"Today’s tech oligarchs are worse than the robber barons"

[U-Ute]

I think that it is not far off the mark as I think that there are moments of concern by those who identify on both sides about the power of the tech elites. But overall I think what is happening in technology is a Good Thing. Their maverick attitudes keep these technologies from being immediately co-opted by the existing power structure allowing things like mass public encrypted communication to happen and allowing social change to happen. The "cultural conservatives" don't appreciate the openness technology changes have brought and the "techno liberals" feel uneasy about any of these companies cozying up to the government, but overall I think these are Good Things.

Frankly, I think most of the discomfort stems from the fact that most of these guys who became instant [m|b]illionaires are unaccustomed to being in positions of political power. Guys like Mark Cuban who would throw temper tantrums on the sidelines of Maverick basketball games. I think you're seeing a lot of that right now with Zuckerberg. He's not sure who he is right now so he isn't sure how to wield his power.

So yeah, there is a lot of awkwardness by these people which makes them unpredictable by the power structure, which makes them feel uncomfortable. I don't necessarily see that as a negative though.

[Rocker Ute]

This may be a sidebar to all of this, but I've always chuckled at people concerned about the NSA and government surveillance but who at the same time freely give this information to Facebook, Apple, Google etc., all of whom have a privacy policy that contains a version of this phrase, "We reserve the right to change this policy at any time, for any reason, without notice."

Don't get me wrong, government intrusion into our privacy is very concerning to me, but I think the era of true privacy is largely over.

[LuckyUte]

There is a Supreme Court case coming up about someone who was convicted because of cell phone location data. They were able to prove that he was in the area at the time of the crime. The defendant is claiming that acquiring the cell phone location data requires a warrant before they could get that data.

https://www.aclu.org/news/supreme-co...on-data-case-0

[Diehard Ute]

There is a Supreme Court case coming up about someone who was convicted because of cell phone location data. They were able to prove that he was in the area at the time of the crime. The defendant is claiming that acquiring the cell phone location data requires a warrant before they could get that data.

https://www.aclu.org/news/supreme-co...on-data-case-0

Utah already requires a warrant, other than for exigency circumstances. And cell companies are often reluctant even in a life or death situation to give a single last known location, let alone location history.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[U-Ute]

There is a Supreme Court case coming up about someone who was convicted because of cell phone location data. They were able to prove that he was in the area at the time of the crime. The defendant is claiming that acquiring the cell phone location data requires a warrant before they could get that data.

https://www.aclu.org/news/supreme-co...on-data-case-0

Yeah, that information is not publicly available, so it should be behind a warrant. Similar phone records.

[LA Ute]

This fall, Facebook, Google and Twitter executives were hauled before a Congressional committee after being asked to investigate allegations of Russian meddling. Facebook admitted that 126 million of their users may have seen content produced and circulated anonymously by Russian operatives. Twitter admitted to working with 2,752 Russian accounts, and that 36,000 Russian bots tweeted 1.4 million times during the election. Google testified that 1,108 videos with 43 hours of content related to the Russian effort were uploaded on YouTube, and that Russians placed $4,700 worth of search and display ads on its network.

But this is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of the kind of meddling the social media giants tolerated. And getting a grip on how to address these issues will be no small feat. The social media business model itself is flawed and unethical; the tech giants have usurped the role of traditional news media—without assuming any historic social responsibilities.

https://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/11/27/tech-giants-must-reined/

[U-Ute]

Comcast removed their "no paid prioritization" pledge the day after the new FCC director announced that he is rethinking the FCC's stance on net-neutrality

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ounced-repeal/

[Rocker Ute]

Comcast removed their "no paid prioritization" pledge the day after the new FCC director announced that he is rethinking the FCC's stance on net-neutrality

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ounced-repeal/

This is what I love about all online terms and policy statements, they’ll go on and on about protecting your data or not selling to third parties or pledging no paid prioritization or whatever else a consumer might be concerned about. They all also contain a statement along the lines of “we reserve the right to change this policy at any time for any reason without notice” basically voiding any promise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk