Australia plans to make Facebook and Google pay for news. Rob Nicholls explains how it will work.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has released its draft news media bargaining code, announced last week by Treasurer Josh Frydenberg.

The draft code allows commercial news businesses to bargain individually or collectively with Google and Facebook, in order to be paid for news the tech giants publish on their services.

According to ACCC chairman Rod Sims, the code aims to address the bargaining power imbalance between news publishers and major digital platforms, to bring about fair payment for news.

As Frydenberg said: "We want Google and Facebook to continue to provide these services to the Australian community, which are so much loved and used by Australians. But we want it to be on our terms."

The ACCC has previously found Google and Facebooks failure to pay for news content is eating into the advertising revenues which fund journalism.

The code is set out as exposure draft legislation and an explanatory memorandum.

These set out the rules for who can bargain. To be eligible, a news business must have employed journalists, earn more than $A150,000 ($NZ162,000) per year in revenue and be registered with the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).

And they must provide "core news", defined as: "journalism on publicly significant issues, journalism that engages Australians in public debate and informs democratic decision-making, and journalism relating to community and local events."

The code does not specify how much news businesses should be paid.

Instead, it provides a negotiating process in which Google and Facebook must take part. The negotiating phase lasts three months and includes at least one day of mediation.

If there is no agreement at the end, the process moves to compulsory arbitration (by an ACMA-appointed panel) for which both parties pay.

The arbitration panel will then select one of the final offers in a process sometimes called "baseball determination". Their decision will be binding.

The range of Facebook services subject to arbitration includes Facebook News Feed, Instagram and the Facebook News Tab. The Google services are Google Search, Google News and Google Discover.

The ACCC will also be able to make submissions in the arbitration process (which the arbitrator can decide to consider or not). Under limited and unlikely circumstances, the arbitrator may adjust the more reasonable of the final two offers.

The draft code introduces a series of "minimum standards" for digital platforms to meet in their dealings with news businesses.

These include a requirement for Google and Facebook to give 28 days notice of any algorithmic change that will affect either referral traffic to news or the ranking of news behind paywalls.

This gives news businesses the opportunity to adapt their business models to ensure their content retains its prominence. More importantly, it means their negotiated revenue will not drop. It may also help in decisions about what content stays behind paywalls.

There will be an obligation on Google and Facebook to give businesses clear information about the nature and availability of user data collected through users interactions with the news.

This does not mean Google or Facebook must share the data itself only that news businesses will be informed of what kind of data is being collected.

There are also obligations on the tech giants to publish proposals which appropriately recognise the media business original news on their platforms and to provide those businesses with flexible tools for user comment moderation.

In addition, Google and Facebook must allow news businesses to prevent their news from being included on any individual platform service. For instance, they may choose for an article to appear on Google Search but not Google News.

News businesses will be able to moderate comments more easily. This is important considering they can be sued for comments published on their posts via platforms such as Facebook.

The draft code will not result in a $A600million payday for news businesses, as Nines chairman proposed in May. However, the negotiation and arbitration process does provide certainty of a positive commercial outcome for news providers relying on advertising.

There will also be more work required for Google and Facebook to give notice of algorithmic changes, which are managed in the United States. This obligation will mean adjustments to both the tech giants business models.

Google has already taken steps down this path by successfully negotiating revenue sharing with some Australian news businesses. In effect, it has created a benchmark for its position in the new negotiation framework.

Meanwhile, Facebook has argued "news does not drive significant long-term commercial value" for it. However, it said it was committed to following "sensible regulatory frameworks for digital news".

A breach of the code by Facebook or Google could have a few potential outcomes. The first is an infringement notice which has a penalty of $A133,200 for each breach.

If the ACCC takes one of the tech giants to court, the maximum penalty is the higher of $A10million, 10% of the digital platforms turnover in Australia in the past 12 months, or three times the benefit obtained by the tech giant as a result of the breach (if this can be calculated).

The ACCC has previously had success against franchisers for breaches of the mandatory Franchising Code. It is likely to be just as vigilant in policing the news media bargaining code. theconversation.com

- Rob Nicholls is an associate professor of business law and director of the UNSW Business School Cybersecurity and Data Governance Research Network in Sydney.

Read more:

Forcing tech giants to the table - Otago Daily Times

A day after lawmakers grilled the chief executives of the biggest tech companies about their size and power, Amazon, Apple, Alphabet and Facebook reported surprisingly healthy quarterly financial results, defying one of the worst economic downturns on record.

Even though the companies felt some sting from the spending slowdown, they demonstrated, as critics have argued, that they are operating on a different playing field from the rest of the economy.

Amazons sales were up 40 percent from a year ago and its profit doubled. Facebooks profit jumped 98 percent. Even though the pandemic shuttered many of its stores, Apple increased sales of all its products in every part of the world and posted $11.25 billion in profit. Advertising revenue dropped for Alphabet, the laggard of the bunch, but it still did better than Wall Street had expected.

The strong continue to get stronger, said Dan Ives, managing director of equity research at Wedbush Securities. As many companies are falling by the wayside, the tech stalwarts continue to gain muscle and power in this environment.

The tech companies financial performance was a remarkable contrast to the overall health of the U.S. economy. The Commerce Department said on Thursday that the countrys gross domestic product fell 9.5 percent in the second quarter of the year as consumers cut back spending. It was the steepest drop on record.

Combined, the companies reported $28.6 billion in quarterly net profit, underscoring how regulatory scrutiny remains more background noise and a distraction for them rather than an imminent threat to their businesses.

On Wednesday, a congressional antitrust panel questioned the companies leaders Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Tim Cook of Apple, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook and Sundar Pichai of Alphabet about their market power and business practices.

It was part of a broader inquiry by regulators and lawmakers into the dominance of the tech giants, with open investigations from the Justice Department, the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general.

The spectacle of the chief executives of the four companies, worth nearly $5 trillion by market capitalization combined, appearing before a House subcommittee was historic. But antitrust investigations often take years, especially if regulators seek more drastic measures like breaking up companies.

The pandemic has reinforced the advantages held by the big tech companies. As consumers stay home, demand for Amazons shopping site surged, while companies are turning to its cloud computing products to keep their services up and running. Apple said the shift to working and learning from home had led more people to splurge on Apples devices and use its services.

Our products and services are very relevant to our customers lives, and in some cases, even more during the pandemic than ever before, Luca Maestri, Apples finance chief, said in an interview. He noted, however, that Apple could have made several billion dollars more if not for the pandemic.

Facebook and Google continue to be important to marketers and they are weathering the downturn in advertising better than rivals. Facebook shrugged off a spending slowdown, hailing record levels of engagement with its products.

Alphabet said revenue from Google search ads fell 10 percent pushing the companys overall revenue lower for the first time in the companys history but that still was better than rivals. Last week, Microsoft reported an 18 percent slide in search advertising revenue.

Since the beginning of March, the companies stock prices have risen by an average of 35 percent, compared with a 10 percent rise in the S.&P. 500.

Buoyed by a pandemic-induced surge in online shopping, Amazon had $88.9 billion in quarterly sales, up 40 percent from a year earlier. Profit doubled, to $5.2 billion, even though the company invested in expanding warehouses and other ways to increase capacity.

Simply put, Covid-19, in our view, has injected Amazon with a growth hormone, Tom Forte, an analyst at the investment bank D.A. Davidson & Company, wrote in a recent note to investors.

In April, Mr. Bezos told investors to expect no operating profit, and maybe even a loss, as the company planned to spend about $4 billion on coronavirus-related expenses like temporary pay increases, declines in warehouse efficiency because of social distancing, and $300 million for testing its work force for the virus.

But even those costs did not compare to the immense surge in demand, with online retail sales up 48 percent.

On a call with reporters, Amazon declined to say if it would give its warehouse workers virus-related bonuses or raises in the current quarter, but added that pandemic-related expenses would fall to $2 billion in the quarter.

Sales at Amazons lucrative cloud computing business, whose customers include major corporations and small start-ups, grew 29 percent, to $10.8 billion, falling short of analyst expectations, though it was more profitable than they had expected.

Facebooks revenue for the second quarter rose 11 percent from a year earlier to $18.7 billion, while profits jumped 98 percent to $5.2 billion. The results were well above analysts estimates of $17.3 billion in revenue with a profit of $3.9 billion, according to data provided by FactSet.

Despite increasing scrutiny from regulators, questions about its role in subverting elections and how people use the platform to spread misinformation, neither users nor advertisers have shown an inclination to stop using Facebook.

More than three billion people now regularly come to Facebook or one of its family of apps, as the services have overtaken much of the developed world. And some 2.47 billion people use one or more of Facebooks apps every day.

The company said its number of monthly active users rose 12 percent from a year ago and added that it was seeing record levels of engagement and usage this year because of shelter-in-place orders around the world.

In late June, a grass-roots campaign, Stop Hate for Profit, rallied many of the top advertisers on Facebook to reduce their spending because of issues with hate speech on the site.

Facebook cautioned investors on Thursday that fallout from the ad boycott was noticeable in July and warned that greater economic turmoil from the pandemic could eventually hurt Facebooks bottom line.

Despite the global economic slowdown, people kept buying Apple devices en masse and paid the tech giant billions of dollars more for apps and services on those gadgets.

Apple said its sales rose 11 percent to $59.7 billion and its profits increased 12 percent to $11.25 billion. Both figures handily beat analysts expectations, with Wall Street having forecast declines in both areas.

Sales were particularly strong for iPads and Mac computers, as the public was increasingly forced to work and socialize virtually. Revenue also surged in its internet-services business, which include Apples cut of sales from the App Store, the subject of antitrust investigations in the United States and Europe.

Even the iPhone, which remains the companys biggest seller, had a slight increase in sales for only the second time in the past seven quarters.

Apple also announced a stock split on Thursday that would quadruple its number of shares, allowing people to buy a share in the company for a quarter of the current stock price, which closed at $384.76 on Thursday.

Googles parent company, Alphabet, reported its first-ever decline in quarterly revenue, hurt by a slowdown in spending by advertisers. The company posted revenue of $38.3 billion and a profit of $6.96 billion significantly higher than what Wall Street analysts had predicted.

Ruth Porat, Alphabets chief financial officer, said advertising revenue gradually improved as the quarter went on. The decline came largely from lower sales of advertisements that run alongside Googles search results, but the companys efforts to diversify its business paid off as revenue from YouTube ads and its cloud computing business grew.

When asked in a call with financial analysts about the congressional hearing, Mr. Pichai said the company would have to learn to live with the investigations.

The scrutiny is going to be here for a while and were committed to working through it, he said.

Read more:

The Economy Is in Record Decline, but Not for the Tech Giants - The New York Times

Forty years ago, the government essentially stopped policing industry concentration, David Dayen, the executive editor of The American Prospect, argues. All Americans suffer from the wave of corporate consolidation that followed.

One question, answered: A reader refused to take their grandmother to the salon, citing health concerns. Now that grandmother is angry, the reader tells us:

Yesterday, she called me mean for refusing to take her. As a first-time caretaker, Im really struggling with this. How should I strike a balance between her quality of life and her safety?

James Hamblin offers some advice in his latest Paging Dr. Hamblin column:

A common tendency in these situations is wanting to swoop in and do everything in our power to keep a person physically healthy and, well, alive for as long as possible. But in the process we run the risk of denying agency to elders. Just because people arent able to drive, cook, or care for themselves in certain ways doesnt mean they should lose autonomy in other ways, such as making decisions for themselves.

Read the rest here. Every Wednesday, Jim takes questions from readers about health-related curiosities, concerns, and obsessions. Hes also answered:

Have one? Email Jim at paging.dr.hamblin@theatlantic.com.

What to read if youre secretly missing crowds:

Walt Disney World reopened in Florida, despite the states surge in coronavirus cases. Our staff writer Graeme Wood spent a weekend riding rides, waving at princesses, and contemplating his mortality.

What to read if you want practical tips:

Did someone forward you this newsletter? Sign up here.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.

Read more from the original source:

The Atlantic Daily: Congress Wakes Up to the Danger of Tech Giants - The Atlantic

Lawmakers and the public should be concerned about the surveillance networks by which Facebook and Googlewhich dominate the digital-advertising markettrack users, build data profiles on them, and serve them customized ads. But millions of rural Americans cannot access the internet to begin with, in part because telecom companies harass, fight, and induce state legislatures to pass laws restricting municipal broadband. Across America, people send their kids to Starbucks parking lots to piggyback on the wifi and complete their homework.

Amazons rapidly expanding e-commerce empireand the potential consequences for Main Streets and municipal tax bases across the countryis definitely worth worrying about. But among the other forces squeezing out small retailers are dollar stores, a market segment dominated by two firms that together have about six times more outlets in America than Walmart. Last summer in Marlinton, West Virginia, I saw a Dollar General right next door to a Family Dollar. Despite the pandemic, Dollar General still plans to open 1,000 new stores in 2020.

Read: Family Dollar is actually worth 8.5 billion dollars

Software developers who want to sell apps to iPhone users must do so through Apples App Store, which spells out rules that they must follow and collects up to 30 percent of sales. This is little different from the situation of small farmers, who must raise livestock to the exacting specifications of the meatpacking giants and can lose their livelihoods on those companies whims. And just as Amazon sometimes undercuts the smaller third-party sellers that use its platform, Big Agriculture competes directly with smaller suppliers; the top four hog firms, which control around two-thirds of the market, typically own farms, slaughterhouses, warehouses, and distribution trucks, every step from the pig trough to the dinner table.

Whether you are shopping for pacemakers, sanitary napkins, or wholesale office supplies, you will find very few sellers. You think you have choices in grocery aisles or at car-rental counters, but the majority of consumer products come from a handful of companies. Competition is hardly stiff when even many store brands are just renamed versions of market-leading products; at Costco, the batteries come from Duracell and the coffee from Starbucks.

To focus the discussion of monopoly on the tech sector is to minimize the scope of a problem long in the making. Forty years ago, the government essentially stopped policing industry concentration. The conservative legal theorist Robert Borklater a failed Supreme Court nomineeand his allies in the law-and-economics movement argued that any merger making businesses more efficient must be approved, and that a larger scale generally increases efficiency. Borks analysis gained enormous power in the courts and the Reagan administration. The lawyers and the bankers who handled mergers and acquisitions loved it.

Read the original here:

Americas Monopoly Problem Goes Way Beyond the Tech Giants - The Atlantic

Major tech companies appear before the U.S. Congress in a monumental antitrust hearing, Ontario based smart glasses company discontinues product after Googles acquisition, and the shifting workplace due to the coronavirus.

Its all the tech news thats popular right now. Welcome to Hashtag Trending! Its Thursday, July 30, and Im your host, Baneet Braich.

Congress started a major antitrust hearing yesterday with Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon, and Google to determine whether they have abused their power in the online marketplace. All four are appearing among one another online due to COVID-19. In their opening remarks, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos and Google CEO Sundar Pichai discussed their immigrant backgrounds. Bezos told the story of his adopted father, who immigrated from Cuba. Pichai discussed India. Congress is expected to grill the tech giants with specific questions and evidence. The eyes are mainly on Bezos- the worlds richest man had never before testified in front of congress.

Ontario-based tech company North, which was acquired by Google last month, says that its smart glasses will no longer work after Friday. Moreover, North says its first generation of smart glasses will be discontinued. The company also says it has cancelled any plans to ship its second-generation Focals 2.0. Google did not respond to CTVNewss request for comment at the time of publishing. All to say in a few days the smart element of the glasses will be unusable. North will issue refunds.

The consequences of the coronavirus have led to significant changes in the workforce. The shift may significantly alter wages, career paths and how companies operate in the coming years, according to The New York Times. On one hand, there is more flexibility and higher disposable income. However, these fast changes may also mean a disaster for low-skilled labour, lowering wages and job security. Highly skilled workers may also not have the easiest time to band together over issues of pay and working conditions, says the Times.

Thats all the tech news thats trending right now. Hashtag Trending is a part of the ITWC Podcast network. Add us to your Alexa Flash Briefing or your Google Home daily briefing.Im Baneet Braich, thanks for listening.

Link:

Hashtag Trending Antitrust probe of tech giants commences; North discontinues smart glasses; new workplace trends during the pandemic - IT World...

By Andrea Morris

Social media giants Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook are banning or hiding posts about treatments for the coronavirus and the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine.

Despite a recent major study and a new report from a Yale epidemiological expert that verifies the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), the mainstream news media and tech giants are censoring the message. It seems HCQ has become a politically incorrect drug simply because President Trump once referred to it as a possible treatment for COVID-19.

Now Donald Trump Jr. has been notified that his access to Twitter is being restricted after he shared video pertaining to COVID-19 and medical interventions,CNBCreports.

The presidents son was advised that his actions had violated the social media platforms policy and that he was spreading misleading and potentially harmful information related to COVID-19.

BREAKING: @Twitter & @jack have suspended @DonaldJTrumpJr for posting a viral video of medical doctors talking about Hydroxychloroquine.

Big Tech is the biggest threat to free expression in America today & they're continuing to engage in open election interference full stop. pic.twitter.com/7dJbauq43O

Andy Surabian, a spokesman for Trump Jr. said, Twitter suspending Don Jr. for sharing a viral video of medical professionals discussing their views on Hydroxychloroquine is further proof that Big Tech is intent on killing free expression online and is another instance of them committing election interference to stifle Republican voices.

CBN Newsattempted to access a YouTube video with doctors talking about coronavirus medications and treatments, but the video had been removed for violating community standards.

Thevideothat is causing the controversy stems from a group of physicians calling themselves American Frontline Doctors who are speaking to the public in an effort to reduce fears over the coronavirus pandemic.

The doctors are attending a White Coat Summit this week which aims toclarify the misinformationAmericans are receiving from sources that lack awareness on key topics pertaining to the virus.

The physicians are determined to shine a light on some of the false claims and fears that are being spread about COVID-19.

Dr. Erickson spoke atthe eventon Monday and told the audience that, 99.8 percent of people get through this with little to no progressive or significant disease.

Physicians withAmerican Frontline Doctorsargue that there are treatments available for people who test positive for the virus, yet these resources are not being utilized.

This is the first time, historically, that weve told patients with a disease to go home in isolateits never happened before, one physician said. Its almost insanity. Were letting patients perish unnecessarily.

Several doctors who attended Mondays event saidsome of the deathsrelated to the coronavirus could have been prevented.

One female physician contends there is a medical cure for COVID-19 and another said that hydroxychloroquines use is being blocked because of politics and that the medication should be available over-the-counter.

The White Coat Summit was slated to broadcast on Facebook, but that link has also been removed.

Additional medical experts are reporting on the success that patients are having with hydroxychloroquine.

CBN Newsrecently reported that Dr. Harvey Risch with the Yale University Public School of Health said hydroxychloroquine, as an early treatment,is highly effective, especially when given in combination with the antibiotics azithromycin or doxycycline and the nutritional supplement zinc.

Risch explained that the drug works against the virus when taken early before it multiplies throughout the body. He said some physicians who prescribed hydroxychloroquine to patients are now being scrutinized for their actions.

And arecent major studyfrom the Henry Ford Health System in Michigan said the drug significantly cut the death rate of patients.

Treatment with hydroxychloroquine cut the death rate significantly in sick patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and without heart-related side-effects, thehealth organizationreports.

For more information on the White Coat Summit, clickhere.

Continued here:

Tech Giants 'Killing Free Expression', Block Trump Jr. and Hide Reports About Effective Treatment for COVID - Faithwire

The decision to force Google and Facebook to pay for outside content will have huge global ramifications, both for the tech giants and for media companies, according to Sky News host Chris Kenny. Tech giants will be forced to pay Australian media companies for their content or else they will be ushered into binding arbitration if parties cannot agree within a three-month window. The world-first mandatory code was unveiled by Treasurer Josh Frydenberg today as he complained tech giants Google and Facebook had not made adequate progress towards paying companies for original journalism. Google alone has ripped hundreds and millions of dollars from Australian media companies in recent years and earned $4.3 billion in Australian advertising revenue in 2019. Mr Kenny said the decision is about fairness and protecting media jobs. This means companies like Sky News, News Corp newspapers and our competitors in Nine newspapers and other broadcasters, it means we'll share in some of the revenue the tech giants derive from sharing our content, if all goes well, Mr Kenny said.But that should be good for you, helping to guarantee a vibrant media industry, ensure proper journalism is funded and preventing local companies and jobs from being killed off by the global giants who suck up all the advertising revenue. "People love the services we get from search engines and social media. But this is all about redressing the balance, making sure content providers are paid fairly for what they do, and in the end protecting jobs in the news media.

Link:

Decision to force tech giants to pay for news will have 'significant global ramifications' - Sky News Australia

BRIAN STELTER (CNN CHIEF MEDIA CORRESPONDENT): And the conversation about Google was really interesting. When you or I search on Google now, when we type in a question, oftentimes the result is a Google answer. Google is finding the answer or directing you to a Google site. That is a change in the Google algorithm. And sothat is an example of possible consumer harm. However, Google says that's an improvement, that's a benefit to the customer, because it's the best, fastest answer. So there you go, that's the tension, that's the story.

And then there's this parallel track, where you have some Republican lawmakers accusing these companies of anti-conservative biasand trying to get them to make certain commitments and promises. Let's just all remember the claims about bias in tech platforms are anecdotal, not backed up by data or science. These are stories, not statistics. But we're probably going to hear more of that from the Republicans in the coming minutes.

The rest is here:

CNN's Brian Stelter: Claims of anti-conservative bias by tech giants are not backed up by data or science - Media Matters for America

Emails shared by the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday (June 29) during the tech giant anti-trust hearing showed that Apple wanted a 40% cut from some third -party subscriptions accessible through its platforms.

Apple services chief Eddy Cue said in an email dated March,2011 that they should ask for 40% of the first year only but we need to work a few deals to see what is right.

Jai Chulani, another executive, also said that that the iPhone maker may be leaving money on the table if we just asked for about 30% of the first year of subscriptions.

Both executives were referring to Apples video streaming service Hulu and digital content apps like those being offered by sports leagues. It also applies to the Apple TV set-top box but not yet certain whether it is also applicable to apps running on the iPad and iPhone devices.

The tech giant enjoyed a 30% cut from app subscriptions when it launched the feature a few years back. It reduced the fee to 15% after the first year.

Since last year, Apples rules and fees on its App store have been subjected to regulators criticisms. Developers also had their fair share of complaints.

In the Anti-trust hearing, Apple CEO Tim Cook reiterated that their fees are competitive and that theyve got several competition trying to lure mobile consumers and developers.

READ ALSO: Apple Fined $27M in France For Slowing Old iPhones; Charged Deceptive!

This article is owned by Tech Times

Written by Krisana E.

See the original post here:

Tech Giants Anti-Trust Hearing: Apple Wanted More than Just 30% Cut from Subscriptions, Emails Showed - Brinkwire

The major indexes gained on Monday amid optimism for another COVID-19 stimulus package following yesterday's comments by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin that lawmakers are approaching a deal for a $1 trillion bill. The proposal is expected to include another round of $1,200 checks and could potentially extend an eviction moratorium.

The Nasdaq Composite (NASDAQINDEX:^COMP) outpaced the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the S&P 500. The index rose 173 points, driven by gains in major tech stocks like Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) and Amazon.com (NASDAQ:AMZN).

CEO Tim Cook. Image source: Apple.

It's going to be a busy week for tech giants. The CEOs of Apple, Amazon, Facebook (NASDAQ:FB), and Alphabet (NASDAQ:GOOG) (NASDAQ:GOOGL) subsidiary Google have agreed to testify in front of the House Judiciary Committee as part of an historic antitrust hearing. The hearing was originally scheduled for today but was postponed to Wednesday in order for congressional lawmakers to pay their respects to Representative John Lewis, the civil rights icon that passed away earlier this month.

Antitrust scrutiny of large tech corporations has been intensifying in recent years, with critics arguing that the companies collectively wield too much market power and that different aspects of their respective businesses undermine competition in various ways. Lawmakers are expected to grill Tim Cook, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and Sundar Pichai as they gather evidence around those allegations as part of a broader antitrust probe that was launched last summer.

All four of those behemoths are then set to report earnings the following day after the market close.

Shares ofModerna (NASDAQ:MRNA) jumped by 9% after the biotech announced yesterday that it had secured an additional $472 million from the U.S. government's Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) in order to support a larger phase 3 program for Moderna's COVID-19 mRNA vaccine candidate, mRNA-1273. That funding comes after the biotech previously received $483 million from BARDA and brings the total value of awards to $955 million.

The expanded phase 3 program, which commenced today, will include 30,000 participants and be conducted in collaboration with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). Moderna says it remains on track to deliver 500 million doses per year starting in 2021, with the potential to ramp to 1 billion doses per year.

Image source: Getty Images.

"We thank BARDA for this continued commitment to mRNA-1273, our vaccine candidate against COVID-19." Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel said in a statement. "Encouraged by the Phase 1 data, we believe that our mRNA vaccine may aid in addressing the COVID-19 pandemic and preventing future outbreaks."

Toymaker Hasbro (NASDAQ:HAS) saw its stock lose 7% after announcing second-quarter earnings. The company missed revenue expectations because many retailers were closed due to the COVID-19 crisis. Revenue in Q2 fell 29% to $860.3 million, shy of the $992 million in sales that analysts were expecting. That led to adjusted net income of $2.7 million, or $0.02 per share.

Hasbro said it was unable to meet strong consumer demand due to store closures and product shortages. Partner factories in China, which represent 55% of the company's total production capacity, have now resumed operations and are operating at normal levels. Management is optimistic that conditions will improve throughout the rest of the year.

"While the full-year COVID-19 impact geographically remains unpredictable, as stores reopen and we begin to return to production for entertainment we expect the environment to improve in the third quarter and set us up to execute a good holiday season," said Hasbro CEO Brian Goldner.

Continued here:

Nasdaq Gains 173 Points to Kick Off Busy Week in Tech; Moderna Scores $472 Million for Coronavirus Vaccine Research - The Motley Fool

Should the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) be allowed to access the data of citizens from other countries, and what are the risks of allowing such?

This is the core question at the heart of calls to ban rising video app TikTok, which has come under increased scrutiny in several regions over its ties to the Chinese regime. To be clear, TikTok's Chinese-owned parent company ByteDanceis indeed beholden, under China's cybersecurity laws, to share its data with the CCP, if so requested. We don't know if such requests have been made in the past, but we do know that ByteDance has previously censored content and managed its platforms in line with CCP rule.

It remains likely that the CCP could request, and receive, data on TikTok users from around the world, for whatever purposes it may have in mind - but what are those purposes, really, and does that access really pose a threat?

The answer to this is both unknowable, and somewhat moot. The threat of China, which has gradually pushed its borders through violent conflicts of late, both in Hong Kong and India, is clearly a concern, but China itself should not be the key issue here. The concern highlighted by TikTok is more about personal data - who can access it and what it can be used for.

Yes, it's a concern that the CCP may be able to access data on foreign citizens, but should it not also be a concern that any nation is able to theoretically access the data of citizens in another?Facebook, a US-owned company, has more data on more people than any other company in history. LinkedIn has your professional and educational records. Google has your search data. While the concerns around data sharing in this respect is lessened due to regulatory measures and international agreements, if you don't think China should have access to your information, an argument could be made that all tech platforms should have to store user data locally.

And that could have other potential benefits.

This week, the CEOs of Facebook, Google and Amazon will all attend a House antitrust subcommittee in the US, which will examine the market dominance of these growing platforms, and consider whether it's beneficial to allow the tech giants to keep getting bigger.

The focus, in this sense, is more on facilitating market competition, and ensuring that they don't use their power to restrict opposing development, yet the hearing, in some ways, is also about what should be done, more generally, to limit the rising power of the tech giants.

And in many cases, nothing can be done - these are already some of the biggest companies in the world, with huge power and influence. Controlling them, in any form, will be difficult - but maybe, through closer analysis, it could open up a new discussion about potential changes to regulations, which may allow more security and innovation at a regional level.

Again, this comes back to how the tech giants operate, and TikTok may be the key example. On examination, maybe it would make more sense to force each tech platform to not so much split their apps and tools into separate companies, but to sub-license their regional entities separate organizations. For example, Facebook would need to create data centers in each nation that it operates, and hire a local team to manage its systems. Google would be required to do the same. That would then also mean that regional data restrictions could be implemented, enabling each nation to control the data of their own citizens.

If there were local concerns about antitrust and limiting innovation, they could be handled on a smaller scale, with specific rulings based on local laws. Already, data rulings like the CCPA and the GDPR have changed some local regulation of platforms. What if each company had to house each nation's data within that nation?

That would likely provide more protection, more security, and more capacity for localized control. And it would also provide one other key benefit.

One of the bigger challenges governments have faced as the tech giants have rose to become multi-billion dollar behemoths is in ensuring that they're also paying their fair share, in regards to local taxes. Which, in the majority, they are not.

Most of the tech giants find workarounds and loopholes to avoid paying tax in each region, which leads to frustration when local businesses, struggling to compete against their expanding service offerings, lose out, because they do have to fulfill their local tax obligations.

But if each platform was forced to operate within each nation, that would be different - that would mean that the Googles and Facebooks of the world could no longer utilize tax havens and legal technicalities to reduce their obligations, which would mean that each region could bring in a greater share of local tax revenue, equivalent to the rising usage of each system.

For example, back in April, the Australian Government proposed new lawswhich would essentially force Google and Facebook to share any revenue they generate as a result of news content that they use on their platforms with the relevant, local publishers of such material.

The idea here is to help these publishers stay afloat, by giving them a cut of Google and Facebook revenue, which publishers have argued is, at least in part, generated on the back of their work.

That proposal will not work. Several nations have tried similar, and Google and Facebook simply maneuver around such regulation - and rightly so, it's a poorly thought out strategy, which, while well-intentioned, doesn't take into account the balance of power in this relationship, and how much each is reliant on the other.

But what if, instead, the Australian Government sought to implement more effective tax systems, which then ensured that Google and Facebook paid their fair share? Both Google and Facebook have paid only marginal tax on their earningsin the Australian market because they've been able to funnel their expenses through lower-cost nations like Singapore, in order to reduce their tax burden - but what if they were actually forced to establish operations within the local market, which would not only see them store local user data there, but also require them to adhere to local tax rules?

With many publications struggling amid the pandemic, there's clearly a need for new funding to help them maintain operations where possible. Adequate taxing of the tech giants, in each region, could provide such, meaning that while they wouldn't have to share revenue direct with publishers, as such, they'd be doing so indirectly, with the funding outcomes essentially being the same.

That would be in addition to local jobs, local investment, and localized control of user data. So rather than concern about foreign companies accessing data on citizens, each region would be able to set legal parameters for data access, ensuring that they maintained control over their own information.

In essence, the TikTok/China case puts a spotlight on the new data battleground, which each nation needs to examine closely, especially in light of the ongoing voter manipulation efforts in the lead up to now virtually every national election. Data access allows for such, and the global conversation that happens on social platforms can indeed encourage people's views in other nations, and change electoral outcomes.

If each nation had more control over how their citizens'data was accessed and used, that could limit manipulative capacity, while also, as noted, ensuring that each company pays its fair share.

In which case, the conversation around the CCP accessing your data should really be broadened to any foreign government having access to user data from other regions. The implications of any such change would be far-reaching, but it could be the next step from the current state.

Continue reading here:

Concerns Around Data Access by Foreign Nations Should be Expanded Beyond the Current China Focus - Social Media Today

For months, the world has been asking: how can we avoid a resurge of the pandemic, which would be catastrophic for our economies and well-being? Part of the answer lies in establishing a screening and tracking system for people who have been exposed, in order to prevent them from infecting those around them in turn, writes Pierre Pozzi Belforti.

Pierre Pozzi Belforti is a venture capital investor in the Silicon Valley and professor at Solvay Brussels Business School and at Sciences Politiques Paris.

Many European governments have turned to a digital solution, already established in China and other Asian countries: encouraging citizens to download a COVID-tracking application on their smartphone.

The question is, however, if these applications hide a fundamental problem. When downloading a tracing app, are we introducing a digital Trojan horse into our private lives? While the apps are called free, we should know that nothing is truly free in the digital world.

A customer will always pay for a service, one way or the other. In the digital world, this is often by giving unlimited access to all her or his personal information, possibly combined with a paid supplement via a subscription.

They say that the tracing apps will preserve our anonymity, because sensitive information is stored only on the smartphone. However, in reality, it is easy to associate the identity of the owner of a smartphone with his/her pseudonym.

It is striking to see how technology giants, not least two of the very largest, have seized on the opportunity to offer, together, an application to the authorities. We have never before seen a co-development agreement between the two fiercest competitors arise so quickly.

This willingness to cooperate is undoubtedly a testament to the desire to help build a screening system, but it might also hint at motives that are much more worrying for our free democratic societies.

Any tech entrepreneur and venture capital financier knows that the health sector offers some of the most lucrative income opportunities ahead for these companies. Investment bank Morgan Stanley estimates that the digital health businesses could generate annual revenues above $ 300 billion, just within the next seven years.

We should not take this lightly. Medical data is the kind of data we want and need to protect the most, as it is the ultimate frontier between our body, our most intimate data on our physical individuality, and the outside world.

Sadly, some tech companies are taking advantage of the COVID crisis and disarray it created with European governments to break a taboo and normalize the idea of access to the market for personal medical data by presenting it as a major help for detection of infected people, which was the true soft spot to approach and convince authorities given the urgency

All of this happened with very little open debate. National and European authorities, which pushed in good faith these mobile applications for COVID given the pandemic emergency, innocently and probably unknowingly contributed in opening the first breach on EU citizens most confidential data.

This should have resulted from a large and in-depth democratic debate at the European level very early on. There has certainly been debate in France, in the National Assembly, and it is ongoing in the House of Representatives in Belgium and in some other European countries.

However, a few national debates do not resolve the moral, ethical, social, and eminently strategic problems on Data sovereignty facing the European Union and its citizens.

No independent audit system has been put in place to ensure that collected medical information is deleted in a definitive way after use

No new EU rules have been imposed ensuring that it is not sold to other platforms or data processors, nor any penalties or fines in the event of breaches have been introduced as with GDPR.

Unfortunately, it is today a fait accompli that this highly sensitive data of EU citizens is being captured by the American or Chinese tech giants through apps available on their platforms

The Hippocratic Oath taken by all doctors include the phrase

I will never cheat on their trust and will not use the power inherited from circumstances to force conscience.

I will give care to the needy, and whoever asks for it. I will not be swayed by the thirst for gain or the quest for glory.

Accepted in the privacy of people, I will withhold the secrets that will be entrusted to me. Received inside the houses, I will respect the secrets of the homes, and my conduct will not be used to corrupt manners.

Like doctors, todays tech giants penetrate the most intimate parts of our lives; they are by our side day and night via the digital tools, which continuously accompany and monitor us.

Nevertheless, none of them seem ready to voluntarily follow the rules laid out by Hippocrates 25 centuries ago.

Tech giants do not promise to respect household secrets, not mislead trust, or exploit the power inherited from the circumstances.

On the contrary, their business models are based on surveillance capitalism, which captures all our most private information, including this additional breach into medical data, to exploit them commercially and, even more worryingly, to enhance personal profiling to the extreme with no respect for Privacy and in contravention of basic democratic laws and principles protecting each EU citizen.

In our democratic countries any law enforcement entity, from Police to European Drug Enforcement Agency to tax authorities, are subject to strict laws and existing jurisprudence, and mostly need a Court decision to be able to enter into our home, listen and record our conversations, read our correspondence, capture information on our medical data, etc.

Digital platforms do all this without limitations, without being subject to any legislation protecting our privacy except GDPR (which is not sufficient anymore and needs enlargement of scope and enhanced implementation by national authorities), without any sovereign public control nor independent audit over time.

How was this made possible, and are we still in time for our national and European politicians to turn the scales by firmly ensuring our values and principles to protect the individuals freedom and right not to be subject to such rapacious unlimited harvesting of private information and detailed profiling?

We must protect European citizens from a drift towards what some renowned specialists, like Harvard Professor Emeritus Shoshana Zuboff, have called surveillance capitalism,.

In addition to the unacceptable capture of all our information on our lives, now we risk additional seizing by the digital platforms of medical data that is private for us and truly strategic in terms of enhancing knowledge for Machine Learning and Data gathering, which are two key components of Artificial Intelligence sovereignty.

This will dramatically enhance their future intangible technological power over us, alongside another exponential growth of their financial profits, whilst imprisoning our EU citizens into applications that will be more and more impossible to renounce over time as they gain strength and presence in our daily lives, particularly when capturing the strategically vital digital Med-tech market share

Just on July 16, 2020 we learned that the US government is envisaging a ban on Chinese TikTok social media gaming application because it gathers too much private information from 37.2 million American users of the application in 2019, along with some other 60 applications.

The US is following India that, a few days earlier, has already banned TikTok and 60 other Chinese applications as well.

Clearly, this proves how far these digital applications, even as benign as gaming, can go without the public at large understanding the issues and the risks, whilst the authorities slowly realize the immensity of the hidden world of massive rapacious information gathering that exists behind the scene of supposedly benign, free applications.

Its amazing and very sad to notice that, when it is a matter of protecting US citizens privacy, all measures are conceivable by its government including drastic one like banning an application, whereas not much has been done as of today within the EU on the massive data harvesting that EU citizens have been victims for over two decades by US and Chinese online platforms.

The EU Court of Justice ruling published on July 16, 2020, denouncing the US-EU data-sharing deal Privacy Shield as it fails to protect EU citizens Privacy, is clearly a signal that we need to dramatically strengthen our EU protection policies and avoid being too accommodating as the stakes are extreme.

Indeed, it is a new and unexpected massive geostrategic and vital challenge for the EU, of a scale that has no common ground with other challenges like immigration, terrorism or the new EU budget.

This challenge is emerging from the US and Chinas highly competitive technological race for world supremacy, one that needs to be quickly understood by our top EU decision-makers in all its intricacies, fully grasped, and wisely confronted without delay by elaborating a clear, long-term vision and implementation strategy.

We must set up a system within the EU to ensure ultimate sovereignty and governance over technology within the European Union.

Only in this way can we protect our citizens freedom and full privacy, prevent possible social and economic discrimination, and avoid strategic enslavement of the EU by foreign technology platforms massively harvesting all our data and ultimately imposing unparalleled domination of our societies by foreign countries/blocs.

Last but not least, it is also the mother of all battles to ensure Ultimate Mankind Sovereignty over the emergence of a potentially ubiquitous and dominating Artificial Intelligence that is on the horizon within 15 to 20 years, unless we take an assertive role and adopt an appropriate legislative framework to protect ourselves and our sovereignty both as humans and as EU citizens.

Politicians in Europe have a duty to tackle it quickly and without procrastination.

James Freeman Clarke, an American theologian, and author from the 19th century, said: a politician thinks of the next election, a statesman thinks of the next generations.

When projecting a vision for the EU into the 21st centurys increasingly unstable and unpredictable world, we definitely need more statesmen and stateswomen in Europe having the vision and courage to take our future in our hands.

In the coming 10 years, we must build a technologically sovereign and independent Europe, able to compete on equal footing with the other two main blocs wanting to dominate AI and Data, and be respected for its actions and admired for the defence of the Ultimate Sovereignty of its universal human and democratic values.

View post:

Have we given the tech giants the keys to our privacy and our medical secrets? - EURACTIV

For a while, it seemed that TikTok might dodge the techlash. After all, what could be problematic about a short-form video app featuring a bunch of teenagers and 20-somethings doing choreographed dances, roller skating, hanging out in influencer mansions and cutting into photorealistic cakes?

The answer turns out to be: Plenty.

In the past year, as it has become one of the most popular apps in the world, TikTok has accumulated many of the same problems that other large-scale social networks have. In addition to all the harmless Gen Z fun, there are TikTok conspiracy theories, TikTok misinformation and TikTok extremism. There are even activists using TikTok to influence our elections, including a network of teenagers and K-pop fans who claimed they used the app to sabotage President Trumps rally in Tulsa, Okla., last month by registering for tickets under false identities.

All of this might have been overlooked or forgiven, except for one fact. TikTok is owned by ByteDance, one of the largest tech companies in China.

TikToks Chinese ownership has become a subject of intense scrutiny by lawmakers, regulators and privacy activists in recent weeks. Mr. Trump is considering taking steps to ban the app in the United States. Companies including Wells Fargo, and government agencies including the Transportation Security Administration, have instructed their employees to delete TikTok from their work phones because of concerns that it could be used for surveillance or espionage.

In response to the mounting pressures, TikTok is wrapping itself in the American flag. The company has hired a small army of lobbyists in Washington, has brought in an American chief executive (the former Disney executive Kevin Mayer) and is reportedly exploring selling a majority stake in the company to American investors.

Jamie Favazza, a TikTok spokeswoman, said in a statement that in addition to the chief executive, the social network had an American as its chief information security officer and another as its head of safety.

Weve tripled the number of employees in the U.S. since the start of 2020, she said, with plans to hire 10,000 more people over the next three years in places like Texas, New York and Florida.

There are legitimate concerns about a Chinese-owned company capturing the attention and data of millions of Americans especially one like ByteDance, which has a history of bending the knee to the countrys ruling regime. Like all Chinese tech companies, ByteDance is required to abide by Chinese censorship laws, and it could be forced to give user data to the Chinese government under the countrys national security law. Lawmakers have also raised concerns that TikTok could be used to promote pro-China propaganda to young Americans, or censor politically sensitive content.

Ms. Favazza said TikTok stored American user data in Virginia and Singapore. She added that the companys content moderation efforts were led by U.S.-based teams and not influenced by any foreign government, and that TikTok had not and would not give data to the Chinese government.

There are also reasons to be skeptical of the motives of TikToks biggest critics. Many conservative politicians, including Mr. Trump, appear to care more about appearing tough on China than preventing potential harm to TikTok users. And Silicon Valley tech companies like Facebook, whose executives have warned of the dangers of a Chinese tech takeover, would surely like to see regulators kneecap one of their major competitors.

Ill be honest: I dont buy the argument that TikTok is an urgent threat to Americas national security. Or, to put it more precisely, I am not convinced that TikTok is inherently more threatening to Americans than any other Chinese-owned app that collects data from Americans. If TikTok is a threat, so are WeChat, Alibaba and League of Legends, the popular video game, whose maker, Riot Games, is owned by Chinas Tencent.

And since banning every Chinese-owned tech company from operating in America wouldnt be possible without erecting our own version of Chinas Great Firewall a drastic step that would raise concerns about censorship and authoritarian control we need to figure out a way for Chinese apps and American democracy to coexist.

Heres an idea: Instead of banning TikTok, or forcing ByteDance to sell it to Americans, why not make an example of it by turning it into the most transparent, privacy-protecting, ethically governed tech platform in existence?

As a foreign-owned app, TikTok is, in some ways, easier to regulate than an American tech platform would be. (One way of regulating it, a national security review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States of ByteDances 2017 acquisition of Musical.ly, TikToks predecessor app, is already reportedly underway.) And there is plenty more the U.S. government could do to ensure that TikTok plays a responsible role in our information ecosystem without getting rid of it altogether. It could require the company to open-source key parts of its software, including the machine-learning algorithms that determine which posts users are shown. It could pressure TikTok to submit to regular audits of its data-collection practices, and open up its internal content moderation guidelines for public comment. As Kevin Xu, the author of Interconnected, a blog about United States-China relations, points out, ByteDance could impose strict internal controls to prevent its Chinese employees from accessing any of TikToks systems, and open-source those controls so that outsiders could verify the separation.

Samm Sacks, a cyberpolicy fellow at the centrist think tank New America, told me that some of the solutions being proposed for TikTok such as selling itself to American investors wouldnt address the core problems. An American-owned TikTok could still legally sell data to third-party data brokers, for example, which could then feed it back to the Chinese authorities.

Instead, Ms. Sacks said, the American government should enact a strong federal privacy law that could protect TikTok users data without banning the app altogether.

Lets solve for the problems at hand, she said. If the concern is data security, the best way to secure the data is to put TikTok under the microscope, and put in place really robust and enforceable rules about how theyre using and retaining data.

Forcing TikTok to operate in a radically transparent way would go a long way toward assuaging Americans fears. And it could become a test case for a new model of tech regulation that could improve the accountability and responsibility of not just Chinese-owned tech companies but American ones, too.

At its core, a lot of the TikTok fear factor comes down to a lack of information. In March, TikTok announced that it would open transparency centers where independent auditors could examine its content moderation practices. The company has also begun releasing transparency reports, similar to those issued by Facebook and Twitter, outlining the various takedown requests it gets from governments around the world.

But we still dont know how TikToks algorithms are programmed, or why theyre showing which videos to which users. We dont know how its using the data its collecting, or how it makes and enforces its rules. We should know these things not just about TikTok, but about American social media apps, too.

After all, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Twitter and Snapchat are playing a huge role in the lives of millions of Americans, and for years, they have operated with a degree of secrecy that few other companies of their importance have been allowed. What little we understand about these platforms inner workings is often learned years after the fact, gleaned from insider leaks or repentant former employees.

Some experts see TikToks current predicament as a chance to change that.

I think TikTok is a bit of a red herring, Alex Stamos, Facebooks former chief security officer and a professor at Stanford University, told me in an interview. Ultimately, Mr. Stamos said, the question of what to do about TikTok is secondary to the question of how multinational tech giants in general should be treated.

This is a chance to come up with a thoughtful model of how to regulate companies that operate in both the U.S. and China, no matter their ownership, he said.

The debate over TikToks fate, in other words, should really be a debate about how all of the big tech companies that entertain, inform and influence billions of people should operate, and what should be required of them, whether theyre based in China or Copenhagen or California.

If we can figure out how to handle TikTok an app with a genuinely creative culture, and millions of American young people who love it well have done a lot more than preserving a world-class time-waster. Well have figured out a model for getting big tech platforms under control, after years of letting them run amok.

See the original post here:

Dont Ban TikTok. Make an Example of It. - The New York Times

Uber is facing an uprising from drivers in Europe who want both increased stability and greater freedom and are demanding stronger employment rights and access to their data.

On the employment-rights front, two Uber drivers continue to fight for basic guarantees in the UK's Supreme Court. Uber drivers are classified as independent contractors, which means they are not entitled to sick pay or the minimum wage.

But in 2016, British drivers James Farrar and Yaseen Aslam successfully argued that Uber should give drivers "worker status," which grants them rights like paid holidays and the national minimum wage. Uber has continually appealed that decision and now taken its fight to the UK Supreme Court, where a ruling is expected in October.

It could be a landmark decision for gig-economy workers and a costly outcome for Uber.

Uber's argument is that its platform only connects passengers with drivers, who are given the flexibility to log into the app when they please and turn down rides they don't want to take.

Farrar is a former Uber driver who is involved in both legal cases. He's now the founder of Worker Info Exchange, an organization that hopes to help gig-economy workers in Europe obtain their data.

Worker Info Exchange is one of the founding members of the International Alliance of App-Based Transport Workers, a union fighting for the rights of gig-economy workers. It was formed in January and already has delegates across 23 countries and multiple platforms, including Lyft, Ola, and Bolt, as well as Uber.

In an interview with Business Insider, Farrar countered Uber's depiction of the platform and painted a darker picture of long hours and poor pay. He said he was forced to take all the rides he was offered to chase a 4.4-star average to avoid seeing his account deactivated.

"Uber gives me work, but also I'm obliged to do that work for Uber," Farrar said. "Uber will say you can cancel the job if you like, but you can't do that without incurring some kind of a penalty. If I was truly self-employed, I could cancel all the work I wanted to. It wouldn't make any difference; it's my choice."

He added: "It strikes me as Uber trying to justify a fairly complicated shell game, which ultimately cheats workers. If you're at the lowest rung, and you're vulnerable to terrible exploitation like you can be in the gig economy, then you need the protection of a minimum wage."

Uber says it has changed its model since the 2016 tribunal. For example, it introduced free insurance for its drivers.

Farrar is also part of a second high-profile lawsuit filed on July 20 against Uber in Amsterdam, where the company is headquartered for all of its non-US operations.

This lawsuit seeks to force Uber to release the personal data of drivers, which it claims is hidden in profiles tagged with information about late arrivals, cancellations, and complaints about attitude and inappropriate behavior from customers.

Uber drivers say they believe that the algorithm uses the tags to manage their performance.

"The app decides millions of times a day who's going to get which ride and who gets the nice rides, who gets the short rides," Anton Ekker, the lawyer representing the Uber drivers in the lawsuit, said.

"It's all about the distribution of power. So Uber is exerting control through data and automated decision-making, and it's blocking the access to that," he said, adding that this is a problem throughout the gig economy. "If Uber is forced by the courts to provide more data, this will contribute to workers' rights, to balancing this power relation."

Uber said it had responded to all requests for data.

"Drivers, and anyone else using our app, can request access to the data that we can legally provide," an Uber spokesperson said. "We will give explanations when we cannot provide certain data, such as when it doesn't exist or disclosing it would infringe on the rights of another person under GDPR."

The data-privacy lawsuit is directly connected to the UK Supreme Court case: Farrar said he became aware of what he characterized as hidden driver profiles from the internal communications Uber submitted for its defense case.

The release of such data could be a blow to Uber's argument that its drivers are independent contractors, as it could show that the app does more than just connect self-employed drivers with paying customers.

The lawsuits against Uber are part of a perceived power imbalance in the gig economy, where workers feel they answer to black-box algorithms rather than human managers.

Uber says that using location information to match passengers with drivers leads to more business for drivers, but Farrar said he believed the increasing reliance on algorithms could work against drivers' interest and result in unfair outcomes.

"Uber has a rule that if you reach 4.4 in your ratings, you're deactivated. So basically Uber has outsourced management to the discriminatory view of their customer," Farrar said. "The question then becomes who reaches 4.4 faster? If I'm a white European man from Ireland, am I going to reach 4.4 faster than a migrant worker from West Africa?"

Uber doesn't publicly disclose which rating results in drivers being booted off its platform, but prior reporting from Business Insider put the number at 4.6.

Understanding the data and how it is used by the algorithms is the first step in addressing the asymmetric power between gig-economy workers and tech giants like Uber, according to Farrar.

"The long, hard road that we are on now is how do we organize the dispersed digital workforce? And what is the currency for our organizing? The gateway in the future to worker rights is through digital rights," he said.

A win against Uber could open the floodgates for data-privacy challenges against other apps.

The need to assert the rights of gig-economy workers is now more important than ever, Farrar said, with delivery apps expected to be some of the biggest winners in the post-pandemic economy.

Global customer volume in the digital gig economy is projected to grow to $455 billion in 2023, from $204 billion in 2018, according to Mastercard.

See the original post here:

Uber drivers fight for employment rights and access to their data - Business Insider

Apple has committed to taking the entire company carbon neutral by 2030 as it seeks to set new environmental standards for the tech industry and beyond.

The iPhone maker says it is setting a roadmap for other companies with its plans to reduce carbon emissions by 75%, while outlining new solutions to offset the other 25% of its footprint.The company says that by the time 2030 rolls around, every device you buy from Apple will be 100% carbon neutral.

In a media release, CEO Tim Cook said the commitment represents the dawn of a new era of innovative potential that will have plenty of benefits beyond progress in the fight against climate change.

Businesses have a profound opportunity to help build a more sustainable future, one born of our common concern for the planet we share, Cook said.

The innovations powering our environmental journey are not only good for the planet theyve helped us make our products more energy efficient and bring new sources of clean energy online around the world. Climate action can be the foundation for a new era of innovative potential, job creation, and durable economic growth. With our commitment to carbon neutrality, we hope to be a ripple in the pond that creates a much larger change.

Apple says recycled materials will become and increasingly important part of its product development, while improving its manufacturing process for a greater reliance on carbon-free techniques.

The firm explains: Apple is supporting the development of the first-ever direct carbon-free aluminium smelting process through investments and collaboration with two of its aluminium suppliers.Today the company is announcing that the first batch of this low carbon aluminium is currently being used in production intended for use with the 16-inch MacBook Pro.

Apple is also investing in multiple energy efficiency and renewable energy initiatives while making big commitments to carbon removal projects.

The firm writes: In partnership with Conservation International, the company will invest in new projects, building on learnings from existing work like restoring degraded savannas in Kenya and a vital mangrove ecosystem in Colombia. Mangroves not only protect the coasts and help support the livelihood of those communities where they grow, but they also can store up to 10 times more carbon than forests on land.

Apples data centres have been powered by 100% renewable energy since 2014. We would like to see the company do more in reducing the precious earth materials it uses for its phones and tablets, but Apple is continues to take a leadership role.

Apple adds: All iPhone, iPad, Mac, and Apple Watch devices released in the past year are made with recycled content, including 100 percent recycled rare earth elements in the iPhone Taptic Engine a first for Apple and for any smartphone.

Chris Smith is a freelance technology journalist for a host of UK tech publications, includingTrusted Reviews. He's based in South Florida, USA.

Unlike other sites, we thoroughly review everything we recommend, using industry standard tests to evaluate products. Well always tell you what we find. We may get a commission if you buy via our price links.Tell us what you think email the Editor

Read this article:

Apple is going fully carbon neutral by 2030 will other tech giants follow suit? - TrustedReviews

A highly anticipated congressional hearing on anti-competitive practices, bringing together the heads of four US technology giants, has been rescheduled for noon (1600 GMT) Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee has announced.

The heads of Google, Amazon, Facebook and Apple -- the world's biggest technology companies -- will be testifying at a time of growing complaints about their dominance and amid calls by some politicians and activists to break them up.

The hearing, originally set for Monday, was rescheduled. The committee did not offer a reason, but civil rights icon and long-time congressman John Lewis will be lying in state in the US Capitol on Monday and Tuesday.

Because of the coronavirus pandemic, the four tech leaders -- Jeff Bezos (Amazon), Tim Cook (Apple), Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook) and Sundar Pichai (Alphabet, the parent company of Google and YouTube) -- will be allowed to appear virtually if they wish.

It will be a first congressional appearance for Bezos, who also owns The Washington Post.

Pressure has been growing both from the right and the left -- and sometimes internally -- to do something about the overwhelming dominance of the internet platforms.

The Judiciary Committee has spent more than a year conducting a sweeping investigation into the four companies to determine whether they are guilty of any antitrust abuses and, if so, to consider possible remedies.

This file photo shows the logos of the four giant tech firms whose heads will testify before the US Congress on July 29, 2020, amid rising pushback against their market dominance

(L-R) Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg; Google/Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai; Apple CEO Tim Cook and Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos -- the four are to testify before a US congressional committee on July 29, 2020

See the original post:

US Congress to question heads of tech giants on Wednesday - Yahoo News Australia

WASHINGTON Four Big Tech CEOs Facebooks Mark Zuckerberg, Amazons Jeff Bezos, Google's Sundar Pichai and Apple's Tim Cook will answer for their companies practices before Congress at a hearing Wednesday by the House Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust.

The panel has conducted a bipartisan investigation over the past year of the tech giants market dominance and their effect on consumers.

Its the first such congressional review of the tech industry. It has aimed to determine whether existing competition policies and century-old antitrust laws are adequate or if new legislation and more funding for enforcement are needed.

The four CEOs are expected to testify remotely.

The hearing originally was set for Monday. It was rescheduled to allow lawmakers who are committee members to participate in commemorations at the U.S. Capitol on Monday and Tuesday for Rep. John Lewis, the civil rights icon and longtime Georgia congressman who died July 17.

Go here to see the original:

Zuckerberg, Bezos, Other Tech CEOs Testify on Competition - The New York Times

Land of the Giants season one was a very interesting look at how Amazon is impacting our daily lives. Season 2 is now underway, and its looking at Netflix.

9to5Macs Podcast of the Week is a weekly recommendation of a podcast you should add to your subscription list

Facebook. Apple. Amazon. Netflix. Google. These five tech giants have changed the world. But how? And at what cost? Netflix now has nearly 200 million subscribers, and the biggest companies in media and tech are racing to catch up. In our new season, The Netflix Effect, Recodes Peter Kafka and Rani Molla examine the unique ways the company has disrupted entertainment and completely changed the way we watch

In episode two, Netflixs culture is discussed at length. One of the discussions I really enjoyed is how Netflix looks at employees like football teams do their players: if you can get a better player, why would you not?

Is working on a team of all-stars, excellent pay, and unlimited vacation worth the stress of constant criticism from co-workers and the knowledge that your boss is considering whether to replace you? Netflix execs will tell you that their internal culture is the key to their success.

Ive posed that question to a number of people in the weeks since, and while I dont agree 100%, I do think its an interesting question to answer. Netflix changed a lot with how TV shows and movies are created and consumed, so looking at their past is very interesting.

Subscribe to Land of the Giants on Apple Podcasts, Overcast, Castro, Pocket Casts, Spotify, or RSS.

Dont forget about the great lineup of podcasts on the 9to5 Network.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Check out 9to5Mac on YouTube for more Apple news:

Read more here:

Podcast of the Week: Land of the Giants - 9to5Mac

TikTok has been raiding the offices of U.S. tech giants on both sides of the Atlantic as it looks to significantly increase the size of its global workforce.

Despite the threat of a U.S. ban from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, TikTok announced this week that it plans to hire 10,000 people in the country over the next three years. Its largest U.S. offices are in Mountain View, California, and New York.

The Chinese-owned video sharing app, which already employs 1,400 people in the U.S., has hired dozens of staff from Google and Facebook including several high-profile executives. TikTok and Facebook declined to comment. Google did not immediately respond to CNBC's request for comment.

Worldwide, TikTok employs 172 ex-Googlers and 165 ex-Facebookers, according to analysis on LinkedIn. Breaking out the U.S. numbers, TikTok employs 79 people who used to work at Google and 79 who used to work at Facebook. Some of them left Google and Facebook years ago but many of them have recently quit the Silicon Valley firms to join TikTok, which has become wildly popular in the last year.

Notable hires include Blake Chandlee, who was Facebook's vice president of global partnerships until recently. He left in January after more than 12 years at the company to become TikTok's VP of global business solutions, based in New York.

There's also Chen-Lin Lee, who left Facebook last year after nine years and now works as TikTok's director of partnerships in Mountain View. Prior to Facebook he worked at Google.

TikTok is also hiring recruiting professionals from U.S. tech giants to help it expand in the country. Kim Louie, a recruiting manager at Facebook until March, is TikTok's head of talent acquisitions, based in New York. Louie was a technical sourcer at Google before she joined Facebook.

Raymond Chen left his technical recruiter role at Google's New York office last month to join TikTok's talent acquisition team and hunt out security talent.

It's a similar story in Europe, where Facebook lost another veteran to TikTok recently.

Trevor Johnson, who spent over 11 years at Facebook before becoming Instagram's director of market operations in EMEA, joined TikTok as head of marketing and global business solutions in Europe this year.

Theo Bertram, Google's senior manager of public policy in Europe, left in December to join TikTok, where he is now director of government relations and public policy for Europe.

David Hoctor, who worked in Facebook's global accounts team in London, joined TikTok in April 2019 to work on building the company's partnerships with brands.

None of the TikTok hires immediately responded to CNBC's request for comment.

Timothy Armoo, chief executive of Fanbytes, a company that helps brands advertise through social video, told CNBC that people at Google and Facebook have the playbook for building a large advertising business.

"TikTok is at this crucial position where it's opening up commercially to the brand world, and they need people who can execute on this vision," he said.

Armoo also noted how Facebook has "been through the privacy rite of passage" that every dominant social network goes through. "By equipping themselves with people who understand this dynamic, they are making sure they are future proof," he said. "With the level of momentum they have, I think they can be a real challenge to the duopoly."

Elsewhere, TikTok has hired 57 people who used to work at Amazon and 40 who used to work at Apple, according to LinkedIn analysis.

TikTok has a total of 4,658 employees, according to LinkedIn. However, the actual number could be slightly more or slightly less than this.

TikTok is owned by Beijing-based ByteDance, which reportedly made a profit of $3 billion on $17 billion of revenue last year.

ByteDance, which employs over 60,000 people worldwide, said in March it wants to have 100,000 by the end of the year.

Staff at the U.S. tech giants are paid some of the best salaries in the world.

However, TikTok is also offering big salaries. The company is willing to pay a lead machine-learning engineer an annual basic salary of 200,000 ($246,000), according to a tech worker who claims to have been approached for the role and spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the discussions.

Matthew Brennan, a China-based social media analyst, told CNBC that aggressive hiring practices and poaching of staff from rivals is the norm in the Chinese tech industry.

"Yet,even within that environment, ByteDance is notorious for its persistence and assertiveness," he said. "In the company's early years, the key technical talents were all poached from Baidu,the Chinese search equivalent of Google. The company is well known to offer generous above-market compensation to lure away those it wants."

See the article here:

TikTok lures Google and Facebook employees to fuel aggressive expansion plans - CNBC

But a focus on the wealth also obscures the unprecedented accumulation of power by tech giants and the lack of any significant regulation or incentives for real accountability. They are always going to be very rich, so get used to it, but they dont necessarily have to be as powerful if we act now.

And this must be the main topic of a congressional hearing on Monday when the House Judiciary Committees antitrust subcommittee questions the four top tech leaders: Mr. Bezos, Mr. Zuckerberg, Tim Cook of Apple and Sundar Pichai of Alphabet, owner of Google and YouTube.

The gathering of all four chief executives is a big deal, even if some think that appearing as a group will give each individual leader cover, resulting in less substantive questioning. And there are worries that the event will lack the usual drama, since it is likely to be largely remote, due to the coronavirus.

But its critical that lawmakers block out all the noise that has grown around the industry and aim at only discussing the repercussions of unfettered power. All the major problems related to tech stem directly from this, whether it be privacy violations or hate speech and misinformation or unfair market dominance or addiction or fill in the blank.

We must think of it all as systemic, fueled by complete control over certain areas by tech companies, without adequate guardrails from publicly elected officials, which every other major industry has been subject to. Tech does not play by the rules only because there are no rules to speak of. So why shouldnt they do as they please?

Tristan Harris, a former design ethicist at Google who more recently co-founded the Center for Humane Technology, put it perfectly in a podcast interview with me last year: We need to move from this disconnected set of grievances and scandals, that these problems are seemingly separate: tech addiction, polarization, outrage-ification of culture, the rise in vanities, micro-celebrity culture, everyone has to be famous. These are not separate problems. Theyre actually all coming from one thing, which is the race to capture human attention by tech giants.

And it has become a completely fixed race. Because of their heft, these behemoths block every lane and there is no space for innovative small companies to pass them, especially those that are faster or with better ideas. The debate about breakup or levying fines or writing regulations should also be a debate about innovation. What about all of the useful inventions that do not happen when there is only one or maybe two real games in town in social media, in search, in online video, in apps and in e-commerce.

View post:

Tech Is About Power. And These Four Moguls Have Too Much of It. - The New York Times