fbpx

Digital

September 2021

Hello,

Greetings everyone!
As we roll into Autumn, and the weather outside is getting chillier by the day, we at CCC are turning up the heat, with our team tirelessly working to defend the rights of the consumers all across the world. Without further ado, let’s delve into the many new developments that we had in September.
Principles for smart crypto regulation
While the existence of Bitcoin is no longer news to anyone, following its meteoric rise and the shockwaves it sent across the world, the question arose of what kind of legislative framework it will continue to exist in in the future. Our deputy director Yaël Ossowski and crypto fellow Aleksandar Kokotovic wrote a fascinating policy note on smart crypto regulation, offering a unique perspective on a regulatory framework that maximises innovation, economic inclusion, and consumer protection.
READ MORE
Michael Bloomberg is coming for your vape
Ever wondered who’s the man willing to funnel millions of dollars to deprive developing countries from innovative technologies? Well then CCC has got you covered, with our digital and creative team with Luka Kobalia, Luka Dzagania, and Yaël Ossowski at its head producing a video, exposing how Michael Bloomberg and his brigade have been halting life saving technologies from being accessible in developing countries.
WATCH HERE
US vs EU agriculture regulation
The importance of agriculture regulation cannot be overstated, and Bill’s policy note delves into the depths of the subject of food regulations in the EU and the US, outlining the importance for the US to prioritize the pursuit of greater economic exchange with the EU, instead of emulating the European regulation framework, which, at this time, is inferior to that of the United States.
LEARN MORE
The EV accessibility: Boom or bust?
With the electric vehicle revolution upon us, David and Liz have worked out an in-depth article on EV accessibility for the consumers in the US. While Joe Biden’s ambitious target, of half of the new vehicle sales in 2030 to be comprised of EVs, holds an exciting promise of reducing car emissions in the future, all of these efforts may be futile if an outdated state regulation, limiting direct sales of EVs to consumers, is not addressed.
READ MORE
Sharing Economy series
What is the Sharing Economy? How has it been affected by Covid pandemic? What regulatory changes are in store for it? To answer these questions, and more, Anna has stated a series of short blog posts, analysing different aspects of this exciting and rapidly evolving industry, outlining the benefits that sharing economy services provide for consumers, and what the future may hold for them.
READ MORE
David’s interview on Canadian elections
With polarizing federal elections in Canada, David went on “Counterpoint” to discuss the issues with the English election debates, racial issues caused by Bill 21, missed opportunities of the Green party, and more.
WATCH HERE
FDA and the new smoking pandemic
As the new smoking pandemic lures over us, Maria has worked out a news-piece, explaining how e-cigarettes help smokers quit, the bureaucratic nightmare that vape shop owners have to go through for product market approval, and how the FDA is at fault for putting the lives of countless people at risk. 
READ HERE
That’s a wrap for this month! Stay tuned on all of our social media channels for more info on our current and upcoming activities!

Luka Dzagania
Graphic Designer

The Smart Way to Think About Crypto Regulation

Within the usually boring procedure of shepherding another massive infrastructure bill through Congress last month, a fiery debate erupted over the future of cryptocurrencies and digital assets.

The Senate bill contained broad language to ensure tax and regulatory compliance on all cryptocurrency transactions, regardless of origin, as a revenue generator.

However, traditional financial transactions cannot compare to the complex algorithmic crypto world of mining, staking, rewards, and smart contracts. It is easy to see why many digital currency enthusiasts were alarmed.

In a hackneyed manner no one saw coming, the entire future of the crypto industry, including projects such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, Non-Fungible Tokens, and blockchains, was thrown into peril.

Amendments to adapt the language or delete it outright were proposed. But following Senate rules, even a single voice of opposition could kill them. Or, in this case, a desire to spend $50 billion more on defense spending killed them. And that was that.

To be clear, America deserves a fair and substantive debate on the nascent crypto space. If we are to consider regulation, we need testimony from innovators, entrepreneurs, advocates, and skeptics. Instead, we witnessed a collage pasting marathon, with proposals and taxes glued together without even a thought for millions of crypto consumers.

Most shockingly, however, the rules have actually very little to do with the innovative nature of the crypto space and everything to do with how much money legislators thought they could extract from the industry and token holders. This was laid bare in the Biden administration’s fact sheet on the infrastructure bill, which claimed the $1 trillion plan would be funded by “strengthening tax enforcement when it comes to cryptocurrencies.”

Despite the inelegance of these proposals, there are smart and consumer-friendly policies we can adopt on cryptocurrencies and crypto projects.

To begin, federal agencies can concentrate on the causes of fraud and abuse. With every successful crypto token or coin, there are dozens of scam sites or exchanges that defraud users or siphon all digital assets they can before they shut down, known in the industry as a “rug pull.”

By focusing resources on dishonest brokers and projects committing fraud, the government could save millions of consumers from losing their hard-earned money, all the while differentiating between bad actors and good ones. This would help boost confidence in the system overall.

Second, any crypto regulation should make technological neutrality a core tenet, meaning that government should not declare winners or losers. Just like the vinyl record was replaced by the CD-ROM and then the MP3, governments should not choose a preferred technology and instead allow innovation and consumer choice to make that determination.

The less than a decade-old crypto industry hosts an intense competition that rapidly changes each day. Whether through algorithmic mining (Proof of Work) or block validation (Proof of Stake), users and entrepreneurs are testing and adapting best practices. If the government endorses one method or outlaws another, because of environmental or technical concerns, it risks backing the wrong horse and stifling innovation.

Third, regulators must not pigeonhole cryptocurrencies only as investments fit for taxing, but rather as technological tools that empower consumers and foster innovation. A unique crypto asset class, separate from traditional securities, would help users benefit from the decentralization and encryption that these projects offer while ensuring reasonable taxation of gains.

Last, regulators must provide legal certainty to the budding crypto sector or risk pushing all crypto activity to the black market, where no rules or regulations will be followed. The disastrous effects of the Drug War on cannabis users or victims of 1920s Prohibition underscore this point.

Clear guidelines that allow crypto companies to open bank accounts, take out insurance, and compensate workers legally will safeguard innovation, continue to create value for entrepreneurs and consumers, and will allow firms to pay taxes and follow rules. This will be vital.

Legislators should view the crypto industry as a friend rather than a foe. With more opportunities will come more investment, more jobs, and more innovation – and that means we’ll all be better off.

Originally published here

We don’t need State meddling in the digital marketplace

Earlier this month, the Government launched a new regulator called the Digital Markets Unit, a quango designed to introduce new checks and balances to the wide-ranging activities of tech giants like Facebook and Google. It is the Government’s answer to calls from around the world to ‘rein in’ big tech. The body’s launch had been trailed for several months, but it’s still unclear exactly what its parameters or purpose will be.

Some of the rhetoric around the DMU has been positive. The Government’s press release describes it as ‘pro-competition’, which is encouraging. The spin around the DMU launch also places an emphasis on the need to ‘spur development of digital services and lower prices for consumers’.

That all sounds very positive – if it turns out to be true. A consumer-focused approach which seeks more competition, not less, would indeed be a boon for the technology industry and would be a good thing for all of us. Only time will tell whether the Government bears out this consumer-centric rhetoric in the policy of the DMU, or whether it slips into that trap to which state bodies are so often vulnerable, of erring on the side of gratuitous intervention in the market.

There does appear to be some degree of appetite within government for a more intrusive regime which would be highly damaging, both to the companies involved (and therefore the UK economy as a whole) and everyday users of online services like you and I. Health Secretary Matt Hancock, for instance,applauded the Australian government for its pioneering new law forcing online platforms like Facebook and Google to pay for news content.

That move was incredibly damaging in Australia and repeating it in Britain would be a catastrophic mistake. Never before has anyone had to pay a content producer in order to a host a link on their platform. In fact, even a rudimentary understanding of how the online marketplace works makes it clear that the dynamic is the other way around – people fork out huge sums for digital advertising packages, meaning they pay in order to put their links on more people’s screens.

The Australian government’s decision, then, to intervene arbitrarily in the market and force Facebook and Google to pay news outlets in order host their content did nothing for the user or the free market. All it achieved was moving some money from Mark Zuckerberg’s pocket into Rupert Murdoch’s. Matt Hancock’s strident approval of that policy – for which no one, not even the Australian government which implemented it, seems able to provide a coherent defence – is a bad sign.

Factions and frontiers are beginning to form within the Government and the Conservative Party more broadly on this. Even within Cabinet, dividing lines are starting to emerge between figures like Hancock, who seem to favour more intervention from the Government, and others like Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng and  Digital, Culture, Media and Sport secretary Oliver Dowden who – so far at least – appear to be on the side of the free market and of the belief that the DMU should aid competition, not seek to restructure it from the ground up.

Only time will tell which side wins out in the end. The DMU could yet be a hero or a villain. We can only hope that the Government will keep the consumer front and centre in their minds when crafting their technology policy.

Originally published here.

Nueva Ley Federal de Cinematografía perjudicaría a los consumidores

Luca Bertoletti, responsable de Asuntos Gubernamentales de Consumer Choice Center (Centro de Elección del Consumidor), se refirió en entrevista a la iniciativa para crear nueva Ley Federal de Cinematografía y el Audiovisual.

Las cuotas de contenido en México: va contra los consumidores

La decisión del senador Monreal de impulsar las cuotas de contenido en el Senado el lunes va en contra de los consumidores. Hay muchos ejemplos de por qué las cuotas de contenido no funcionan. Tomemos como ejemplo la Unión Europea: desde que el bloque europeo puso en marcha la ley de cuotas de contenido, de todos los estados miembros de la UE, Lituania obtiene el mayor acceso con el 52% de los títulos. Con sólo un 11%, Portugal obtiene la peor experiencia para los abonados.

La idea de que las cuotas de contenido impulsarán automáticamente la producción cinematográfica local es utópica: es igual de probable que los servicios de streaming reduzcan el total de títulos disponibles para ajustarse a la cuota sin necesidad de gastar fondos adicionales. Dijo Luca Bertoletti, responsable de asuntos gubernamentales del Consumer Choice Center.

Nos hemos comprometido con casi un millón de consumidores mexicanos y pedimos a los responsables políticos que nos escuchen. Las cuotas de contenido sólo harán más fuerte el mercado ilegal y pondrán un precedente peligroso para el éxito del Tratado de Libre Comercio, especialmente el USMCA y el acuerdo de libre comercio con la Unión Europea. ¿es este el legado que quiere dejar este senado? – concluyó Bertoletti.

Originally published here.

Податок на інтернет гігантів платитимемо самі українці!

Замість того, щоб довести до пуття наболілі економічні та судову реформи, маємо новий податок.

Як відомо, 17 лютого Верховна Рада прийняла за основу законопроект про так званий податок «на Гугл», який зобов’яже «big tech» (інтернет-гігантів) сплачувати податок на додану вартість до українського бюджету. Необхідність даногозаконодавчого акту, як пояснюють парламентарі-ініціатори, полягає в тому, що несплата компаніями-нерезидентами ПДВ призводить до втрат державного бюджету та створює неконкурентне середовище для резидентів-платників.

Дякуючи пандемії та локдаунам, що стали її наслідком, світ більшою мірою перейшов онлайн. Останній рік став переломним моментом для цифрової економіки. Вона рятувала нас від самотності під час квітневого й  лютневого локдаунів, допомогала просувати власні бізнес-ідеї через рекламу в соцмережах та заохочувала створення нових додатків девелоперами. Йдеться про реальних споживачів. І саме їм — нам з вами — доведеться платити цей ПДВ.

Перелік послуг, які охоплює нове регулювання, є досить широким. Зокрема, до таких послуг, зокрема, але не виключно, належать:

а) постачання зображень або текстів, в тому числі фотографій, електронних книжок та журналів;
б) постачання аудіовізуальних творів, відео на замовлення, ігор, азартні ігри, включаючи постачання послуг з участі в таких іграх;
в) надання доступу до інформаційних, комерційних, освітніх та розважальних електронних ресурсів та інших подібних ресурсів;г) надання в користування хмарних технологій для розміщення даних;
ґ) постачання (передача прав на використання) програмного забезпечення та оновлень до нього, а також дистанційне обслуговування програмного забезпечення та електронного обладнання;
д) надання рекламних послуг в мережі інтернет, мобільних додатках та інших електронних ресурсах.

Податок на додану вартість, як відомо, є непрямим податком, який сплачується покупцем послуг, але саме адміністрування здійснюється продавцем. Таким чином, будь-які послуги, які ми зараз отримуємо через інтернет (Youtube, Netflix, Google, Apple, AliExpress) автоматично подорожчають на 20 відсотків. Аналогічне подорожчання відбудеться в сфері e-commerce, а зокрема розміщувати реклами в соціальних мережах та мобільних додатках стане дорожче. Разом із тим поширення ПДВ на інтернет-гігантів матиме прямий негативний вплив на малий бізнес в Україні, якому можливості інтернету дозволили комунікувати свою пропозицію більш ефективно.

Сама ставка ПДВ на електронні послуги та й загалом  є досить високою. В одній із найбільш економічно вільних країн світу Сінгапурі вона становить 7 відсотків, в Америці  до 10, в Канаді  6. Очевидно, що розширити спектр регулювання вже встановленої ставки ПДВ на електронні послуги для регулювання конкуренції є набагато легше, аніж зменшити ставку повністю. Конкуренція на всіх ринках процвітає там, де держава мінімально втручається в цюсферу.

Але наші парламентарі чомусь вирішили, що нам треба йти дорогою Росії, на яку вони посилаються в пояснювальній записці до законопроекту. «Із 1 січня 2017 року в Російській Федерації був введений податок, який зобов’язав нерезидентів сплачувати податок на додану вартість із продажу на території РФ електронних послуг: цифрового контенту, послуг зберігання та обробки інформації, реєстрації доменів і хостингу тощо, при цьому вони повинні стати на податковий облік. Серед технологічних гігантів у контролюючому органі РФ зареєструвалися Apple Distribution International, Google Commerce, Microsoft Ireland, Netflix International B.V., Wargaming Group, Bloomberg, Alibaba, Booking.com та інші. Загалом із моменту впровадження податку на податковий облік стало 1580 компаній. За офіційними даними до бюджету такими компаніями (B2C) було сплачено у тому ж 2017 році  9,4 млдр. руб., у 2018 – 12 млдр. руб., у І кварталі 2019 – 12 млдр. руб. (70% суми припадає на найбільші IT компанії). Аналогічні податкові правила введені в Республіці Білорусь у 2018 році».

Рухаємося на захід до кращого та вільного майбутнього, так? А загалом, цифри про те, скільки надходжень до державного бюджету допоміг отримати новий ПДВ не можуть бути ключовим аргументом у випадку України. Як ми добре знаємо, всі надходження до бюджету проходять мільйон корупційних схема ранішеше, ніж якась мінімальна частина з них впаде на нас у вигляді послуг, соціальних гарантій тощо. Саме така доля чекає й на новий ПДВ. Нам треба зосередитися на тому, щоб лишити більше грошей на руках у звичайних громадян і дати їм можливість витрачати так, як вони вважають за потрібне.

Певно, одним з найпроблемніших аспектів даного законопроекту є бюрократія. Компаніям-нерезидентам доведеться мати справу з нашою славнозвісною податковою й наділення її новими владними повноваженнями викликає занепокоєння. Відповідно до законопроекту, при проведенні перевірки спрощеної податкової декларації, поданої особою нерезидентом, ДПС може витребувати в особи нерезидента та третіх осіб інформацію й документи, які підтверджують факт постачання на митній території України електронних послуг фізичним особам, вартість поставлених послуг та терміни їх оплати.

Загалом, головне, що нам всім варто зрозуміти стосовно розширення регулювання ПДВ, це те, що платити за податкову новацію доведеться нам з вами, а для малих девелоперів та бізнесу це підсилить тягар ведення діяльності в Україні. Що з цими грошима робитиме держава – невідомо. Але замість того, щоб довести до пуття наболілі економічні та судову реформи, маємо новий податок. Податок на сервіси, які комусь дозволяють заробити, а комусь — відпочити від негативних новин про ковід за серіалом.

Originally published here.

Centro de Elección del Consumidor, en contra de cuotas de contenido nacional

Luca Bertoletti, responsable de asuntos gubernamentales de Consumer Choice Center (Centro de Elección del Consumidor), afirma que la nueva Ley Federal de Cinematografía y el Audiovisual propuesta por el senador Ricardo Monreal, que impone una cuota de contenidos nacionales en todas las plataformas digitales que operan en México, perjudicará directamente a los consumidores.

“La decisión de impulsar las cuotas de contenido va en contra de los consumidores. Hay muchos ejemplos de por qué las cuotas de contenido no funcionan, un ejemplo es la Unión Europea y Netflix o Amazon Prime: desde que el bloque europeo puso en marcha la ley de cuotas de contenido, de todos los estados miembros de la UE, Lituania obtiene el mayor acceso con 52 por ciento de los títulos. Con sólo un 11 por ciento, Portugal obtiene la peor experiencia para los abonados”, relató.

Agregó que la idea de que las cuotas de contenido impulsarán automáticamente la producción cinematográfica nacional en México es utópica. “Es igual de probable que los servicios de streaming reduzcan el total de títulos disponibles para ajustarse a la cuota sin necesidad de gastar fondos adicionales”, señaló.

Originally published here.

Digital data security poses several challenges

On a Monday, there is a data leak affecting half a billion Facebook accounts. By Tuesday, a bot has scraped 500 million LinkedIn accounts. Then Wednesday, Stanford University announces a hack that exposed thousands of Social Security numbers and financial details. And Thursday, the world’s largest aviation IT company announces 90% of passenger data might have been accessed in a cyberattack. And so on. The cycle is endless.

The sheer number of reports of data leaks, hacks and scams on affected accounts has now grown so gargantuan that consumers and users are left numb. It might as well be the soaring national debt total —the higher the number, the less we care.

But breaches of private data matter. And consumers should be rightly ticked off.

Because for every company screw-up, hacker exploit and insecure government database, there are thousands of firms and organizations doing it right, keeping users’ data secure, encrypted and away from prying eyes.

And although such states as California, Virginia and Vermont have passed privacy and data laws, many of these provisions too closely resemble the European Union’s troubled General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in making it more difficult for legitimate businesses to secure data, not less.

When large data breaches occur, consumers who have been legitimately harmed should have their claims heard in court.

But the current regulations across the U.S., including in tech-centric California, place too much of a burden on those who follow the law and do right by their customers. There’s also a risk of creating a patchwork of different rules in different jurisdictions. To avoid this, a national framework on data and consumer privacy will need to take shape.

While we should always be vigilant about potentials for leaks and hacks, a chief concern of a smart and common-sense data privacy bill should be in championing innovation.

For every new health data company, logistics firm or consumer wearable, proper data collection and retention are a core value. The more that rules are uniform, clear and do not create barriers to entry, the more innovation we will see when it comes to data protection.

We should incentivize firms to adopt interoperability and open data standards to ensure data is portable and easy for users to access. Major social media networks now allow this prevision, and it has been the standard for website data for several years.

If that becomes the standard, consumers will be able to choose the brands and services that best cater to their needs and interests, rather than just companies left standing in the wake of overregulation.

At the same time, if we are to have a national privacy bill, we should enshrine the principle of technology neutrality, where government avoids decreeing winners and losers. That means that regulating or endorsing various formats of data, algorithms or technology should be determined by firms and consumers, not government agencies without the knowledge necessary to make good decisions. The EU’s recent attempt to designate the “common phone charger” as the micro-USB connection, at a time when USB-C connections are becoming the industry standard, is an easy example.

This also extends to innovation practices such as targeted advertising, geotargeting or personalization, which are key to the consumer experience.

Added to that, we should be wary of all attempts to outlaw encryption for both commercial and personal use.

In recent weeks, FBI Director Christopher Wray has once again called on Congress to ban the use of encryption, an overreach that would put billions of dollars’ worth of data at risk overnight and leave us vulnerable to foreign hackers.

He is joined in these efforts by Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; Tom Cotton, R-Ark.; and Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., who introduced a bill that would forever ban this important cryptographic invention, warning it is used by “terrorists and other bad actors to conceal illicit behavior.”

The reason encryption remains a powerful tool in the arsenal of companies and agencies that handle our data and communications is because it works. We must defend it at any cost.

While there is plenty to be concerned about when it comes to online breaches and hacks, consumers should be able to benefit from an innovative marketplace of products and services, unencumbered by regulations that all too often restrict progress.

This balance is possible and necessary, both if we want to have a more secure online experience and if we want to continue to have the best technology at our disposal to improve our lives.

Originally published here.

La fausse bonne idées des quotas européens de contenu streaming

Comme beaucoup de personnes durant cette pandémie, je suis devenu un peu un accro au streaming. J’ai pu ainsi rattraper le “retard” que j’avais soi-disant accumulé concernant ma connaissance de la culture populaire. Désormais, je suis abonné à trois services à la fois. Je regarde des films et des émissions de télévision populaires des États-Unis et des productions locales de niche enfouies dans les coins sombres de Netflix. 

Sur ces plateformes, la sélection du contenu est primordiale. L’algorithme m’alimente en émissions correspondantes à mes goûts supposés et la barre de recherche m’aide à identifier les titres qui correspondent le mieux à ce que je recherche.

Bien que je sois satisfait, certains régulateurs sont mécontents de la quantité de contenu local sur ces plateformes. “Afin d’accroître la diversité culturelle et de promouvoir le contenu européen, la nouvelle législation propose que 30 % du contenu des chaînes de télévision et des plateformes de streaming soit européen”, indique un communiqué de presse du Parlement européen datant de 2018. Mais cette politique de”l’Europe d’abord” imposée sur des plateformes comme Spotify ou Netflix est problématique pour plusieurs raisons.

D’une part, le législateur intervient dans la liberté des sociétés de radiodiffusion de choisir leur propre contenu. Actuellement, elles choisissent le contenu qu’elles jugent le plus intéressant et le plus utile pour leur clientèle. Il est difficile d’imaginer que les services de streaming ne trouvent un intérêt à produire du contenu local, étant donné qu’ils sont en concurrence avec les diffuseurs de télévision qui s’adressent déjà à ce marché. En outre, qualifier ces quotas de “soutien” au secteur culturel est une erreur, car il est peu probable qu’ils soutiennent réellement les productions locales.

Prenons le cas de Netflix. Les utilisateurs américains ont accès à 100 % des titres Netflix, ce qui est intuitivement logique. Cependant, les abonnés européens de Netflix sont lésés par un mélange de règles de droit d’auteur qui permettent le géoblocage et les quotas de contenu. De tous les États membres de l’UE, c’est la Lituanie qui a accès à la plus grande partie des titres, soit 52 %. Avec seulement 11 %, c’est le Portugal qui offre la pire expérience aux abonnés. L’idée selon laquelle les quotas de contenu stimuleront automatiquement la production cinématographique locale est utopique. Il est tout aussi probable que les services de streaming réduisent simplement le nombre total de titres disponibles pour atteindre le quota sans avoir à dépenser de fonds supplémentaires.

Sur le plan politique, cette initiative est profondément contraire aux valeurs européennes. Ces quotas – qui existent également au niveau national – ont été introduits et amenés par les partis politiques traditionnels. Pourtant, il ne serait guère controversé d’affirmer que si Marine Le Pen les avait suggérés, avec des drapeaux français en arrière-plan, nous aurions une opinion très différente de cette politique. Elle serait qualifiée de nationaliste, à juste titre.

Pour une raison quelconque, les législateurs européens échappent à ce jugement parce qu’il est maintenant exécuté à l’échelle du continent. Mais sur quelle base pourrait-on soutenir que la consommation d’un contenu audiovisuel européen est préférable à un film d’Afrique du Sud ou à une chanson de Malaisie ? Est-ce là le soutien à la diversité culturelle, de l’accès à l’audiovisuel pour nos communautés d’expatriés et de l’aide aux créateurs de contenu dans les pays en développement ?

Oui, les États-Unis dominent effectivement les marchés du streaming avec leurs films et leur musique. La question est de savoir si nous – ou tout autre pays d’ailleurs – avons raison de croire que la relance de notre secteur culturel passe par l’obligation légale pour les diffuseurs de privilégier nos contenus. L’UE est la région de consommation la plus importante de la planète ; il devrait donc être plus facile pour nos fournisseurs de contenu de satisfaire les besoins en musique et en films locaux.

Mais le principal problème est que cette législation européenne provoque, comme bien souvent,  une réaction en chaîne, influençant d’autres pays. Le Mexique débat actuellement de nouvelles règles qui imposerait un quota de contenu national de 15% (“contenu ou vidéo généré par un individu ou une société dont la majorité du financement est d’origine mexicaine”). Toutefois, cette initiative ne tient pas compte du fait mentionné plus haut, à savoir que l’UE est la plus grande région de consommation au monde.

Les synergies obtenues d’un bloc économique de la taille de l’UE ne sont pas les mêmes que celles d’un marché national individuel. Et même si le règlement de l’UE permet à la production de plus de 40 pays d’être prise en compte pour le quota, la réaction en chaîne amplifie les effets insidieux de la législation plutôt que de promouvoir les prétendus avantages culturels. Finalement, les consommateurs se retrouvent avec moins de diversité de contenus, car les producteurs réduisent leurs catalogues uniquement pour se conformer au règlement.

Les quotas de contenu réduisent l’expérience de streaming des consommateurs, ils discriminent injustement les productions étrangères et ils n’atteignent pas les objectifs qu’ils étaient censés atteindre. Si nous étions habilités à noter les politiques publiques sur une plateforme équivalente à IMDb, cette réglementation obtiendrait un 0/10.

Are Consumers Getting the Short Stick on Data Privacy?

On a Monday, there is a data leak affecting half a billion Facebook accounts, by Tuesday a bot has scraped 500 million LinkedIn accounts. On Wednesday, Stanford University announces a hack that exposed thousands of social security numbers and financial details. Then Thursday, the world’s largest aviation IT company announces 90 percent of passenger data may have been accessed in a cyber-attack. And so on. The cycle is endless.

The sheer number of reports of data leaks, hacks, and scams on affected accounts has now grown so gargantuan that consumers and users are left numb. It might as well be the soaring national debt total —the higher the number, the less we care.

But breaches of private data matter. And consumers should be rightly ticked off.

Because for every company screw-up, hacker exploit, and insecure government database, there are thousands of firms and organizations doing it right, keeping users’ data secure, encrypted, and away from prying eyes.

And although states like California, Virginia, and Vermont have passed privacy and data laws, many of these provisions too closely resemble the European Union’s troubled General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in making it more difficult for legitimate businesses to secure data, not less.

When large data breaches occur, consumers who have been legitimately harmed should have their claims heard in court.

But the current patchwork of regulations across the U.S., including in the tech-centric state of California, place too much of a burden on those who are follow the law and do right by their customers, and risk creating different rules in different jurisdictions. To avoid this, a national framework on data and consumer privacy will need to take shape.

While we should always be vigilant about potentials for leaks and hacks, a chief concern of a smart and common-sense data privacy bill should be in championing innovation.

For every new health data company, logistics firm, or consumer wearable, proper data collection and retention are a core value. The more that rules are uniform, clear, and do not create barriers to entry, the more innovation we will see when it comes to data protection.

We should incentivize firms to adopt interoperability and open data standards to ensure data is portable and easy-to-access for users. Major social media networks now allow this prevision, and it has been the standard for website data for several years.

If that becomes the standard, consumers will be able to choose the brands and services that best cater to their needs and interests, rather than just companies left standing in the wake of overregulation.

At the same time, if we are to have a national privacy bill, we should enshrine the principle of technology neutrality, where government avoids decreeing winners and losers. That means that regulating or endorsing various formats of data, algorithms, or technology should be determined by firms and consumers, not government agencies without the knowledge necessary to make good decisions. The EU’s recent attempt to designate the “common phone charger” as the micro-USB connection, at a time when USB-C connections are becoming the industry standard, is an easy example.

This also extends to innovation practices such as targeted advertising, geo-targeting, or personalization, which are key to the consumer experience.

Added to that, we should be wary of all attempts to outlaw encryption for both commercial and personal use.

In recent weeks, FBI Director Christopher Wray has once again called on Congress to ban the use of encryption, an overreach that would put billions of dollars’ worth of data at risk overnight, and leave us vulnerable to foreign hackers.

He is joined in these efforts by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Tom Cotton (R-AR), and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), who introduced a bill that would forever ban this important cryptographic invention, warning it is used by “terrorists and other bad actors to conceal illicit behavior.”

The reason encryption remains a powerful tool in the arsenal of companies and agencies that handle our data and communications is because it works. We must defend it at any cost.

While there is plenty to be concerned about when it comes to online breaches and hacks, consumers should be able to benefit from an innovative marketplace of products and services, unencumbered by regulations that all-too-often restrict progress.

This balance is possible and necessary, both if we want to have a more secure online experience, and if we want to continue to have the best technology at our disposal to improve our lives.

Originally published here.

Scroll to top
en_USEN