Russia demands Apple explain after VK apps removed from App Store

Russia demands Apple explain after VK apps removed from App Store

These apps are being distributed by developers majority-owned or majority-controlled by one or more parties sanctioned by the UK government,” said Apple spokesperson Adam Dema in a statement given to The Verge. “In order to comply with these sanctions, Apple terminated the developer accounts associated with these apps, and the apps cannot be downloaded from any App Store, regardless of location. Users who have already downloaded these apps may continue to use them.

Related:

Apple Removes Russian VK Apps From App Store in Response to UK Sanctions

US partially lifts Iran sanctions to stoke “anti-government protests by providing internet access, the Treasury Department said”

US partially lifts Iran sanctions

Iranian officials have already alleged that forces from “outside the country” are working to stir up unrest over Amini’s death. On the same day that protesters first took to the streets in Iran, China warned fellow members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which Iran joined that day, to beware of foreign-instigated “color revolutions.”

H/T: Syriana Analysis

Related:

Millions rally across Iran to condemn violent foreign-backed riots

“The enemy’s recent plot, which is followed by collecting, unifying, organizing and training all the failed and scattered capacities and equipping them with weapons of violence and Daesh-style behavior, is a vain attempt and doomed to failure,” the IRGC said in the Thursday’s statement.

At least 35 people have been killed, including five security personnel, during the “fiery but mostly peaceful” protests (over 60 ambulances have been destroyed). MEK claims that the death toll is 4X more than is being being reported.

On another note, Elon Musk told Augustin Antonelli that he will “save” Cuba, as well. Agus Antonelli is from the right wing think tank, Fundación Libertad. Fundación Libertad is affiliated with the Atlas Network, which has “quietly” received funding from the NED, the State Department, and the USAID.

No, The Solution For Criminal Defendants Is Not More Clearview AI

from the two-wrongs-don’t-make-a-constitutional-right dept

Wed, Sep 21st 2022 10:43am – Cathy Gellis

The problems with Clearview AI’s facial recognition system, particularly in the hands of police, are myriad and serious. That the technology exists as it does at all raises significant ethical concerns, and how it has been used to feed people into the criminal justice system raises significant due process ones as well. But an article in the New York Times the other day might seem to suggest that it perhaps also has a cuddly side, one that might actually help criminal defendants, instead of just hurting them.

No, The Solution For Criminal Defendants Is Not More Clearview AI

Techbro Influencer Scott Galloway Heads To The Fainting Couch Over TikTok

Techbro Influencer Scott Galloway Heads To The Fainting Couch Over TikTok

This week, Galloway spent his time pushing the hot DC claim du jour: that TikTok is a profound menace to the planet and should be banned. He made the point at the Vox Code conference, then hopped over to Bill Maher’s HBO show to make a similar pronouncement:

Actual evidence of TikTok being uniquely dangerous (especially any indication China has used or could use TikTok to bedazzle U.S. children) has been sorely lacking, but that doesn’t stop folks from heading to the fainting couches. This face fanning has been especially popular among a certain set of xenophobic DC politicians, and companies that don’t want to have to directly compete with China.

The problem: the U.S. is a corrupt, xenophobic, superficial dumpster fire, so most of the “solutions” to this potential problem have been stupid and performative.

Here’s the thing: you could ban TikTok immediately, and China could hoover up location, browsing, and behavior data from an ocean of completely unaccountable and hugely shady data brokers and middlemen. And they can do that because U.S. privacy and security standards are hot garbage. And in some instances, they’re hot garbage because of the same people now complaining about TikTok.

Both Carr and Cruz have extensive histories of undermining regulatory oversight and privacy rules at absolutely every opportunity, yet both are lauded by Galloway in a blog post for being heroic leaders in the “ban TikTok” crusades. Galloway’s a top pundit, yet somehow can’t see that Carr and Cruz are engaged in a zero-calorie xenophobic theatrics, and couldn’t care less about actual consumer privacy.

For literally thirty straight years, at absolutely every single turn, we prioritized making money over transparency or consumer privacy. As a result, consumer privacy protections are garbage, regulators are toothless, governments exploit the attention economy to avoid having to get warrants, and any idiot with a nickel can easily build gigantic, hugely detailed profiles about your everyday life without your consent.

“Banning TikTok” does nothing meaningful if you’re genuinely interested in meaningful surveillance and privacy reform. There will always be another TikTok. There’s an ocean of companies engaging in the same or worse behavior as TikTok because we’ve sanctioned this kind of guardrail-optional hyper-collection and monetization of consumer behavioral data at every step of the way.

Many of the folks beating the “ban TikTok” drum may be well intentioned but just don’t really understand how broken the consumer privacy landscape is. They may not understand that this is a problem that’s exponentially more complicated than just what we do with a single app. Freaking out exclusively about a single app tells me you either don’t really understand the data-hoovering monster we’ve built, or don’t really care if anybody other than China exploits it (waves tiny American flag patriotically).

Many of the other folks calling for a TikTok ban aren’t operating in good faith. Facebook/Meta, for example, spends a lot of time spreading scary stories about TikTok in the press and DC because they want to crush a competitive threat they’ve been incapable of out-innovating. Similar, Politico’s owner is on the Netflix board and simply wants to curtail what he sees as a threat to market and advertising mindshare.

Then there’s just a ton of Silicon Valley folks who believe they inherently own and deserve the advertising market share TikTok occupies. And then of course there’s just a whole bunch of rank bigots who are mad because darker skinned human beings built a popular app, and try to hide this bigotry behind patriotic, pseudo national security concerns.

All of this converges to create a stupid, soupy mess that’s devoid of any actual fixes to any actual problems. Hyper surveillance and propaganda are very real problems that require a dizzying array of complicated fixes, including media and privacy policy reform, antitrust reform, tougher consumer protection standards, education reform, and a meaningful privacy law for the internet era.

Previously:

The NATO to TikTok Pipeline: Why is TikTok Employing So Many National Security Agents?

The White House is briefing TikTok stars about the war in Ukraine

UK uses TikTok influencers to urge teens to get jab after Pfizer-linked vaccine committee chair admits policy lacks evidence + White House enlists army of social media influencers to promote COVID-19 vaccines

Biden doubles down on demanding Big Tech censor “hate”

Some of the world’s biggest tech companies and their social media platforms are ramping up censorship policies, once again under – this time public – pressure from the White House, as President Biden urged them to show accountability for what he said was spreading of hate and fueling of violence.

Biden doubles down on demanding Big Tech censor “hate”

Related:

Communications Decency Act – Section 230

White House Releases Performatively Ridiculous ‘Principles’ For ‘Tech Platform Accountability’ That Include Removing Section 230

from the last-minute-homework dept

Fri, Sep 9th 2022 09:50am – Mike Masnick

During the 2020 campaign, there were a few times when candidate Joe Biden insisted he wanted to get rid of Section 230 entirely, though he made it clear he had no idea what Section 230 actually did. When I wrote articles highlighting all of this, I had some Biden supporters (even folks who worked on his campaign) reach out to me to say not to worry about it, that Biden wasn’t fully briefed on 230, and that if he became President, more knowledgeable people would be tasked to work on stuff, and the 230 stuff wouldn’t be an issue. I didn’t believe it at the time, and it turns out I was correct.

White House Releases Performatively Ridiculous ‘Principles’ For ‘Tech Platform Accountability’ That Include Removing Section 230

Doesn’t matter who’s in charge, they both want to cancel each other and censor whatever they determine is disinformation, whether it’s domestic or foreign policy!

Related:

Communications Decency Act – Section 230

The Supreme Court Already Explained Why California’s Age Appropriate Design Code Is Unconstitutional

from the must-we-always-relive-the-past? dept

Fri, Sep 2nd 2022 09:40am – Mike Masnick

In July of 1995, Time Magazine published one of its most regrettable stories ever. The cover just read “CYBERPORN” with the subhead reading: “EXCLUSIVE A new study shows how pervasive and wild it really is. Can we protect our kidsand free speech?” The author of that piece, Philip Elmer-Dewitt later admitted that it was his “worst” story “by far.”

The Supreme Court Already Explained Why California’s Age Appropriate Design Code Is Unconstitutional

Previously:

Why Is A British Baroness Drafting California Censorship Laws?