SAN FRANCISCO — Russian President Vladimir Putin continues to demonstrate a real fear of rising opposition forces, fueled by Western social media platforms. On March 10, the Russian government announced it would be slowing down speeds on Twitter as part of a larger effort to crackdown on opposition within the country and impose sweeping national censorship. Russian authorities have increasingly attempted to intimidate social media platforms with warnings, fines and threats of blockage as they begin to mimic the oppressive internet initiatives under the Chinese government. 

The censoring of Twitter comes as a result of the Russian government arguing that social media platforms have played a major role in encouraging dissent nationwide. Alexei Navalny, the de facto head of the opposition movement in Russia, has used platforms like YouTube and Twitter to promote his anti-corruption agenda. Using the internet and other digital means has enabled Navalny to produce viral videos, including his documentary on Putin’s alleged palace, which has reached over a hundred million views on Youtube. 

Since Navalny’s most recent detainment and subsequent imprisonment in February, Russian citizens have been outraged, flooding into the streets to fight for Navalny and against the greater government corruption in the country. Navalny’s two-year sentence in Russia’s colony number two is at a correctional colony in Pokrov. Although Russia describes the facility as their average prison, in reality, Pokrov is considered the maximum level of imprisonment and an institution known for isolating its prisoners and destroying them psychologically. Navalny is one of several Russian political activists that have been imprisoned at this corrective colony. 

Due to Navalny’s success on platforms like YouTube, the Russian government has enacted greater measures to silence western social media platforms. Roskomnadzor, Russia’s federal executive body in charge of supervising media and mass communications, began the slowdown of Twitter in order to tighten the control of social media platforms following Navalny’s internet success. In February, Putin advocated for officials to monitor said platforms more closely, arguing they encourage children to participate in unsanctioned and illegal opposition protests. 

However, these attempts at censorship date back to 2012, when a law was implemented allowing the government to block or blacklist online content it deemed inappropriate. Since then, the Russian government has only increased its level of censorship. 

In 2014, the Russian State Duma passed a law requiring the personal data of Russian users to be stored on Russian servers. The government has continuously fined apps like Facebook and Twitter for their lack of action but have failed to ban either platform, possibly to avoid further public resentment. The Russian government successfully blocked LinkedIn in 2016, both because of its unpopularity in Russia and the company’s failure to adhere to Russian user data guidelines. 

During the Crimean crisis, Russian authorities banned Alexei Navalny’s blog and Kasparov.ru, owned by Garry Kasparov, a chess grandmaster and World Chess Champion, known for its condemnation of Vladimir Putin. Roskomnadzor often blocks specific Facebook or Wikipedia pages and blogs, like a 2014 Facebook page protesting the prosecution of Alexei Navalny for inciting violence or “unsanctioned mass protest”. 

In April 2018, Roskomnadzor banned Telegram for its refusal to grant the Federal Security Service access to encryption keys, but lifted the ban in 2020 due to its ineffectiveness and particularly Telegram’s ability to work around the limitation. 

In December 2020, the Russian government implemented a new bill for anyone defaming the government online and sentencing them to jail for up to two years. Another bill signed into law that same day bans online discussions of law enforcement officials and judges’ personal information or property ownership. In doing so, the government is able to silence any allegations of corruption on part of officials. 

The Russian government passed a new law in January 2021, that fines companies annual revenue by 10% if they fail to block illegal activity. One example of “illegal activity” is rallying the youth to participate in unsanctioned protests. In January, the government threatened and then proceeded to fine social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, TikTok and Vkontakte, a Russianowned social media platform, for allegedly promoting protests to minors. On January 28, Putin announced that he has given the government until the first of August to create more thorough rules for foreign tech companies choosing to work in Russia. Additionally, he is requiring those same companies to open offices in the country. 

Even though Russian officials have been mostly ineffective in definitively censoring popular social media platforms like Reddit, YouTube and others, their authority over television gives them lasting control. Television, Russia’s most popular medium for entertainment and information, is government-controlled. Nearly 74% of the Russian population watches national television channels. Of the three main nationwide news broadcasters in Russia, Channel One and Russia TV are government owned, while the third, NTV is owned by the state-controlled natural gas-giant Gazprom. The majority of the population that indulges in Russian news is thus fed government-propagated information rather than unbiased news. Due to television being predominantly in the hands of the government, social media has become an even greater outlet for younger generations to engage in critical debate. 

For years, Roskomnadzor and the Russian government have been building an infrastructure to minimize the freedom of speech online. Many have argued that this push for censorship is akin to China’s government monitored internet. However, the main difference is that China’s censorship was embedded from the beginning of the internet’s expansion. As a result, the distinction between China’s government propaganda and its internet are blurred. The Chinese government strategically blocked potentially unsettling information regarding COVID-19 and any negative coverage on China’s handling of the virus. But, their censorship goes deeper than just blocking unwelcome information and rather uses specialized technology to create false, alternative narratives to controversial issues. In Russia, digital entrepreneurship was encouraged until the anti-government protests in 2011 and 2012, making it significantly more difficult for Russian officials to censor the free-internet in the same way as China. Although both regimes are similar in their oppressive tactics, Russia’s late entrance into the sphere of censored internet puts them at a significant disadvantage as social media companies have built an infrastructure to fight against government bans. 

But, Russian officials have been hinting at a “sovereign RuNet”, a platform designed to tie Russian citizens to the internet regardless of if they were to disconnect from the World Wide Web. The purpose, the government argues, is to block Western observers and intruders from cutting Russia’s communication link; yet, many activists believe this Russian controlled internet would allow for more censored content that is directly cut off from the external world.

Rather than directly force its citizens to join, officials are attempting to coax Russian social media users to switch platforms from Western apps to Russian social networks like VKontakte. Vkontakte, along with the Chinese-owned platform TikTok, have previously agreed to ban certain content that may encourage protesting in Russia. Vkontakte is known to be linked to the Russian government. 

In order to further their government-controlled internet bubble, Gazprom Media has committed to creating a video platform called RuTube in order to potentially replace Youtube. On top of that, the corporation also bought rights to “Ya Molodets”, an app that strives to resemble or, even better, replace TikTok.

The purpose of Russia’s government-run array of social media platforms isn’t only to better censor Western media content, but also to destroy the potential of viral videos that the Kremlin believes could promote dissent. That way, the government is better prepared for another Navalny figure who has the potential of encouraging younger audiences to revolt. Although they can’t directly replicate China’s successful government-censored social media platforms, they can and are trying to smear and suppress the platforms that go against their regime. 

Overall, this begs the question of whether or not Russia’s strategy for censorship will be effective in the long-term. Even though China has successfully incorporated their oppressive political tactics into their citizens’ everyday lives and thus acts as an example, Russia is unable to double-down in the same way due to their lack of control over free speech on the internet.  Jailing or eliminating opposition leaders and troublemakers as a means of censorship is nothing new. 

Yet, Putin is beginning to demonstrate a real fear that opposition is spurred on by the free internet. Russia’s inability to tackle Silicon Valley’s influence in its country could create a serious obstacle for their regime in the near future. However, Putin has curtailed similar mass protests before, like the 2011 protests, showing that Navalny might not be as real of a threat as the western media paints him to be. Navalny’s prior commitments to nationalist groups, his history of making xenophobic and controversial videos, along with his constantly fluctuating views on economic and social issues have caused Russian citizens and Western observers alike to be skeptical of a Navalny Russia. But, even if Navalny’s success as the de facto leader of the opposition is unsuccessful in dismantling Putin’s regime, the Kremlin’s lack of control over the free internet could pose significant problems for their future political success.

The post Creeping Veil: Tracking the Increase in Russian Internet Censorship appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Anytime someone logs onto the internet and uses a search engine or social media platform, that individual gives up personal data in exchange for access to the platform. In an unorthodox economic transaction, the 21st century has seen personal data replace traditional currencies — serving as the basis for our emerging digital economy. Companies like Google, Facebook, and Apple collect, process and use personal data for monetary gain. Analyzing personal data allows companies to create targeted ads and feedback loops that cater to personal preferences. 

But Americans seriously undervalue their personal data, especially when it comes to national security. Despite Edward Snowden’s 2013 publications which revealed that service providers like Google, Microsoft, and Facebook handed over user data to the National Security Agency for surveillance purposes, little has been done to strengthen personal data protection in the United States. Beyond its value as a means of government intelligence efforts, personal data inherently possesses commercial value. Companies that collect personal data (nearly any online service provider) have the ability to use that information largely at their own discretion. 

Personal data might seem like an unusual currency; however, it demands just as much attention and regulation as more traditional currencies like the U.S. dollar. The U.S. government must expand its ability to protect American consumers and internet users, beginning with the establishment of data localization laws. 

In the realm of personal data collection, one structure in particular garners special attention when it comes to the government’s ability to protect citizens: the cloud. In theory the cloud is a network of software and services that does not run locally on a computer. However, in practice, the cloud is a structure grounded in many physical locations and servers. Most consumers do not stress about information stored on iCloud or Google Drive because like their names suggest, this information lives in some non-geographic location. 

Therein lies the problem facing America today: How do we promote a cloud that simultaneously protects personal data and U.S. national security? 

It might make the most sense for large tech companies to tackle this issue. After all, they are the ones that created this issue in the first place. However, countries are not waiting for the private sector to take the lead on personal data protection when it comes to the cloud. The European Union, China, and Russia have already developed frameworks for handling personal data collection and cloud storage within their respective borders. In the European Union, regulators argue that large technology companies use data collection to monopolize the market and create unfair competition. Officials in China and Russia argue that data localization laws are necessary for proper law enforcement practices.

At present, the United States refuses to engage on this issue based on the principle that limiting the free flow of information and data across the internet would be “undemocratic.” But this logic is flawed primarily because the idea of a global free flow is cosmopolitan, but not necessarily democratic. Furthermore, some countries have already established laws on this issue thereby limiting free flow of data across the world. The United States is fooling itself if it believes it can maintain such a free flow of data and information. The U.S. government must abandon “data exceptionalism” or the notion that data is “incompatible with existing territorial notions of jurisdiction” and instead begin developing the American framework for cloud data localization. 

Data localization laws protect American interests by ensuring that American data cannot become subject to abuse abroad. For example, under current U.S. law, if the Russian government demanded that Google hand over all of its data about a certain American under investigation, Google would have to hand over all of the data located on that individual stored on servers in Russia. 

Likewise, if the U.S. government wanted a company to hand over personal data for an individual in question, and that data was located outside of the United States, there is no guarantee that the U.S. would be able to locate the data regardless of the individual’s nationality. 

While it might seem nice in theory for the United States to stay out of debates about data localization, other countries are forcing the issue. If the United States does not establish its own framework for data localization, we may find ourselves adhering to standards and regulations put forth by people and governments in faraway countries. 

The post A Fear of Being Fenced In: It’s Time for the United States to Tackle Data Localization appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Psychological operations (PSYOPs) are the planned use of propaganda and other forms of disinformation to influence the opinions, emotions, attitudes, and behavior of certain groups. These operations are dedicated military actions that were first created during World War I to destroy the morale of German soldiers. In our current age of information and big data, PSYOPs are mostly being used by private and public actors to influence the way people vote. 

Data is one of the most valuable resources in today’s world. Both public and private actors are racing to amass data on consumers and citizens, using it to enhance their economic profit, power and influence. Cambridge Analytica, a British political consulting firm, is the most prominent example of a company that was able to access the personal data of global citizens, using it to construct PSYOPs and influence elections all over the world.  

Cambridge Analytica described its mission as “us[ing]advanced scientific research and social analysis techniques, adapted for civilian use from military applications, to better understand behavior within electorates.” They combined the military application of PSYOPs with user information to influence the way people vote via social media platforms. The firm’s aim was to bring a potentially powerful new weapon to the market that allows wealthy investors to reshape politics in their vision. Their successful campaigns range from assisting in several Kenyan elections to helping President DonaldTrump in his bid for the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election.

The company played a dominant role in Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta’s election campaigns in 2013 and 2017. Cambridge Analytica conducted a vast political research effort with 50,000 respondents and used the data they collected to craft the campaigns. They worked with a local research partner “to ensure that variations in language and customs were respected,” and then used social media to target the youth population. Cambridge Analytica used their data to conduct misinformation and disinformation campaigns in order to sway the youth vote in favor of Kenyatta. Kenya’s presidential election in August 2017 pitted President Uhuru Kenyatta against Raila Odinga. This election was overruled by the Supreme Court in September due to procedural irregularities. The election was held again in October, where Kenyatta won with 98 percent of the vote. 

However, the 2017 election saw two key incidences of misinformation. The first was a video entitled “The Real Raila,” which depicted a world in 2020 with an imagined Odinga presidency. This video was viewed more than 141,000 times. The second incident was the misinformation about the violence that surrounded the electoral process. People would take videos and photos from the past and post them as current, on-going events.  Rebekka Rumpel, a research assistant for the Africa program at think tank Chatham House, said, “there were certainly a number of sites and campaign ads that were flagged by Kenyans and international organizations as using scaremongering tactics to win votes ahead of the August 2017 elections.” 

Cambridge Analytica is most famously known for being hired by Trump during his 2016 presidential campaign. The firm harvested private information from Facebook profiles of as many as 87 million users without their permission and used this information to create targeted advertisements to sway voters away from presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Facebook’s trust in software developers allowed Cambridge Analytica to access the data and create psychographics for numerous voters. 

Facebook offers a number of technology tools for software developers, with one of the most popular being the Facebook Login extension, which lets people log in to a website or app using their Facebook account instead of creating new credentials. Back in 2014, Facebook’s terms and services allowed developers to collect some information on the friend networks of people who used Facebook Login. That meant that while a single user may have agreed to hand over their data, developers could also access some data about their friends. Cambridge Analytica accessed this data via a third party and collected details on “roughly 30 million [people]containing enough information, including places of residence, that the company could match users to other records and build psychographic profiles.”

Christopher Wylie, a co-founder of Cambridge Analytica, stated that its leaders wanted “to fight a culture war in America…Cambridge Analytica was supposed to be the arsenal of weapons to fight that culture war.” With this as their mission, Cambridge Analytica did exactly that with the U.S. 2016 presidential campaign. Traditional analytics firms used voting records and consumer purchase histories to try to predict political beliefs and voting behavior. However, Cambridge Analytica instead used private data bought from Facebook, identifying users’ inherent psychological traits, and using them to design powerful political messages aimed at swaying voters. As in Kenya, the U.S. 2016 elections saw the proliferation of misinformation and disinformation on voters’ social media platforms. 

Since the 2016 U.S. presidential election, Cambridge Analytica is no longer in business due to its part in the data breach scandal with Facebook. However, there are still many companies like Cambridge Analytica that exist and work in similar ways–Clarity Campaigns, bluelabs, and Civis Analytics are just a few to name.  Social media platforms, like Facebook, are being pressured by politicians to strengthen their data privacy terms in light of public protest. The data used in the Cambridge Analytica scandal was collected without the consent or knowledge of the people whose information was being used psychologically against them. In July 2019, the Federal Trade Commission fined Facebook around $5 billion to settle their investigation into the data breach. Additionally, there were various regional governments in the United States with lawsuits in their court systems from citizens affected by the data breach. It will be impossible to ever say definitively whether data manipulation tipped the results of the American presidential election. Yet, it is evident that “the Internet has created a political ecosystem in which the extreme, the incendiary, and the polarising tend to prevail over the considered, the rational, and the consensus-seeking.”  

This data breach calls into question whether governments around the world can control these social media giants and how they obtain and use their users’ information. The Cambridge-Analytica and Facebook data scandal has made people all over the world more aware of the fact that their information can be used and acquired by a variety of public and private actors without their explicit consent. The fallout of this scandal has prompted politicians to recognize the way these monopolistic companies mine and exploit our data to make their vast profits, with governments around the world strengthening their regulatory framework of the digital economic sector.

Another question that has been brought into play, is whether governments can control the AI-powered information bubbles that are used by tech giants Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Microsoft. In 2009, Google announced that it would use fifty-seven signals to customize search results. These customized search results are from the collection of data about the users’ activity to tailor information to each person according to their interests, desires and preferences. 

Initially, these information bubbles were meant to help users find information that conforms to their preferences. However, these bubbles also allow personalization algorithms to provide people with the information that will most likely align with their beliefs. As a result, people are segregating themselves into information bubbles, where their own beliefs are reinforced and they are not exposed to opposite views. Eli Pariser, the man who coined the term ‘filter bubble’, has stated:  “Left to their own devices, personalization filters serve up a kind of invisible auto propaganda, indoctrinating us with our own ideas, amplifying our desire for things that are familiar and leaving us oblivious to the dangers lurking in the dark territory of the unknown.” Personalized algorithms allow people to believe that the information they consume represents the undisputed truth, when in fact it may be far from reality. 

This can be seen in the 2016 U.S. election, where people continuously saw polls showing Clinton in the lead, which influenced  some people to believe that they did not have to go out and vote. Additionally, those on the fence between Clinton and Trump were targeted with ads made by Cambridge Analytica. The firm had created personalized propaganda that was pro-Trump, which pushed viewers towards voting for Trump. After  viewing one Trump-related ad, user’s personalized algorithms continuously provided that user with pro-Trump information, real or fake. 

Yet, the challenge of regulation is difficult in an ecosystem with so many actors, many of which utilize covert tactics. Cambridge Analytica stated that they used propaganda anonymously and “just put information into the bloodstream of the internet and then watch[ed]it grow, g[a]ve it a little push every now and again.” Everyday people would be exposed to this information and it would “infiltrate the online community and expand but with no branding – so it’s unattributable, untrackable.”  

So, what can politicians do about this? Politicians will have to choose between establishing advanced regulatory frameworks to better monitor and control the online sphere or they can continue to give in to these data giants, allowing them to continue amassing information on global citizens and disrupt democratic processes. Politicians could force social media platforms to create stricter privacy terms, adopt fact-checking tools, comply with independent regulatory oversight, declare the origins of political advertisements, and ensure their algorithms and AI tools are conducive to a pluralistic media ecosystem. 

Some social media sites, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter, currently have adopted the fact-checking tool. Facebook has used third-party fact checkers to reduce the volume of false information since 2016. On October 14, 2020, Facebook also announced they used other methods to reduce the distribution of potential disinformation but did not go into detail about what those methods are. On the same day, Twitter users reported they could not share certain links and would get an alert saying, “Your Tweet could not be sent because this link has been identified by Twitter or our partners as being potentially harmful.” Angie Holan, the editor-in-chief of PolitiFact, questioned Twitter by saying “Who are these partners they (Twitter) speak of? Has Twitter partnered with fact-checkers without telling anyone? It would be news to me.” These fact checking tools are still being questioned by the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) and are still relatively new to know if they are effective in reducing the amount of false information online. More time and research are needed to conclude whether or not fact checking tools are useful in combating this age of misinformation.   

Europe has also passed rules and laws in regard to monitoring social media. The European Union has introduced the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) which set rules on how companies, including social media platforms, store and use people’s data. Additionally, Australia passed the Sharing of Abhorrent Violent Material Act in 2019. This introduced criminal penalties for social media companies, possible jail sentences for tech executives for up to three years and financial penalties worth up to 10% of a company’s global turnover. 

It is increasingly evident that “politicians cannot control the digital giant with rules from the past” and that legislative change is necessary to effectively regulate today’s big tech companies and the expansive use of big data.  

The post Big Data and AI: Why We No Longer Have Free or Fair Elections appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

This move has large implications for the tech industry. While TikTok, a social media and entertainment platform, is very popular in the United States, with over 80 million American users, WeChat is a messaging service, payment platform, and social network all in one. Not only does it serve as a way for the Chinese diaspora around the world to communicate with their relatives in China, but it is also important for Americans to do business with China. 

For TikTok, the Trump Administration has extended the original 45-day deadline to 90 days. TikTok now has 90 days to sell the U.S. operations of the app or risk a ban on all of their transactions with the United States. The new restrictions on TikTok increase the chance of a sale to Microsoft, who is one of the companies in talks acquiring TikTok. With regards to WeChat, the wording of the executive order appears to cover not just the app itself, but includes all transactions with WeChat’s owner, Tencent, which is among one of the largest social media, video game, and investment corporations in the world. This would mean that the ban would not just apply to apps that Tencent owns, but any company that Tencent has a stake in. The list of these companies is long, and includes Epic Games, which produces the popular game, Fortnite, along with other major companies like Reddit, Tesla, and Spotify.

The Trump Administration presented the TikTok and WeChat ban as an issue of national security. According to a recent paper from the Brookings Institution, the administration’s concern is that the Chinese government will be able to access data through these apps and exploit it for espionage or blackmail. This new focus on data privacy and security marks a shift from traditional national security issues, such as those related to intelligence systems or weaponry, toward technological and cybersecurity threats. Both TikTok and WeChat collect an immense amount of data from its users. According to the Wall Street Journal, the data Tiktok, for example, collects includes your phone and social network contacts, age, GPS location and phone number, along with the photos and videos you post. The apps also store your payment information. 

However, this is a common practice carried out by American social media apps like Facebook and Twitter, as well. Interestingly, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson condemned the United States “for using national security as an excuse and using state power to oppress non-American businesses” despite its own ban on American social media apps, including Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube, that has been in place since the early 2010s. 

These bans have brought further tension to an already strained U.S.-China relationship. Within the Trump Administration, there are two factions that hold differing stances on the United States’ relationship with China. The “China Hawks,” composed of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and White House Trade Advisor Peter Navarro, want to confront China. They argue that China presents a strategic threat to the United States., particularly in trade and national security. On the other side, there are those who want a more cooperative relationship with China, like Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, who believes that a positive U.S.-China relationship is necessary to stabilize the global economy. 

Although the United States was headed down a more cooperative route with the trade deal signed this past January, the global pandemic soon drove a wedge between Washington and Beijing. In the first weeks of the virus’ global spread, Trump was praising Chinese President Xi Jinping publicly to protect the trade deal. By spring, Trump blatantly criticized China for its handling of the pandemic, calling COVID-19 the “kung flu.” The Trump Administration was determined to not only hold China accountable for the pandemic, but also to fight back against China on numerous fronts. Specifically, they criticized the country for its latest national security law in Hong Kong, which cracks down on any and all pro-democracy and anti-Chinese activity and allows the Chinese government to set up its own agency to enforce “national security” without any local checks and balances. Soon after, in late July, the United States abruptly asked China to close its consulate in Houston, declaring it a hub of trade secrets and espionage. 

Leading up to the TikTok and WeChat executive orders, the United States took hostile actions against several Chinese industries. In the technology industries, the State Department sought to convince other countries to exclude the Chinese tech giant, Huawei, from their 5G systems. Additionally, at the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets, Trump encouraged U.S. stock exchanges to set new rules that could trigger the delisting of Chinese companies. 

The TikTok and WeChat bans, however, present a new and more serious threat to global business. As mentioned previously, Tencent, the owner of WeChat, has significant stakes in companies critical to the American market and could affect the United States’ ability to conduct business with them. Apple and Google have already removed Fortnite from their app stores and as a result, Epic Games has threatened legal action against Apple and Google. Due to WeChat’s widespread usage in China, U.S. firms utilized the platform to advertise and importantly, to accept payments. Trump’s new policies could be very troubling for American companies, like Starbucks, Walmart, and Nike, who rely on WeChat to connect with the Chinese market and Chinese consumers. The WeChat ban could prove particularly disastrous for Apple, which made $44 billion in China last year. Without WeChat in their app stores, there might be a significant drop in iPhone sales in China. 

When analyzing the evolution of U.S.-China relations over the past few months, it is clear that the TikTok and WeChat shifts in policy are not isolated incidents. Rather, they are only a part of the Trump Administration’s strategy to push back against China. In this era of tension between these two superpowers, the executive orders regarding TikTok and WeChat have proven how difficult it will be for any global company to work across the U.S.-China divide. 

The post TikTok — A National Security Threat? A Glimpse into U.S.-China Relations appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.