The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Udderly indefensible facial recognition scandal may drive new privacy mooovement
Episode 262 of the Cyberlaw Podcast
Have the Chinese hired American lawyers to vet their cyberespionage tactics – or just someone who cares about opsec? Probably the latter, and if you're wondering why China would suddenly care about opsec, look no further than Supermicro's announcement that it will be leaving China after a Bloomberg story claiming that the company's supply chain was compromised by Chinese actors. Nick Weaver, Joel Brenner, and I doubt the Bloomberg story, but it has cost Supermicro a lot of sales – and even if it isn't true this time, the scale and insouciance of past Chinese cyberespionage make it inherently believable. Hence the company's shift to other sources (and, maybe, a new caution on the part of Chinese government hackers).
GDPR and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) may be the Dumb and Dumber of privacy law, but neither is going away. And for the next six months, California's legislature will be struggling against a deadline to make sense of the CCPA. Meegan Brooks gives us an overview.
But we in Washington can't get too smug about California's deadline-driven dysfunction. Congress also faces a year-end deadline to renew the Section 215 program, and even the executive branch hasn't decided what it wants. Joel takes us through the program's history, its snake-bitten implementation, and the possible outcomes in Congress.
This week in Silicon Valley content control: Facebook dropped the link-ban hammer on Louis Farrakhan, Alex Jones, and Milo Yiannopoulos for being "dangerous." But did it really? Once again, I volunteer to put my Facebook access at risk by testing Facebook's censorship engine – posting a different Infowars story there every day. Not because I love the conspiracy-mongering Alex Jones but because banning links is a bad idea. (Among other things, you can't really pile links up and burn them in cinematic pyres at rallies.) But both Facebook and Jones may have a codependent interest in overstating the ban, because as of Day 4 of my experiment, my Facebook account is still alive and well, as are the Infowars links.
The FBI has accused US scientists of sending intellectual property to China, running shadow labs, and (this part really appalls Nick) corrupting the peer review process at NIH. Sadly, Science magazine buys into easy claims that the flap is born of racial bias.
We close the episode with the latest and most shocking facial recognition scandal. It turns out face recognition researchers are chasing down unwilling subjects and restraining them to get the subjects' pictures – all in service to untried and udderly unreliable technology. All we need to turn this into a major scandal is a public policy entrepreneur willing to work the intersection between the EFF and PETA.
Download the 262nd Episode (mp3).
You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed!
As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@steptoe.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug!
The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of the firm.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
[…] from Law https://reason.com/2019/05/06/udderly-indefensible-facial-recognition-scandal-may-drive-new-privacy-… […]
I know for a fact FBI investigates many grants. There are a lot of white males caught up in this as well. Many times, charges are dropped. They start out looking at anything suspicious, like if you report more than 80 hours a week working . Then they look at your work and travel history and other things. They will neither confirm nor deny that what they are *really* looking at is all your trips to Yemen or China, the suspicious grant paperwork is only a pretext.
Wow! The FBI investigates suspicious activity.
Whodathunk that?
Well, depending on who you ask, the "activity" may or may not be "suspicious." Working 80 hours a week is not suspicious on its face in my book, yet may form the pretext for investigation. Its not clear that the FBI really knows how academia works. If if they do, they are purposefully obtuse so that they can make up reasons to investigate people with a lot of overseas activity. And by the way, if you travel overseas and come back, they can search through all your laptops, phones, etc without a warrant when you "cross over" the border.
That's not the FBI at the border.
And the 80 hours work/week has to be put into context.
Is there an operational necessity?
Was the extra work approved?
Is the person requesting access to information they don't have an need to know?
Do it for the cows.
The WSJ article cited, "Facial-Recognition Software Meets Its Match: Barnyard Animals," is behind a paywall. I wish people wouldn't link to paywalled articles.
I think that title is supposed to say "Utterly", not "Udderly".
Big difference between the two!
It was a joke, along with "mooovement." I know, i didn't get it at first, still not sure I do.
You're getting too good at writing these summaries Stewart. They make it unnecessary to listen to the podcast. 🙂
[…] You may have heard that Facebook banned Louis Farrakhan, Alex Jones, and Milo what’s his name. Steward Baker of Volokh Conspiracy suggests the ban might not be as universal as Facebook claims. […]