net.wars

Cognitive dissonance

The annual State of the Net, in Washington, DC, always attracts politically diverse viewpoints. This year was especially divided.

Three elements stood out: the divergence between the only remaining member of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) and a recently-fired colleague; a contentious panel on content moderation; and the yay, American innovation! approach to regulation.

As noted previously, on January 29 the days-old Trump administration fired PCLOB members Travis LeBlanc, Ed Felten, and chair Sharon Bradford Franklin; the remaining seat was already empty.

Not to worry, remaining member Beth Williams, said. “We are open for business. Our work conducting important independent oversight of the intelligence community has not ended just because we’re currently sub-quorum.” Flying solo she can greenlight publication, direct work, and review new procedures and policies; she can’t start new projects. A review is ongoing of the EU-US Privacy Framework under Executive Order 14086 (2022). Williams seemed more interested in restricting government censorship and abuse of financial data in the name of combating domestic terrorism.

Soon afterwards, LeBlanc, whose firing has him considering “legal options”, told Brian Fung that the outcome of next year’s reauthorization of Section 702, which covers foreign surveillance programs, keeps him awake at night. Earlier, Williams noted that she and Richard E. DeZinno, who left in 2023, wrote a “minority report” recommending “major” structural change within the FBI to prevent weaponization of S702.

LeBlanc is also concerned that agencies at the border are coordinating with the FBI to surveil US persons as well as migrants. More broadly, he said, gutting the PCLOB costs it independence, expertise, trustworthiness, and credibility and limits public options for redress. He thinks the EU-US data privacy framework could indeed be at risk.

A friend called the panel on content moderation “surreal” in its divisions. Yael Eisenstat and Joel Thayer tried valiantly to disentangle questions of accountability and transparency from free speech. To little avail: Jacob Mchangama and Ari Cohn kept tangling them back up again.

This largely reflects Congressional debates. As in the UK, there is bipartisan concern about child safety – see also the proposed Kids Online Safety Act – but Republicans also separately push hard on “free speech”, claiming that conservative voices are being disproportionately silenced. Meanwhile, organizations that study online speech patterns and could perhaps establish whether that’s true are being attacked and silenced.

Eisenstat tried to draw boundaries between speech and companies’ actions. She can still find on Facebook the sme Telegram ads containing illegal child sexual abuse material that she found when Telegram CEO Pavel Durov was arrested. Despite violating the terms and conditions, they bring Meta profits. “How is that a free speech debate as opposed to a company responsibility debate?”

Thayer seconded her: “What speech interests do these companies have other than to collect data and keep you on their platforms?”

By contrast, Mchangama complained that overblocking – that is, restricting legal speech – is seen across EU countries. “The better solution is to empower users.” Cohn also disliked the UK and European push to hold platforms responsible for fulfilling their own terms and conditions. “When you get to whether platforms are living up to their content moderation standards, that puts the government and courts in the position of having to second-guess platforms’ editorial decisions.”

But Cohn was talking legal content; Eisenstat was talking illegal activity: “We’re talking about distribution mechanisms.” In the end, she said, “We are a democracy, and part of that is having the right to understand how companies affect our health and lives.” Instead, these debates persist because we lack factual knowledge of what goes on inside. If we can’t figure out accountability for these platforms, “This will be the only industry above the law while becoming the richest companies in the world.”

Twenty-five years after data protection became a fundamental right in Europe, the DC crowd still seem to see it as a regulation in search of a deal. Representative Kat Cammack (R-FL), who described herself as the “designated IT person” on the energy and commerce committee, was particularly excited that policy surrounding emerging technologies could be industry-driven, because “Congress is *old*!” and DC is designed to move slowly. “There will always be concerns about data and privacy, but we can navigate that. We can’t deter innovation and expect to flourish.”

Others also expressed enthusiasm for “the great opportunities in front of our country”, compared the EU’s Digital Markets Act to a toll plaza congesting I-95. Samir Jain, on the AI governance panel, suggested the EU may be “reconsidering its approach”. US senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) highlighted China’s threat to US cybersecurity without noting the US’s own goal, CALEA.

On that same AI panel, Olivia Zhu, the Assistant Director for AI Policy for the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, seemed more realistic: “Companies operate globally, and have to do so under the EU AI Act. The reality is they are racing to comply with [it]. Disengaging from that risks a cacophony of regulations worldwide.”

Shortly before, Johnny Ryan, a Senior Fellow at the Irish Council for Civil Liberties posted: “EU Commission has dumped the AI Liability Directive. Presumably for “innovation”. But China, which has the toughest AI law in the world, is out innovating everyone.”

Illustrations: Kat Cammack (R-FL) at State of the Net 2025.

Wendy M. Grossman is the 2013 winner of the Enigma Award. Her Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of earlier columns in this series. She is a contributing editor for the Plutopia News Network podcast. Follow on Mastodon or Bluesky.

What we talk about when we talk about computers

The climax of Nathan Englander‘s very funny play What We Talk About When We Talk About Anne Frank sees the four main characters play a game – the “Anne Frank game” – that two of them invented as children. The play is on at the Marylebone Theatre until February 15.

The plot: two estranged former best friends in a New York yeshiva have arranged a reunion for themselves and their husbands. Debbie (Caroline Catz), has let her religious attachment lapse in the secular environs of Miami, Florida, where her husband, Phil (Joshua Malina), is an attorney. Their college-age son, Trevor (Gabriel Howell), calls the action.

They host Hasidic Shosh (Dorothea Myer-Bennett) and Yuri (Simon Yadoo), formerly Lauren and Mark, whose lives in Israel and traditional black dress and, in Shosh’s case, hair-covering wig, have left them unprepared for the bare arms and legs of Floridians. Having spent her adult life in a cramped apartment with Yuri and their eight daughters, Shosh is astonished at the size of Debbie’s house.

They talk. They share life stories. They eat. And they fight: what is the right way to be Jewish? Trevor asks: given climate change, does it matter?

So, the Anne Frank game: who among your friends would hide you when the Nazis are coming? The rule that you must tell the truth reveals the characters’ moral and emotional cores.

I couldn’t avoid up-ending this question. There are people I trust and who I *think* would hide me, but it would often be better not to ask them. Some have exceptionally vulnerable families who can’t afford additional risk. Some I’m not sure could stand up to intensive questioning. Most have no functional hiding place. My own home offers nowhere that a searcher for stray humans wouldn’t think to look, and no opportunities to create one. With the best will in the world, I couldn’t make anyone safe, though possibly I could make them temporarily safer.

But practical considerations are not the game. The game is to think about whether you would risk your life for someone else, and why or why not. It’s a thought experiment. Debbie calls it “a game of ultimate truth”.

However, the game is also a cheat, in that the characters have full information about all parts of the story. We know the Nazis coming for the Frank family are unquestionably bent on evil, because we know the Franks’ fates when they were eventually found. It may be hard to tell the truth to your fellow players, but the game is easy to think about because it’s replete with moral clarity.

Things are fuzzier in real life, even for comparatively tiny decisions. In 2012, the late film critic Roger Ebert mulled what he would do if he were a Transport Security Administration agent suddenly required to give intimate patdowns to airline passengers unwilling to go through the scanner. Ebert considered the conflict between moral and personal distaste and TSA officers’ need to keep their reasonably well-paid jobs with health insurance benefits. He concluded that he hoped he’d quit rather than do the patdowns. Today, such qualms are ancient history; both scanners and patdowns have become normalized.

Moral and practical clarity is exactly what’s missing as the Department of Government Efficiency arrives in US government departments and agencies to demand access to their computer systems. Their motives and plans are unclear, as is their authority for the access they’re demanding. The outcome is unknown.

So, instead of a vulnerable 13-year-old girl and her family, what if the thing under threat is a computer? Not the sentient emotional robot/AI of techie fantasy but an ordinary computer system holding boring old databases. Or putting through boring old payments. Or underpinning the boring old air traffic control system. Do you see a computer or the millions of people whose lives depend on it? How much will you risk to protect it? What are you protecting it from? Hinder, help, quit?

Meanwhile, DOGE is demanding that staff allow its young coders to attach unauthorized servers, take control of websites. In addition: mass firings, and a plan to do some sort of inside-government AI startup.

DOGE itself appears to be thinking ahead; it’s told staff to avoid Slack while awaiting a technology that won’t be subject to FOIA requests.

The more you know about computers the scarier this all is. Computer systems of the complexity and accuracy of those the US government has built over decades are not easily understood by incoming non-experts who have apparently been visited by the Knowledge Fairy. After so much time and effort on security and protecting against shadowy hackers, the biggest attack – as Mike Masnick calls it – on government systems is coming from inside the house in full view.

Even if “all” DOGE has is read-only access as Treasury claims – though Wired and Talking Points Memo have evidence otherwise – those systems hold comprehensive sensitive information on most of the US population. Being able to read – and copy? – is plenty bad enough. In both fiction (Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale) and fact (IBM), computers have been used to select populations to victimize. Americans are about to find out they trusted their government more than they thought.

Illustration: Changing a tube in the early computer ENIAC (via Wikimedia).

Wendy M. Grossman is the 2013 winner of the Enigma Award. Her Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of earlier columns in this series. Stories about the border wars between cyberspace and real life are posted occasionally during the week at the net.wars Pinboard – or follow on Twitter.

The Gulf of Google

In 1945, the then mayor of New York City, Fiorello La Guardia signed a bill renaming Sixth Avenue. Eighty years later, even with street signs that include the new name, the vast majority of New Yorkers still say things like, “I’ll meet you at the southwest corner of 51st and Sixth”. You can lead a horse to Avenue of the Americas, but you can’t make him say it.

US president Donald Trump’s order renaming the Gulf of Mexico offers a rarely discussed way to splinter the Internet (at the application layer, anyway; geography matters!), and on Tuesday Google announced it would change the name for US users of its Maps app. As many have noted, this contravenes Google’s 2008 policy on naming bodies of water in Google Earth: “primary local usage”. A day later, reports came that Google has placed the US on its short list of sensitive countries – that is, ones whose rulers dispute the names and ownership of various territories: China, Russia, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iraq.

Sharpieing a new name on a map is less brutal than invading, but it’s a game anyone can play. Seen on Mastodon: the bay, now labeled “Gulf of Fragile Masculinity”.

***

Ed Zitron has been expecting the generative AI bubble to collapse disastrously. Last week provided an “Is this it?” moment when the Chinese company DeepSeek released reasoning models that outperform the best of the west at a fraction of the cost and computing power. US stock market investors: “Let’s panic!”

The code, though not the training data, is open source, as is the relevant research. In Zitron’s analysis, the biggest loser here is OpenAI, though it didn’t seem like that to investors in other companies, especially Nvidia, whose share price dropped 17% on Tuesday alone. In an entertaining sideshow, OpenAI complains that DeepSeek stole its code – ironic given the history.

On Monday, Jon Stewart quipped that Chinese AI had taken American AI’s job. From there the countdown started until someone invoked national security.

Nvidia’s chips have been the picks and shovels of generative AI, just as they were for cryptocurrency mining. In the latter case, Nvidia’s fortunes waned when cryptocurrency prices crashed, ethercoin, among others, switched to proof of stake, and miners shifted to more efficient, lower-cost application-specific integrated circuits. All of these lowered computational needs. So it’s easy to believe the pattern is repeating with generative AI.

There are several ironies here. The first is that the potential for small language models to outshine large ones has been known since at least 2020, when Timnit Gebru, Emily Bender, Margaret Mitchell, and Angelina McMillan-Major published their stochastic parrots paper. Google soon fired Gebru, who told Bloomberg this week that AI development is being driven by FOMO rather than interesting questions. Second, as an AI researcher friend points out, Hugging Face, which is trying to replicate DeepSeek’s model from scratch, said the same thing two years ago. Imagine if someone had listened.

***

A work commitment forced me to slog through Ross Douthat’s lengthy interview with Marc Andreessen at the New York Times. Tl;dr: Andreessen says Silicon Valley turned right because Democrats broke The Deal under which Silicon Valley supported liberal democracy and the Democrats didn’t regulate them. In his whiny victimhood, Andreessen has no recognition that changes in Silicon Valley’s behavior – and the scale at which it operates – are *why* Democrats’ attitudes changed. If Silicon Valley wants its Deal back, it should stop doing things that are obviously exploitive. Random case in point: Hannah Ziegler reports at the Washington Post that a $1,700 bassinet called a “Snoo” suddenly started demanding $20 per month to keep rocking a baby all night. I mean, for that kind of money I pretty much expect the bassinet to make its own breast milk.

***

Almost exactly eight years ago, Donald Trump celebrated his installation in the US presidency by issuing an executive order that risked up-ending the legal basis for data flows between the EU, which has strict data protection laws, and the US, which doesn’t. This week, he did it again.

In 2017, Executive Order 13768 dominated Computers, Privacy, and Data Protection. The deal in place at the time, Privacy Shield, eventually survived until 2020, when it was struck down in lawyer Max Schrems’s second such case. It was replaced by the Transatlantic Data Privacy Framework, which established the five-member Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board to oversee surveillance and, as Politico explains, handle complaints from Europeans about misuse of their data.

This week, Trump rendered the board non-operational by firing its three Democrats, leaving just one Republican-member in place.*

At Techdirt, Mike Masnick warns the framework could collapse, costing Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, YouTube, exTwitter, and other US-based services (including Truth Social) their European customers. At his NGO, noyb, Schrems himself takes note: “This deal was always built on sand.”

Schrems adds that another Trump Executive Order gives 45 days to review and possibly scrap predecessor Joe Biden’s national security decisions, including some the framework also relies on. Few things ought to scare US – and, in a slew of new complaints, Chinese – businesses more than knowing Schrems is watching.

Illustrations: The Gulf of Mexico (NASA, via Wikimedia).

*Corrected to reflect that the three departing board members are described as Democrats, not Democrat-appointed. In fact, two of them, Ed Felten and Travis LeBlanc, were appointed by Trump in his original term.

Government identification as a service

This week, the clock started ticking on the UK’s Online Safety Act. Ofcom, the regulator charged with enforcing it, published its codes of practice and guidance, which come into force on March 17, 2025. At that point, websites that fall into scope – in Ofcom’s 2023 estimate 150,000 of them – must comply with requirements to conduct risk assessments, preemptively block child sexual abuse material, register a responsible person (who faces legal and financial liability), and much more.

Almost immediately, the first casualty made itself known: Dee Kitchen announced the closure of her site, which supports hundreds of interest-based forums. Ofcom’s risk assessment guidance (PDF), the personal liability would be overwhelming even if the forums produced enough in donations to cover the costs of compliance.

Russ Garrett has a summary for small sites. UK-linked blogs – even those with barely any readers – could certainly fit the definition per Ofcom’s checker tool, if users can comment on each other’s posts. Common sense says that’s ridiculous in many cases…but as Kitchen says all takes to ruin the blogger’s life is a malicious complainant wielding the OSA as their weapon.

Kitchen will certainly not be alone in concluding the requirements are prohibitively risky for web forums and bulletin boards that are run by volunteers and have minimal funding. Yet they are the Internet’s healthy social ecology, without the algorithms and business models that do most to create the harms the Act is meant to address. Promising Trouble and Power to Change are collaborating on a community of practice, and have asked Ofcom for a briefing on compliance for volunteers and small sites.

Garrett’s summary also points out that Ofcom’s rules leave it wide open for sites to censor *more* than is required, and many will do exactly that to minimize their risk. A side effect, as Garrett writes, will be to further centralize the Net, as moving communities to larger providers such as Discord will shift the liability onto *them*. This is what happens when rules controlling speech are written from the single lens of preventing harm rather than starting from a base of human rights.

More guidance to come from Ofcom next month. We haven’t even started on implementing age verification yet.

***

On Monday, I learned a new term I wish I hadn’t: “government identity as a service”. GIAAS?

The speaker was human rights campaigner Edward Hasbrouck, in a talk on identification Dave Farber‘s and Dan Gillmor‘s weekly CCRC/IP-Asia Zoom call.

Most people trace the accelerating rise of demands for identification in countries like the US and UK to 9/11. Based on that, there are now people old enough to drink in a US state who are not aware it was ever possible to just walk up to fly, get a hotel room, or enter an office. As Hasbrouck writes in a US election day posting, the rise in government demands for ID has been powered by the simultaneous rise of corporate tracking for commercial purposes. He calls it a “malign convergence of interest”.

It has long been obvious that anything companies collect can be subpoenaed by governments. Hasbrouck’s point, however, is that identification enables control as well as surveillance; it brings watchlists, blocklists, and automated bars to freedom of action – it makes us decision subjects as Gavin Freeguard said at the recent Foundation for Information Policy Research event.

Hasbrouck pinpoints three components that each present a vulnerability to control: identification, logging, decision making. As an example, consider the UK’s in-progress eVisa system, in which the government confirms an individual’s visa status online in real time with no option for physical documentation. This gives the government enormous power to stop individuals from doing vital but mundane things like rent a home, board an aircraft, or get a job. Its heart is identification – and a law delegating border enforcement to myriad civil intermediaries and normalizes these checks.

Many in the UK were outraged by proposals to give the Department of Work and Pensions the power to examine people’s bank accounts. In the US, Hasbrouck points to a recent report from the House Judiciary Committee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government that documents the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network’s collaboration with the FBI to push banks to submit reports of suspicious activity while it trawled for possible suspects after the January 6 insurrection. Yes, the destructors should be caught and punished; but also any weapon turned against people we don’t like can also be turned against us. Did anyone vote to let the FBI conduct financial surveillance by the million?

Now imagine that companies outsource ID checks to the government and offload the risk of running their own. That is how the no-fly list works. That’s how airlines operate *now*. GIAAS.

Then add the passive identification that systems like facial recognition are spreading. You can no longer reliably know whether you have been identified and logged, who gets that information, or what hidden decision they may make based on it. Few of us are sure of our rights in any situation, and few of us even ask why. In his slides (PDF), Hasbrouck offers a list of ways to fight back. He has hope.

Illustrations: Edward Hasbrouck at CPDP in 2017.

Blown

“This is a public place. Everyone has the right to be left in peace,” Jane (Vanessa Redgrave) tells Thomas (David Hemmings), whom she’s just spotted photographing her with her lover in the 1966 film Blow-Up, by Michelangelo Antonioni. The movie, set in London, proceeds as a mystery in which Thomas’s only tangible evidence is a grainy, blown-up shot of a blob that may be a murdered body.

Today, Thomas would probably be wielding a latest-model smartphone instead of a single lens reflex film camera. He would not bother to hide behind a tree. And Jane would probably never notice, much less challenge Thomas to explain his clearly-not-illegal, though creepy, behavior. Phones and cameras are everywhere. If you want to meet a lover and be sure no one’s photographing you, you don’t go to a public park, even one as empty as the film finds Maryon Park. Today’s 20-somethings grew up with that reality, and learned early to agree some gatherings are no-photography zones.

Even in the 1960s individuals had cameras, but taking high-quality images at a distance was the province of a small minority of experts; Antonioni’s photographer was a professional with his own darkroom and enlarging equipment. The first CCTV cameras went up in the 1960s; their proliferation became public policy issue in the 1980s, and was propagandized as “for your safety without much thought in the post-9/11 2000s. In the late 2010s, CCTV surveillance became democratized: my neighbor’s Ring camera means no one can leave an anonymous gift on their doorstep – or (without my consent) mine.

I suspect one reason we became largely complacent about ubiquitous cameras is that the images mostly remained unidentifiable, or at least unidentified. Facial recognition – especially the live variant police seem to feel they have the right to set up at will – is changing all that. Which all leads to this week, when Joseph Cox at 404 Media reports ($) (and Ars Technica summarizes) that two Harvard students have mashed up a pair of unremarkable $300 Meta Ray-Bans with the reverse image search service Pimeyes and a large language model to produce I-XRAY, an app that identifies in near-real time most of the people they pass on the street, including their name, home address, and phone number.

The students – AnhPhu Nguyen and Caine Ardayfio – are smart enough to realize the implications, imagining for Cox the scenario of a random male spotting a young woman and following her home. This news is breaking the same week that the San Francisco Standard and others are reporting that two men in San Francisco stood in front of a driverless Waymo taxi to block it from proceeding while demanding that the female passenger inside give them her phone number (we used to give such males the local phone number for time and temperature).

Nguyen and Ardayfio aren’t releasing the code they’ve written, but what two people can do, others with fewer ethics can recreate independently, as 30 years of Black Hat and Def Con have proved. This is a new level of democratizated surveillance. Today, giant databases like Clearview AI are largely only accessible to governments and law enforcement. But the data in them has been scraped from the web, like LLMs’ training data, and merged with commercial sources

This latest prospective threat to privacy has been created by the marriage of three technologies that were developed separately by different actors without regard to one another and, more important, without imagining how one might magnify the privacy risks of the others. A connected car with cameras could also run I-XRAY.

The San Francisco story is a good argument against allowing cars on the roads without steering wheels, pedals, and other controls or *something* to allow a passenger to take charge to protect their own safety. In Manhattan cars waiting at certain traffic lights often used to be approached by people who would wash the windshield and demand payment. Experienced drivers knew to hang back at red lights so they could roll forward past the oncoming would-be washer. How would you do this in a driverless car with no controls?

We’ve long known that people will prank autonomous cars. Coverage focused on the safety of the *cars* and the people and vehicles surrounding them, not the passengers. Calling a remote technical support line for help is never going to get a good enough response.

What ties these two cases together – besides (potentially) providing new ways to harass women – is the collision between new technologies and human nature. Plus, the merger of three decades’ worth of piled-up data and software that can make things happen in the physical world.

Arguably, we should have seen this coming, but the manufacturers of new technology have never been good at predicting what weird things their users will find to do with it. This mattered less when the worst outcome was using spreadsheet software to write letters. Today, that sort of imaginative failure is happening at scale in software that controls physical objects and penetrates the physical world. The risks are vastly greater and far more unsettling. It’s not that we can’t see the forest for the trees; it’s that we can’t see the potential for trees to aggregate into a forest.

Illustrations: Jane (Vanessa Redgrave) and her lover, being photographed by Thomas (David Hemmings) in Michelangelo Antonioni’s 1966 film, Blow-Up.

Boxed up

If the actions of the owners of streaming services are creating the perfect conditions for the return of piracy, it’s equally true that the adtech industry’s decisions continue to encourage installing ad blockers as a matter of self-defense. This is overall a bad thing, since most of us can’t afford to pay for everything we want to read online.

This week, Google abruptly aborted a change it’s been working on for four years: it will abandon its plan to replace third-party cookies with new technology it called Privacy Sandbox. From the sounds of it, Google will continue working on the Sandbox, but will continue to retain third-party cookies. The privacy consequences of this are…muddy.

To recap: there are two kinds of cookies, which are small files websites place on your computer, distinguished by their source and use. Sites use first-party cookies to give their pages the equivalent of memory. They’re how the site remembers which items you’ve put in your cart, or that you’ve logged in to your account. These are the “essential cookies” that some consent banners mention, and without them you couldn’t use the web interactively.

Third-party cookies are trackers. Once a company deposits one of these things on your computer, it can use it to follow along as you browse the web, collecting data about you and your habits the whole time. To capture the ickiness of this, Demos researcher Carl Miller has suggested renaming them slime trails. Third-party cookies are why the same ads seem to follow you around the web. They are also why people in the UK and Europe see so many cookie consent banners: the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation requires all websites to obtain informed consent before dropping them on our machines. Ad blockers help here. They won’t stop you from seeing the banners, but they can save you the time you’d have to spend adjusting settings on the many sites that make it hard to say no.

The big technology companies are well aware that people hate both ads and being tracked in order to serve ads. In 2020, Apple announced that its Safari web browser would block third-party cookies by default, continuing work it started in 2017. This was one of several privacy-protecting moves the company made; in 2021, it began requiring iPhone apps to offer users the opportunity to opt out of tracking for advertising purposes at installation. In 2022, Meta estimated Apple’s move would cost it $10 billion that year.

If the cookie seemed doomed at that point, it seemed even more so when Google announced it was working on new technology that would do away with third-party cookies in its dominant Chrome browser. Like Apple, however, Google proposed to give users greater control only over the privacy invasions of third parties without in any way disturbing Google’s own ability to track users. Privacy advocates quickly recognized this.

At Ars Technica, Ron Amadeo describes the Sandbox’s inner workings. Briefly, it derives a list of advertising topics from the websites users visits, and shares those with web pages when they ask. This is what you turn on when you say yes to Chrome’s “ad privacy feature”. Back when it was announced, EFF’s Bennett Cyphers was deeply unimpressed: instead of new tracking versus old tracking, he asked, why can’t we have *no* tracking? Just a few days ago, EFF followed up with the news that its Privacy Badger browser add-on now opts users out of the Privacy Sandbox (EFF has also published manual instructions.).

Google intended to make this shift in stages, beginning the process of turning off third-party cookies in January 2024 and finishing the job in the second half of 2024. Now, when the day of completion should be rapidly approaching, the company has said it’s over – that is, it no longer plans to turn off third-party cookies. As Thomas Claburn writes at The Register, implementing the new technology still requires a lot of work from a lot of companies besides Google. The technology will remain in the browser – and users will “get” to choose which kind of tracking they prefer; Kevin Purdy reports at Ars Technica that the company is calling this a “new experience”.

At The Drum, Kendra Barnett reports that the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office is unhappy about Google’s decision. Even though it had also identified possible vulnerabilities in the Sandbox’s design, the ICO had welcomed the plan to block third-party cookies.

I’d love to believe that Google’s announcement might have been helped by the fact that Sandbox is already the subject of legal action. Last month the privacy-protecting NGO noyb complained to the Austrian data protection authority, arguing that Sandbox tracking still requires user consent. Real consent, not obfuscated “ad privacy feature” stuff, as Richard Speed explains at The Register. But far more likely it’s money, At the Press Gazette, Jim Edwards reports that Sandbox could cost publishers 60% of their revenue “from programmatically sold ads”. Note, however, that the figure is courtesy of adtech company Criteo, likely a loser under Sandbox.

The question is what comes next. As Cyphers said, we deserve real choices: *whether* we are tracked, not just who gets to do it. Our lives should not be the leverage big technology companies use to enhance their already dominant position.

Illustrations: A sandbox (via Wikimedia)

Twenty comedians walk into a bar…

The Internet was, famously, created to withstand a bomb outage. In 1998 Matt Blaze and Steve Bellovin said it, in 2002 it was still true, and it remains true today, after 50 years of development: there are more efficient ways to kill the Internet than dropping a bomb.

Take today. The cybersecurity company Crowdstrike pushed out a buggy update, and half the world is down. Airports, businesses, the NHS appointment booking system, supermarkets, the UK’s train companies, retailers…all showing the Blue Screen of Death. Can we say “central points of failure”? Because there are two: Crowdstrike, whose cybersecurity is widespead, and Microsoft, whose Windows operating system is everywhere.

Note this hasn’t killed the *Internet*. It’s temporarily killed many systems *connected to* the Internet. But if you’re stuck in an airport where nothing’s working and confronted with a sign that says “Cash only” when you only have cards…well, at least you can go online to read the news.

The fix will be slow, because it involves starting the computer in safe mode and manually deleting files. Like Y2K remediation, one computer at a time.

***

Speaking of things that don’t work, three bits from the generative AI bubble. First, last week Goldman Sachs issued a scathing report on generative AI that concluded it is unlikely to ever repay the trillion-odd dollars companies are spending on it, while its energy demands could outstrip available supply. Conclusion: generative AI is a bubble that could nonetheless take a long time to burst.

Second, at 404 Media Emanuel Weiburg reads a report from the Tony Blair Institute that estimates that 40% of tasks performed by public sector workers could be partially automated. Blair himself compares generative AI to the industrial revolution. This comparison is more accurate than he may realize, since the industrial revolution brought climate change, and generative AI pours accelerant on it.

TBI’s estimate conflicts with that provided to Goldman by MIT economist Daron Acemoglu, who believes that AI will impact at most 4.6% of tasks in the next ten years. The source of TBI’s estimate? ChatGPT itself. It’s learned self-promotion from parsing our output?

Finally, in a study presented at ACM FAccT, four DeepMind researchers interviewed 20 comedians who do live shows and use AI to participate in workshops using large language models to help write jokes. “Most participants felt the LLMs did not succeed as a creativity support tool, by producing bland and biased comedy tropes, akin to ‘cruise ship comedy material from the 1950s, but a bit less racist’.” Last year, Julie Seabaugh at the LA Times interviewed 13 professional comedians and got similar responses. Ahmed Ahmed compared AI-generated comedy to eating processed foods and, crucially, it “lacks timing”.

***

Blair, who spent his 1997-2007 premiership pushing ID cards into law, has also been trying to revive this longheld obsession. Two days after Keir Starmer took office, Blair published a letter in the Sunday Times calling for its return. As has been true throughout the history of ID cards (PDF), every new revival presents it as a solution to a different problem. Blair’s 2024 reason is to control immigration (and keep the far-right Reform party at bay). Previously: prevent benefit fraud, combat terorism, streamline access to health, education, and other government services (“the entitlement card”), prevent health tourism.

Starmer promptly shot Blair down: “not part of the government’s plans”. This week Alan West, a home office minister 2007-2010 under Gordon Brown, followed up with a letter to the Guardian calling for ID cards because they would “enhance national security in the areas of terrorism, immigration and policing; facilitate access to online government services for the less well-off; help to stop identity theft; and facilitate international travel”.

Neither Blair (born 1953) nor West (born 1948) seems to realize how old and out of touch they sound. Even back then, the “card” was an obvious decoy. Given pervasive online access, a handheld reader, and the database, anyone’s identity could be checked anywhere at any time with no “card” required.

To sound modern they should call for institutionalizing live facial recognition, which is *already happening* by police fiat. Or sprinkled AI bubble on their ID database.

Databases and giant IT projects that failed – like the Post Office scandal – that was the 1990s way! We’ve moved on, even if they haven’t.

***

If you are not a deposed Conservative, Britain this week is like waking up sequentially from a series of nightmares. Yesterday, Keir Starmer definitively ruled out leaving the European Convention on Human Rights – Starmer’s background as a human rights lawyer to the fore. It’s a relief to hear after 14 years of Tory ministers – David Cameron,, Boris Johnson, Suella Braverman, Liz Truss, Rishi Sunak – whining that human rights law gets in the way of their heart’s desires. Like: building a DNA database, deporting refugees or sending them to Rwanda, a plan to turn back migrants in boats at sea.

Principles have to be supported in law; under the last government’s Public Order Act 2023 curbing “disruptive protest”, yesterday five Just Stop Oil protesters were jailed for four and five years. Still, for that brief moment it was all The Brotherhood of Man.

Illustrations: Windows’ Blue Screen of Death (via Wikimedia).

Soap dispensers and Skynet

In the TV series Breaking Bad, the weary ex-cop Mike Ehrmantraut tells meth chemist Walter White : “No more half measures.” The last time he took half measures, the woman he was trying to protect was brutally murdered.

Apparently people like to say there are no dead bodies in privacy (although this is easily countered with ex-CIA director General Michael Hayden’s comment, “We kill people based on metadata”). But, as Woody Hartzog told a Senate committee hearing in September 2023, summarizing work he did with Neil Richards and Ryan Durrie, half measures in AI/privacy legislation are still a bad thing.

A discussion at Privacy Law Scholars last week laid out the problems. Half measures don’t work. They don’t prevent societal harms. They don’t prevent AI from being deployed where it shouldn’t be. And they sap the political will to follow up with anything stronger.

In an article for The Brink, Hartzog said, “To bring AI within the rule of law, lawmakers must go beyond half measures to ensure that AI systems and the actors that deploy them are worthy of our trust,”

He goes on to list examples of half measures: transparency, committing to ethical principles, and mitigating bias. Transparency is good, but doesn’t automatically bring accountability. Ethical principles don’t change business models. And bias mitigation to make a technology nominally fairer may simultaneously make it more dangerous. Think facial recognition: debias the system and improve its accuracy for matching the faces of non-male, non-white people, and then it’s used to target those same people with surveillance.

Or, bias mitigation may have nothing to do with the actual problem, an underlying business model, as Arvind Narayanan, author of the forthcoming book AI Snake Oil, pointed out a few days later at an event convened by the Future of Privacy Forum. In his example, the Washington Post reported in 2019 on the case of an algorithm intended to help hospitals predict which patients will benefit from additional medical care. It turned out to favor white patients. But, Narayanan said, the system’s provider responded to the story by saying that the algorithm’s cost model accurately predicted the costs of additional health care – in other words, the algorithm did exactly what the hospital wanted it to do.

“I think hospitals should be forced to use a different model – but that’s not a technical question, it’s politics.”.

Narayanan also called out auditing (another Hartzog half measure). You can, he said, audit a human resources system to expose patterns in which resumes it flags for interviews and which it drops. But no one ever commissions research modeled on the expensive random controlled testing common in medicine that follows up for five years to see if the system actually picks good employees.

Adding confusion is the fact that “AI” isn’t a single thing. Instead, it’s what someone called a “suitcase term” – that is, a container for many different systems built for many different purposes by many different organizations with many different motives. It is absurd to conflate AGI – the artificial general intelligence of science fiction stories and scientists’ dreams that can surpass and kill us all – with pattern-recognizing software that depends on plundering human-created content and the labeling work of millions of low-paid workers

To digress briefly, some of the AI in that suitcase is getting truly goofy. Yum Brands has announced that its restaurants, which include Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, and KFC, will be “AI-first”. Among Yum’s envisioned uses, the company tells Benj Edwards at Ars Technica, are being able to ask an app what temperature to set the oven. I can’t help suspecting that the real eventual use will be data collection and discriminatory pricing. Stuff like this is why Ed Zitron writes postings like The Rot-Com Bubble, which hypothesizes that the reason Internet services are deteriorating is that technology companies have run out of genuinely innovative things to sell us.

That you cannot solve social problems with technology is a long-held truism, but it seems to be especially true of the messy middle of the AI spectrum, the use cases active now that rarely get the same attention as the far ends of that spectrum.

As Neil Richards put it at PLSC, “The way it’s presented now, it’s either existential risk or a soap dispenser that doesn’t work on brown hands when the real problem is the intermediate level of societal change via AI.”

The PLSC discussion included a list of the ways that regulations fail. Underfunded enforcement. Regulations that are pure theater. The wrong measures. The right goal, but weakly drafted legislation. Make the regulation ambiguous, or base it on principles that are too broad. Choose conflicting half-measures – for example, require transparency but add the principle that people should own their own data.

Like Cristina Caffarra a week earlier at CPDP, Hartzog, Richards, and Durrie favor finding remedies that focus on limiting abuses of power. Full measures include outright bans, the right to bring a private cause of action, imposing duties of “loyalty, care, and confidentiality”, and limiting exploitative data practices within these systems. Curbing abuses of power, as he says, is nothing new. The shiny new technology is a distraction.

Or, as Narayanan put it, “Broken AI is appealing to broken institutions.”

Illustrations: Mike (Jonathan Banks) telling Walt (Bryan Cranston) in Breaking Bad (S03e12) “no more half measures”.

Admiring the problem

In one sense, the EU’s barely dry AI Act and the other complex legislation – the Digital Markets Act, Digital Services Act, GDPR, and so on -= is a triumph. Flawed it may be, but it’s a genuine attempt to protect citizens’ human rights against a technology that is being birthed with numerous trigger warnings. The AI-with-everything program at this year’s Computers, Privacy, and Data Protection, reflected that sense of accomplishment – but also the frustration that comes with knowing that all legislation is flawed, all technology companies try to game the system, and gaps will widen.

CPDP has had these moments before: new legislation always comes with a large dollop of frustration over the opportunities that were missed and the knowledge that newer technologies are already rushing forwards. AI, and the AI Act, more or less swallowed this year’s conference as people considered what it says, how it will play internationally, and the necessary details of implementation and enforcement. Two years at this event, inadequate enforcement of GDPR was a big topic.

The most interesting future gaps that emerged this year: monopoly power, quantum sensing, and spatial computing.

For at least 20 years we’ve been hearing about quantum computing’s potential threat to public key encryption – that day of doom has been ten years away as long as I can remember, just as the Singularity is always 30 years away. In the panel on quantum sensing, Chris Hoofnagle argued that, as he and Simson Garfinkel recently wrote at Lawfare and in their new book, quantum cryptanalysis is overhyped as a threat (although there are many opportunities for quantum computing in chemistry and materials science). However, quantum sensing is here now, works (because qubits are fragile), and is cheap. There is plenty of privacy threat here to go around: quantum sensing will benefit entirely different classes of intelligence, particularly remote, undetectable surveillance.

Hoofnagle and Garfinkel are calling this MASINT, for machine and signature intelligence, and believe that it will become very difficult to hide things, even at a national level. In Hoofnagle’s example, a quantum sensor-equipped drone could fly over the homes of parolees to scan for guns.

Quantum sensing and spatial computing have this in common: they both enable unprecedented passive data collection. VR headsets, for example, collect all sorts of biomechanical data that can be mined more easily for personal information than people expect.

Barring change, all that data will be collected by today’s already-powerful entities.

The deeper level on which all this legislation fails particularly exercised Cristina Caffarra, the co-founder of the Centre for Economic Policy Research in the panel on AI and monopoly, saying that all this legislation is basically nibbling around the edges because they do not touch the real, fundamental problem of the power being amassed by the handful of companies who own the infrastructure.

“It’s economics 101. You can have as much downstream competition as you like but you will never disperse the power upstream.” The reports and other material generated by government agencies like the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority are, she says, just “admiring the problem”.

A day earlier, the Novi Sad professor Vladen Joler had already pointed out the fundamental problem: at the dawn of the Internet anyone could start with nothing and build something; what we’re calling “AI” requires billions in investment, so comes pre-monopolized. Many people dismiss Europe for not having its own homegrown Big Tech, but that overlooks open technologies: the Raspberry Pi, Linux, and the web itself, which all have European origins.

In 2010, the now-departing MP Robert Halfon (Con-Harlow) said at an event on reining in technology companies that only a company the size of Google – not even a government – could create Street View. Legend has it that open source geeks heard that as a challenge, and so we have OpenStreetMap. Caffarra’s fiery anger raises the question: at what point do the infrastructure providers become so entrenched that they could choke off an open source competitor at birth? Caffarra wants to build a digital public interest infrastructure using the gaps where Big Tech doesn’t yet have that control.

The Dutch Groenlinks MEP Kim van Sparrentak offered an explanation for why the AI Act doesn’t address market concentration: “They still dream of a European champion who will rule the world.” An analogy springs to mind: people who vote for tax cuts for billionaires because one day that might be *them*. Meanwhile, the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority finds nothing to investigate in Microsoft’s partnership with the French AI startup Mistral.

Van Sparrentak thinks one way out is through public procurement; adopt goals of privacy and sustainability, and support European companies. It makes sense; as the AI Now Institute’s Amba Kak, noted, at the moment almost everything anyone does digitally has to go through the systems of at least one Big Tech company.

As Sebastiano Toffaletti, head of the secretariat of the European SME Alliance, put it, “Even if you had all the money in the world, these guys still have more data than you. If you don’t and can’t solve it, you won’t have anyone to challenge these companies.”

Illustrations: Vladen Joler shows Anatomy of an AI System, a map he devised with Kate Crawford of the human labor, data, and planetary resources that are extracted to make “AI”.

Microsoft can remember it for you wholesale

A new theory: somewhere in the Silicon Valley universe there’s a cadre of techies who have eidetic memories and they’re feeling them start to slip. Panic time.

That’s my best explanation for Microsoft’s latest wheeze, a new feature for its Copilot assistant that will take what’s variously called a “snapshot” or a “screenshot” of your computer (all three monitors?) every five seconds and store it for future reference. Microsoft hasn’t explained much about Recall’s inner technical workings, but according to the announcement, the data will be stored locally and will be searchable via semantic associations and some sort of “AI”. Microsoft also says the data will not be used to train AI models.

The general anger and dismay at this plan brings back, almost nostalgically, memories of the 1990s, when Microsoft was near-universally hated as the evil monopolist dominating computing. In 2008, when Google was ten years old, a BBC presenter asked me if I thought Google would ever be hated as much as Microsoft was (not then, no). In 2012, veteran journalist Charles Arthur published the book Digital Wars about how Microsoft had stagnated and lost its lead. And then suddenly, in the last few years, it’s back on top.

Possibilities occur that Microsoft doesn’t mention. For example: could software might be embedded into Windows to draw inferences from the data Recall saves? And could those inferences be forwarded to the company or used to target you with ads? That seems like a far more efficient way to invade users’ privacy than copying the data itself, if that’s what the company ultimately wants to do.

Lots of things on our computers already retain a “memory” of what we’ve been doing. Operating systems generate logs to help debug problems. Word processors retain a changelog, which powers the ability to undo mistakes. Web browsers have user-configurable histories; email software has archives; media players retain playlists. All of those are useful – but part of that usefulness is that they are contextual, limited, and either easily terminated by closing the relevant application or relatively easily edited to remove items that shouldn’t be kept.

It’s hard for almost everyone who isn’t Microsoft to understand the point of keeping everything by default. It seems like a feature only developers could love. I certainly would like Windows to be better at searching for stored files or my (Firefox) browser to be better at reloading that article I was reading yesterday. I have even longed for a personal version of Vannevar Bush’s Memex. As part of that, I might welcome a feature that let me hit a button to record the last five useful minutes of a meeting, or save a social media post to a local archive. But the key to that sort of memory expansion is curation, not remembering everything promiscuously. For most people, selective forgetting is how we survive the torrents of irrelevance hurled at us every day.

What Recall sounds most like is the lifelog science fiction writer Charlie Stross imagined in 2007 might be our future. Plummeting storage costs and expanding capacity, he reasoned, would make it possible to store *everything* in your pocket. Even then, there were (a very few) people doing that sort of thing, most notably Steve Mann, a University of Toronto professor who started wearing devices to comprhensively capture his life as a 1990s graduate student. Over the years, Mann has shrunk his personal gadget array from a laptop and peripherals to glasses and pocket devices. Many more people capture their surroundings now – but they do it on their phones. If Apple or Google were proposing a Recall feature for iOS or Android, the idea would seem a lot less weird.

The real issue is that there are many people who would like to be able to know what somone *else* has been doing on their computer at all times. Helicopter parents. Schools and teachers under government compulsion (see for example Prevent (PDF)). Employers. Border guards. Corporate spies. The Department of Work and Pensions. Authoritarian governments. Law enforcement and security agencies. Criminals. Domestic abusers… So developing any feature like this must include considering how to protect it against these threats. This does not appear to have happened.

Many others have written about the privacy issues in all this – the UK’s Information Commission’s Office is already investigating. At The Register, Richard Speed does a particularly good job of looking at some of the fine details. On Mastodon, Kevin Beaumont says inspection of the Copilot+ software suggests that Recall stores the text it extracts from all those snapshots into an easily copiable SQlite database.

But there’s still more. The kind of archive Recall appears to construct can teach an attacker how the target thinks: not just what passwords they choose but how they devise them.Those patterns can be highly valuable. Granted, few targets are worth that level of attention, but it happens, as Peter Davies, a technical director at eThales, has often warned.

Recall is not the only move – see also flawed-AI-with-everything – that suggests that the computer industry, like some politicians and governments, is badly losing touch with the public. Increasingly, what they want to do seems unrelated to what the rest of us want. If they think things like Recall are a good idea they need to read more Philip K. Dick. And then don’t invent the Torment Nexus.

Illustrations: Arnold Schwarzenegger seeking better memories in the 1990 film Total Recall.