London-based, registered charity ‘Full Fact’ will now be working for Facebook, reviewing stories, images and videos, in an attempt to tackle misinformation that could “damage people’s health or safety or undermine democratic processes”.

Why?

The UK Brexit referendum, the 2017 UK general election, and the U.S. presidential election were both found to have suffered interference in the form of so-called ‘fake news’ / misinformation spread via Facebook which appears to have affected the outcomes by influencing voters.

For example, back in 2018, it was revealed that London-based data analytics company, Cambridge Analytica, which was once headed by Trump’s key adviser Steve Bannon, had illegally harvested 50 million Facebook profiles in early 2014 in order to build a software program that was used to predict and generate personalised political adverts to influence choices at the ballot box in the last U.S. election. Russia was also implicated in trying to influence voters via Facebook.

Chief executive of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, was made to appear before the U.S. Congress in April to talk about how Facebook is tackling false reports, and even recently a video that was shared via Facebook (which had 4 million views before being taken down) falsely suggested that smart meters emit radiation levels that are harmful to health. The information in the video was believed by many even though it was false.

Scoring System

Back in August 2018, it was revealed that for 2 years Facebook had been trying to manage some misinformation issues by using a system (operated by its own ‘misinformation team’) that allocated a trustworthiness score to some members.  Facebook is reported to be already working with fact-checkers in more than 20 countries. Facebook is also reported to have had a working relationship with Full Fact since 2016.

Full Fact’s System

This new system from third-party Full Fact will now focus on Facebook in the UK.  When users flag up to Facebook what they suspect may be false content, the Full Fact team will identify and review public pictures, videos or stories and use a rating system that will categorise them as true, false or a mixture of accurate and inaccurate content.  Users will then be told if the story they’ve shared, or are about to share, has been checked by Full Fact, and they’ll be given the option to read more about the claim’s source, but will not be stopped from sharing anything.

Also, the false rating system should mean that false content will appear lower in news feeds, so it reaches fewer people. Satire from a page or domain that is a known satire publication will not be penalised.

Like other Facebook third-party fact-checkers, Full Fact will be able to act against pages and domains that repeatedly share false-rated content e.g. by reducing by their distribution and by reducing their ability to monetise and advertise.  Also, Full Fact should be able to stop repeat offenders from registering as a news page on Facebook.

Assurances

Full Fact has published assurances that among other things, they won’t be given access to Facebook users’ private data for any reason, Facebook will have no control over what they choose to check, and they will operate in a way that is independent, impartial and open.

Political Ad Transparency – New Rules

In October last year, Facebook also announced that a new rule for the UK now means that anyone who wishes to place an advert relating to a live political issue or promoting a UK political candidate, referencing political figures, political parties, elections, legislation before Parliament and past referenda that are the subject of national debate, will need to prove their identity, and prove that they are based in the UK. The adverts they post will also have to carry a “Paid for by” disclaimer to enable Facebook users to see who they are engaging with when viewing the ad.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

As users of social networks, we don’t want to see false news, and false news that influences the outcome of important issues (e.g. elections and referendums) have a knock-on effect to the economic and trade environment which, in turn, affects businesses.

Facebook appears to have lost a lot of trust over the Cambridge Analytica (SCL Elections) scandal, findings that Facebook was used to distribute posts of Russian origin to influence opinion in the U.S. election, and that the platform was also used by parties wishing to influence the outcome of the UK Referendum. Facebook, therefore, must show that it is taking the kind of action that doesn’t stifle free speech but does go some way to tackling the spread of misinformation via its platform.

There remains, however, some criticism in this case that Facebook may still be acting too slowly and not decisively enough, given the speed by which some false content can amass millions of views.

SCL Elections, the parent company of the now defunct Cambridge Analytica which was famously involved in the Facebook profile harvesting scandal, has been fined £15,000 for failing to respond to a data access request from a US citizen, and for ignoring an enforcement notice by the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

Data Protection Act

The fine was made for a breach of the Data Protection Act which was in force for all at the time of the data request, which was originally made back in 2017.  GDPR, which came into force on 25th May 2018 (to replace the Data Protection Directive) covers the data protection rights of EU citizens.

The person who made the data request in this case, however, was US citizen Professor David Carroll, and SCL Elections wrongly believed that because he was not a UK citizen, he had no more right to request access to data “than a member of the Taliban sitting in a cave in Afghanistan”.

What Happened?

Professor David Carroll, who was based in New York in May 2017 at the time of his original data request under UK Data Protection Act, asked SCL Elections’ Cambridge Analytica branch in the UK to provide all the data it had gathered on him. Under that law, SCL Elections should have responded within 40 days with a copy of the data, the source of the data, and stating if the organisation had given / intended to give the data to others.

Professor Carroll, a Democrat, was reported to have been interested from an academic perspective in the practice of political ad targeting in elections and believed that he may have been targeted with messages that criticised Secretary Hillary Clinton with falsified or exaggerated information that may have negatively affected his sentiment about her candidacy.

Sent Basic Information On A Spreadsheet

Some weeks after Professor Carroll’s subject access request in early 2017, SCL Elections sent him a spreadsheet of basic information that it held about him.

However, that information contained accurate predictions of Professor Carroll’s views on some issues and had scored Carroll a nine 9 out of 10 on what it called a “traditional social and moral values importance rank”.

Wanted To Know How

This prompted Professor Carroll to submit a second request to SCL Elections, this time to find out what that ranking meant and what it was based on, and where the data about him came from. This second request was ignored by SCL.

The CEO of Cambridge Analytica at the time, Alexander Nix, told a UK parliamentary committee that his company would not provide American citizens, like David Carroll, all the data it holds on them, or tell them where the data came from, and Nix (mistakenly) said that there was no legislation in the US that allowed individuals to make such a request.

ICO Involved

The ICO then became involved with the UK’s Information Commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, sending a letter to SCL Elections (Cambridge Analytica) asking where the data on Professor Carroll came from, and what had been done with it.  A section 40 enforcement notice was also issued in May 2018 to SCL Elections, thereby making it a criminal matter if they failed to comply by responding to the request and by providing the full records as requested by Carroll. No records were forthcoming, which resulted in the recent prosecution, the first against Cambridge Analytica.

During the case at Hendon Magistrates Court, it was revealed that SCL Elections had a turnover of £25.1m and profits of £2.3m in 2016.  The judge fined SCL Elections £15,000 for failing to comply with the section 40 enforcement notice from the ICO and ordered the company (whose affairs are being handled by administrators, Crowe UK) to pay a contribution of £6,000 to the ICO’s legal costs, and a victim surcharge of £170.

Some Mitigating Circumstances

Although Counsel for SCL Elections’ administrators acknowledged that SCL elections had failed to respond to the section 40 enforcement notice, they did highlight some mitigating circumstances, such as the company’s computer servers being seized by the ICO following a raid on the SCL Elections premises in March 2018.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

This case shows that ignorance of data protection law is not a defence and that businesses and organisations need to protect their customers, stakeholders, and themselves by making sure that they fully understand and comply with data protection laws. This is particularly relevant in the UK since the introduction of GDPR.

As pointed out by Information Commissioner Elizabeth Denham in this case, companies and organisations that handle personal data need to respect people’s legal privacy rights and to understand that wherever a person lives in the world, if their data is being processed by a UK company, UK data protection laws apply. This case has also highlighted the fact that where there is no compliance with the law, and where ICO enforcement notices are ignored, action will be taken that could be very costly to the subject of that action.

The chaos caused to flights from Gatwick just before Christmas (and latterly, Heathrow) by drone sightings near the airports has prompted Transport Secretary, Chris Grayling, to announce new counter-drone measures to be taken to protect UK airports.

Increased Exclusion Zone

Mr Grayling, speaking in the House of Commons as the government published its response to its consultation on the future of drones in the UK, and in the wake of the three-day shutdown of Gatwick by unauthorised drone activity in December, announced that the UK government would increase drone exclusion zones around airports from 1km to 5km, and further from the ends of runways.

New Technology

Following the three-day Gatwick (1000+ flight cancellations) issue that caused a national outcry, disrupted the travel plans of 140,000 people, and may have cost the airport more than £120 million, it has reported that Gatwick has spent £5m on anti-drone equipment. The equipment, which uses advanced technology, is believed to be of the same level as was originally supplied for the armed forces.

Heathrow (the world’s busiest airport) is also reported to have invested in anti- drone technology, although it appears unlikely that this is fully operational as the north runway was forced to close for an hour on Tuesday 8^th January after reports of possible (unconfirmed) drone sightings in the area.

New Laws Too

Part of the anti-drone measures will include new laws that could see drone users who break the rules being fined or jailed, and police being granted new powers e.g. to be able to ‘down’ drones in certain restricted areas.

Also, from November this year, operators of drones weighing between 250g and 20kg will have to register their drones and take an online safety test.

Big Problem

The problems caused by drones are not limited to just a few prominent incidents. In fact, 117 near misses between manned aircraft and drones were recorded up to November in 2018.

Gatwick was also the scene of a near miss with a drone last summer that put 130 lives at risk, and the airport was also closed for around 20 minutes back in 2017 due to drone activity nearby.

Other Countries – Drones Also A Problem

The UK is by no means the only country suffering problems caused by drones being flown near airports / in the path of aircraft.  For example, back in 2017 a remotely piloted drone struck a Skyjet turboprop passenger plane as it made its approach to land at Jean Lesage Airport in Quebec, Canada, flying at a height of about 450 metres / 1,500 feet and at an estimated 3,000 metres from the runway at the airport. Thankfully, only minor damage was caused to the aircraft which was carrying 8 passengers and was able to land safely.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

Drones are part of a new industry where the technology and products have been developing before the law has had an opportunity to catch up. Drones clearly have many productive, value-adding, and innovative business uses, and they have been tested and tipped for wider use by brands such as Amazon for parcel deliveries. A move towards autonomous vehicles and new transport technologies means that drones currently have a bright future when used responsibly and professionally. The fact that drones are widely and easily available (with minimal restrictions) to individuals as well as companies, as shown by the many aircraft near misses, and the huge disruption and cost of incidents such as the one at Gatwick in December 2018, indicate that most people would now welcome the introduction of regulations and the investment in technology that contribute to public safety. It is important, however, that any new laws take account of the rights of the majority of responsible drone users, and don’t restrict the commercial potential of drones.

The UK Government’s Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has issued advice to holders of .eu domains that, in the event of a ‘no deal’ Brexit, they may need to switch to another top-level domain such as .com and may also need to seek legal advice.

What? Why??

The government guidance, published online on 21st December, says that the European Commission’s notice states that where a holder of a domain name no longer fulfils the general eligibility criteria, the registry for .eu will be entitled to revoke the domain name. This is because the rules for .eu domains are decided by the European Commission and the operator, which won a contract to run .eu, is obliged to follow these rules.

This could mean that even though you were the owner of the .eu domain up until 29 March 2019, after that date, and with a ‘no deal’ Brexit, you may no longer be able to access your .eu website or email. This may also essentially mean that .eu domains cannot be bought or renewed after Brexit by people or organisations located outside the European Union.

Is This A Real Threat?

Yes. In March last year, the European Commission announced it planned to simply cancel all 300,000 domains under the .eu top-level domain that have a UK registrant, after the UK’s departure from the European Union. EURid, the company that runs the .eu domain registry was not even consulted about the EC’s decision. 

Also, last September the EU added the .eu registry to the official State of the Union document, stating that the implementation and functioning of the .eu top-level domain name would be included alongside copyright, cybersecurity, and privacy reforms.  This means that, if the EU is serious (which it appears to be) and proposed amendments are made to the State of the Union document for post-Brexit, anyone who wants to purchase a .eu domain may need to provide proof of EU citizenship, and registry operators will need to verify that proof.

Lost Revenue

As well as damaging the profits of Eurid, the UK citizens who hold a .eu domain make 10% of the registry, and by taking such a hard line, the European Union would be reducing its own revenues by a significant amount if it simply excluded UK citizens from owning a .eu domain.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

The government may have just lost a ‘no deal’ Brexit vote, but it looks as though the EU had already set itself on a course to stop UK citizens from owning .eu domains with Brexit anyway, even though they will lose the revenue from nearly 300,00 domains.  There had been plans to set up a Commission on the implementation of the rules, but this is unlikely to happen or to be able to change the EU’s decisions in such a short time.  This means that UK businesses holding .eu domains, having websites with those domains and using email linked to them are now faced with the cost and trouble of having to switch to another top-level domain. One key challenge here, is that they may not be able to find their .com or .uk equivalents, thereby causing even more problems.  The EU’s decision looks like being a bad deal for both UK businesses and the EU, and seeking advice both from the registry and / or other independent legal advice may be advisable at this point.

On 2^nd January, Apple’s CEO, Tim Cook, issued a revenue warning for this quarter to investors, and pointed to challenges in China as being one of the main downward driving forces.

Letter

Bearing in mind that Apple is one of America’s (and the world’s) tech giants, and that it became the world’s first trillion-dollar public company back in August 2018, it has been somewhat of a surprise to hear that its share price has tumbled more than 20% since October, and that the company has now sent a revenue warning letter to its investors revising down its expected earnings for this quarter. In the letter, Mr Cook pointed to the unforeseen “magnitude of the economic deceleration, particularly in Greater China” as one key reason why a previously predicted rise in revenue had now turned into warnings of a fall in revenue.

What’s The Problem?

Tech market analysts and commentators have cited several reasons for Apple’s woes and the link to the Chinese market, including:

• Apple needs new iPhone sales, but a lack of technological advances in the iPhone since iPhone 8, combined with a hike in the price of iPhones at a time of global economic pressures on consumers have meant a fall in sales.
• Some competing Android phones may simply be more interesting and offer better value in terms of price / features e.g. Google Pixel, Oppo’s X, OnePlus 6, or the Huawei P20 Pro.
• Apple relies heavily on phone sales in the Chinese market (Apple makes a massive 20% of its revenue in the Greater China region) but has faced very stiff competition there from the likes of Huawei, Xiaomi, and Oppo with their high value, lower priced phones.
• Trade war talk and tensions between the U.S. and China have put more downward pressure on Apple phone sales in China.  For example, the detention of a senior Huawei executive caused a patriotism-fuelled backlash against Apple’s phones in China.
• Apple investors are worried about iPhone sales generally, which have clearly been in decline since the iPhone 8.
• Apple investors have concerns and questions about how other Apple services will be developed as revenue generators e.g. ApplePay, Apple Music, the App store, plans for television and movies, and goals for competing in the health industry.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

Apple products and services are known for their quality, reliability, ease of use, and useful features, and many UK businesses / business people will continue to use them. It is difficult to deny, however, that many new Android phone models, such as those from Huawei or Samsung, offer UK buyers great value for money and useful features compared to Apple’s relatively high-priced alternative. This, combined with Apple’s reliance on getting a large part of its revenue in a country (China) where it is facing stiff competition and trade-war pressures are contributing to a challenging time for Apple.

It is, however, worth remembering that Apple is a trillion-dollar tech giant and is better placed than most to weather any storms and find ways to develop new opportunities and revenue streams.