested that providing that information could violate employees’ privacy. At some FEMA locations, the agency said

Contacts have been traced meticulously. Indeed, we receive messages to our phones with the emergency alert system informing us of the precise movements of confirmed patients so we know if we might have been exposed. This relies in part on cell phone location data and credit card spending data

Due to the late start to testing and these cultural reasons, it looks like the US is following something closer to China’s model than Korea’s.

Americans would be more willing to accept travel restrictions imposed on everyone than major privacy intrusions affecting individuals.

Notably, while large events and schools have been cancelled, restaurants and businesses have not been closed and there have been no limits to movement for the general public.

We need to rapidly, rapidly get more data on the nature of this disease, the scope of its spread and strategies to contain it. Otherwise we simply can’t probably balance to impact of the disease against the draconian methods we are using to contain it.

we need to see the course of this crisis in three parts.

First is the initial outbreak which we hope we’re getting some handle on. But there won’t be a return to a real normal until there’s a widely available vaccine or very effective treatments for COVID-19

in the best case scenario we face what I’ll call Phase Two of the crisis – a lengthy period after the initial outbreak in which the challenge will be to get back to an Interim New Normal until vaccines or treatments come online

The third phase will be the arrival of an effective vaccine that can finally in some sense end at least the epidemiological crisis.

So Phase One: Initial Outbreak. Phase Two: Sustaining an Interim New Normal. Phase Three: Vaccines and/or robust Treatments arrive and the crisis ends.

Another key concept: Testing isn’t all the same. One form of testing is diagnostic, tests you give to a particular person to guide their treatment.

The other is surveillance testing, testing to measure and manage the prevalence of the diseas

You can’t go back to even a semblance of normal economic and social life until you have an integrated, national system of surveillance testing in place that will give us a good shot at avoiding a rolling series of outbreaks and lockdowns for another year.

A great system in one state and a crappy one next door won’t cut it.

some building blocks are clear. The first is building a robust and vast system of testing across the country, both testing for infection and testing for antibodies

You also need a system of data collection and analysis that allows all those tests to be analyzed to granularly measure the prevalence and possible spread of the disease, both nationally and on the local level

You also need to keep the scale of infection low enough that contact tracing of new infections is at all possible.

Conventional contact tracing alone with armies of disease detectives probably isn’t up to the challenge, at least not on its own. That is why there’s already extensive discussions of using big data and geolocation tracking on cell phones to do some of this work at scale

A lot of that discussion has focused on taking something China did with mobile applications and adapting it to our social mores and laws. Put simply, you download an app. You say you’re healthy. If you get sick and test positive you tell the app. The app has recorded your movements over the last two weeks and a lot of other peoples. Once I test positive, the people who’ve been in close proximity to me get alerted and told they should get tested.

This is a very blunt instrument version of contact tracing. But unlike conventional contact tracing which operates with disease detectives, phone calls and interviews it can potentially be done at scale and almost instantaneously.

Ezra Klein published a look at a number of the proposed plans for this Phase Two/Interim New Normal and he found all of them almost totally unworkable. They all involve levels of technical capacity, privacy intrusion and political will that seem almost fantastical

we’ll either do one of these plans or all stay in our houses for a year or engage in the truly fantastical approach of going about life as usual while hundreds of thousands of Americans are dying and our national health care system collapsing around us.

The reality is that we’ll likely get some mix of all three. But knowing the alternatives helps focus our attention not on the seeming impossibility of these strategies but the fact that we need to get down to the business of planning and implementing them.

Phase Two is much more complicated. It is what everyone involved in any sort of public policy needs to be focusing on right now. Unfortunately the federal government has shown very, very little ability to mount any kind of coherent, national response.

And the President is focused on finding a date and calling an all clear as soon as possible.

With the tool, people infected with the coronavirus would notify a public health app that they have it, which would then alert phones that had recently come into proximity with that person’s device. The companies would need to get public-health authorities to agree to link their app to the tool.

There are already third-party tools for contact tracing, including from public health authorities and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In March, the government of Singapore introduced a similar coronavirus contact-tracing app, called TraceTogether, that detects mobile phones that are nearby.

One challenge for third-party apps is that they must run constantly — 24 hours a day, seven days a week — to be effective. Google said some Android smartphone manufacturers shut down those applications to save battery life.

Apple and Google said their tool would also constantly run in the background if people opt to use it, logging nearby devices through the short-range wireless technology Bluetooth. But it would eat up less battery life and be more reliable than third-party apps, they said.

“This data could empower members of the general population to make informed decisions about their own health in terms of self-quarantining,” said Dr. Reid. “But it doesn’t replace the public health imperative that we scale up contact tracing in the public health departments” around the world.

Other phones will constantly check those servers for the broadcast beacons of devices they had come near in the past 14 days. If there is a match, those people will receive an alert that they had likely come into contact with an infected person.

Apple and Google said they were discussing how much information to include in those alerts with health officials, aiming to strike a balance between being helpful while also protecting the privacy of those who have the coronavirus.

Once someone reports his or her infection to a public-health app, the tool will send the phone’s so-called broadcast beacons, or anonymous identifiers connected to the device, to central computer servers.

Apple and Google said they would make the tool’s underlying technology available to third-party apps by mid-May and publicly release the tool “in the coming months.” The companies said the tool would not collect devices’ locations — it only tracked proximity to other devices — and would keep people anonymous in the central servers.

The European Commission, the executive of the 27-nation bloc, said on Wednesday that “a fragmented and uncoordinated approach risks hampering the effectiveness” of such apps.

“The danger is, as you roll out these voluntary solutions and they gain adoption, it’s more likely that they are going to become compulsory,” said Mr. Soltani, a former chief technologist for the Federal Trade Commission.

The AEI proposal is the closest thing to a middle path between these plans. It’s more testing, but nothing approaching Romer’s hopes. It’s more contact tracing, but it doesn’t envision an IT-driven panopticon. But precisely for that reason, what it’s really describing is a yo-yo between extreme lockdown and lighter forms of social distancing, continuing until a vaccine is reached.

The CAP and Harvard plans both foresee a digital pandemic surveillance state in which virtually every American downloads an app to their phone that geotracks their movements, so if they come into contact with anyone who later is found to have Covid-19, they can be alerted and a period of social quarantine can begin

o state the obvious: The technological and political obstacles are massive. While similar efforts have borne fruit in Singapore and South Korea, the US is a very different country, with a more mistrustful, individualistic culture. Already, polling shows that 70 percent of Republicans, and 46 percent of Democrats, strongly oppose using cellphone data to enforce quarantine orders.

The alternative to mass surveillance is mass testing. Romer’s proposal is to deploy testing on a scale no one else is contemplating — 22 million tests per day — so that the entire country is being tested every 14 days, and anyone who tests positive can be quickly quarantined

All of them then imagine a phase two, which relaxes — but does not end — social distancing while implementing testing and surveillance on a mass scale. This is where you must begin imagining the almost unimaginable.

This, too, requires some imagination. Will governors who’ve finally, at great effort, reopened parts of their economies really keep throwing them back into lockdown every time ICUs begin to fill? Will Trump have the stomach to push the country back into quarantine after he’s lifted social distancing guidelines?

even if the political hurdles could be cleared, it’s obvious, reading the AEI proposal, that there’ll be no “V-shaped recovery” of the economy. Scott Gottlieb, the former FDA commissioner who helped craft the plan, says he thinks something like 80 percent of the economy will return — that may sound like a lot, but it’s an economic collapse of Great Depression proportions.

As unlikely as these futures may be, I think the do-nothing argument is even less plausible: It imagines that we simply let a highly lethal virus kill perhaps millions of Americans, hospitalize tens of millions more, and crush the health system, while the rest of us go about our daily economic and social business.

That is, in my view, far less likely than the construction of a huge digital surveillance state. I care about my privacy, but not nearly so much as I care about my mother.

My point isn’t to criticize these plans when I have nothing better to offer. Indeed, my point isn’t to criticize them at all. It’s simply to note that these aren’t plans for returning to anything even approaching normal

They either envision life under a surveillance and testing state of dystopian (but perhaps necessary!) proportions, or they envision a long period of economic and public health pain, as we wrestle the disease down only to see it roar back, as seems to be happening in Singapore.

As of now, the White House has neither chosen nor begun executing on a plan of its own. That’s a terrible abdication of leadership, but reading through the various proposals, you can see why it’s happened. Imagine you’re the president of the United States in an election year. Which of these futures, with all its costs and risks and pain, would you want to try and sell to the American people?