New York Times

The Privacy Project Seeks to Inform Deliberate Digital Choices

From wondering if your smart speaker is eavesdropping on you to learning your online data has been sold to advertisers, the digital world has become a scarier place, even as technology has made it more inviting and inevitable. Privacy has suffered, but does it matter? The Privacy Project aims to inform readers, stimulate conversation and move us toward deliberate choices.

From wondering if your smart speaker is eavesdropping on you to learning your online data has been sold to advertisers, the digital world has become a scarier place, even as technology has made it more inviting and inevitable. Privacy has suffered, but does it matter? The Privacy Project aims to inform readers, stimulate conversation and move us toward deliberate choices.

Is Alexa an electronic intruder in your home? Can you go anywhere, including your Airbnb rental, without showing up in a surveillance camera video? Are your social media sites conduits to reveal your behavior patterns and preferences to advertisers – and politicians?

All are questions relating to the privacy we have forfeited without realizing it in the digital age.

The threats to privacy and a level playing field have provoked strong proposals from the likes of Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren. As a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, Warren has called for the break-up of big tech monopolies and regulation to prevent self-dealing – and often opaque – privacy policies.

Oregon Senator Ron Wyden has led the way for many years on net neutrality, the policy that would prohibit internet providers from manipulating access and online speed to favor their own prime customers and disadvantage competitors. He also has criticized Facebook and other digital leviathans for cashing in on the data they collect, often without express user consent or knowledge, that is sold to advertisers or political advocacy groups.

However, breaking up big tech companies and guaranteeing net neutrality don’t exactly address digital privacy concerns. Those policies don’t litigate the fundamental question of whether consumers unwittingly surrender their privacy for the convenience of tech devices. They don’t rise to the level of asking where the boundaries are between what’s private and what’s fair game.

We live in an increasingly digital world, in which privacy has been clearly compromised and few policies exist to protect privacy. The New York Times has launched the Privacy Project to inform and stimulate conversation toward more deliberate choices.  https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/opinion/internet-privacy-project.html

We live in an increasingly digital world, in which privacy has been clearly compromised and few policies exist to protect privacy. The New York Times has launched the Privacy Project to inform and stimulate conversation toward more deliberate choices.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/opinion/internet-privacy-project.html

The New York Times has launched a month-long initiative called the Privacy Project, which will examine issues surrounding privacy. In its Sunday opinion section, the Times published pieces from various points of view. Author Samantha Irby said her love of connectivity outweighed any concerns about loss of privacy. Law professor Tim Wu said corporate greed has stripped away privacy for financial gain. The Times publisher writes about how the newspaper views its responsibility in the digital age.

Other articles discussed the safety of women online and how insurance companies can track Fitbit data to use in determining your health insurance rates. Recode editor Kara Swisher wrote that Americans have surrendered too much control over their digital lives and need government regulation to get it back. Columnist Ross Douthat said the solution to compromised privacy is relying less on the internet. Author KJ Dell’Antonia urged people to pull back from social media, which can be an accomplice in sacrificing privacy for families and children.

Serious and stimulating stuff, which the Times intends as conversation-starters. “In recent years, as we’ve been blurring the boundaries between what’s public and what’s private,” Times Editor James Bennet wrote, “we’ve been doing so largely by accident, or by leaving the decisions to the vagaries of innovation and the pull of market incentives.” 

“As consumers and citizens,” Bennet said, “we need to understand the benefits and the costs and make deliberate choices. Rather than hurriedly consenting to someone else’s privacy policy, it’s time for us to write our own.”

Ironically, this conversation is likely to occur online. We are that digitally dependent. But where the conversation occurs is less significant than whether it occurs. Technological giddiness and laissez-faire attitudes aren’t adequate substitutes for what Bennet refers to as “deliberate choices.”

A good place to start in forming your own views is the Times Privacy Project. Some of the articles may enrage you. Others may alarm you. All of them seek to inform you of the choices we all may need to make – sooner than later.

 

The Renewed Nuclear Arms Race We Aren’t Discussing

The threat of terrorist attacks is more top-of-mind for Americans than an accelerating nuclear arms race by Russia, China and the United States involving smaller, more precise nuclear weapons that could put the entire world on higher alert.

The threat of terrorist attacks is more top-of-mind for Americans than an accelerating nuclear arms race by Russia, China and the United States involving smaller, more precise nuclear weapons that could put the entire world on higher alert.

Americans worry about the threat of terrorism while being largely unaware of an accelerating nuclear arms race involving Russia, China and the United States.

To the extent nuclear weapons are discussed, it is in the context of the Iranian nuclear deal, North Korea’s relentless efforts to join the nuclear club and a fear that ISIS will grab nuclear material for a so-called dirty bomb. A reignited nuclear arms race between world powers, including the United States, remains in the shadows of a presidential election and public debate.

The topic was brought into the daylight by a recent New York Times article that reported, “The United States, Russia and China are now aggressively pursuing a new generation of smaller, less destructive nuclear weapons.” 

The report added ominously, “The buildups threaten to revive a Cold War-era arms race and unsettle the balance of destructive force among nations that has kept the nuclear peace for more than a half century.”

Sobering stuff. It underlines the need for a calm hand, not a twitchy finger in the White House. It also may be why GOP presidential frontrunner Donald Trump hasn’t repeated his seemingly off-the-cuff comments about helping Japan and South Korea secure nuclear weapons.

The new nuclear race has less to do with building larger bombs than the stealth of surgically delivering smaller ones. The Russians have topped big missiles with miniaturized warheads and are developing an undersea drone that can loft a city-smothering radioactive cloud. China is reportedly flight-testing a nuclear warhead that can be mounted on a hypersonic glide vehicle, which would maneuver in space, then twist and careen toward its intended target on Earth. 

The Times report says the United States is also testing a hypersonic weapon and modernizing its nuclear arsenal with "small, stealthy and precise” weaponry that can evade nuclear missile defense systems and pinpoint targets. U.S. officials aren’t denying what’s going on, but they also aren’t playing it up.

After World War II, the Cold War race to stockpile ever-larger bombs on longer-distance missiles was based on the “grim logic” of mutual assured destruction, which meant if someone launched an attack, there would be a massive counterattack that would destroy great swaths of the planet. The outcome was so horrifying, it became its own effective deterrent.

Now, the prospect of less destructive and more precise nuclear weapons could tempt somebody to try them out. Some military experts say miniaturized nuclear weapons could deter terrorist groups, though nuclear arms critics would contend their use could feed the radical vision of ISIS for some kind of apocalyptic battle. 

Development of a new generation of nukes at the moment has more to do with geopolitical anxieties, such as Russia’s flirtation with Soviet-style aggression and China’s ambition to solidify its place as a world power. Russia’s expansion into Crimea and China’s land claims in the China Sea serve as present-day reminders of the tensions that underlie nuclear expansion and modernization and cause all three countries to point fingers as to who’s is responsible for a new nuclear arms race.

The Times report notes that Washington and Moscow have kept their respective nuclear forces on high alert to allow a rapid response if an incoming strike is detected. China is apparently on a path to upgrade its early warning system, raising the overall stakes of a “launch on warning” mistake that triggers a nuclear free-for-all.

Arms control advocates feel like middle managers in a modern, fast economy with little effective role in addressing a rekindled Cold War escalation. The Times quotes Mark Gubrud, a nuclear weapons expert, as saying, “The world has failed to put the nuclear genie back in the bottle and new genies are now getting loose."

Vote No, Hope Yes Caucus

Congress works in wondrous ways with GOP members voting no on bills they hope will pass so they aren't blamed for the results of not passing.The House and Senate votes this week to raise the federal debt ceiling to avoid the threat of default highlighted what a New York Times analyst called the "Vote No, Hope Yes Caucus" in Congress.

Debt ceiling legislation passed in the GOP-controlled House with only 28 Republican "yes" votes. Times reporter Carl Hulse said that "was the lowest percentage for a majority on passage since the House began publishing electronic data on votes in 1991."

The Senate struggled to close off debate with the required 60 votes until GOP leaders relented and provided the handful of votes needed to bring up the legislation for an actual vote.

"The results in both the Senate and House," Hulse concluded, "illustrate the countervailing political forces at work on Capitol Hill and how the current partisan environment makes governing so difficult."

Skilling Up Discouraged Workers

More than half of U.S. businesses have job openings they cannot fill as more workers without the right skills become discouraged about ever getting a job.The word "jobs" is on the lips of virtually every politician. Political campaigns pivot on what a candidate has done to create jobs or an opponent to deep-six them. However, there is little talk of filling the skilled jobs that sit vacant.

Catherine Rampell of The New York Times reports that more than half of U.S. employers claim they have jobs they can't fill, despite an unemployment rate exceeding 8 percent. It is a problem, she says, we share at about the same rate with rapidly developing economies in Brazil and India, which have much lower jobless rates.

In her "Dollars to doughnuts" blog, Rampell speculates there may be difficulties matching qualified workers with work-ready employers. But it is more likely, she says, there is a real shortage of people with the skills many businesses need.

U.S. manufacturers have warned about a mismatch of skills and available jobs for years. The problem keeps growing more serious as older workers retire and there is no one trained to replace them.