Category Archives: Technology

Europe, European Commission, Government, Politics, Society, Technology, United States

The EU must lay down the law on big tech

DIGITAL MARKETS

Intro: Donald Trump’s administration is seeking to bully its way to the deregulation of US digital giants. In the interests of EU citizens, these attempts must be resisted

HENNA VIRKKUNEN, the European Union’s most senior official on digital policy, has fired a broadside when she said: “We are very committed to our rules when it comes to the digital world”. Such sentiments bring with it the near certainty of a future confrontation with Elon Musk. Ms Virkkunen , who is the EU vice-president responsible for tech sovereignty, also added that: “We want to make sure that our digital environment … is fair and it’s safe and it’s also democratic.”

In recent days, these words were followed by deeds. In the first sanctions handed down since the establishment of the EU’s Digital Markets Act, the European Commission fined Apple Euros500m and Meta Euros200m, after finding them guilty of unfair business practices that exploited their entrenched online “gatekeeper” position. Apple, for example, was judged to have unfairly restricted developers from distributing apps outside its own App Store, where it takes a cut from sales.

Are we to perceive these fines as being a form of tough action or nothing more than tokenism? It is safe to say these fines will not overly concern either company’s accountants. Apple’s revenue last year was Euros344bn. There are also indications that, in other areas, Brussels may be seeking to dial down tensions with the US tech giants as it seeks to avoid a full-on trade war with Washington.

A separate investigation into X (formerly Twitter) under the auspices of the Digital Services Act – which deals with content moderation – found it in preliminary breach of EU rules, following Mr Musk’s takeover in 2022. No fine has yet been issued. Meanwhile there are growing fears that EU regulations on artificial intelligence, intended to reduce the risk of disinformation and political manipulation, are in danger of being diluted under pressure from the Trump administration.

Given the current volatility of transatlantic relations, it is understandable that a degree of cautious restraint is needed. But US bullying of Brussels over its regulation of big tech on behalf of EU citizens must be robustly resisted. Trump’s senior adviser for trade and manufacturing, Peter Navarro, has mischaracterised European digital regulation as a non-tariff barrier and form of “lawfare” against American companies. The reality, though, is more mundane: US market dominance means its tech giants will inevitably be the most affected by efforts to govern a space that is now part of the architecture of everyday life.

That task, vital to maintaining a healthy public sphere, should be kept distinct from fraught trade negotiations with the White House. Easier said than done perhaps, given the US President’s all-embracing mercantilism. Nonetheless, EU politicians – and British ones – must not be intimidated into an ill-judged deregulatory path with potentially damaging implications for democracy.

These fines might have been financially small given the size of the revenues they generate but they do at least represent a necessary statement of intent. Alongside its investigation into X, the commission has inquiries ongoing into TikTok and Meta, also relating to content moderation. MEPs are now calling for those too to be pushed to a conclusion.

This may be the acid test. The US vice-president, JD Vance, has made it clear that the White House intends to act as the political wing of US big tech, and has compared European attempts to combat online disinformation and illegal content to Soviet-era censorship. Ms Verkkunen should remain adamant and stick to her guns – and ignore the flak flying from Washington.

Standard
Artificial Intelligence, Arts, Britain, Economic, Government, Intellectual Property, Legal, Society, Technology

Press freedom, copyright laws, and AI firms

BRITAIN

AMONG Britain’s greatest contributions to Western culture are press freedom and copyright law. Established side by side more than 300 years ago, they underpinned the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, and much of the social change that followed.

They facilitated the free flow and exchange of ideas, opinions, literature and music, and offered legal safeguards for creators and publishers against having their work stolen or plagiarised.

Today, these sacred principles are at risk as never before.

In their headlong rush to develop all-embracing artificial intelligence systems, big-tech firms seem determined to ride roughshod over the intellectual property rights of those whose material they want to appropriate.

Musicians, authors, film and TV companies, artists and media organisations are already seeing their work lifted and used without permission. As the struggle for AI dominance intensifies, this larceny is becoming increasingly brazen.

Worse still, the UK Government appears to be taking the side of the tech giants over the creatives.

In a consultative document on possible changes to copyright law, it has proposed four options. Of these, its “preferred” option is to give a new exemption to AI firms, allowing them to develop their machine learning with copyrighted material without permission unless the holder actively opts out of the process.

Ministers have claimed such a change would give creators more control, but this is an illusion.

One of the strengths of British copyright is that it’s automatic. Works do not have to be registered to be protected from being stolen.

That means individual artists and the smallest local news sites have the same rights and protections as the largest publishers.

Permitting AI firms to take what they want unless rights have been reserved is like telling burglars they can walk into homes unless there is a note on the door asking them not to. In any case, there is no effective technical means of reserving rights and creatives will often be unaware their material has been “scraped”.

It would be far better to strengthen rather than weaken copyright legislation so it can be enforced quickly and effectively against infringements by AI developers. The onus should surely be on them not to break the law in the first place.

Everyone understands that AI is a vast and growing phenomenon which will be of enormous benefit in fields such as healthcare and business efficiency.

Many people will also appreciate the Government’s desire for Britain to be at the forefront of this technological revolution. But that cannot be used as cover to trample over crucial rights and freedoms.

Ingesting the entire output of the British music industry or mass-market news websites will not contribute anything to medical research.

Neither will it do much for our economy, as most of the profits generated by the tech companies will be taken out of the country.

It is both surprising and troubling that the Government has done no analysis of the economic impact of its proposal.

The UK has the world’s second largest creative sector, generating an estimated £126billion a year and supporting 2.4million jobs. Relaxing copyright law would cause it incalculable damage.

We also have vibrant, free and media pluralism – for now at least.

Our traditional press is in the process of rapid flux, as print gradually gives way to new digital platforms and revenue streams. But the fundamentals remain the same – to inform and entertain the public with fair, accurate, challenging and well-written journalism.

In this age of conspiracy, disinformation, and fake news, trusted sources of information and commentary are more important than ever. But it costs money to produce them, and if every article can immediately be copied without payment, then generating the revenue needed to sustain reliable journalism becomes impossible.

A free and independent media has long been a cornerstone of our democracy, but it is under very serious threat. We take it for granted at our peril.

Standard
Government, History, Intelligence, Israel, Lebanon, Middle East, Technology

Hezbollah’s indignant fury

MIDDLE EAST

THE terrifying attacks this week on thousands of pagers operated by Hezbollah across Lebanon is being perceived as the Pearl Harbour of the 21st century.

When the Japanese Navy Air Service bombed Pearl Harbour in 1941, their aim was to knock out America’s air power in the Pacific and prevent the US from joining the Second World War.

But, as history shows, they achieved precisely the opposite. Roused to indignant anger, the American public were instantly committed to the Allied cause – and Japan found itself facing a new and mighty enemy.

The operation carried out against Hezbollah and the Lebanese was spectacular on its own merits (despite the wickedness of the attacks) – with at least nine fatalities and more than 3,000 seriously injured.

Yet its wider significance is certain to resonate in the months and years to come.

If Israel, like Imperial Japan before it, thought this massive attack would serve to dissuade Hezbollah’s fighters from entering a full-scale war with the Jewish state, many should fear they will be disappointed.

Already the Islamists will be plotting their revenge – and Israeli PM Benyamin Netanyahu has been locked in talks at his defence ministry’s HQ in Tel Aviv over how to respond to a potential escalation.

Critically, however, many will be asking how did Israel actually achieve this?

There are several competing theories. The Israelis could have planted old-fashioned booby traps in the thousands of pagers – which are said to have been delivered to Hezbollah fighters only in recent days.

More likely, is that the pagers were pre-loaded with a sophisticated computer virus that caused them to deliberately overheat, resulting in their lithium batteries catching fire.

This is a known risk of the batteries used in many electronic devices – and is part of the reason why airlines refuse to let passengers carry laptops in their checked luggage.

In whatever way Israel carried out the operation, it’s ironic that Hezbollah’s militants only recently swapped mobile phones for pagers in the belief that they were more secure.

Famously, mobiles carry GPS software that allows the devices – and therefore their users – to be tracked anywhere in the world.

A few weeks ago, Hamas’s political chief Ismail Haniyeh was hunted to a guesthouse in the Iranian capital of Tehran – and eliminated. Experts believe his assassination was possible only because his phone was being tracked.

The truth is that Israel excels at precisely this kind of warfare. Decades of facing down hostile neighbours that vastly outnumber its own citizens has led to the embattled Middle East developing a fearsome array of sophisticated military tools, from nuclear missiles and tanks to cyber-weapons.

Combined with this is the ruthlessness of its famed secret intelligence agency, Mossad, in tracking down and eliminating its enemies, from the perpetrators of the Munich Olympics massacre onwards. As we have seen, Mossad always gets its man – or men – in the end.

So, what comes next? If reports are right, and one in 30 of Hezbollah’s fighters have indeed been put out of action due to the pager attack, that will present a severe impediment to the group’s operational capability. The leadership will also be asking questions about how to communicate securely with its fighters in future.

With Hezbollah’s military organisation disrupted, the Israelis might decide to invade a portion of southern Lebanon to create a “buffer zone” that could protect civilians in northern Israel from rocket attacks.

Some experts will have concerns about this “contained” approach. For all the brutal ingeniousness of the pager attack, the consequences for regional security could be dire.

Instead, the pager operation is far more likely to be the prelude to another all-out Israel-Lebanon War – with grim consequences for world peace and stability.

Hezbollah’s allies, Iran and Syria, will inevitably be anxious and worried that Israeli intelligence could do the same to them. But even those Arab countries with diplomatic relations with Israel, such as Egypt and Jordan, must now be asking themselves how safe they really are – and whether or not their communication networks are secure. This will weaken Israel’s ability to build friendships in the region.

And there could be consequences for us, too. Western democracies will already be assessing what this novel form of warfare means for them – and how they might be able to copy Israel’s methods.

History teaches us that no new military technique remains a monopoly of its inventor for long. How long before Putin or Xi Jinping works out how to make millions of iPhones around the world burst into flames in the pockets of their foes?

Standard