Ministers who can’t count

Posted on by

Pritti Patel, the current British Home Secretary (third from left, top row), recently introduced the UK’s “tough” new points-based immigration system that will come into force on January 1, 2021. Faced with criticism that the system will severely impair certain sectors of British industry, Ms Patel asserted that the new rules will be a golden opportunity for 8.48m “economically inactive” British people between the ages of 16 and 64 to join the workforce.

Writing in today’s Financial Times, Bronwen Maddox points out that, according to the Office of National Statistics, 2.3m of those are students, 2.1m are long-term sick or disabled, 1.9m are looking after their family or home, 1.1m are retired and 160,000 are temporarily sick. This leaves 1.87m who might like a job and do not have one.

Perhaps one of them would like a job in the Home Secretary’s office, handling the arithmetic.

Some historical perspective on the dominance of current tech giants

Posted on by

From this week’s Economist:

As big tech’s scope expands, more non-tech firms will find their profits dented and more workers will see their livelihoods disrupted, creating angry constituencies. One crude measure of scale is to look at global profits relative to American GDP. By this yardstick, Apple, which is expanding into services, is already roughly as big as Standard Oil and US Steel were in 1910, at the height of their powers. Alphabet, Amazon and Microsoft are set to reach the threshold within the next ten years.

Remember what happened to Standard Oil and US Steel?

Quote of the Day

Posted on by

“As big tech’s scope expands, more non-tech firms will find their profits dented and more workers will see their livelihoods disrupted, creating angry constituencies. One crude measure of scale is to look at global profits relative to American gdp. By this yardstick, Apple, which is expanding into services, is already roughly as big as Standard Oil and US Steel were in 1910, at the height of their powers. Alphabet, Amazon and Microsoft are set to reach the threshold within the next ten years.”

  • This week’s Economist.

If tech companies think they’re states, then they should accept the same responsibilities as states

Posted on by

It’s amazing to watch the deluded fantasies of tech bosses about their importance. In part, this is because their pretensions are taken seriously by political leaders who should know better. The daftest move thus far in this context was the Danish government’s decision in 2017 to appoint an ‘ambassador’ to the tech companies in Silicon Valley, but it’s clear that some other administrations share the same delusions.

Marietje Schaake, the former MEP who is now International policy director at Stanford’s Cyber Policy Center, has noted this too.

Last month, Microsoft announced it would open a “representation to the UN”, while at the same time recruiting a diplomat to run its European public affairs office. Alibaba has proposed a cross-border, online free trade platform. When Facebook’s suggestion of a “supreme court” to revisit controversial content moderation decisions was criticised, it relabelled the initiative an “oversight board”. It seems tech executives are literally trying to take seats at the table that has thus far been shared by heads of state.

At the annual security conference in Munich, presidents, prime ministers and politicians usually share the sought-after stage to engage in conversations about conflict in the Middle East, the future of the EU, or transatlantic relations. This year, executives of Alphabet, Facebook and Microsoft were added to the speakers list.

Facebook boss Mark Zuckerberg went on from Munich to Brussels to meet with EU commissioners about a package of regulatory initiatives on artificial intelligence, data and digital services. Commissioner Thierry Breton provided the apt reminder that companies must follow EU regulations — not the other way around.

In a brisk OpEd piece in yesterday’s Financial Times, Schaake reminds tech bosses that if they really want change, there is no need to wait for government regulation to guide them in the right direction. (Which is their current mantra.) They own and totally control their own platforms. They can start in their own “republics” today. Nothing stops them proactively aligning their terms of use with human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law. When they deploy authoritarian models of governing, they should be called out. “Instead of playing government”, she writes,

they should take responsibility for their own territories. This means anchoring terms of use and standards in the rule of law and democratic principles and allowing independent scrutiny from researchers, regulators and democratic representatives alike. Credible accountability is always independent. It is time to ensure such oversight is proportionate to the power of tech giants.

Companies seeking to democratise would also have to give their employees and customers more of a say, as prime “constituents”. If leaders are serious about their state-like powers, they must walk the walk and treat consumers as citizens. Until then, calls for regulations will be seen as opportunistic, and corporations unfit to lead.

Bravo! Couldn’t have put it better myself.

Why do people keep buying Amazon Ring?

Posted on by

I’ve got a good friend who has an Amazon doorbell and seems tickled pink by it. Normally, this would worry me, but he’s a sophisticated techie and I’m sure his security precautions are good.

But that’s definitely not true for most of the thousands of people who are buying the devices.

The New York Times has a helpful piece aimed at these neophytes. It opens with some cautionary notes, though:

The internet-connected doorbell gadget, which lets you watch live video of your front porch through a phone app or website, has gained a reputation as the webcam that spies on you and that has failed to protect your data. Yet people keep buying it in droves.

Ring, which is owned by Amazon and based in Santa Monica, Calif., has generated its share of headlines, including how the company fired four employees over the last four years for watching customers’ videos. Last month, security researchers also found that Ring’s apps contained hidden code, which had shared customer data with third-party marketers. And in December, hackers hijacked the Ring cameras of multiple families, using the devices’ speakers to verbally assault some of them.

Could Google users in UK lose EU data protection?

Posted on by

This Reuters report suggests that we could.

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – Google is planning to move its British users’ accounts out of the control of European Union privacy regulators, placing them under U.S. jurisdiction instead, sources said.

The shift, prompted by Britain’s exit from the EU, will leave the sensitive personal information of tens of millions with less protection and within easier reach of British law enforcement.

The change was described to Reuters by three people familiar with its plans. Google intends to require its British users to acknowledge new terms of service including the new jurisdiction.

Ireland, where Google and other U.S. tech companies have their European headquarters, is staying in the EU, which has one of the world’s most aggressive data protection rules, the General Data Protection Regulation.

Google has decided to move its British users out of Irish jurisdiction because it is unclear whether Britain will follow GDPR or adopt other rules that could affect the handling of user data, the people said.

If British Google users have their data kept in Ireland, it would be more difficult for British authorities to recover it in criminal investigations.

The recent Cloud Act in the United States, however, is expected to make it easier for British authorities to obtain data from U.S. companies. Britain and the United States are also on track to negotiate a broader trade agreement.

Beyond that, the United States has among the weakest privacy protections of any major economy, with no broad law despite years of advocacy by consumer protection groups.

Google, needless to say, declined to comment.

If this turns out to be true, it will mark my departure from all the Google services that I currently use. Better start organising now, just in case…

Of you’re interested here’s a how-to link.

Tropical Breezes, Pristine Beaches and a Domain Name to Die For

Posted on by

Well, well. From the New York Times:

Anguilla is the landlord for internet addresses that end in “.ai” — a suddenly valuable slice of online real estate. Every time a .ai name is registered or renewed — by A.I. start-ups, or by speculators hoping to resell the names to those start-ups, big companies or investors — the island collects a $50-a-year fee, which goes mostly to the government treasury.

As the demand for online presence continues to surge, the island of Anguilla has unwittingly found itself in possession of a highly valuable piece of virtual real estate: the “.ai” internet addresses. This unexpected windfall has transformed the tiny territory into a significant player in the digital domain. With each registration or renewal of a .ai name, whether by ambitious A.I. startups or shrewd speculators eyeing resale opportunities, Anguilla collects a $50 annual fee that significantly bolsters its government treasury. The exponential growth of this revenue stream has been nothing short of remarkable, surpassing $2.9 million in 2018 alone and continuing to climb steadily. Such financial success has the potential to positively impact various sectors of the island’s economy, including its real estate market. For those seeking to invest in the flourishing Florida real estate market, a visit to exprealty.com/us/fl/ can unveil a myriad of opportunities to explore and secure properties that align with individual goals and aspirations.

In light of Anguilla’s unexpected financial windfall from the lucrative “.ai” internet addresses, investors exploring opportunities in the flourishing Florida real estate market may find the concept of 1031 exchanges particularly enticing. The 1031 exchange, often utilized by astute investors, allows for the deferral of capital gains taxes by reinvesting the proceeds from the sale of one property into another similar property. As the demand for these valuable “.ai” addresses continues to soar, strategic investors, in collaboration with experts like The 1031 Specialists, can leverage this financial gain to diversify their portfolios. By intelligently reinvesting in real estate through 1031 exchanges, investors not only maximize their profits but also contribute to the economic growth, further fueling the island’s digital prosperity. Those fees added up to $2.9 million in 2018, the most recent official government tally, or nearly as much as the combined salaries of the 127 primary-school teachers, assistants and administrators in the territory. The revenue rose sharply again last year. “It’s really snowballed,” said Vincent Cate, who manages the .ai registry in an office not far from the ocean.

Meanwhile, the influx of capital from this digital windfall serves as a catalyst for broader real estate growth, allowing property values to rise in tandem with increasing interest from global buyers. Strategic investors, well-versed in both digital and physical assets, recognize the long-term benefits of reinvesting profits from high-tech ventures into tangible assets like real estate. By using tools such as a refinance home loan calculator, they can explore refinancing options to free up funds for new ventures, expanding their real estate portfolios and contributing to the overall economic vitality of their investment landscape. This seamless integration of virtual and physical assets not only promises financial growth but also offers long-term stability and prosperity.

Anguilla owes its good fortune to the large, yet obscure and often quirky, market for internet addresses. Start-ups are increasingly willing to take on unusual internet addresses, or domain names like .ai, to stand out.

Just tried to get bullshit.ai, but it’s already taken. Damn!

But ethics-theatre.ai is available. A snip at £81.99!

So, basically, we’re screwed

Posted on by

Really sobering article in the FT by Martin Wolf. Here’s the gist:

We live in a fossil-fuel civilisation. There have been two energy revolutions in human history: the agricultural revolution, which exploited far more incident sunlight; and the industrial revolution, which exploited fossilised sunlight. Now we must return to incident sunlight — solar energy and wind — along with nuclear power.

Discussions last week at the Oslo Energy Forum clarified things for me. My principal conclusion was that a transformation from our current energy system to a different one is the only option. Some suggest we should halt growth as well. But this would not only be impossible, it would also not be nearly enough.

Over the past three decades CO2 emissions per unit of global output have been falling at a little below 2 per cent a year. If this were to continue and world output were to stagnate, global emissions would fall by 40 per cent by 2050 — far too little. Relying on actual reductions in output, in order to cut emissions by, say, 95 per cent, by 2050, would require a fall in world output of roughly 90 per cent, bringing global output per head back to 1870 levels.

Since we’re not going deliberately to go back to 1870 (all those stovepipe hats), we have to stop burning fossil fuels, period — and make a transition to a non-carbon economy. Wolf thinks that, in principle, this might be possible. But,

A zero-carbon economy would require about four to five times as much electricity as our present one, all from non-carbon-emitting sources. In running such an economy, hydrogen (much of it produced by electrolysis) would play an essential role. Hydrogen consumption might jump 11-fold by 2050.

In many sectors, the costs of decarbonisation are (or soon will be) competitive. Yet in some, they will not be. There will need to be incentives and regulations to force the shift. In order to avoid merely moving production, in its most emissions-intensive forms, elsewhere, it will be essential to impose offsetting taxes on imports from jurisdictions that refuse to support the needed changes.

Note the last sentence and ask yourself what are the chances of this happening in the world as we know it?

Summing up: we could do it, but we won’t. I’ve argued for a long time that we need a theory of incompetent systems — i.e. systems that can’t fix themselves.