Datasets:
Recag
/
C4_25

Dataset card Data Studio Files
xet
Community
text
stringlengths
11
92.3k
The teams announced the trade Wednesday night. The 28-year-old Del Zotto had a goal and three assists with the Canucks this season and has 54 goals and 161 assists over 10 NHL seasons.
Schenn, 29, had only played in eight games for Anaheim this season after signing with the Ducks as a free agent in July. He has 30 goals and 113 assists in 11 seasons.
TiVo announced it has extended its StopWatch service from 20,000 to 100,000 TiVo subscribers.
StopWatch, the ratings service TiVo is pairing with its digital video recorders (DVRs), catches and delivers second-by-second anonymous research data used to compile ratings.
TiVo says the increased sample size will provide users with data 25 times larger than any other ratings database available through other panel-based measurement sources. This increase also allows TiVo to produce stable ratings measurements in lower viewership cable networks, which are currently not measured including Noggin, Sleuth, Sprout and Planet Green, among others.
TiVo also announced Monday that the roughly 750,000 subscribers with broadband-enabled TiVo DVRs will now be able to order Domino's pizza directly through their television set.
"Pizza on-demand" has been a popular interactive TV demonstration at cable trade shows over the years and a real commercial application launched by Time Warner Cable's Oceanic Cable in Hawaii. TiVo's version will allow subscribers to order pizza for delivery or pick-up and track delivery timing, right from their TV sets using the TiVo service. TiVo subscribers can set-up a user name and password on Dominos.com so that each time they use their TiVo remote to place an order, they can log-in with a simple account number. Alternatively, TiVo subscribers can enter their delivery address, build their pizza order right from the television set by selecting type of crust, toppings, and sauces, and get the pizza delivered by their local Domino's Pizza. Viewers pay in cash when the pizza is delivered.
The deal with Domino's comes with various advertising entry points on the TiVo user interface including Gold Star Sponsorship, Program Placement, Interactive Tags in live TV spots, and through Music, Photos, Products, & More by clicking on "Order Your Dominos Pizza Now."
"Joining forces with Domino's Pizza creates an effective marketing and commerce tool for Domino's while enhancing and further distinguishing TiVo as the ultimate way to watch TV with a closed-loop advertising experience," said Karen Bressner, TiVo's Senior Vice President of Advertising Sales, in a statement. "This exciting new partnership offers yet another advertising solution as commercial avoidance continues to increase. With just a few clicks of the remote, TiVo users can pause their program, order a pizza, and then sit back, relax, and return to their favorite show without missing a single second."
HD DVR for satellite-TV platform's subscribers expected to launch in second half of 2009.
New mobile site allows subscribers to schedule recordings on the go.
When I worked in Africa, the local baboons would steal the corn when it was getting large enough to harvest. If enough of the crop was taken, it meant starvation for the families. Traditionally, women and children guarded the crops, but baboons could seriously bite, and would attack women and children. So men, who were larger and able to defend themselves, traditionally stayed in the fields to guard the crop from being stolen.
But with the modern world, often the younger men would have jobs in the cities, and those left behind were often women or old men, who would be attacked by the baboons.
So every harvest, Brother Charles, who had a gun permit, would go out to the fields and shoot the marauding monkeys. He would then arrange their body parts around the fields, and place the head on the stick. This sent a clear message to the baboons: attack the field, you’ll be next. And it worked. The monkeys would see the head, and decide to peacefully crunch on wild fruit instead.
When Bush attacked Iraq, he essentially placed the monkey’s head on a stick, for all to see. The message was clear: Attack us, and you’ll be next. Support terror groups who attack us, and you will be held responsible.
And it worked, although many of the successes rarely got headlines.
Well, when Congress voted against Bush last week, Congress has now taken down the monkey’s head.
As Mark Steyn points out, the Democrats want only to defeat Bush, but what they have done is prooted the defeat America in the eyes of the world.
And what no one is discussing is what this means for the rest of us.
The decision for Bush was “damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Bush chose war, but if he had chosen peace, he would still be blamed for the increase in terror, for the same reason that terror increased under Clinton: Because the weakness of the West is what encourages those who fight the West.
But alas, there is a “third front” in the war: Pacifism. Sweetness and light. Or for those of us of an older generation, “Peace in our time“.
Back to the 1990’s, when peace was reigning.
So now the report says that these Algerian terror group are not only responsible for 20 percent of Iraqi suicide bombs, but have links with the Moroccan men who bombed Madrid…. It sounds like “peace in our time” didn’t work, and if I lived in France or Spain, or even in London, I would worry.
Yet there has been success in the global war on terror, and a pull out of the US from Iraq will mean increased terror for Africa and Asia.
And there is one way that the Iraq war has indeed “encouraged terrorism”. Terrorism was there before, but, if you read the entire NYTimes article, it notes that it is the success of suicide bombings in Iraq that has encouraged AlQaeda to use that tactic elsewhere.
Yet here and there below the headlines are stories of success that you might have missed.
—A UN report on how Somali’s short lived Islamicist take over was enabled by Egypt, Syrian and Libyan training, and Saudi money, and trained with Hezbollah. The press barely noticed Somalia for ten years, and when the Islamicist took over, they started to spin as another failure for Bush. Then, voila, Kenya and Ethiopia stepped in and they were chased out. Kenya? Well, Kenya lost a lot of their people in those embassy bombings.The entire issue is now off the headlines, so let’s ignore this success.
—-Is there a connection between the American “surge” and the Saudi’s sudden friendliness with Israel? If so, it will to be ignored by tn American press and Congress who don’t know a Sunni from a Shiite. (Quick: Is Hezbollah Shiite or Sunni? Why does Saudi Arabia fear Hezbollah?)— Pakistan , who has been rooting out jihadi schools, suffering from and stopping suicide attacks, and starting to confront the Taliban hiding in their frontiers.
The danger of AlQaeda in Pakistan is now increasing, according to the NYTimes, but the dirty little secret is that they have been there for years.
—Today’s bombing of Muslim and Hindu civilians on a train in India bring up a little noted point: That the country with the second highest number of terrorist attacks is India. India’s anti terrorism effort is expanding with other countries in that region, especially to increase security in shipping and air transportation.
–Then there is the Philippines. Another ignored story of success in the war on terror is here in the Philippines.. Basilan Island in the Philippines was supposed to be the backup for AlQaeda training camps when Afghanistan was eliminated. However, the heroic Philippine armed forces, with help from US Special Forces advisers, have been slowly eliminating that area. But the fight is still ongoing, with the Philippines almost daily finding and defusing bombs at markets and police stations here.
—Another unsung ally is Australia. Senator Obama showed his ignorance of the war on terror when he criticized Australia’s Howard, saying that if Howard really likes the war in Iraqi, then the Aussies should send more troops to Iraq. Obama, who grew up in Indonesia and should know better, seems blithely unaware that Australia is involved in many peacekeeping missions here in SEAsia and Micronesia. Indeed, the Bali Bombing, which occurred before the Iraq war started, had nothing to do with Bush: it was in retaliation for Australian UN peacekeepers who were defending Christians in East Timor.
—Indonesia is also starting to fight against local terror groups. Recently, with the help of Aussies and US Special Forces, that government has had some success against terrorist in Sulewesi. The bad news however is that StrategyPage reports that Islamicists in Sulewesi are planning another big massacre of Christians to generate headlines and encourage others to join their losing cause….but unlike the past, where Christians did not defend themselves until many had been killed, this time, the Christians time will fight back.
—Is this perhaps why Thailand has become such a hotbed of terror? The peaceful Thai have avoided military solutions, and were hoping that peace could be made by their new government. Instead, the violence has increased, with 2000 dead in the last year, and 28 bombs last weekend alone. Most of those killed were Buddhists , and the result is an ethnic cleansing of Buddhists from that area, and a war against moderate Muslims who oppose the jihadis.
So how will this all end?
The ultimate winner will be China.
If the Islamicsts don’t manage to kill each other, nuke the oil fields in the Gulf, and turn Europe into a stagnant continent run by Sharia law, the growing caliphate will find themselves confronted with not the cowboy with the monkey’s head, but the dragon.
Psst…ten to one on the dragon.
Nancy Reyes is a retired physician living with her husband in the Philippines. Her webpage is Finest Kind Clinic and Fishmarket. Her experiences in Africa have made her cynical of pacifists who who underestimate the desire and ability of men with weapons to harm innocent unarmed civilians in the name of a utopian ideal.
No user commented in " Taking down the Monkey’s Head "
STARKVILLE, Miss. (AP) - Nick Fitzgerald threw for 241 yards and two touchdowns and ran for two more scores to lead Mississippi State over No. 16 Texas A&M 28-13 on Saturday night.
Mississippi State (5-3, 2-3 Southeastern Conference) won thanks to an unexpected boost from its passing game, which was among the least productive in the SEC coming into the night. One week after throwing four interceptions in a miserable loss to LSU, Fitzgerald completed 14 of 22 passes, including several big gains that swung the game in favor of the Bulldogs.
The biggest might have been a 84-yard strike to Stephen Guidry on third-and-21 that set up a 1-yard touchdown run by Fitzgerald and gave the Bulldogs a 21-13 lead early in the fourth quarter.
Mississippi State's defense was able to take it from there, and Erroll Thompson's interception in the end zone with 2:36 remaining -- along with Fitzgerald's 76-yard touchdown run on the ensuing drive -- sealed the victory.
Texas A&M (5-3, 3-2) had its three-game winning streak snapped. Kellen Mond completed 23 of 46 passes for 232 yards, one touchdown and one interception. The Aggies had just 61 yards rushing.
Mississippi State's surprising ability to throw the ball started on the opening drive. Fitzgerald completed 6 of 7 passes for 59 yards, including a 25-yard touchdown to Stephen Guidry for a 7-0 lead. It was the team's first passing touchdown in more than four SEC games.
Texas A&M rallied to take a 10-7 lead into halftime but didn't score a touchdown in the second half. The Aggies might have had more success in the first half, but several dropped passes hurt promising drives.
Texas A&M had some good moments but was rarely able to hit on the big plays that could have turned the momentum. Mond missed on a few long throws and the receivers had several drops. Trayveon Williams, who came into the game with 798 yards rushing, had just 26 yards on the ground.
It was a huge game for Mississippi State's offense, which looked completely overmatched in last week's loss to LSU. If the Bulldogs are able to pass like this the rest of the season, there could be several more wins remaining on the schedule. The defense -- as it has been all season -- was excellent.
Texas A&M travels to face Auburn next Saturday.
Mississippi State hosts Louisiana Tech next Saturday.
DeVry University today announced the appointment of Joe Mozden as vice president of workforce solutions.
DeVry University today announced the appointment of Joe Mozden as vice president of workforce solutions. In this new role, Mozden will identify how the university can best prepare its graduates for today's most pressing workforce challenges. In addition, Mozden will be responsible for developing a portfolio of services that will help the university's employer partners improve their teams' performance through employee engagement, staff development and talent acquisition.
"Our workforce solutions team was created to foster synergy between DeVry University and employers so we can make sure that our students are prepared with the skills employers need," said Robert Paul, president of DeVry University. "Joe's track record of organizational leadership, operations management and partnership development makes him the ideal leader for this initiative. His expertise will strengthen the collaboration among the university, our communities and our national and regional employer partners."
Mozden was most recently executive vice president, chief operating officer and senior vice president of strategic accounts at the Allant Group, where he built and managed business processes to improve the company's efficiency and productivity. He also established Allant's strategic account management practice, which was recognized as an industry-leading program. He has served as a sales and management consultant for Lighthouse Consulting, senior vice president of sales and marketing at Commonwealth Telephone Enterprise and vice president of sales and general manager at LSSiDATA.
"When collaboration among students, educators and employers is enhanced, everyone wins," said Mozden. "Students are prepared with the knowledge and skills employers seek, and employers are introduced to candidates who meet their business needs. DeVry University is uniquely positioned to align its education and services closely with the needs of employers, which ultimately benefits our students and our employer partners."
Mozden earned his bachelor's degree in electrical engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and his Master of Business Administration in finance and international business with distinction from New York University's Leonard N. Stern School of Business.
For more information about DeVry University, visit devry.edu.
DeVry University's mission is to foster student learning through high-quality, career-oriented education integrating technology, business, science and the arts. Founded in 1931, the university offers undergraduate and graduate degree programs onsite and online covering 34 different career fields within its five distinguished colleges of study: Business & Management, Engineering & Information Sciences, Health Sciences, Liberal Arts & Sciences, and Media Arts & Technology. The university is accredited by The Higher Learning Commission (HLC, www.hlcommission.org). Its highly credentialed faculty members have experience in the fields that they teach, providing real-world experiences designed to prepare students for in-demand careers.
A player's rating indicates his percentile rank in CAPS. fosterh1 is outperforming 90.52% of all CAPS players. A player's score is the total percentage return of all his picks subtracting out the S&P. A player's accuracy is how often that player has made correct predictions.
fosterh1 appears to be stuck for things to say. Maybe tomorrow?
When Kiip announced last week that that it’s powering rewards in Zepto Labs’ popular Cut the Rope mobile games, co-founder and CEO Brian Wong said it didn’t share one of the key details (because, uh, reasons) — that this is the debut of a new Kiip product called Challenges.
The company is best-known for allowing advertisers to sponsor rewards in games and other apps at key moments, say when players beat a level. With Challenges, instead of just giving each user a reward, brands can run contests and sweepstakes and give prizes to the winners. For example, Wong said Cut the Rope players will have a chance to win plush toys today (and you’ll see them on the Kiip rewards site tomorrow).
That concept may sound familiar to readers who have been following Kiip, because it first started offering these types of user contests about two years ago, through a product called Swarm. (At the time, Wong told me that Swarm would allow Kiip to enlist advertisers in new industries like automotive, where “you can’t give away a million cars.”) Since then, however, Kiip has been relatively quiet about Swarm — Wong told me this week that the product is doing fine, but it’s really meant to be integrated with games, and he’s been spending more time talking up Kiip’s efforts to bring rewards to other non-gaming apps, such as Any.Do, 8Tracks, and Recipe Search.
Challenges are supposed to address several of the main limitations to Swarms. For one thing, they could only be activated at a specific point in the game, which meant that if a player wanted another chance to win the prize, they’d have to go back and play that same level again. Now, however, Wong said that contests can now be “run dynamically” on any game level. He also said they can now be triggered server-side, which means they can be updated more easily, without requiring any changes to the software development kit.
Getting tired of your winter clothes, coat and snow boots? Me too. But it’s not spring yet — sorry to break it to you, although the two feet of snow on the Arts quad should be hint enough — so we need to keep bundling up to stay warm and dry. The challenge, and hey, we’re Cornell students, we do love our challenges, is to do so with fun and flavor.So how do we do that? The basic gist is to keep the warm and cozy winter sweaters, pants, scarves, but slowly bring in new and interesting elements and combinations to keep things exciting and try to break up the monotony of the season. (It is March now, after all). Prints and colors, new silhouettes and a bit of flash will accomplish this for us, and we’ll take a few cues from this past Fall’s designer lines. I know I’ve said this many times, but mixing patterns can be incredibly rewarding, and in a season where layering is not only fun but functional, there’s a lot of space (literally) to play with prints. 3.1 Philip Lim showed subtle print pants and a contrasting print shirt with a long solid color cardigan to tie it together, as well as sequined shirts with more traditional solid wool pants and jackets. My friend Emma has started combining thinner but still warm scarves into a single, more fluffy, more interesting scarf by twisting them together lightly before putting them on. Hers are a small black-and-white houndstooth and a navy, black and green plaid. They instantly add interest and texture to even black jeans and a plain color sweater. Bring color into the mix too. Colored tights are always a great way to spice things up a bit, but remember the winter wind is still a-howlin’; if you don’t have winter-weight tights, consider layering; plain black tights will do just fine behind most colors. Actually, if you have lace tights or even tights with hole in them, layering with another color can create a really neat look. I’ve already raved this year about Dries Van Noten’s amazing color combinations; burnt red and olive green, navy and burgundy and more, but I am reminding you because this pre-Spring season is a great time to experiment with winter colors, and start bringing in new colors. Playing with classics like black, navy, brown, and camel, in conjunction or mono-chromatically, can be really rewarding, as it brings out texture and silhouette. Donna Karen showed an all-black turtleneck and pants with a belted camel blazer, as well as various bright colored jackets and cardigans with all black underneath. Another variation on color and pattern is to follow Aquascutum’s lead: the same pattern in different colors; wear stripes together or houndstooth in different colors. Or hint at spring with a cheerful print layered underneath a more subdued dress or sweater. Scarves are always, always useful — both for warmth and for delight — and as we know, one of my all-time favorite clothing items; see the above suggestion for combining patterned scarves, but also think of using them to introduce spring-like colors to a perhaps otherwise subdued palette. I know people are still curious about the antique rule of no white after Labor Day. Well, I would say now is an excellent time to satisfy that curiosity and go for it. There is something truly delightful about wearing white in the winter, especially when we have all this snow gracing our campus. Some ideas for wearing white in the winter include mixing white and ivory/beige in different textures, or try wearing your white jeans with tall boots and a chunky sweater. You may want to wear leggings or tights under your jeans for warmth. I’ve already mentioned layering; it’s a great way to re-purpose and renew clothing you already own, and you can create interesting silhouettes and simultaneously increase warmth. Some ideas from the Temperley London show include tucking flowy shirts layered over turtlenecks into high-waisted pants, and creating innovative sleeve shapes. For example, wear a tight long-sleeve shirt, slightly flowy medium length sleeve shirt, and a sleeveless dress or shirt over it. Or, a popular silhouette among many designers for the past few seasons has been a narrow underskirt with a shorter, more flowy overskirt. Another interesting idea is to think of reversing items of clothing in terms of their usual relation to your other clothes. For example, take a button-down shirt that’s usually your base layer and wear it unbuttoned over a turtleneck or with a belt. Or tuck a cardigan into a pair of high-waisted pants or skirt, or if it’s long enough, into low-waisted pants with an interesting belt or sash. So in summary, take a new look at your closet, drawers, or floor pile (who, me? nonsense, I always put away my clothes…) and you’ll find a new life there through new ideas and combinations. And never fear, spring will come! And with it, coverage by yours truly of the best ways to greet the sunshine in style.
In 2011, Silicon Valley entrepreneur and investor Marc Andreessen famously wrote the startling essay, Why Software is Eating the World, in which he described how emerging companies built on software were swallowing up whole industries and disrupting previously dominant brand name corporations. Andreessen was prescient and almost giddy, in anticipating the dramatic, technological and economic shift through which software companies would take over large swaths of the global economy. What he did not anticipate was the extent to which software would also eat up the realms of governance, security and human rights.
Digital technology has disrupted multiple dimensions of governance related to national security, including protection of human rights. In our brave new digital environment, roles and responsibility related to digital security for data, for infrastructure or for people are unclear. The question emerges: Can the human rights framework remain relevant in our new cyber-ecosystem? The fledgling conversation about how to protect human rights in the 21st century digital context needs further development.
We live in a world where the distinction between online and offline has effectively collapsed because everything is connected. The Internet of things and digitization of everything has spawned the era of big data analytics; algorithms facilitate governance decisions in both the private and public spheres; and artificial intelligence and machine learning has progressed to a level where machines are viewed by some as more trustworthy than humans for primary decision making with respect to a wide variety of activities, from driving cars to identifying likely terrorists as targets. The distinction between “online” and “offline” activity now almost seems quaint.
In the past five years, virtually every realm of society has been disrupted as a consequence of “software eating the world.” None of our social, legal or political institutions have caught up with this tectonic shift, and those responsible for governing, for providing security, and for protecting our rights are reeling.
Technology has brought many benefits to the human rights movement, but the need to focus on the challenges, and to look at the dark-side of technological advancements as they relate to human rights is urgent. Concern is growing that governments’ commitment to their human rights obligations is increasingly tenuous in this era of disruption. In a very short period of time, digital technology has transformed both the means through which human rights are exercised, and the means through which human rights are violated around the globe. Yet, an understanding of how to protect human rights in the digital context is significantly underdeveloped. As we stumble along and try to adjust to our new digital reality, the relevance and predominance of the international human rights framework could lose salience in the international geo-political arena.
Exploration about whether fundamental human rights concepts and approaches can be adapted to meet the rapidly evolving technology landscape must go into high gear. New themes need to be developed to shore up and reinforce the human rights paradigm in the digital ecosystem.
Starting on the conceptual level, some features of the Internet and digital technology have challenged the basic sovereign state-based conceptual framework that underpins international human rights governance, something we’ll examine below in our effort to evaluate the role human rights in the digital age. On a more concrete level, it is essential to understand how digital technology is actually affecting human rights in practice, and even exacerbating problems that existed in the pre-digital world — we’ll explore this next week.
Let’s start with some historical context: 70 years ago at the founding of the United Nations, the commitment to protect human rights served as one of three pillars for the new international order, along with international peace and security and economic development.
The UN and the international human rights framework were built upon the nation state system, which rested on the concept of sovereign states; geographical territorial boundaries; state obligations to citizens within their jurisdictions; and the principle of non-interference. Within this system, the human rights pillar always existed in tension with the concept of state sovereignty: human rights were intended to function as both a check on state power and a basis upon which the actions of government could be judged with reference to universal human rights principles.
According to this framework, the primary human rights relationship is between governments and the people they govern. Governments have the obligation to protect the rights of those within their territory and to provide security. This means governments are bound by the commitment not to violate human rights through their own actions, as well as a duty to protect individuals from human rights abuses by others.
Several dimensions of the new digital ecosystem challenge this conception of governance.
The Internet was constructed through open collaborations between technologists, academics and other stakeholders in an atmosphere of permission-less innovation. The digital ecosystem that emerged through this collaboration operated through open, interoperable, trans-border connectivity, and did not fit easily within the confines of sovereign territory-based jurisdiction.
The Internet was designed as a network of networks that operates without reference to geographic boundaries. Simply put, this basic design feature was inherently disruptive to the nation-state system. Recall 1996’s Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace, by John Perry Barlow, who captured this original sense of borderlessness when he asserted that governments have no sovereignty in cyberspace.
Although we now experience instantaneous trans-border, global communication as normal, one of the radical aspects of the Internet was that it facilitated seamless global communication between individuals or groups anywhere, with people or organizations anywhere else. Individuals were empowered to reach a global audience without authorization by any gatekeeper. Several distinctive technical features of Internet connectivity were different from earlier forms of communication technology: the infrastructure was dispersed rather than located in a pre-determined physical geography; and the transmitted material could be broken up and circulated though numerous territories simultaneously. The digital material created by residents in one country would be transmitted and stored in other locations. This global reach and trans-border mode of operation has placed tremendous strain on the so-called “Westphalian system” of sovereign jurisdiction.
On the positive side of the ledger, this openness has meant that evidence of human rights violations can instantly be transmitted to witnesses around the world; that human rights victims can be supported by a global community; and that activists can organize worldwide advocacy with digital tools. On the other side of the ledger, this openness and interoperability also means that the digital activity of a government or hacker anywhere, can have an extraterritorial effect on the enjoyment of rights of people everywhere. Governments now routinely extend their reach abroad and affect the enjoyment of human rights of non-citizens outside their territory through digital means, but without necessarily understanding that their human rights obligations follow. In fact, many governments believe their human rights obligations stop at their territorial borders, rather than understand the obligation not to violate human rights, extends to non-citizens outside their boundaries.
Many states have woken up to this trans-border digital reality and gone into overdrive, but without understanding the consequences for universal human rights. Governments now are rushing in to assert jurisdiction over data, communications, and digital materials that flow into or out from their territory.
States’ motives for asserting jurisdiction in the digital realm are mixed: sometimes they are motivated by a desire to protect the privacy and security of citizens online. Other times the intentions are more nefarious — to control access to information or to restrict online speech in the name of public order or security. But the new normal is for governments toseek digital control over data of individuals wherever that data rests or moves. This trend is creating a mosaic of complex, overlapping and conflicting legal regimes. Many well-intentioned laws and policies are ill conceived, such as some of the data localization proposals — and they have the effect of fragmenting the Internet as a global platform. This fragmentation in turn undermines the benefits for human rights. To the extent that laws and policies cause fragmentation of global end-to-end connectivity on the Internet, that fragmentation must be recognized as a threat to human rights.
The bottom line: by facilitating digital reach across borders, the Internet has wreaked havoc on traditional notions of territorial governance. The response of states has been to assert control through legal and technical means that threaten both universal connectivity and universal human rights. Two basic governance concepts should be underscored: First, beware of laws and policies that undermine the open and interoperable global Internetitself, and second, affirm the universal obligation of states not to violate human rights — not only of their own citizens, but of people whose rights they control anywhere, in our global, trans-boundary digital environment.
Another significant conceptual challenge to the human rights framework comes from digitization itself. While advancement in digital technology has had many empowering social effects, the inexorable move toward the “digitization of everything” and “Internet of Things” also has meant that everything we do is now traceable: wearable technology tracks our bodies; connected cars monitor our locations and movements; smart devices in our homes know the patterns of our daily lives. All this connected technology means governments have greatly enhanced ability to monitor people and analyze personal data about our communications, habits and relationships.
In this context, the right to privacy obviously is under serious assault. Early on in the digital revolution, some prominent technology figures were fairly cavalier in asserting that with the advent of new digital connection technology, consumers had decided, privacy is over or at least over-rated. Some suggested that privacy had simply been a construct of the modern era and had run its course. Despite all the post-Snowden commentary, the role and function of privacy in democratic, but now digitized societies, is still under-theorized and under-appreciated.
One big issue that needs attention is whether the digitization of everything threatens the basic relationship between citizens and governments in democratic society. More specifically, the democratic model starts with the assumption that “the people” are sovereign, and governments serve at the pleasure of the people. In this political conception, government should reflect the will of the people, and citizens play the role of watching and judging their elected representatives, not the other way around. A profound question that must be explored further is whether the digitization of everything is having the effect of inverting that basic democratic relationship, and if so, what can be done about it.
The fact that there are serious consequences from digitization for the exercise of other fundamental freedoms, especially freedom of expression, and freedom of peaceful assembly and association is clear. The simple reality is that when everything you say or do can be tracked and monitored, it will have a chilling effect on your choices about what you say, where you go, with whom you meet, and what information you search for online. For dissidents and human rights defenders in repressive countries, the ease with which governments can now track people’s digital footprints also has consequences for physical security. In this sense, the online/offline distinction has completely collapsed: loss of privacy can and does leads to loss of physical safety for human rights activists. The question is whether democratic governments are moving unconsciously toward more repressive uses of digital technology as well.
While our notions of privacy are evolving along with social media and data-capturing technology, we need to be more cognizant of the fact that it is not “just privacy” that is affected by the digitization of everything. Unchecked digitization may be slowly eroding democracy and fundamental freedom everywhere.
A third big conceptual challenge to human rights governance flows from another trend: the privatization of governance in the digital ecosystem. Widespread adoption of the Internet has dis-intermediated many institutions and contributed to the larger trend of distribution of power away from governments to non-state actors, most notably, to private sector Internet companies.
User-facing, data driven, social technology companies like Facebook, Twitter, Google, and Weibo, play a larger and larger role in mediating all aspects of society, whether related to politics, education, health, news, or entertainment. Through internal policies, algorithms, and terms of service agreements, private sector companies are effectively governing multiple dimensions of society that bear directly on the enjoyment of human rights. For example, proprietary algorithms constructed and controlled by dominant search platforms affect global access to information, and play a significant role in shaping world-views. The private terms of service for popular social media platforms, effectively dictate parameters of free expression for their communities of users. Arguably, dominant social platforms can be compared to public spaces. The trend toward privatization of governance in these digital spaces raises many questions about who is accountable for protecting human rights.
Other questions about governance arise from the monetization of data, which has become the primary business model and basis for the digital economy: What are the consequences of widespread monetization of data — without full transparency or adequate consent — for ownership of users’ digital footprints and control over people’s digital personas? How does private sector access to our digital communications, search histories and news feeds affect our rights to freedom of expression, access to information and to privacy? When digital platforms function as virtual monopolies for search or email, to what extent is it fair to equate consumer acceptance of terms of service agreements, with consent to waive privacy for digital communications or activities? All of these aspects of the privatization of governance are under-developed.
On the security front, there are multiple dimensions where the private sector is playing an increasingly important governance role. Just starting with digital security for users’ communications and personal data, what are the responsibilities of private sector cloud services or device makers in terms of keeping our digital material secure from theft or hacking? What level of resilience and adaptability post-infiltration should be required of private sector custodians of personal information and data?
Questions about privatization of governance responsibilities as they relate to national security, counterterrorism, and homeland security, are even more challenging. Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights identifies the right to security in persons. Providing security has been traditionally understood to be one of the first responsibilities of government. Yet, as the Internet has become intertwined in all aspects daily life, the Internet has become the infrastructure for all critical civilian infrastructure, from electricity to communications to transportation. Most of this Internet infrastructure is owned and operated by private sector actors, who now provide front line security for this critical infrastructure. Private sector responsibilities related to all of these dimensions of security need much further development.
In this vein, the UN Guiding Principles for Business & Human Rights set out at the Human Rights Council in 2011, constituted a notable effort. But these Principles reaffirmed the foundational concept that the primary human rights obligations rest with governments, and did not fully anticipate the extent to which governance responsibilities would shift to the private sector because of digital technology.
Finally, there is a trend toward burden shifting by governments to private sector technology companies for different aspects of law enforcement and foreign intelligence surveillance. The FBI v. Apple controversy is a case in point. The blurring of governance lines without adequate transparency or clear accountability has its own negative effect on the rule of law in the digital realm.
The bottom line: As governance roles and responsibilities have shifted in the digital ecosystem, the 20th century model of human rights governance is at risk of losing salience. The privatization of governance for semi-public spaces and infrastructure means private sector companies now play an outsized role in setting the parameters of freedom of expression, privacy, access to information and all dimensions of security for their users. Gaps in the public’s understanding of the governance roles played by the private sector in these dimensions of security and human rights protection need to be filled in.
Amazon Fire HD 10 review: can Amazon’s largest tablet take the fight to the iPad?
Amazon's keen pricing means top value, but does the Fire HD 10 compromise too much to meet its price point?
Amazon's Fire HD 10 is terrific value, but may leave you wanting more.