The UK’s privacy regulator has expressed concerns about Google’s proposed cookie replacements, stating that they must do more to safeguard consumer privacy in the UK. According to internal documents, Google’s Privacy Sandbox initiative, aimed at phasing out third-party cookies and reducing tracking, leaves gaps that could compromise anonymity.
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has reportedly drafted a report highlighting the potential for exploitation within Google’s proposed technology. Despite Google’s plans to eliminate third-party cookies by the latter half of 2024, the ICO is pushing for changes to enhance privacy protections.
The ICO’s efforts include engaging with the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), which reviews Google’s plans amidst concerns about their potential impact on competition in digital advertising. The CMA has pledged to consider the ICO’s recommendations as part of its evaluation process.
In response, a Google spokesperson emphasised ongoing engagement with privacy and competition regulators globally, aiming to find a solution that benefits users and the digital ecosystem. Both the ICO and CMA have yet to comment on the matter.
TikTok’s efforts to separate its US operations and user data from its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, have been scrutinised, as the following reports allege continued collaboration between the two entities. Despite implementing Project Texas, which aimed to enhance data security and independence, former employees claim that data-sharing practices persisted, with US user data being regularly sent to ByteDance executives in China.
Under Project Texas, US user data was supposed to be stored on Oracle’s cloud infrastructure. Still, former employees suggest that the reality differed, with a ‘stealth chain of command’ enabling continued collaboration between US-based staff and ByteDance executives. Allegations of ongoing control from ByteDance’s top management raise questions about TikTok’s claimed independence.
These revelations have significant implications, particularly amidst Congressional efforts to pressure ByteDance to sell TikTok. The House has already passed a bill threatening to ban TikTok unless it severs ties with its parent company. However, TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew maintains the company’s autonomy, emphasising that American entities store and oversee American data.
Why does it matter?
While some former employees downplay concerns about TikTok’s connections to ByteDance, recent reports suggest that Project Texas may not have effectively insulated US operations from Chinese influence. As scrutiny intensifies, TikTok faces renewed scrutiny over its data practices and the extent of its independence from ByteDance.
Rights groups are intensifying their calls for restrictions on using facial recognition technology (FRT) by the US government. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has submitted comments to the US Commission on Civil Rights, asserting that FRT lacks reliability for making decisions that impact constitutional rights or social benefits and it poses risks to marginalised communities and privacy. EFF advocates for a ban on government use of FRT and strict limits on private sector use to safeguard against the perceived threats posed by this technology.
Joining EFF, the immigrant advocacy organisation United We Dream and over 30 civil rights partners have also submitted comments to the commission. They highlight concerns that a legal loophole has enabled agencies like ICE and CBP to use facial recognition for extensive surveillance of immigrants and people of colour. The alliance argues that FRT’s algorithmic biases often lead to incorrect identifications, unjust arrests, detentions, and deportations within immigrant communities.
The US Commission on Civil Rights has been conducting hearings with various stakeholders presenting their perspectives on FRT. While rights groups and advocates have raised concerns, government, enforcement agencies, vendors, and institutions, like NIST, have defended the technology. The Department of Justice emphasised its interim facial recognition policy prioritising First Amendment rights, while HUD submitted written testimony in recent weeks.
Why does it matter?
Official data from 2021 reveals that 18 out of 24 federal agencies surveyed were employing facial recognition technology, predominantly for law enforcement and digital access purposes. This ongoing debate underscores the growing scrutiny and debate surrounding using FRT in government operations and its impact on civil liberties and marginalised communities.
A wave of reconsideration is sweeping across UK businesses as they reassess the use of facial recognition technology and fingerprint scanning for staff attendance monitoring. This shift comes in response to a clampdown by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), which recently ordered a Serco subsidiary to cease using biometrics for attendance tracking at leisure centres it manages.
The ICO’s directive followed its discovery that over 2,000 employees’ biometric data had been unlawfully processed across 38 Serco-managed leisure centres. As a result, Serco has been granted a three-month window to align its systems with the ICO’s compliance standards.
In the wake of the ICO’s ruling, various leisure centre operators and corporations are either reviewing or halting the use of similar biometric technologies. Notable among them is Virgin Active, which has removed biometric scanners from 32 sites and is actively seeking alternative attendance monitoring solutions for its staff.
Why does it matter?
The ICO’s intervention underscores broader concerns regarding the increasing prevalence of facial recognition and surveillance tools in employment contexts. The scrutiny extends beyond leisure centres, as highlighted by a recent case involving an Uber Eats driver who received a financial settlement over allegations of racially discriminatory facial recognition checks. These developments underscore the urgent need for robust regulations to safeguard workers’ rights in the age of AI and automated processes.
President Biden’s administration has escalated tensions with China by adding more Chinese entities to an export blacklist than any previous US government. This latest move by the Commerce Department brings the total number of entities targeted under Biden to 319, surpassing the count during Trump’s tenure. The decision underscores the increasing use of economic tools to achieve foreign policy objectives, particularly as Biden seeks to limit China’s access to advanced technology, citing national security concerns.
The heightened scrutiny on China comes amidst growing apprehensions in Washington over President Xi Jinping’s assertiveness towards Taiwan, fueling fears of Beijing leveraging American technology to bolster its military capabilities. Both Democrats and Republicans have rallied behind the tough stance on China, reflecting bipartisan consensus on the issue, especially with the upcoming elections looming. Biden has maintained Trump’s tariffs while expanding restrictions on Beijing’s access to cutting-edge innovations, notably in critical sectors like AI.
The entity list serves as a primary mechanism for sanctioning entities on national security grounds and has increasingly become a focal point in US-China relations. Beijing has denounced Washington’s actions as economic coercion and unilateral bullying, vowing to defend the rights and interests of Chinese companies. In a retaliatory move, China imposed sanctions on two US companies, signalling a tit-for-tat escalation in tensions. However, such measures are largely symbolic, with minimal impact on the targeted firms.
Despite the Biden administration’s firm stance, there have been occasional concessions, such as withdrawing a Chinese government laboratory from the entity list to address the fentanyl crisis. Nonetheless, the recent additions to the list signal a continuation of the US strategy to maintain its technological edge, particularly in dual-use technologies. As Washington tightens controls on exports to Chinese firms involved in military modernisation efforts, the stage is set for further friction in the already strained US-China relationship.
UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has announced a substantial investment of £55.5 million over four years in facial recognition technology, which aims to combat retail crime by identifying repeated shoplifters.
The initiative, part of a broader crackdown on theft, includes deploying bespoke mobile units equipped with live facial recognition capabilities across high streets nationwide. While controversial, its deployment has resulted in numerous arrests, primarily for offences ranging from theft to assault. However, concerns persist regarding privacy and false positives.
Despite criticism from privacy advocates like Big Brother Watch, Home Secretary James Cleverly emphasises the technology’s preventative nature, while the Metropolitan Police views it as a transformative tool in law enforcement. The Office of the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner noted that careful deployment is needed to maintain public confidence.
Why does it matter?
The development has emerged months after Scotland’s biometrics commissioner, Brian Plastow, raised concerns about the trajectory towards autocracy driven by inappropriate use of biometric surveillance in the UK. While supporting specific biometric surveillance applications, like live facial recognition, he critiques government overreach and highlights risks such as database misuse and privacy erosion. Plastow’s concerns are exemplified by incidents like the arrest of an eight-month-pregnant woman for failing to report community service. While Scotland may resist England’s path towards a vigilant state, the stance of Wales remains uncertain.
Lawmakers in the US Senate Commerce Committee are considering extending the deadline for TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, to divest the popular short video app used by millions of Americans. The US House of Representatives previously voted overwhelmingly to give ByteDance approximately six months to sell TikTok’s US assets or face a ban. Senate Commerce Committee chair Maria Cantwell has expressed support for extending the deadline to one year, suggesting it could enhance the likelihood of a successful divestiture.
Discussions about the possibility of a one-year deadline extension come amid ongoing deliberations among congressional leaders. Cantwell indicated plans to strategise with Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and Senate Intelligence Committee chair Mark Warner. Despite the House’s decisive vote, Cantwell emphasised the Senate’s intent to refine the legislation for firmer legal grounding, considering previous unsuccessful attempts to ban TikTok under the Trump administration and at the state level.
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell has joined the call for divestiture, citing national security concerns and labelling TikTok as a significant strategic threat. However, TikTok has vigorously defended itself, asserting that a ban would infringe upon the First Amendment rights of its 170 million American users. While concerns persist regarding potential data sharing with China, TikTok maintains its commitment to safeguarding US data, having invested over $1.5 billion in data protection measures and storage infrastructure within the country.
Federal lawmakers in the United States have proposed bipartisan legislation, the American Privacy Rights Act, to create clear and enforceable national data privacy rights for Americans.
Similar to the EU’s GDPR, the bill seeks to consolidate the country’s patchwork of state data privacy laws into a comprehensive framework, empowering individuals to take legal action against violators and curbing Big Tech’s exploitation of personal data without consent.
Key features include restrictions on data collection, enhanced consumer control over personal information, and safeguards against discriminatory algorithms. Individuals can refuse algorithmic decisions affecting housing, employment, healthcare, credit, education, and insurance.
If passed, this legislation will represent a significant step forward in bipartisan efforts to address data privacy concerns in the digital age.
Why does it matter?
Amidst the growing importance of personal data for AI companies and concerns over potential foreign access to Americans’ data, the proposed American Privacy Rights Act aims to establish stronger data protections than current state laws, such as California’s. If passed, the bill would mandate companies to disclose details regarding data storage in countries like China and Russia, addressing concerns related to platforms like TikTok. However, the legislation is expected to encounter obstacles in Congress, especially with limited legislative activity anticipated leading up to the 2024 election.
The US Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell is advocating for legislation that would compel TikTok’s parent company, China’s ByteDance, to divest the popular short video app, citing security threats to the US, which include calling TikTok ‘America’s greatest strategic rival.’
Senate leaders are now considering bipartisan measures to address the situation, while TikTok insists it has never shared American user data with China and has invested heavily in protecting and storing US data domestically.
Why does it matter?
TikTok’s future is sparking heated debate in Washington, with national security and First Amendment concerns taking centre stage. McConnell’s involvement may rekindle efforts to pass legislation that could ban the app. Notably, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer also views TikTok legislation as a critical November pre-election priority.
During a recent phone call, President Joe Biden conveyed to Chinese President Xi Jinping the United States’ desire for TikTok to change ownership. This move comes as Congress deliberates on outlawing the app unless it severs ties with its Chinese proprietors. According to National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby, Biden emphasised that the concern is not about banning TikTok outright but divesting ownership to safeguard national and data security interests.
President Biden’s backing of this bill is noteworthy, even though his election campaign leveraged TikTok as a tool to engage with young voters. However, the bill’s fate in the Senate remains uncertain, with some senators expressing reservations about the US government’s intervention in civil liberties and corporate ownership matters. The debate underscores the delicate balance between national security concerns and the principles of free enterprise and individual rights in the digital age.
