Key to your door
Is our privacy in this digital age in any way assured? We share our personal data with companies without a clue as to where it may finally land and what algorithm may be mining that to target us back. It is only very recently with scandals (Cambridge Analytica), elections etc. that we have all begun to take cognizance of the potential impact that privacy in the context of recent technological advances can have on us.
Privacy can mean a lot of different thing to different people. One thing though it is not is absolute secrecy. In the modern digital age we share on a daily basis sensitive information over text, email and phone calls. We do that in a spirit of implicit trust. Trusting that the information we share in one context remains in that context and does not obfuscate boundaries.
Computing power has grown leaps and bound. What was not so sensitive information earlier can be mined, collected and analysed en-mass to reveal very sensitive information about any individual.
We have just begun to scratch the surface in terms of regulation to address this problem. In Europe we have General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Which though great in spirit, is still just a start and there is a lot more that needs to be done. The picture elsewhere is not really great either. We usually have a mix bag of consumer protection or other specific laws most of which are decade old and does not address what we need today.
What we need is a transparent control system which balances privacy with other guarantees in a well functioning society eg:- free speech. This fine act is of utmost importance in a democracy as it may very well define where power resides, hopefully in people it does.
Words that matter
There is an excellent book, “The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet” Which talk about a not so well known Section 230 in the Communication Decency Act of 1996. What is so important about this small obscure text in an act? Well not really an American Declaration of Independence but more so a profoundly important piece of law that made the internet possible.
At its core it protect internet companies from any liability arising out of user generated content and also provides immunity from any action taken in good faith. It was meant to protect fledgling operations of small technology companies which are now overlords of much we do. It give broad leeway to tech companies and have helped them tide over numerous court battles.
But with giant tech companies now controlling large aspects of our economy and making inroads every day into many more, the overarching aspect of these protection have come under debate. With US President Donal J. Trump’s recent order narrowing the protection under this act has opened this up for discussion which we may further see embroiled in legal battles.
Whatever may be the outcome I believe both the government and tech companies can do better.
What’s there in a name?
Domain names are a critical piece of internet infrastructure. managed under the umbrella of a Non-Profit - International Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) which has a multi-stakeholder governance involving government official, industry and other representatives. It is an independent body, but some recent events has cast a shadow on how it functions.
Consider the case of ‘.org’ TLD (Top Level Domain) which has served non-profit and non-government organization well over the past decade. It is a corner on the internet which is free (almost) of for-profit activity and online commerce.
It is owned by a non-profit — Internet Society which recently decided to sell it at a consideration of $1.1 billion to Ethos capital. Cause of concern was that selling this to a profitable fund would jack up prices which have so far been caped to raise at 10 percent per year. Another concern is around neutrality — undue interference could dictate who can and cannot sign up on a ‘.org’ domain.
Wrapped in opacity were some events around ICANN eg:- eliminating the cap on ‘.org’ domain, statement from senior office holders, TLDs which were offered at a price of around $ 200,000 to big companies like Amazon (which was objected by South American nations) etc.
Given the importance of domain names. All these events represent a clear risk of being captured by vested commercial interest.