A survey by Citizens Advice has found that more than one in six people are struggling to afford their broadband during the third lockdown and that poorer people are locked out altogether.

Certain Groups Worst Hit

Citizens Advice, which also conducted a similar survey during the first lockdown, found that the groups struggling most with their broadband bill were people with children, disabled people, people from Black, Asian or ethnic minority backgrounds, those who were shielding, and young people. Also, customers in receipt of low-income benefits e.g., Universal Credit were found to be almost twice as likely to struggle to pay their bill as other customers.  By the end of 2020, Citizens Advice found that an estimated 2.3 million people had fallen behind on their broadband bill.

Takes Much Greater Proportion of Low-Income Budget

In December 2020, Ofcom found that if households were paying the average £37 a month for landline and broadband, this would take around four times the proportion of a low-income household’s budget, compared to an average household.

Only 3 of 13 Affordable

The Citizens Advice survey found that sadly, only three of the largest 13 broadband companies offer affordable tariffs to people on low-income benefits.  This has led Citizens Advice to call on the government and Ofcom to fast-track plans that will make it compulsory for all providers to offer affordable tariffs to people on low-income benefits.  In December 2020, the European Electronic Communications Code, which came into UK law, should allow Ofcom and the government to do just that.

Pandemic Highlighted The Importance of Broadband

The pandemic lockdowns have highlighted just how important broadband is and that it is now more of an essential utility for all. For everything from working online (remotely) and communications with relatives to online shopping and job applications or job interviews, broadband is now essential to allow people to participate fully in society.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

With the European Electronic Communications Code now in UK law and with Ofcom appearing to be of the opinion that affordable broadband is “vital”, it is likely that big broadband providers will now face pressure to ensure that more of them provide affordable tariffs.  As broadband is now considered an essential utility, it is important that people are not excluded from it, so that aspects of today’s society and that people and their families’ opportunities and life chances aren’t damaged or limited simply because their broadband services are too expensive. Businesses deal with all sections of society e.g., customers, recruitment and more, so it is in the economy’s best interest that as many people as possible at least have access to broadband.

Australia’s intention to introduce a new law to make tech companies like Google and Facebook pay publishers for news content has prompted Google to threaten to withdraw its search engine from Australia.

What Law?

The proposed law is currently a Bill for an Act to amend the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 in relation to digital platforms, and for related purposes.  It goes by the catchy name of the Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Act 2020.  Full details of the Bill can be found here:  https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2020B00190

In short, the Australian government argues that because big tech companies like Google and Facebook acquire customers from people who want to read the news, these tech companies should, therefore, pay newsrooms a “fair” amount for their journalism through the process of paying the news sites for snippets and links.

The Australian government also argues that having a strong news media helps democracy, but ‘traditional media’ (e.g. newspapers) have experienced a decline in sales and ad revenue, and this traditional media needs financial support.

While traditional news media has seen falling ad revenues (particularly during the pandemic), Google’s revenue has been growing.  Google revenues, for example, amounted to 160bn (£117bn) globally in 2019.

Google, Facebook, and other tech companies are also facing the lobbying might of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp Australia to encourage a change in the law that could see tech firms paying.

Google Says

Google says that it would prefer a fair code to a law (referring to a “News Media Bargaining Code”) and lists its main objections to the law in a blog post.  In short, Google argues that:

– It is unworkable because paying news sites for snippets and links would break how search engines work and undermine the principle of the open internet.

– The law/code is currently one-sided because it only takes into consideration publishers’ costs and attempts to discount the benefits publishers receive from Google.

– Giving news publishers “special treatment” in terms of a 14-day algorithm notification would delay updates and disadvantage website owners.

– The code breaks Google Search and puts Google’s business in Australia at risk and undermines the ability to freely link between websites (a bit like making a telephone directory pay businesses to feature in the directory).

– Others support Google’s argument that paying for links and snippets damages the web, such as The Business Council of Australia, Tim Berners-Lee (inventor of the World Wide Web) and Scott Farquhar, co-founder of Australian tech company Atlassian.

– Google believes that it has a better proposal for an amended version of the code that will support journalism without breaking Google Search, i.e. paying publishers through Google News Showcase, not for links and snippets in Search.

– Google does not “use” news content, but simply provides links to it without showing the full article.

– Google is not to blame for the decline in newspaper revenue over time.

– Google argues that it has helped to grow the digital economy in Australia and has provided $53 billion in benefits to businesses and consumers each year.

– The financial and operational risks of complying with such a law as its stands would mean that Google could not continue to offer a service in Australia.

– Google has also said that it will be blocking Australian news sites from its search results for around 1 per cent of local users as an experiment to test the value of Australian news services.

Not Responding To Threats

The Australian Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, has said that his country’s lawmakers would not give in to what they appear to see as threats and a kind of blackmail from Google.

The Australian Prime Minister has also stressed that it is very much the country’s parliament that makes the rules for what happens in Australia, not tech companies.

What Happens if Google Does Pull Out?

Google has a massive 90-95 per cent share of the search engine market in Australia and, as is also the case here, businesses rely heavily on Google’s search and advertising (AdWords) for a lot of their business, something that has become particularly important during the pandemic. Also, businesses use the other tools/products that come as part of Google e.g., YouTube and Google are essentially a technology as much as it is a browser, a suite of tools and an effective advertising platform. Losing Google altogether sounds as though it would have a devastating initial effect on businesses.  That said, Google has been made unavailable before in a whole country, i.e. China since 2010 in a row over censorship of search engine results.

There are, of course, other browsers that people could use if Google disappears, e.g. Bing, DuckDuckGo and Yahoo!, although this could lead to major turbulence and changes in many markets.

France Example

Even though Google is making some frightening noises, the fact that it has recently agreed deals with some publishers of newspapers in France does provide some hope that it will not disappear from Australia altogether.

New Competition Rules for Facebook and Google in the UK

Back in December, the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) said that Facebook and Google would face new rules in 2021 to prevent abuse of their market dominance.

Google To Pay Publishers $1 Billion

Back in October, Alphabet Inc.’s CEO, Sundar Pichai said that Google would pay $1 billion to publishers globally for their news over the next three years. Sundar Pichai said that Google will pay publishers to create and curate high-quality content for what Google is calling its ‘Google News Showcase’.  This new product will launch in Germany first, where Google will be paying German newspapers such as Der Spiegel, Stern, Die Zeit, and in then in Brazil where Google will be paying Folha de S. Paulo, Band and Infobae for content.  Further similar rollouts of paid-for content as part of the Google News Showcase will then take place in Belgium, India, the Netherlands, and other countries.

200 Publishers

It has been reported that so far, 200 publishers in Argentina, Australia, Britain, Brazil, Canada, and Germany have signed up to the product.

Sundar Pichai says that the financial commitment Google is making to publishers is “our biggest to date”.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

Many tech commentators agree that Google is essentially threatening such a drastic step to stop a precedent being set that could then be extended to other countries.  Rather than being forced to comply with different laws in different countries which would be complex and see Google paying lots of money to different publishers, if it does have to do something, Google would rather do things on its own terms, i.e. agree to pay a set amount per year to large groups of publishers as part of its ‘Google News Showcase’.

Google has clearly been doing well while traditional publishers have been struggling and lobbying hard to make Google pay.  For businesses who rely heavily on Google for their advertising and more, this threat is a real worry that comes at a particularly challenging time.  Businesses may take some comfort from the fact that Google has made an agreement with some publishers in France (and could do the same in Australia) and that US trade representatives have suggested that the proposed law is perhaps too tough, should be dropped, and would be to the detriment of the (big) US-based tech companies.

With mobile computing, software-as-a-service (SaaS), and now remote working moving the focus of IT security away from the traditional perimeter, this article looks at what a Zero Trust approach is and how it can help.

More Complex Demands

The belief among many IT security experts is that a traditional perimeter-based security approach may no longer be enough to cope with the more complex IT security requirements that a widening scope of computing and threats have brought.  Additional authentication strategies are now needed.

First

The term ‘Zero Trust’ in relation to IT security was first used back in 2010 in a report by analyst firm Forrester when it was noted that there had been a big increase in the number of enterprises using the public cloud and that the security ‘perimeter’ was changing.

Zero Trust

The Zero Trust approach to IT Security (as highlighted by James Walsh of Fieldfisher) has the following characteristics:

– It is a data-centric model i.e., protecting data from both internal and external threats rather than just relying on the old ‘castle and moat’ style perimeter security (address and location layer).

– It works on the understanding that although as many precautions are being taken as possible, the modern reality that is not a case of “if” an attacker gets through, but “when”.

– Rather than the old “trust, but verify” approach, the Zero Trust approach is “never trust, always verify” i.e., trust is never granted implicitly but must be continually evaluated / all network traffic and nodes are considered untrustworthy until proven otherwise.  This means that any device must pass authentication and security policy checks to access any corporate resources.  It also means controlling this access only to the extent required.

– Zero Trust is not simply an approach. For it to work effectively, it requires compatible and connected policies, practices, software, and hardware that can create a whole, secure Zero Trust ecosystem.

Managing

In managing the device, user, and trust level, the Zero Trust approach uses:

– Managing the monitoring and compliance of all endpoint devices (understanding the threats), including BYOD, through unified endpoint management.

– Having one single sign-on point (SSO) where a single version of a user ID meets a single-entry point where the user credentials must be fully validated before accessing the business systems, as well as logging access in and out of the system.

– Multifactor authentication (MFA) being used to establish a user’s credentials and using a single factor is no longer an option. MFA could include a security key, biometrics, a trusted device, and more.

Some of the main benefits of Zero Trust include:

– Administrators can get an accurate inventory of infrastructure (i.e. which users, data, apps, and services are present) in the corporate infrastructure. This contributes to performance planning as well as security.

– The monitoring and alerting gives a better ability to quickly detect and respond to cybersecurity threats. Examples of tools used for monitoring in a Zero Trust framework include security information and event management systems (SIEM) for centralised logging capabilities and IT infrastructure threat detection and response tools.

– Improved user experience thanks to (for example) single sign-on (SSO) limiting the number of passwords needed and requiring a user to authenticate only once to gain access to everything they need.

– Reducing the potential for gaps in the security infrastructure thanks to a universal security policy that is created once and then implemented from end to end throughout the organisation.

– Making it easier and more flexible to move apps, data and services because with Zero Trust, app and data security policies are centrally managed and automation tools migrate the policies where they are required.

Components of a Zero Trust System

An example of the components of what is required for a Zero Trust network, in this case, NIST (US Government), include:

– A policy engine (PE) and policy administrator (PA) at the centre (in tandem or as part of the same software) to decide whether machines or web traffic are safe and granting or revoking access. The PE uses external data sources to help make its decisions.

The policy engine uses external data sources data that can include:

– Continuous diagnostic and mitigation (CDM) systems – providing information about (for example) the current security state, updating of a device’s OS and security software and more.

– Industry (and organisational) compliance checks.

– Threat intelligence feeds, e.g. about blacklists and malware.

– Activity logs that could flag up a potential risk.

– Data access policies for each individual and asset.

– Public key infrastructure (PKI) to validate certificates.

– Security information and event management (SIEM) systems. These provide security-related data that can also be used to improve the whole Zero Trust system.

– Other Zero Trust frameworks can use adaptations existing technologies, e.g. device sandboxing, a device/agent gateway model, micro-segmentation, and more.

Challenges to Implementing Zero Trust

As with any big change in a company/organisation, moving over to Zero Trust has its challenges which include:

– Any legacy apps, tools and resources that are currently part of network and enterprise operations but aren’t easy to integrate with a Zero Trust system.

– Regulations are currently running behind the implementation of many Zero Trust systems and these will need to change.

– Achieving visibility and control in a network is a big challenge and many organisations don’t have a comprehensive view and are, therefore, still vulnerable through unpatched devices or users with too many privileges.  In the shorter term, a hybrid approach to Zero Trust is likely to lead the way to full implementation.

Examples of Zero Trust (ZT) security models in action include:

– The US federal government now operates a Zero Trust model.

– Cloud service provider Akamai Technologies (US) – to let employees securely access internal applications but keep end-user devices off the corporate network entirely.

Resources and Links

Here are some links to a few useful resources and guides for Zero Trust IT security:

A Zero Trust security cheat sheet: https://www.techrepublic.com/article/zero-trust-security-a-cheat-sheet/.

How to implement Zero Trust with real-life examples: https://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/feature/How-to-implement-zero-trust-security-from-people-who-did-it.

Looking Ahead

It is clear that mobile computing, the pace of technological change, the digital transformation and massive increase in remote-working (fuelled by the pandemic), not to mention soaring cyber-crime figures have highlighted the need for a data-centred approach and a move away from the ‘moat and castle’ view of IT security.  Another good reason to opt for the Zero Trust approach is as a way of having a much better chance of avoiding the cost of a breach.  Not surprisingly, Zero Trust entered the European security market in 2019 and IT and Security Risk professionals as well as many businesses and organisations are now seeing it as the natural and practical way forward.

Google has announced that to make it faster and easier for users to find what they are looking for, a major visual redesign of Google’s mobile search results is to be rolled out shortly.

Challenges

Some of the challenges that Google has tried to address with the new changes are the diversity in the types of content and information that it now must categorise and how this affects a person’s ability to find what they are looking for with the existing/old format, e.g. too much clutter at the top, mixed media and font sizes.

Changes

Some of the visual changes in the new mobile search engine results layout, championed by Google designer Aileen Cheng, include:

– Making text easier to read due to larger, bolder text, including more of Google’s own font, and making the result and section titles bigger.

– Putting more of the text information at the top and reducing the distraction of design elements around it.

– Creating more visual space / “breathing room” to make the results more central by using an edge-to-edge results design.

– Using more bold colours to highlight important elements as well as centre-aligning content and images against a clean background.

– Borrowing more from the branding by using more rounded icons and imagery.

– Generally refreshing the design elements whilst retaining familiarity and approachability.

Series of Re-Designs

Back in February 2020, Google marked the 15th anniversary of Google Maps by making changes to the Google Maps logo.  The map cut-out icon was replaced with a simpler navigation pin which was made up of colours that reflected the main Google logo.

Also, in October 2020, Google previewed a new icon for Gmail which some people at the time thought was an indication of more design changes to come. The more simplified multi-coloured M on a plain background was reported to be part of a wider G-Suite re-brand and as a way of showing the integration of many products that started years ago as individual apps.  The design change was a way of creating a consistent and simple look in Google Workspace i.e., the place where all Google’s productivity apps were visibly grouped, such as Gmail, Calendar, Drive, Docs, and Sheets.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

With most Google searches now conducted on mobile devices and with a huge variety as well as volume of content now part of Google’s search, it makes sense that Google would want to make changes that make things more friendly for users.  Google has been undertaking a general move anyway over the last year to visually represent the integration of the many products that it has built up over many years.  It may make sense, therefore, that its core search product is next for the treatment.  Google is also under pressure from various governments over requests to pay publishers to show links to their news content its search engine results.  It is perhaps not surprising, therefore, that with its SERPs under so much scrutiny, Google would want to go on a charm offensive and ensure its products are looking their best. Mostly though, these relatively small design changes mark Google updating and integrating as it moves into an era where it has become more important than ever to home-workers and businesses that have undergone digital transformations and rely much more on Google’s products to help them function and compete in the more chaotic pandemic business environment.

Billionaire Tesla founder and SpaceX boss, Elon Musk, has pledged to give a $100 (£73 million) prize to whomever comes up with the best technology to remove carbon dioxide (which are generated from fossil fuels) from the air.

Jan 21st Tweet

In a Tweet on January 21, Elon Musk said, “Am donating $100M towards a prize for best carbon capture technology”.  It has been reported that the $100M (£75M) will be connected to the Xprize Foundation, a non-profit foundation that hosts public competitions to encourage technological development.

Musk is No Stranger to Pledging or Donating 

As part of the Giving Pledge initiative started by Bill Gates and Warren Buffett founded 2010, Elon Musk is one of the billionaires who have promised to give away half of their fortune in charitable donations.

What Is A Carbon Capture System?

A Carbon Capture System is a system that results in Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), i.e. the removal and storage (back) underground (or turning into products) of carbon dioxide that has been created through the burning of fossil fuels.

Why?

Following Musk’s Tweet about a prize for the best carbon capture system, people suggested that planting more trees and toughening existing efforts to thwart climate change would be more helpful. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have recently been measured at 415 parts per million (ppm) which is the highest in human history. Unfortunately, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says that existing measures may not be enough and that “negative emissions” / actively removing historical carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere is necessary on a large scale to really start to slow down and reverse the damage.

Examples

Examples of how Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) has been used to date include:

– Using Direct air capture (DAC) technology to remove carbon dioxide from the ambient air and storing it underground or turn it into products. Existing DAC systems use a liquid solvent to separate the Carbon Dioxide from the air. Swiss company Climeworks, for example, already operates 15 direct air capture machines across Europe (the world’s first commercial DAC system), powered by renewable energy.

– Canadian company Carbon Engineering operates a system that uses giant fans to pull air into a tower and passes the air over a potassium hydroxide solution to bind the carbon dioxide molecules.  This carbon dioxide is then purified and compressed to be used again.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

For many years now, the world has been facing a climate emergency and with carbon dioxide levels at their highest in human history, and with warnings that removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere using technologies like Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is now necessary and not optional, Elon Musk’s offer has at least given attention to the issue.  Carbon offsetting is popular with businesses but has been criticised, e.g. by Greenpeace, for not actually working as planting trees can’t replace cutting carbon emissions. The climate emergency is something that individuals and businesses must face together and make changes in their own behaviour and consumption to help reduce carbon emissions.

It is good news that President Biden has signed the US (back) up to the Paris Agreement, which is aimed at trying to keep the increase in global temperature to less than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to limit that warming to 1.5C. the agreement.  There are, however, still many countries, including those who have signed up, that are still heavily reliant on fossil fuels (such as coal), e.g. China.

Carbon Capture technology and systems are, therefore, necessary as well as representing an opportunity for a whole new sector e.g., the potential market value of DAC technology has been estimated at US$100bn by 2030. These systems should be just one weapon in the fight against global warming and a more holistic approach needs to be taken now with countries making the issue a priority and encouraging changes in behaviour and consumption wherever possible.