The Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School is a leader in the study of the law and policy around the Internet and other emerging technologies.
Social media finally pulled the plug on Donald Trump. Days after Trump incited a riot at the U.S. Capitol, Twitter permanently banned the president from its platform, and many other social media companies like Facebook, YouTube and Snapchat suspended Trump’s accounts as well.
It was inevitable. On Monday, Zoom joined an exclusive club of tech companies – Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Microsoft, Google, Uber, Snap, and more. This club involves companies that have been under a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) consent decree. In a weird sense, for tech companies, being enforced against by the FTC for a privacy or security violation has become an initiation ritual to being recognized in the pantheon of the tech company big leagues. Read more about The FTC Zoom Case: Does the FTC Need a New Approach?
People should no more believe in dystopia than utopia. The fact is that technology has changed the world for so many for so long for the better—from reduction of disease to extending life to increased food and health—that to dismiss those gains is just know-nothingism. As with all technological advances, not everyone shares equally in the gains or benefits in the same way, and some may even experience disproportionately negative impacts, but that does not diminish the overall societal value of the advancements. Read more about Are We Already Living in a Tech Dystopia?
Recently The New York Times published an article about a San Francisco tech executive named Chris Larsen and his efforts to fund a private network of surveillance cameras around the city. Read more about The fallacy behind private surveillance cameras in San Francisco
The Schrems II judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) will reshape the relationship between national security and global data flows. By invalidating the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield agreement, the decision ends a two-decade transatlantic compromise on data exchange. The court found that U.S. surveillance practices were disproportionate and violated the fundamental rights of European Union citizens, who had no effective legal recourse to challenge potential U.S. abuses. Read more about Schrems II Offers an Opportunity—If the U.S. Wants to Take It