Surveillance

The other bit of background worth understanding here is that Meta has been desperately seeking a path to regulatory capture for quite some time now. It’s been practically begging for Congress to pass child safety legislation that only the largest companies (like itself) could comply with. Indeed, Meta has done this before. It went against the rest of the internet industry in embracing FOSTA, again to try to create a regulatory moat. So this shouldn’t be surprising.

Meta’s failed forays into the “metaverse” and AI have shown that it’s been pretty consistently losing the innovation race, and the government granting it a regulatory moat that smaller competitors can’t cross would be a godsend.

And it’s even better when it can be done in a way that looks like Meta “losing” a lawsuit.

So that’s what Meta gets here. They “settle” the lawsuit so the AGs and Meta haters can all claim that they’ve “protected the children.” Meta pays out over a decade — enough that it’s taking a $10 billion legal charge in Q3, which stings for a bit but will mostly be forgotten by next year. Meta can easily eat the cost. And then Meta agrees to implement a bunch of kid safety features, most of which we have no idea whether they actually protect any kids. Notably, a legislature could not have mandated most of these features without running straight into the First Amendment — but coming out of a settlement, they carry the imprimatur of law anyway (more on that in a moment), and the structure of the agreement makes it so that Meta has to actively encourage Google and TikTok to take identical steps, thereby setting in concrete what steps any platform will have to take to be considered following “best practices” and therefore acceptable to most of the country’s Attorneys General.

[…]

You can argue that these feature changes sound like they should help kids. Limiting access to two hours a day (unless parents grant more, which many will), lights out at midnight, disappearing like counts — these all sound like they’ll help some kids. But if it turns out that locking kids out of these systems actually pushes the most vulnerable ones to darker places with no trust & safety team at all, you won’t hear about that from Meta or the AGs.

We just spent three years teaching the entire industry that if you do research on child safety, you’ll have it held against you. Do we really think that all of this is going to actually enable anyone to figure out what works to help actual kids?

Meta bought itself a moat. The AGs bought themselves headlines that will be useful next election season. And every teenager in the country was just automatically enrolled in an untested experiment. There’s a five year independent auditor requirement to confirm that Meta follows the rules. But not to see if the rules work.

Another brilliant rant from Girl on the Net. [Standard disclaimer: She's a sex blogger, so some of the ads on her site may not be the sort you want your boss to see over your shoulder. Assuming you read blogs during working hours. And if not, why not?]

Wiki isn’t the only site concerned about censorship, though, and early implementation of age verification in the UK shows that it – like any attempt to regulate ‘porn’ – ends up catching a lot of other content too. Reddit users have already begun documenting subreddits that have been age-gated, including support forums for sexual assault survivors and help on how to quit smoking. On top of this, a tonne of LGBTQ+ content and sex education has already been caught in the net. Expect much much more of this to happen going forward.

This isn’t a question of just getting the government to write in exemptions, either. Although Wikipedia may earn an exemption through the court case (I hope it does), one of the core problems with the Online Safety Act in implementation is that the definitions are incredibly broad and the penalties are potentially extremely harsh. Websites need to assess whether they have a ‘significant number’ of UK users – what’s significant? 10% of total traffic? 10 people? 10,000 visitors per month? They also need to consider whether it’s likely to be accessed by children. What does that mean – ‘likely’? Sites which aren’t marketed to children or shared in any spaces where children are likely to be browsing… are they exempt? We don’t know. What we do know, however, is that sites which do not comply will be investigated by Ofcom, and potentially fined up to 10% of their annual revenue or £18 million – whichever is greater. The chilling effect of penalties like this, especially when combined with ‘guidance’ from the regulator that could generously be described as ‘vague’ means that any site with any content that could potentially be classed as ‘harmful to children’ would be taking a giant leap into the expensive unknown if they didn’t proactively comply. And compliance with ‘age verification’ is costly and time consuming: I personally can’t afford to do it, which is why I’ve just blanket blocked UK users from hearing the audio. Many other sites – both adult and non-adult – are coming to the same conclusion. Check out the Blocked page, from the Open Rights Group, which is tracking site closures and blocks as a result of the Act. Submit any sites you know of that are doing this too – let’s keep track of what we’re losing.

So there’s another harm: you’re not just losing access to this content unless you hand over private details, in many many cases (particularly with smaller sites and services) you’re losing access to it entirely. Even flashing your passport won’t get you to the content, because the site owner can’t afford to hire a bouncer to check your ID.

[…]

The UK government’s implementation of AV, without any exemption or concession for small sites, essentially means that those with the deepest pockets will get the most traffic. That means the large, ‘free’ porn tube sites – already an extremely dominant force in the adult industry, hoovering up a lot of the money and even shaping how we define ‘porn’ in the first place – will only become bigger and more powerful. Meanwhile those smaller sites trying to swim against the tide, offering a view of sexuality that is broader and more diverse than what you see on the front page of TubeFuck will struggle to get traction. As TechDirt put it this week:

   “This is exactly what happens when you regulate the internet as if it’s all just Facebook and Google. The tech giants can absorb the compliance costs, but everyone else gets crushed.”

After I attended a pro-Palestine protest at Cornell University—for all of five minutes—the administration’s rhetoric about cracking down on students protesting what we saw as genocide forced me into hiding for three months. Federal agents came to my home looking for me. A friend was detained at an airport in Tampa and interrogated about my whereabouts.

[…]

Weeks later, in Geneva, Switzerland, I received what looked like a routine email from Google. It informed me that the company had already handed over my account data to the Department of Homeland Security.

At first, I wasn’t alarmed. I had seen something similar before. An associate of mine, Momodou Taal, had received advance notice from Google and Facebook that his data had been requested. He was given advanced notice of the subpoenas, and law enforcement eventually withdrew them before the companies turned over his data. 

I assumed I would be given the same opportunity. But the language in my email was different. It was final: “Google has received and responded to legal process from a law enforcement authority compelling the release of information related to your Google Account.”

[…]

Months later, my lawyer at the Electronic Frontier Foundation obtained the subpoena itself. On paper, the request focused largely on subscriber information: IP addresses, physical address, other identifiers, and session times and durations.

But taken together, these fragments form something far more powerful—a detailed surveillance profile. IP logs can be used to approximate location. Physical addresses show where you sleep. Session times would show when you were communicating with friends or family. Even without message content, the picture that emerges is intimate and invasive.

What this experience has made clear is that anyone can be targeted by law enforcement. And with their massive stores of data, technology companies can facilitate those arbitrary investigations. Together, they can combine state power, corporate data, and algorithmic inference in ways that are difficult to see—and even harder to challenge. 

Just popping this here, as it seems Canada is preparing to be the next lemming over the cliff.

Governments in the U.S. and around the world are increasingly adopting these restrictive measures in the name of protecting children online. But in practice, these systems create dangerous new forms of surveillance, censorship, and exclusion.

Technologically, the age verification process can take many forms: collection and analysis of government ID, biometric scans, algorithmic or AI-based behavioral or user monitoring, digital ID, the list goes on. But no matter the method, every system demands users hand over sensitive and immutable personal information that links their offline identity to their online activity. Once that valuable data is collected, it can easily be leaked, hacked, or misused. (Indeed, we’ve already seen several breaches of age verification providers.)

EFF has long warned against age-gating the internet. Age verification technology itself is often inaccurate and privacy-invasive. These restrictive mandates strike at the foundation of the free and open internet. They are tools of censorship, used to block people from viewing or sharing information that the government deems “harmful” or “offensive.” And they create surveillance systems that critically undermine online privacy, chill access to vital online communities and resources, and burden the expressive rights of adults and young people alike.

Well, that's Australia. Punching above our weight in punching down, while simultaneously a world leader in shooting ourselves in the foot.

First, by inking this deal, Coles frames itself as future-forward and logistically driven. Groceries and grocery-store labour become more data, just like the hedge funds, healthcare, or immigrants that other Palantir clients coordinate.

Supermarkets have been under fire over the past year for increasing profit margins through a pandemic and cost-of-living crisis, and accused of underpaying workers.

The Palantir deal continues this extractive trajectory. Rather than paying workers more or passing savings onto customers, Coles has chosen to invest millions in technology that will “address workforce-related spend” as part of a larger effort to cut costs by a billion dollars over the next four years. Food (and the labour needed to grow, pack and ship it) is transformed from a human need to an optimisation problem. 

Second, dependence. As my own research found, Palantir clients tend to enjoy the all-encompassing data and new features but also become dependent on them. Data mounts up; new servers are needed; licensing fees are high but must be paid.

Much like Apple or Amazon, Palantir’s services excel at creating “vendor lock-in”, a perfect walled garden which clients find hard to leave. This pattern suggests that, over the next three years, Coles will increasingly depend on Silicon Valley technology to understand and manage its own business. A company that sells a quarter of Australia’s groceries may become operationally reliant on a US tech titan.

Fears about losing jobs to automation have become commonplace, but according to United Workers Union (UWU) research and policy officer Lauren Kelly, who researches labour and supermarket automation, rather than manual work being eliminated, it is often augmented by automation technologies. This broadens the concern from one of job loss to more wide-ranging implications for the nature of work itself. That is, she says, “rather than replace human workers with robots, many are being forced to work like robots”.

In addition to the monitoring tactics used upon workers, supermarkets also direct their all-seeing eye towards customers through an array of surveillance measures: cameras track individuals through stores, “smart” exit gates remain closed until payment, overhead image recognition at self-serve checkouts assess whether you’re actually weighing brown onions, and so on. Woolworths even invests in a data-driven “crime intelligence platform”, which raises significant privacy concerns, shares data with police and claims that it can predict crime before it happens – not just the plot of Minority Report but also an offshoot of the deeply problematic concept of “predictive policing”. Modern supermarkets have become a testing ground for an array of potential rights-infringing technologies.

What’s especially creepy about conflating anti-corporate sentiment with terrorism is that it opens the door to spying on the American people. Counter-terrorism is literally the business of “pre-crime,” in which law enforcement and its intelligence arm work to seek to prevent hypothetical crimes of the future, even where no information exists to suggest any preparations. This is the post-9/11 standard that has become the norm when it comes to well-resourced terrorist organizations like al Qaeda and ISIS. But it should have no place against random shitposters online.

If it sounds like I’m exaggerating when I say there’s a new War on Terrorism, consider Attorney General Pam Bondi’s recent remark calling Molotov cocktails thrown at Teslas “Weapons of Mass Destruction.”

“We are not negotiating” with the vandals whom she has elsewhere deemed “terrorists,” Bondi also declared, as if she were speaking of airline hijackers bargaining to release hostages on an airplane. 

In the early 1950s, a moral panic over gay people swept across America. LGBTQ+ individuals were cast as threats—vulnerable to blackmail, labeled “deviant sex perverts,” and accused of colluding with communist governments. Senator Joseph McCarthy, infamous for the Red Scare, pressured President Eisenhower into signing an executive order purging LGBTQ+ people from government service. With that signature, the campaign escalated rapidly—up to 10,000 federal employees were fired or forced to resign during what became known as the Lavender Scare, a far less taught but even more devastating purge than the Red Scare. The episode remains a lasting stain on U.S. history. And now, it appears we are witnessing its revival: 100 intelligence officials were just fired for participating in an LGBTQ+ support group chat—an internal network not unlike employee resource groups (ERGs) at most companies.

The firings stem from out-of-context chat logs leaked by far-right commentator Chris Rufo on Monday. Sources tell Erin in the Morning that the chat functioned as an ERG-adjacent LGBTQ+ safe space, where participants discussed topics like gender-affirming surgery, hormone therapy, workplace LGBTQ+ policies, and broader queer issues. Rufo, however, framed these conversations as evidence of misconduct, claiming that “NSA, CIA, and DIA employees discuss genital castration” and alleging discussions of “fetishes, kink, and sex.” To Rufo and his audience, merely talking about being transgender and the realities of transition is enough to be labeled “fetish” content.

Eisenhower and McCarthy would have killed for such an easily accessible list of LGBTQ+ federal employees—and the flimsy pretext to purge them.

Within a day of the chat logs’ release, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard announced that all participants in the “obscene, pornographic, and sexually explicit” chatroom would be terminated.

Google continues to show us why it chose to abandon its old motto of “Don’t Be Evil,” as it becomes more and more enmeshed with the military-industrial complex. Most recently, Google has removed four key points from its AI principles. Specifically, it previously read that the company would not pursue AI applications involving (1) weapons, (2) surveillance, (3) technologies that “cause or are likely to cause overall harm,” and (4) technologies whose purpose contravenes widely accepted principles of international law and  human rights.

Those principles are gone now.

In its place, the company has written that “democracies” should lead in AI development and companies should work together with governments “to create AI that protects people, promotes global growth, and supports national security.” This could mean that the provider of the world’s largest search engine–the tool most people use to uncover the best apple pie recipes and to find out what time their favorite coffee shop closes–could be in the business of creating AI-based weapons systems and leveraging its considerable computing power for surveillance.