Here is a link to latest news on a Ghanaian facing treason charges over Facebook post he made.
https://punchng.com/ghana-detains-activist-over-coup-comments-on-facebook/
Here is a link to latest news on a Ghanaian facing treason charges over Facebook post he made.
https://punchng.com/ghana-detains-activist-over-coup-comments-on-facebook/
Here’s the article: https://www.fastcompany.com/90720719/sony-built-an-ai-that-can-beat-you-at-video-games-with-honor
The most interesting part of this article to me is the following: “experts say Sophy’s achievements stand out in its capacity to behave aggressively, yet still fairly, and to observe the gamers’ code of conduct beyond just the letter of the law—in other words, to embody the subtle nuances of human character”. In this instance, the developers decided to aim for a bot that would act in a “fair” way in accordance to how players are implicitly expected to behave online, but there is currently no legal incentive or penalty shaping that aspect of their objective. I know in the syllabus we will be touching on regulation of the internet and potentially content on the internet, and I find that this article raises interesting questions as to how interactions with AI entities online may be regulated. If you’re interested in this subject, there’s a great paper discussing potentially manipulative behaviour by online service providers through AI agents that interact with users: Bots, Babes and the Californication of Commerce https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=705002
Hi everyone,
Hope all of your exam seasons are going well so far! Found an article (link at the bottom) that details some of the recent news concerning the latest Facebook data breach from a couple weeks ago , and more specifically how it relates to the company’s GDPR (non) compliance. While the breach occurred at/extended into a time when the GDPR was fully active, Facebook made no disclosure of the incident to the Irish Data Protection Commission, which recently opened an investigation into the leak. As I mentioned in my presentation, the GDPR includes data breach notification requirements under which data controllers must notify the relevant regulatory authorities if they believe it is likely to constitute a risk to users’ rights and freedoms (and must do so without undue delay).
Knowing that a breach entails these legal obligations, Facebook has avoided describing the incident as such, and has downplayed the significance of the leaked information by essentially attempting to shift some of the blame to users for leaving Facebook’s default privacy settings in place, thereby making the leaked information “publicly available” in the first place and thus uncovered by the GDPR. However, even if this is true (article implies that it might not be), the GDPR still requires controllers to apply privacy by design and to adequately secure personal data; Facebook’s compliance with both of these requirements seems pretty questionable here. This article and situation raise pretty big questions about how Facebook needs to deal with incidents like this in the future, which seem inevitable due to Facebook’s demonstrated approach to privacy and GDPR compliance.
Facebook’s tardy disclosure of breach timing raises GDPR compliance questions
The CRTC announced today that they are requiring the “dominant mobile providers” to grant wholesale access to their networks to resellers. In theory, this is supposed to encourage more competition, faster, for cell phone plans and help push down the current in-market prices. This is pretty similar to how the larger internet providers are required to allow third party providers to use their lines in order to provide alternate service to customers (like TekSavvy using Rogers lines in order to provide service to a customer).
In the same regulatory policy, the CRTC also announced that they are stepping in and regulating a low cost mobile wireless plan required to be carried by the national wireless carriers (and SaskTel) where they exercise market power. Their requirements are detailed below – the CRTC decision says the low cost plans must be offered within 90 days of the decision (as of April 15, 2021). With the entry of MVNOs into the market and the inclusion of this new “low cost” mobile wireless plan, it will be interesting to see what changes come into the market in the near future!
CBC article on MNVOs: https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/crtc-mvno-wireless-1.5989357
CRTC Regulatory Policy: https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2021/2021-130.htm
Hi everyone,
I came across this article about how big tech’s next communications tug-of-war is happening at an extraterrestrial level: https://www.geekwire.com/2021/critics-take-aim-spacex-starlink-amazon-kuiper-satellite-constellations/
I’m not clued into this subject enough to offer expert insights, but to me, it seems like big tech’s new race for satellite communications dominance could take our discussions about communications conglomerates’ antitrust concerns from a largely national (e.g., Shaw/Rogers, Disney/ESPN) scale to a truly global one. From what I understand, the market for residential satellite internet is still relatively limited.
If you’re curious, early reviews of Starlink are starting to come in, and they’ve been quite positive so far. Here are some impressions from a cybersecurity expert: https://www.inverse.com/innovation/spacex-starlink-beta-impressions
Have a great weekend!