Twitter Says It Will Crack Down on Abuse—After the Election
Twitter says it will be making some meaningful changes to its safety policy in order to clean up its notoriously toxic atmosphere and crack down on “targeted behavior that harasses or threatens others to silence another person’s voice.”
Will Technology Make Ownership Obsolete? A Future Tense Event Recap.
The destinationless driver and her beloved Mustang facing the open road. The Bob Dylan fan thumbing through his prized vinyl collection. Ms. Fix-It tinkering away her basement workshop.
This are the joys—the independence, the control, the freedom, the physical connection—that have defined the American pursuit of ownership. But what happens if technology—in the form of app-based sharing companies, digital rights management, and user agreements—makes this kind of ownership obsolete?
That’s the question Future Tense—a partnership of Slate, New America, and Arizona State University—posed to experts at a live event on Oct. 25 in Washington, D.C. It was part of the “Future of Ownership” edition of Futurography, a project in which Future Tense explores a different tech-related topic each month.
The subscription-based and shared-economy business models operate under the premise that the ownership we once romanticized is largely overrated. After all, cars cost us $9,000 a year to use and maintain and sit in garages or parking spaces most of the time. So why not get a ride—and music, movies, even clothes—on-demand instead?
Lauren Belive, the senior federal relations manager for Lyft, kicked off the conversation by describing the near-future the ridesharing company envisions. By 2025, Lyft hopes, autonomous networked fleets will have made private car ownership obsolete in urban environments. (She took care to note that human drivers will still be in high demand through the transition, and the change will come later in suburban and rural areas.) Individuals not only retain their ability to get around from place to place through on-demand services, but also get the added benefit of fewer cars parked or on the road—less congestion, less pollution, and more urban space freed from pavement and parking spots. That could transform cities, as Slate’s Henry Grabar recently explored in a Futurography piece.
These subscription and sharing-based models also give many consumers access to things they would never have been able to own, said Spotify’s senior director of sales, Holly Maine. “We are able to bring more music to more people with more diverse backgrounds, people that may not have had access to it or even known that they’d liked certain genres to more people than when it just came down to buying that CD or buying that piece of vinyl.” But that doesn’t mean she thinks that ownership is going the way of the 8-track tape. Though she’s an ambassador for a streaming service, Maine said she still puts on one of her vinyl records from time to time because she loves the way they sound.
This gets at a larger point about the changing nature of ownership: Though we may be able to access everything, people will still want to own what they care about most—that classic car in the garage or that designer gown in the closet. On the other hand, those who don’t have the same attachments to traditional ownership, particularly people growing up now, may find these post-ownership experiences to be particularly freeing—be it building a playlist to send to their crush or by stylizing a self-driving car experience with customized music, lighting, and video landscapes.
But that’s not to say this vision of the future is inevitable or entirely desirable. While there may be some freedom in shedding possessions, we can’t overlook the you-bought-it-but-you-don’t-really-own-it phenomenon. Through restrictive licensing terms (those things you never scroll through before clicking “I agree”) and digital and physical locks, more companies have started to obstruct users’ abilities to access, share, alter, and repair their purchases, as Charles Duan, the director of Public Knowledge’s Patent Reform Project, discussed. For example, Apple Music swapped out its users’ music files overnight and replaced them with streaming versions that lived in the cloud. Macbooks now come with proprietary screws that make them difficult to open and repair. Lexmark made printers that stopped working if they detected unauthorized ink (as Duan wrote about for Futurography). And, with the Internet of Things upon us, the lines of ownership will continue to blur as software and software updates may limit consumers’ abilities to use a car, thermostat, or programmable cat-feeder—and already have.
The downsides of this trend aren’t just for individual consumers, Duan said. These sorts of blocks prevent innovation from those who find unintended uses for products (like putting food coloring in those ink cartridges so they can print on cakes, or Ikea hacks like Duan’s printing press) and from those who can point out flaws and help make products better (like third parties who find and notify companies of security vulnerabilities). It’s also an environmental threat—if devices become harder to fix, more people will give up on them, creating a big recycling and resource problem. And then there are the complicated copyright and trademark issues that 3-D printing will raise. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Chief Communication’s Officer Patrick Ross said the revolutionary technology will undoubtedly improve our lives and transform the economy, but that its rules have yet to be worked out publicly and may “make headlines” along the way.
These new models can also be much more complicated than they look at first. Do consumers know what they’re getting and what they’re giving up when they hit “I agree” on those End User Licensing agreements? Are they thinking about potential privacy concerns that may come with their networked choices? And, as journalist Monica Potts suggested, are we making “sure that people are participating in the sharing economy because it’s what they prefer”—that they’re choosing not to own things rather than not being able to afford them? Will the government step in to fill in the gaps not filled by the sharing economy by funding public transportation options or pushing for portable benefits for contract workers?
Even though the models may be changing, those in the conversation agreed that consumers and workers still hold some power to shape what ownership, or non-ownership, will look like in the future. But with a younger generation growing up in an increasingly post-ownership world, it’s unclear what desires will drive their choices, what fights they’ll pick, and what power dynamics they’ll accept.
Watch the full Future Tense event on the New America website.
Facebook’s Revamped Safety Measures Aim to Prevent Suicides
Facebook revamped its safety measures this week, making its “Safety Center” available in more than 50 languages and updating its reporting tool to allow users to flag friends’ concerning posts.
The Safety Center includes bullying prevention advice for teens, parents, and educators and links to more than 60 partner organizations and suicide hotlines, along with privacy and account security tips.
The reporting tool lets users reach out to friends about other friends who may need help. USA Today describes how it works:
To use the tool, go to the concerning post, click the down arrow in the top right corner, select “Report Post” and click “I think it shouldn’t be on Facebook.” Then, select what is wrong with the post. For users concerned about a suicidal friend, they can select: “It’s threatening, violent or suicidal.” The following window asks to choose a type, where an option is “self-injury or suicide.”
A window then pops up, prompting users to contact a local authority immediately if they believe their friend is in danger. Plus, Facebook offers a list of next steps: “Reach out to a friend,” “Learn how to talk with Facebook Safety about this” and “Ask us to look at the post.”
When users select "reach out to a friend," they have the option to send a direct message to another friend with the concerning post and Facebook suggests this language: “Hey, this post makes me feel worried about [Name]. Do you have any idea why [Name] would have written this? Do you think there's something we can do to help?”
When Facebook first announced the tool in June, it said “if you or someone you know is in crisis, it is important to call local emergency services right away.” The tool was developed in collaboration with organizations including Lifeline and Save.org.
Facebook first launched its safety center in 2010 and added the bullying prevention hub in 2013.
Google’s Super-Fast Fiber-Optic Internet Service Provider Cuts Staff, Pauses Operations
U.S. Intelligence Chief Says Internet Outage Was Likely the Work of a Non-State Actor
The head of U.S. intelligence, James Clapper, said Tuesday that a non-state actor was likely behind the cyberattack that caused a massive internet outage Friday. Speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations, Clapper said the investigation was still underway but that it “appears to be preliminarily the case” that the attack was the work of an individual or group not affiliated with a foreign government.
Don’t Worry! The Law Justin Timberlake Broke Is Unconstitutional.
Justin Timberlake just wanted to get out the vote. On Monday, Timberlake voted in Memphis and shared a photo of his ballot on Instagram, encouraging his followers to “#rockthevote”—“Choose to have a voice!” he implored.* But several outlets quickly noted that Timberlake had clearly violated a Tennessee law prohibiting so-called ballot selfies, thereby risking up to 30 days in jail. The district attorney’s office initially said that Timberlake’s actions were under review, but it later clarified that it would not use its “limited resources” to investigate his criminal conduct.
This entire incident is extraordinarily unfortunate, because it likely gives the impression to Timberlake’s many followers that banning ballot selfies (and punishing those who share them) is a valid exercise of state power. It isn’t. Every court to consider the constitutionality of ballot selfie bans—four so far—has concluded that they constitute a suppression of free speech in violation of the First Amendment. As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit ruled in late September, these “restrictions on speech” are “antithetical to democratic values,” censoring political expression under the tenuous rationale of preventing voter coercion—“an unsubstantiated and hypothetical danger.” And on the same day that Timberlake snapped his now-infamous photo, a federal judge in Michigan suspended the state’s ballot selfie ban, concluding that the law substantially burdened political speech without any adequate justification.
Civil liberties groups know a winning cause when they see one, and the American Civil Liberties Union is eager to invalidate the ballot selfie bans that remain in about two dozen states. Millennials snap and share ballot selfies en masse, using them to express their enthusiasm about voting and encouraging their friends to exercise the franchise. That’s why it’s such a shame that the DA decided not to prosecute Timberlake. Had it pursued charges, Timberlake—with the ACLU’s help—could have valiantly battled Tennessee’s attempt to censor his political expression. His legal crusade would have surely captured the nation’s attention and sent a powerful message to his many young followers that in America, we don’t let the state silence our free speech rights without a fight.
But instead, Timberlake simply removed the Instagram photo, meekly allowing Tennessee to chill his constitutionally protected expression. What a shame. The First Amendment needs defenders, now more than ever. If Justin Timberlake won’t stand up for free speech, who will?
*Correction, October 26, 2016: This post originally stated that Timberlake voted in Nashville.
Future Tense Newsletter: Making Sense of That Cyberattack
Greetings, Future Tensers,
Early Friday morning, major internet destinations—including Twitter, Netflix, BuzzFeed, and more—seemed to go offline, more or less simultaneously. After some initial confusion, security researchers determined that it had been a distributed denial of service attack against a company called Dyn that provides crucial infrastructure for many sites and services. Significantly, those researchers also demonstrated that the attack was perpetrated using hacked “Internet of Things” devices. As a subsequent recall confirms, it was mostly hacked cameras and DVRs from a single Chinese manufacturer.
We still don’t know who perpetrated the attack, and it’s possible that we never will. But Josephine Wolff writes that we can still learn a great deal from it. Notably, she points out that though the Internet of Things methodology is relatively novel, the results look a lot like those we’ve seen in past cyberattacks. There’s something reassuring about this, since it suggests that we’re not heading for some apocalyptic scenario where our internet-connected toasters try to burn our houses down. By way of example, look to the case of automobile hacking, which is more likely to end in extortion than old-fashioned murder.
Speaking of cars, Henry Grabar explores how shared self-driving cars might transform urban spaces in a video and accompanying essay for our Futurography unit on the future of ownership. (Tesla’s Elon Musk also has some troubling thoughts on the topic.) In that same series, Charles Duan discusses Lexmark, a printer company with a litigious history that helped limit our control over devices we own. And Emily Tamkin tries to solve a fascinating enigma: Why do we often pay more for digital versions of a product than we do for the physical ones? This week, we held an event to discuss some of these questions. If you missed it, you can check out C-SPAN’s coverage of it here.
Here are some of the other stories we read while waiting for our phones to update:
- Climate change: Want to better understand what’s happening to the environment? Check out some fiction on the topic.
- Pediatrics: Screen time may not be terrible for young kids after all (but that doesn’t mean you should just leave them in front of an iPad, unsupervised).
- Silicon Valley: Should tech companies exile Peter Thiel from their boards for his support of Trump? Will Oremus doesn’t think so.
- Gaming: I talked to a guy who’s collected hundreds of screen shots of soda machines in video games. His project is equal parts stupid and brilliant. I love it.
- Join New America President Anne-Marie Slaughter for a screening and discussion of the 2010 film Never Let Me Go. The screening of Never Let Me Go will take place at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, Nov. 2, at Washington, D.C.’s Landmark E Street Cinema at 555 11th St. NW. For more information and to RSVP click here.
for Future Tense
Amnesty International Slams Snapchat and Skype for Not Encrypting Messages
Amnesty International says digital encryption is a human right because it’s vital to unimpeded communication of activists and journalists.
Car Hackers Won’t Want to Kill You. They’ll Want to Rob You!
On Monday, the U.S. Department of Transportation released a new list of “best practices” for cybersecurity in vehicles, designed to prod carmakers toward securing cars from hackers.
Those include corporate changes, such as hiring high-level cybersecurity managers and embracing greater openness about flaws and vulnerabilities. More interestingly, the guide includes some technical suggestions for Detroit, such as:
- Everything the car does should be logged so that the method and consequence of a breach is recorded.
- A key or password obtained from open access to one vehicle’s computer should not provide access to multiple vehicles.
- Limit or eliminate post-production access to the software in “engine control units,” or ECUs. Physically hiding access—a PIN code inside the glove compartment, say—is not a sufficient form of protection, the report emphasizes.
Does that all sound obvious? It hasn’t been to carmakers. In August, security researchers were able to use a single Volkswagen to extract a cryptographic key that could unlock millions of its peers.
Update Your iPhone Right Now to Guard Against Malicious JPEGs
Apple’s new iOS 10.1 update patches a security hole that would allow malicious JPEGs to hack iPhones. The iPhone user would simply have to look at the image—not download it— to potentially spark “arbitrary code execution,” as Apple announced Monday.