Research

The Open Technology Institute team did a technical experiment at this Spring’s March for Science in Washington (DC) to try and answer these questions and explore new ways of detecting when your cell phone is being surveilled. The increasingly broad use of cell site simulators by law enforcement is controversial for many reasons. As a general matter, the devices themselves indiscriminately invade the privacy of everyone around them because they connect to, and can capture data from, all phones within their range. But the devices have also been used in controversial ways. In particular, they have been deployed disproportionately in areas made up predominantly of people of color.

We decided to conduct an experiment to see whether and how one might be able to detect the use of cell site simulators during a large protest. In particular, OTI conducted a spectrum survey at the March for Science in April 2017 to experiment with ways to identify these devices. Although our results were inconclusive, they gave us new insights into how best to tackle this problem, insights that we and others can apply to future experiments with the same goal: developing tools that give us the power to watch the watchers.

Some 14% of US adults say they have been targeted for online harassment or abuse because of their political views, according to a new report from Pew Research Center. And while Republicans and Democrats are about equally likely to have been harassed online because of their political views (15% vs. 13%), there are some notable partisan differences in their views of the issue. Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say they have heard a great deal about the topic of online harassment (38% vs. 25%). In addition, a larger share of Democrats than Republicans (69% vs. 54%) consider online harassment to be a major problem.

Regardless of political affiliation, women in both parties are more likely than their male counterparts to view online harassment as a major problem, to think offensive content online isn’t taken seriously enough and to prioritize safe spaces over people being able to express themselves freely online.

The US Government Accountability Office was asked to review FirstNet’s progress and efforts to ensure the network is reliable, secure, and interoperable. GAO (1) examined FirstNet’s efforts to establish the network; (2) obtained stakeholder views on network reliability, security, and interoperability challenges FirstNet faces and its efforts to address them; and (3) assessed FirstNet’s plans to oversee its network contractor. GAO reviewed FirstNet documentation, key contract oversight practices identified in federal regulations and other sources, tribal communication practices identified by federal agencies, and assessed FirstNet’s efforts and plans against these practices. GAO also interviewed FirstNet officials and a nongeneralizable selection of publicsafety, tribal, and other stakeholders selected to obtain a variety of viewpoints. GAO recommends that FirstNet fully explore tribal stakeholders’ concerns and assess its long-term staffing needs. FirstNet agreed with GAO’s recommendations.

Do Medicare and Medicaid pay when beneficiaries use two-way video visits to get care from their doctors? It depends. Medicare pays for some two-way video visits—referred to as "telehealth"—if the patients connect from rural health facilities. Medicare is testing new ways to provide health care that allow telehealth coverage regardless of location. Under Medicaid, states may cover different types of telehealth services from different types of care providers. In the 6 states we reviewed, officials from states that were generally more rural said they used telehealth more frequently than officials from more urban states.

A majority of American voters trusts major media outlets more than President Trump, according to a new survey from a left-leaning polling firm. Fifty-four percent of Americans told Public Policy Polling they trust CNN more than Trump, while 39 percent said they trust the president more than the cable news network. Seven percent of voters said they were not sure. Majorities also said they trust ABC and NBC more than the commander in chief, at 56 percent apiece, while 38 percent responded to separate questions that they trust the president more than the news networks. Six percent said they were not sure in their responses. Fifty-five percent, meanwhile, said they trust The New York Times more than the president, while 38 percent chose Trump and 7 percent said they were not sure. And 53 percent said they trust The Washington Post more than the president, while 38 percent chose Trump and 9 percent were not sure.

[Commentary] Recently a small group of economists (I was one) summarized the economic research on network neutrality and Title II. Limiting ourselves to economics articles in the top 300 journals and that used explicit economic models, we reviewed the answers to four basic questions:

• How would regulations restricting ISPs from offering enhanced network features, such as fast lanes, to content providers affect (a) total welfare, (b) network investment, and (c) the variety of content on the internet and content provider investment? (Note: “Total welfare” is value that consumers receive from what they purchase minus the cost of providing the products.)
• How would prohibitions on network termination fees affect total welfare?
• How would prohibiting ISPs from blocking content affect total welfare?
• Are ISPs like the telecom companies for which Congress wrote Title II?

Here is what we found, but in my own words. 1) The effects of restricting enhanced network features on welfare, ISP investment, and content depend on market conditions. 2) It appears that termination fees could be harmful when ISPs compete for providing access to content providers and an ISP would charge content providers that do not directly connect with the ISP. Otherwise, termination fees are helpful. 3) Blocking is harmful. 4) Economic research today supports the idea that internet services are quite important but has not found that ISPs have the monopoly power contemplated when Title II was created.

Campaigns to manipulate public opinion through false or misleading social media postings have become standard political practice across much of the world, with information ministries, specialized military units and political operatives shaping the flow of information in dozens of countries, said researchers from Oxford University’s Computational Propaganda Research Project.

These propaganda efforts exploit every social media platform — Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and beyond — and rely on human users and computerized “bots” that can dramatically amplify the power of disinformation campaigns by automating the process of preparing and delivering posts. Bots interact with human users and also with other bots. Though most social media platforms are designed and run by corporations based the United States, the platforms are infiltrated almost immediately upon their release to the public by a range of international actors skilled at using information to advance political agendas, within their own countries and beyond, said the researchers.

In a national poll of 1,500 voters, 70 percent of respondents — including Democrats, Republicans and Trump supporters — think the internet has improved while network neutrality rules have been in place.

86 percent of all voters say ISPs should treat all websites and content equally. 75 percent of Trump supporters said they agreed that ISPs should continue to follow net neutrality rules prohibiting slowing or blocking websites or video services. 58 percent of Republicans and Trump voters agreed with the statement, "Internet should be treated like any other utility such as gas or electric service." While it won't change Federal Communications Commission Chairman Pai's mind about reversing the rules, the high number of Trump voters who support net neutrality regulations could get some attention. Showing broad backing helps make the case that support for the net neutrality rules is an issue that resonates outside of the coastal bubbles most associated with tech. That's a message net neutrality advocates hope to send to conservatives as they fight an uphill battle to preserve the rules.

There’s an emerging technology that promises to make computing radically more accessible—even obvious and intuitive—and it’s being applied right now to some of our nation’s biggest challenges. It’s called spatial computing, a term used by some to describe augmented reality (AR) technology, and if we enlist it in service of our national priorities, we can ramp up society’s inclusivity, while also empowering citizens. That’s exactly why public officials, nonprofit leaders, and aspiring social entrepreneurs ought to understand its current applications in order to start envisioning strong civic-use cases. Imagine this: What if the information on your desktop computer or mobile phone wasn’t bound to the screen, but instead projected into the space in front of you—such as on your kitchen table, inside your child’s classroom, or into the produce aisle at the grocery store? That’s the basis of spatial computing. Its aim, basically, is to create a sort of Iron Man, just without the suit.

[Commentary] The now-raging battle over the fate of landmark network neutrality rules adopted by the Obama-era Federal Communications Commission just two years ago is, at the same time, a war of ideas. On the front lines is a subterranean network of think tanks and hired-gun economists, lawyers, and others mobilizing their credentials to justify FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s sprint to reverse not just the net neutrality rules, but also a raft of measures on concentration in the broadband, mobile wireless, cable TV and broadcasting markets, broadband privacy and pricing, and on and on. If the rollback is successful, Pai’s FCC will deliver a regulatory agenda beyond the biggest telecom-ISP and media companies’ wildest dreams. Each step of the way, industry-friendly think tanks and front groups have commissioned academics to flood the ‘marketplace of ideas’ with corroborating ideas and ‘white papers,’ often without disclosure. What they’re paying for is the veneer of academic legitimacy.
[Jeff Pooley is Associate Professor and Chair of Media & Communication, Muhlenberg College, Allentown. Dwayne Winseck is Professor at the School of Journalism and Communication, Carleton University, Ottawa, and Director of the Canadian Media Concentration Research (CMCR) Project.]