From artificial embryos to cloud-based AI, 2018 was another year in which the impossible became possible thanks to the rapid advances in technology. But while the online world is approaching the milestone of 30 billion connected devices, everything is not good in the real world. We may be on the verge of a technological impact, fueled by fear and uncertainty around three burning problems: privacy and data security, facial recognition technology (and the right to it) and the definition of free expression
1. Privacy and data protection
Personal safety is always a sensitive issue. From the now infamous 2015 hacking of Ashley Madison's married customer base, to the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica scandal, to the confession last month that the Marriott Hotel hack has uncovered the passport data of up to 500 million people and much more, data breaches a long history. The federal authorities' Assistance and Access Bill 2018 could be the death blow to consumer confidence while undermining the efforts of tech entrepreneurs who build businesses to combat cybercrime. Before the last session of the Parliament in 2018, the meaning of the bill and its harmful effects were buried when Australia shopped, ate and drank during the festive period.
With the new bill, law enforcement agencies gain access to encrypted communications on platforms such as Facebook (NASDAQ 🙂 Messenger, Skype or WhatsApp if the content is suspected of containing plans for illegal or terrorist activities. This basically means that the security has to be weakened in the form of a back door to make decryption possible.
There are three things that are fundamentally wrong with this picture.
First, as in the real world, the strongest locks on the front door offer no peace of mind when a back door is wide open for burglars or, in this case, hackers. Consumers and businesses are right when they are nervous and we can see companies that store data abroad with companies that are not in Australia.
Secondly, the Australian tech scene is home to many talented entrepreneurs who work tirelessly on cybersecurity startups. Why would these companies want to settle in Australia, where the government undermines their business?
Finally, the government dictates the definition of & # 39; terrorist & # 39; and law enforcers only have to suspect somebody & # 39 ;. We often see the use of the word & # 39; terrorist & # 39; or & # 39; hijacked & # 39; by high government members to exaggerate certain activities or occasions that do not fall within the historical definition of terrorism. Can we really trust that they use these forces in an honest way?
2. Face Recognition
Another example is the growing use of facial recognition technology. This year Sydney Airport (AX 🙂 and Qantas (AX 🙂 started testing biometrics, with a first phase of checking check-in, bag drop, lounge access and boarding. As with all new security, vulnerabilities do not begin to appear long before. A recent report from a Forbes journalist discovered that it was possible to break through the security of face recognition using a 3D print from a head. In a test of a number of smartphones, Apple was the only phone that could not be unlocked.
In addition to doubts about safety, facial recognition technology has been the subject of ethical control, since government use has not been clarified. Indeed, last year, the Minister of the Interior, Peter Dutton, introduced legislation that would allow his department to share biometric data with other government agencies, if applicable. So, when is it appropriate? This controversial question is wrapped in the secret of government. It could be counterterrorism, but it could also be for broader surveillance and even for road safety. There is no opt-out and no clear guidelines on the use of this data.
3. Free expression
Freedom of expression is a highly subjective issue and difficult to control in its many forms, ranging from individual opinions about social media platforms to sharing information that can be protected in certain jurisdictions. Although a recent Australian court imposed a repressive order that Australian media could not report on the conviction of a prominent figure, international sites plastered the identity of the suspect on their home page. The internet has circumvented local laws and there needs to be further international cooperation and uniformity to find a way that is both fair and realistic. Tech platforms need clear, strict and enforceable guidelines on this topic
In 2018, some platforms, including Wikipedia, forbade websites, such as the controversial right-wing website, Brietbart, as a source of facts; Apple (NASDAQ 🙂 removed the app from the store after years of tacit approval; Tumblr banned adult content from its microblogging and social network platform; and Facebook suspended creators with alt-right content such as Alex Jones from his platform. Although we must defend the right to freedom of expression, we need to find a way to better manage those who express injured or insulting opinions. Tech platforms need clear, strict and enforceable guidelines on this topic
Conclusion
For the tech community the consequences of these technical & # 39; watch-outs & # 39; far-reaching. From users to start-ups and established companies to investors, these are problems with major interests. Investors regularly ask what the effect of these factors will be on the investment results of the sector.
The most important question they should ask is the value of data and how easily it can be affected.
In addition, ethical considerations will also play an important role in shaping investment decisions. Issues in technology will require even better technological solutions, and in the technological world of entrepreneurs, a solution to these problems may not be far away. In the meantime, it is a case of investors beware and armed with all available knowledge in your arsenal to make the best investment decisions.
Original post
Benjamin Chong is a partner at venture capital company Right Click Capital, investors in fast-growing technology companies.
