The new warriors. Taking a selfie with troops in the background? Photos of dead Russian soldiers that will be facially identified so their families can be sent emails? Videos of atrocities?
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2022/06/smartphones-and-civilians-in-wartime.html
Smartphones and Civilians in Wartime
Interesting article about civilians using smartphones to assist their militaries in wartime, and how that blurs the important legal distinction between combatants and non-combatants:
The principle of distinction between the two roles is a critical cornerstone of international humanitarian law — the law of armed conflict, codified by decades of customs and laws such as the Geneva Conventions. Those considered civilians and civilian targets are not to be attacked by military forces; as they are not combatants, they should be spared. At the same time, they also should not act as combatants — if they do, they may lose this status.
The conundrum, then, is how to classify a civilian who, with the use of their smartphone, potentially becomes an active participant in a military sensor system. (To be clear, solely having the app installed is not sufficient to lose the protected status. What matters is actual usage.) The Additional Protocol I to Geneva Conventions states that civilians enjoy protection from the “dangers arising from military operations unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.” Legally, if civilians engage in military activity, such as taking part in hostilities by using weapons, they forfeit their protected status, “for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities” that “affect[s] the military operations,” according to the International Committee of the Red Cross, the traditional impartial custodian of International Humanitarian Law. This is the case even if the people in question are not formally members of the armed forces. By losing the status of a civilian, one may become a legitimate military objective, carrying the risk of being directly attacked by military forces.
A missing datum. I can predict revenue and the costs of a given violation of GDPR, but the size of the potential fine was unknown… Until now!
Calculating GDPR fines: EDPB publishes proposals for a harmonized methodology
The most significant change that GDPR made to EU data privacy law was to enhance enforcement and create a framework for increased fines for non-compliance. Four years after the GDPR started to apply, and as enforcement action picks up across the EU, the EDPB has finally issued draft guidelines on the calculation of administrative fines under the GDPR (the “Guidelines”). The EDPB aims to create a single methodology for calculating fines issued under the GDPR (for both cross-border and non-cross border cases), and thus should replace existing national frameworks, that diverge from the Guidelines. The Guidelines will sit alongside existing guidelines that focus on the circumstances in which to impose a fine.
Is there a clear line between making my system attractive and making it addictive?
Meta Hit With 8 Suits Claiming Its Algorithms Hook Youth and Ruin Their Lives
Users claim defective design, failure to warn of health issues
Company says it has improved supervision tools for parents
Meta Platforms Inc. is now a leader in another social media trend – lawsuits claiming the company built algorithms in its platforms that lure young people into destructive addiction.
To blog or not to blog. Being much smaller than Facebook, I can say (or not say) anything I want. Laws differ due to the size of the offender.
A Supreme Court speech showdown is coming, and nobody knows what to expect
The Verge: US Supreme Court is poised to consider a question with seismic consequences for online speech. Over the past year, laws in Texas and Florida have set up a legal battle over whether the First Amendment protects social networks’ right to curate user-generated content or whether these sites should be treated more like phone companies, required to host nearly any speech their users post. The courts’ split reflects a deepening shift in how to interpret a basic constitutional right, filtered through a political culture war and backlash against large web platforms. For years, sites like Facebook and YouTube have broadly assumed that moderation decisions are protected by the First Amendment. But, last month, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals made a surprise ruling over Texas’ HB 20, a law that bans large apps and websites from moderating content based on “viewpoint.” The court ruled against NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) and let the law go into effect, sending the groups scrambling to file an emergency Supreme Court petition. That petition was granted — temporarily blocking the law but also offering a preview of a seemingly inevitable Supreme Court battle…. The central issue is whether the government can regulate how social networks sort and remove legal content. Opponents argue that curating posts and setting community standards involves private companies exercising a constitutional right to speak (or not speak, in the case of content bans). Supporters compare the sites to shopping malls or telephone networks, whose First Amendment rights are limited. But both sides so far are leaning on old cases involving non-digital spaces and tech, and the Texas law in particular repurposes legal terms outside of even relatively recent judicial context. It designates social networks as utility-like common carriers, a label that federal rules explicitly avoid applying to internet service providers — let alone websites. And it also bans “viewpoint discrimination,” a term the Supreme Court has used to describe unlawful government restrictions on speech but that Texas lawmakers have treated as synonymous with private companies moderating conservative content…”
No comments:
Post a Comment