Dear Reader:
WHY I’M WRITING THIS
I’ve subscribed you to Taurus Ascending, my new bi-monthly newsletter on digital rights, because I believe you share my passion for this cutting-edge, fascinating, and sometimes horrifying new area of human property rights. Some of you will read this for your interest in civil and consumer rights, others with an eye toward identifying the nascent technologies that will capture our cultural zeitgeist and, therefore, jump-start the next version of tech entrepreneurship. Perhaps you just like my writing :)
These questions find their convergence in the overall debate on property ownership. What is the proper distribution of digital rights — digital human rights (I should say) — as between governments, businesses, and the individuals who support both?
WHAT IS PROPERTY?
One of the most interesting questions posed by economists and game theorists in the past century remains unresolved and subject to continuous, often vehement debate: Should property rights belong to their original “owners” (e.g., finders keepers) or should they shift to new owners who are better equipped to fully exploit such property (per Yoram Barzel’s famous thesis)? This is a particularly relevant question in light of society’s recent reactions to the Covid-19 pandemic. We have seen governments partner with private industry like never before in reaction to the collective terror of an enemy we cannot see, a reaction which risks inviting larger enemies beyond our imagining.
IS PRIVACY PROPERTY?
Under the guise of civil protection, privacy rights are in danger of being stripped away by the growing state of modern surveillance. The Washington Post recently cast a spotlight on location data provider Unacast. If you have a smartphone, chances are you have contributed to the Corona-virus surveillance effort. Data has and is being mined from most of the apps that we find so indispensable as we navigate, check-in, tweet and post. The problem at hand is the nearly involuntary surrender of personal data with a few simple keystrokes. Keystrokes that bypass pages legaleze, virtually unreadable to laymen, allowing for the collection, sale and distribution of information. The consumer is woefully unaware of the way the information is used and generally surrenders it without hesitation.
We are quick to embrace the benefits of this new information in the name of public safety e.g. the “Covid-19 Data tool kit” from Unacast. Now that this data is in use, who should control it? Who will use it, and for what purpose?
MARRIAGE OF TECHNOLOGY AND GOVERNMENT
Perhaps social distancing will prove the most effective method in our battle against pandemic. But the question remains: How wise is it to empower government institutions beyond their traditional bailiwicks, especially when so many have died in history to curb analogous government powers and oversight? When governments and private institutions represent the biggest players on the block, far overshadowing the power of an individual consumer, do we want such institutions playing in accord when, in the past, we have traditionally relied on government to curb the privacy of tech companies that have overstepped consumer consent?
In 2019 the FTC fined Facebook $5bn for violating privacy laws, and has also faced increasing scrutiny and legal action in the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Ireland (the location of its EU headquarters), and others. Likewise, do we want to encourage such private-public partnerships when we had often resorted to technology as a means to escape the yoke of overreaching government control? In China (where FB is forbidden) social media users have taken to code in an effort to bypass active government censorship of any dialog dealing with Covid-19. Do we want these institutions on the same page with respect to questions of censorship and user identity?
This question of informed consent has also, once again, reared in the context of seemingly innocuous data collection. Recently, Avast Antivirus has come under fire for collecting user browsing data, selling every click to big name retailers and service providers. Subsequently, Avast CEO Ondrej Vleck apologized, openly admitting that the data collection practices were not in line with the company's “privacy priorities” and announced the shut down of it’s data collection arm. But, of course, to what extent will such recurring violations push consumers to seek tech solutions that expressly provide for consumer data security as a main feature rather than ancillary throwaway promise? And what technologies would such offerings adopt in order to bridge a historically broken consumer trust?
RECLAIMING OUR DIGITAL HUMAN RIGHTS
The recent emergence of blockchain and cryptocurrency has suggested a trustless alternative to industries that have traditionally required trust in central authorities (e.g., banking). Such technologies, which make it impossible for a central actor to engage in take-backs on its promises, seek to ensure that companies follow policies that consumers have traditionally relied upon their governments to enforce. In the recent case of AT&T walking back on its promise to US Congress not to restrict popular shows on its Time Warner offerings, AT&T went ahead and restricted such content so that its highly anticipated service, HBO Max, could carry more exclusive offerings to stream. (Its promise to Congress had cost the company 1.6 billion in revenue in AT&T’s first quarter).
In the absence of government teeth enforcing promises made by monopolistic industry players, the ability to lock such players into their promises could prove an attractive expansion of the traditionally finance-centric focus of blockchain technology. Likewise, would such technology allow people to feel safe providing personal data toward noble and necessary causes, such as research during the current Covid-19 crises, assuming a trustless assurance that the data would be used for only its limited, stated purpose?
The genie is out of the bottle. A world in crisis has in some cases forced, and in other cases needlessly empowered, government and tech companies to collect and use more human digital property than potentially necessary. As Lord Acton once predicted, abuse will never be a question of if but one of when. To which end, I expect we will see greater consumer demand and, therefore emerging technologies to meet that demand, in the areas of privacy, tracking controls, and overall reclamation of user data. The near future will show humanity struggle to find the right balance with technology that forms a double-edged sword: that of improving human existence while, at the same time, threatening to enslave it.
I will continue to opine on these questions and highlight additional trends in future letters of Taurus Ascending. Thank you for reading.
Yours,
Tim Bukher
P.S.,
I am scheduled to speak at the Blockchain Developers, Miners, and Investors Forum on June 6-7, 2020 (via Zoom). We have a series of very interesting speakers if you’re interested in decentralized solutions/technology/human rights.