Surveillance

Among smart city enthusiasts, digital inclusion — the idea that nobody in the city should be deprived of digital technologies — is an oft-repeated social objective. Despite lofty commitments, the smart city is still a work-in-progress and its record in fostering social inclusion and diversity has been dismal so far. If technological interventions are as apt to deepen divides as redress them, why do proponents insist on the smart city’s promise of lessening urban inequalities?

Attorney General William Barr declared that a deadly shooting in Dec at a naval air station in Pensacola (FL) was an act of terrorism, and he asked Apple in an unusually high-profile request to provide access to two phones used by the gunman. AG Barr’s appeal was an escalation of an ongoing fight between the Justice Department and Apple pitting personal privacy against public safety.

In 2020 and beyond, my principal focus will be ensuring that our communications networks and technologies support security, privacy, and our democratic values. I am optimistic that technological developments, especially 5G standards, will support our efforts to improve network and data security.

1. Social media sites have emerged as a go-to platform for connecting with others, finding news and engaging politically. 
2. Around the world and in the US, social media has become a key tool for activists, as well as those aligned against them.
3. Smartphones have altered the way many Americans go online. 
4. Growth in mobile and social media use has sparked debates about the impact of screen time on America’s youth – and others.
5. Data privacy and surveillance have become major concerns in the post-Snowden era.

The government’s warrantless collection of emails and other Internet data for national security purposes is lawful, but searching that information for Americans’ communications raises constitutional privacy questions, a federal appeals court in New York ruled. At issue is an appeal by a former Brooklyn man who pleaded guilty to supporting a foreign terrorist group and now is seeking to overturn his conviction, saying the evidence against him was obtained through warrantless surveillance that violated the Fourth Amendment.

Every year, Pew Research Center publishes hundreds of reports, blog posts, digital essays and other studies on a wide range of topics. At the end of each year, we compile a list of some of our most noteworthy findings. These are a few striking findings related to tech policy:

Phone logs subpoenaed from Verizon and AT&T put a spotlight on the powerful tools at lawmakers' disposal as they seek to investigate President Donald Trump in the impeachment inquiry. The records were some of the strongest circumstantial evidence included in the House Intelligence Committee's impeachment report, revealing extensive contact between President Trump’s personal attorney, Rudolph W. Giuliani, and the Trump administration during critical points of the Ukraine saga.

Free-speech advocates are challenging the Trump Administration’s policy of requiring foreigners to list their social media accounts as part of their visa applications, alleging in a lawsuit filed Dec 5 that the policy violates federal law and runs afoul of the Constitution.

Internet freedom is increasingly imperiled by the tools and tactics of digital authoritarianism, which have spread rapidly around the globe. Repressive regimes, elected incumbents with authoritarian ambitions, and unscrupulous partisan operatives have exploited the unregulated spaces of social media platforms, converting them into instruments for political distortion and societal control.

1969 was the year that saw the first host-to-host communication of ARPANET, the early packet-switching network that was the precursor to today’s multibillion-host internet. Heading into the network's 50th anniversary, Pew Research Center and Elon University’s Imagining the Internet Center asked 530 of technology experts how individuals’ lives might be affected by the evolution of the internet over the next 50 years. Some 72% of these respondents say there would be change for the better, 25% say there would be change for the worse, and 3% believe there would be no significant change.