Tech Privacy Practices Under Scrutiny After DOJ Subpoenas
We suspect that this story will continue to garner much attention for several reasons:
- It highlights a subversive, potential abuse of power, and the weaponisation of instruments meant to protect consumers from online exploitation. Do the current implied institutional checks and balances operate to counter such abuse?
- Gag orders, in particular, are problematic in obscuring such potential abuse, and the sheer volume of these requests can hamper the tech firms abilities to discern harmful intentions
- These firms are increasingly between a rock and a hard place in complying with government/legal requests, while walking a fine line of living their stated values
India Says Twitter Knowingly Not Complying With Local Laws
India’s Mohdi is increasingly utilising authoritarian manoeuvres to stifle dissent: “The Indian government has been at odds with major social media websites over a new set of sweeping regulations that give it more power to police online content. It requires companies to erase content that authorities deem unlawful, comply with government takedown orders, help with police investigations and identify the originators of “mischievous information.”
“Under the new laws, social media websites and tech companies will also have to remove content within 36 hours after an administrative or legal order is issued. Their employees can be held criminally liable for failing to comply with the government’s requests.”
After banning Tiktok, India is now escalating threats against Twitter. In the meantime, the financial, reputational, and potentially personal liability costs continue to rise for these platforms.
Lina Khan: How America’s Answer to Margrethe Vestager Plans to Take on Big Tech
The regulatory net around tech behemoths continues to tighten with the appointment of Lina Kahn, a known big-tech critic.
Addressing this snowballing threat to shareholder value has been behind our advocacy for robust self-governance at tech firms: if they are tuned in and anticipate material stakeholder revolts, utilising them to evolve good practices, they have a better chance at heading off more punitive regulatory action – and creating enduring value.
Ikea Fined €1.1m by French Court For Spying on Staff
Corporate surveillance is an increasingly fraught area for companies utilising a range of technologies (and old fashioned spying) to suss out competitors, “troublesome” workers and customers. There is a not-so-fine line between anticipating pitfalls, and utilising unethical practices for an edge, as was discovered by Ikea’s executives. It’s a flag raising area for firms (and their boards) to monitor.
Pivot: Interview with Caleb Scharf on Space Exploration
This podcast from Scott Galloway and Kara Swisher highlights two areas we’ve written about extensively:
- The value distribution amongst corporate stakeholders, with executive teams, particularly CEOs currently commanding the lion’s share of upside
- From minute 30, a fascinating confirmation of the growing danger (and associated risks/liabilities) in private companies making decisions with geopolitical implications