1. Monthly archive
  2. May 2016

May 2016

In Silicon Valley, Gossip, Anger and Revenge

Silicon Valley likes to keep the media on a tight leash. Tech executives expect obedience, if not reverence, from reporters. They dole out information as grudgingly as possible. Sometimes they simply buy a chunk of a publication, a time-honored method of influencing what is deemed fit to write about. Valleywag declined to play the game. It was a gossip sheet for the digital age: abrasive, knowing, cynical, self-promoting, sometimes unfair. It dispensed snark by the truckload, printing things that people knew or surmised but were off the table. “Silicon Valley is a closed world and has become more closed at the elite levels,” said Fred Turner, chairman of the department of communication at Stanford. “The gossip that circulates between people doesn’t always leap into the media the way it might in New York. So Americans know the Valley primarily through its advertising, its self-promotion and its products.” Valleywag challenged that, and the Valley pushed back.

What the US government really thinks about encryption

The national debate over the growing use of encryption on consumer devices is often framed in stark terms: Silicon Valley versus Washington in a bicoastal battle over privacy. But inside the Obama Administration, a vigorous debate over the merits of widespread encryption is playing out, with many key government figures quietly advocating against any government policy decision or legislation that would force tech companies to weaken privacy-enhancing products to allow greater government access to communications.

“This sort of government versus tech narrative is a mischaracterization,” says a senior administration official, who would only speak under condition of anonymity. “This issue has engendered robust debate in our discussions within the administration.” The diverse views within the administration – and lack of consensus – appear to have contributed to a delay in an expected formal announcement of administration policy.

Facebook data transfers threatened by EU ruling

Irish authorities have warned that a crucial data transfer arrangement relied on by Facebook, Google and Amazon potentially falls foul of European Union rules on privacy — threatening an “Armageddon of global data flows”, according to one lawyer.

So-called “model contract clauses” are now used by thousands of multinational companies to allow them to transfer personal data — whether payslips or pictures — outside the EU, without breaching the bloc’s strict data protection rules. Many of the world’s biggest businesses turned to them in 2015, after the EU’s top court ruled against a similar transatlantic data transfer deal called “Safe Harbour”. For US technology groups in particular, transferring data across the Atlantic is a quicker and cheaper option than building a wholly independent operation within the EU. However, the model contract clauses they have adopted to make their transfers possible now potentially face a similar fate to Safe Harbour. Ireland’s Data Protection Commissioner has said it is passing on its concerns about them to the Irish courts — with a recommendation that the case is settled at the European Court of Justice. Irish regulators suggest that the clauses — in effect, boilerplate legal text approved by the European Commission — do not offer EU citizens suitable redress if they feel their rights have been impinged.

The 5G Triangle

I intend to use this platform to explain how I am approaching some of the 5G policy issues…. We have a deep desire – as well as a necessary interest – in continuing to be the world leaders in wireless innovation. Let it be known far and wide: we have no intention of ceding this leadership role to other nations…. To ensure timely and cost-effective 5G deployment, the Commission must be prepared to step in and move the siting process forward by using the existing authority provided by Congress, and affirmed by the courts, to hold localities accountable for their review processes and ultimate decisions. I realize that this triggers a verboten word: preemption. But that is precisely what must be done if local governments are going to obstruct wireless broadband deployment. In addition, the Commission should be willing to actively resolve disputes caused by locality inaction or hostility.

© 1994-2024 Benton Institute for Broadband & Society. All Rights Reserved.