Video & slides below…
Jon
The “cloud” has come to mean the storing and accessing of data (including programs) over the internet rather than on on our device (computer, phone or otherwise). The official definition of the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology is: “Cloud computing is a model for enabling convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of […] Read More
Hey everyone, I came across this interesting news out of the UK House of Commons that I thought is relevant to this course. In January of this year, MP Luke Evans proposed the Digitally Altered Body Image Bill, which calls on social media influencers and brands to disclose any digital alterations in photos that they post on their pages. In the words of Evans, the bill requires that “[i]f someone has been paid to post a picture on social media which they have edited, or advertisers, broadcasters or publishers are making money from an edited photograph, they should be honest and upfront about it.” This UK bill follows similar laws recently enacted in other countries, such as Norway, to combat growing trends of body dysmorphia and eating disorders among the youth population associated with exposure to such content online.
I think that bringing a law like this to Canada would be an interesting proposition. On one hand, I very much welcome greater transparency in this space, where the widespread use of Photoshop (in addition to exogenous hormones) has created unrealistic and unhealthy expectations for many people. I also think, in general, greater regulation of social media to make it less stimulating and to thereby curb its use would result in a net benefit for society. On the other hand, however, I wonder what kinds of freedom of speech, artistic expression, and perhaps technological neutrality issues this type of regulation would raise. Furthermore, with the ongoing transition to the more anonymized and decentralized Web 3.0, I wonder how sustainable the efficacy of legislation like this will be in the coming years.
Full article:
https://i-d.vice.com/en_uk/article/m7v3jy/influencers-retouch-social-media-bill-uk
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