Tag: transparency

Chamber of Progress Says Tariffs Are an Excuse to Infringe Copyrights

tariff

Politico reported yesterday that the astroturf organization called Chamber of Progress stated that because Trump’s tariffs will be a “gut punch” to Silicon Valley stock prices, California legislators should decline to aggravate matters by passing a law that would require transparency among AI developers using copyrighted works in model training. Granted, the tone was more circumspect, but that’s what the argument boils down to:  Tariffs are going to screw our stock values, so we need to screw creators to offset the harm.

According to Chamber of Progress economist Kaitlyn Harger, the cost of compliance with AB 412, sponsored by Assembly Member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, would cause a dip in stock values that “…could carve $381 million out of California’s tax haul from the four tech giants, all key players in the generative AI boom,” Politico reports.

I won’t comment on the numbers, especially because they are speculative, but I will note the amount of SOP fluff being used to package this argument against the transparency bill. Adam Eisgrau, senior director of AI, creativity, and copyright policy at Chamber of Progress states that founding this anti-AB 412 argument in the tariff controversy is “not opportunistic,” when of course it is. He states, “It is fair to call tariffs a tax, and I think it’s fair to call this bill an innovation tax.”

Kudos for dinging tariffs and taxes and promoting innovation in one sentence, but Eisgrau is parroting a longstanding practice of Silicon Valley, calling any price it would pay for necessary materials a “tax” on progress. While compliance with AB 412’s transparency provisions would naturally cost the tech giants something, why is that cost, let alone the effect of tariffs, a basis for ignoring the creators’ whose works are being mined for AI training?

Assuming tariffs will hit every sector and increase prices across multiple supply chains, that universal condition is not a rationale for tech giants getting a supply of copyrighted works for free. The creators who make those works aren’t getting their supplies for free—and most creators barely make a living wage if they’re lucky. Meanwhile, if the California Assembly is looking broadly at the state’s economy in this North v. South narrative, even a cursory review of the numbers shows that motion picture production supports more jobs than the tech giants.

“Bauer-Kahan’s proposal has the backing of Hollywood labor groups,” Politico states, “including the powerful actors’ guild SAG-AFTRA and the National Association of Voice Actors. But it’s been side-eyed by tech industry critics who say it would upend fair-use protections and turn AI training into a lawsuit in waiting.”

This “upend fair use” claim, whether it comes from Eisgrau or any other tech representative, is standard parlor trick of that industry. First, they advocate a broad, generalized application of fair use (a doctrine that defies generalization) and then claim that any counterargument to their position would “upend” some standard that has been established. This is simply false.

AI training with protected works presents a novel set of facts to be weighed in context to fair use case law, and, thus, a finding that training is not fair use would not “upend” precedent. On the other hand, the rhetoric used by Big Tech in this regard asks for a “fair use” application so sweeping that it would be tantamount to a statutory carve-out for all machine learning now or in the future. That is asking to upend fair use.

The consensus appears to be that Trump’s tariff tactics can only sow chaos and drive up the cost of living for all Americans—including, by the way, creators of works protected by copyright. But despite the prospect of universal economic pain, the Chamber of Progress asks California lawmakers to shield a few of the wealthiest corporations on Earth from the rights and financial interests of the creators whose works those companies are exploiting. Wow.

Photo by Beebright

Is Transparency Even Possible Anymore?

The other day, a meme was haunting my Facebook feed with a photo of Senator Elizabeth Warren and a quote attributed to her saying that the TPP negotiations are too secretive, even beyond the scrutiny of Congress.  Now, I really like Senator Warren, and she’s one of the few pols who is likely to earn the benefit of my doubt.  And assuming the quote is accurately attributed, I’m open to the idea that this unprecedentedly large and complex trade agreement is being negotiated in an unprecedentedly secretive manner, though that may not be the case.  As stated in earlier posts on this subject, trade negotiations are historically pretty close-vested affairs out of necessity; it’s either that or no trade deals at all.  But setting that specific debate aside, whether it’s the TPP or any number of other initiatives meant to be conducted by elected and appointed representatives, I have to wonder about the prospect of an effective measure of transparency in the digital age.  After all, even today, it’s still newsmakers who shape public opinion. But who are the newsmakers?

Let’s imagine for the moment that the daily doings of the TPP were made publicly available in real time, at least in the U.S.  Based on comparable data measuring political involvement, let’s assume that 50% of Americans will not only not care, but would say, “The TP-what?” if asked for an opinion.  And let’s go crazy and say that a full 20% of Americans would get so involved that they watch the negotiations like sports fans, parsing all the language, arguing about it on social media, and making a real hobby out of Tradespotting.  Setting aside whatever we might assume about individuals who have this kind of time on their hands, the odds are quite high that these most ardent Tradespotters are also going to be the most entrenched in their views, predisposed to dislike global trade agreements, but all for different reasons.  Because the people who fit that description includes a pretty diverse range — from NGOs who seriously study global economics and real matters of social justice to anarchists who don’t know anything, but really like to show up at WTO summits and set stuff on fire.  In either case, this category of watchdogs is likely too small collectively to have much political influence and too fragmented as a segment to represent a collective in the first place.

So, that would leave 40% of us who care about a deal like the TPP but cannot possibly spend our days scrutinizing, let alone understanding, the fungible details of a multi-lateral trade agreement.  Still, we like transparency, we’ll call ourselves open to all sides, and we are a big enough, engaged enough population to have political influence on our representatives.  Historically, I think it’s a pretty fair portrayal of the engaged American citizen to describe him as someone who cannot engage first-hand with every issue but who looks to experts — journalists, trusted elected representatives, experienced analysts, etc.  And this is where I believe the proverbial wheels have come off in the digital age.  Because not only have many of the traditional information filters lost credibility (in some cases deservedly so) in our digitized times, but they are also often outnumbered and outspent by commercial entities that are in a position to buy public opinion on trade or any other issue in which they have a vested interest.

I’ve accused organizations like the EFF of scare-mongering on behalf of the Internet and electronics industries with regard to the intellectual property components of the TPP. Agree with that example or not, what I think is important is that The Koch Brothers, the pharmaceutical industry, the bankers, or any other powerful interest can all avail themselves of the same, low-cost, manipulative tools that can sway public opinion either for or against a particular initiative. And against is always easier.

On social media manipulation can look an awful lot like transparency when it is in fact corporate PR disguised as public advocacy. Because you’ll likely never see a meme or an article with the headline “Pfizer says XYZ trade deal will make the world a better place.”  Instead, you’ll see The Global Outreach Center for the Benefit of Mankind and Kittens says, “XYZ  trade deal will make the world a better place.”  And lo, it turns out The GOCBMK just happens to be funded by the pharmaceutical industry.  So, for us 40% of Americans who try to be engaged in the traditional manner of seeking wisdom from middle-man sources, and who now get most of our leads from social media, it is entirely possible that we are looking through much more opaque filters than we were 20 years ago.

Sticking with the example of trade agreements, these are initiatives that naturally affect hundreds or thousands of business interests.  So, if we were to make the language of ongoing negotiations publicly available, it’s the wealthiest corporate interests that have both the time and the resources to launch social media campaigns designed to scare people about whatever it is they might want to kill in the deal.  That kind of PR is not new, but it is cheaper,  faster, and potentially more effective in a climate that has devalued and fragmented the authority of traditional, disinterested commentary. So, one unintended consequence of seeking greater transparency in our times is that the information, which sill won’t be accessed by most citizens, does provide free grist for the PR mill of any vested interest that wants to manipulate that information.

So where do we net out? With something like trade agreements, I’m betting we wind up more or less where we started.  We elect a president, and whoever he or she is appoints trade representatives to negotiate treaties that have to be ratified by Congress.   We hope these deals do more good than harm, knowing full well that any two Americans will likely disagree on the definitions of good and harm.  As it ever was, we remain as good or bad as the people we elect and appoint. Meanwhile, what seems different today is this notion that digitized transparency cuts out the middle-man, but I believe this is illusory.  More typically, I think social media platforms create a kind of power vacuum in which sober, expert voices are often drowned out by the circus of new middle men who know how to dazzle or frighten an audience.

This is a particularly acute matter to consider this week as we watch some of the major news organizations enter into the Instant Articles deal with Facebook. In this new arrangement, readers will no longer have to leave the walled garden of Facebook to read the full text of a piece produced by, for example, The New York Times.  That’s convenient for the reader, but as writer Chris Cillizza points out in this piece for The Washington Post, such arrangements radically alter the relationship between the content of journalism and the advertising that supports it.  The traditional disconnect between advertisers in a newspaper and any individual story in that paper is conducive to the overall integrity of the many stories being published.  But when individual stories are each valued by their popularity and advertised against by specific sponsors, this changes the relationship and brings sponsor and “news” closer than ever.  “And what does that reality mean if the long-term business model of Instant Articles for media companies is centered primarily around sponsored content?” asks Cillizza.  Good question.  To me, the answer doesn’t sound like it leads to greater transparency about anything.

Releasing police body cam video undermines their purpose.

Last week, The Los Angeles Times reported that the 7,000 officers of the LAPD will soon be wearing body cameras to record their interactions while on duty.  Communities that have employed these cameras have reported significant decreases in the number of claims of police misconduct (reductions as impressive as 90%), and it is fair to assume those statistics represent both actual changes in officer behavior as well as a reduction in false claims of misconduct.  The fact that the presence of body cameras can provide evidence that can protect both civilians and officers is a very attractive proposition; but the extent to which the videos captured should be made automatically available to the public via the Internet is a subject of debate in Los Angeles and other communities. While some citizens will argue a right to know in this regard, I generally agree with LA Police Chief Charlie Beck, who is quoted in the Times article thus:

“I think people misunderstand transparency as having everybody and all the public have access to everything. And it isn’t so much that as having the ability to have oversight by multiple entities outside of the Police Department. I think that’s the meaning of transparency.  I don’t think that transparency means we post every interaction on YouTube.”

Indeed, in viewing both the social trends and the economics associated with social media, I believe the potential harm of broad distribution of police body camera video outweighs the benefits of doing so and could undermine the value of deploying the technology in the first place.

Privacy & Decency

As cited in the Times article, Chief Beck emphasizes that officers respond to a wide range of calls, like entering the homes of victims who have experienced horrible violations by all manner of perpetrators.  So, I hope we can all agree that perhaps a woman who just called the cops because her husband beat her up should not become not free reality TV for us to ogle via social media.  And domestic battery is relatively tame compared to the anthology of horrors that humans visit upon one another and to which police officers are often witness.  More to the point, the volume of police encounters involving events that we have no business watching (let alone allowing some website to monetize) is far greater than the volume of encounters in which may see a need to scrutinize the conduct of the officers.  And in cases in which such scrutiny is necessary, justice is likely to be best served if the related video remains sequestered during investigations and trials.  By distributing all police body cam video to the public, we risk turning various forms of human suffering into a Circus Maximus that is more likely to serve our crass taste for ugly spectacle than it is to serve justice.

Due Process

There are several good reasons why evidence in a case remains sealed and juries are meant to be comprised of citizens who have seen or heard as little evidence as possible at the start of a trial.  Imperfect as our criminal justice system may be, I really don’t think we want to substitute the fundamental components of due process and jury trials for digitally deputized lynch mobs, no matter how incontrovertible video evidence might appear to be.  In the immediate aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing, a self-appointed posse formed on Reddit that zeroed in on a suspect, who drew attention partly because he had gone missing.  It turned out that the poor guy the Redditors had identified was “missing” because he had taken himself to a secluded location to commit suicide. And the only result the online posse managed to achieve was to spawn harassment of the young man’s family in advance of the grief that would come when they  learned of his death.

Online vigilantism frequently turns into actual harm; and it doesn’t matter if many of us think the victim “deserves” it because we saw a video of him doing something bad.  Evidence has already shown, and logic certainly suggests, that the mere presence of the body cameras already brings about desired effects without dumping all the video onto YouTube for the world to chat about.  It is sufficient, and probably even more effective, for an officer to be aware that a constant record is being stored, which can be entered into evidence in a case against him for abusing his authority.  If that same video is made public, the officer’s attorney has an opening to strike it from the record, the prosecutor has a harder time empaneling a jury of peers who haven’t drawn early conclusions; and these factors alone are more likely to further entrench the standard practice of not indicting officers for apparent wrongdoing than to move the trend in the other direction.

It Probably Wont Help the Larger Cause

I personally believe the case of Michael Brown is pretty fuzzy because the only evidence available corroborates Officer Wilson’s testimony. But the Eric Garner case in NYC is another matter; we have citizen-filmed video that shows an officer using excessive force and killing Mr. Garner with an illegal choke hold.*  While it’s true that even video footage requires context and other evidence to properly weigh any case, the fact that there was no indictment in the circumstances involving Mr. Garner is a travesty; but the reasons for this failure are cultural, political, and yes, racial.

The flaws of law enforcement policy and any underlying racism that may affect procedure in various communities require real social change that is just as likely to be stymied by constant distribution of body cam footage as it is to be aided by whatever illusion of transparency that distribution would create.  I say illusion because, as I have argued in several contexts, there is an assumption by well-meaning citizens that raw, decontextualized information must inevitably foster a majority and morally-aligned public who will pressure authorities for change.  Interestingly, though this assumption is contradicted by the fact that for all the increase in leaks and smart-phone videos and raw data dispersion, we see even greater schisms and social discord on a range of issues  than in years prior to this media saturation. Unfortunately, an unexpurgated video has the same potential to ignite a racially-motivated defense of police brutality as it is to ignite racially-motivated retaliation against police in general.  Reason based on evidence does not necessarily prevail in the larger public forum; in fact, it rarely does. And video can be a highly emotional medium.

We have a lot of video now that has sparked plenty of outrage but has done very little to move us toward greater balance or away from policies that, for instance, disproportionally place black citizens in conflict with police officers.  There is no denying that there are millions of Americans who will support those policies by saying “Yeah, but there are more black criminals,” and then we’re off to the races in every sense of the word. How are the cultural complexities of that or any other shouting match going to be calmed by the mass distribution of these videos? I suspect tempers would not be mollified, that these raw images would throw more fuel on an already smoldering fire.  If that’s true, the resulting increase in tensions will only make communities less politically capable of adopting law enforcement policies that might forge better relations among citizens and officers. Or am I missing something?  Have internet comment threads generally decreased the level of vitriol in society?

As stated, I like the idea of these cameras as a hedge against officers who might abuse their authority and as a tool to protect officers who may be wrongly accused of such abuse.  But turning the footage itself into an ongoing spectacle, calling it oversight, and then allowing YouTube and others to monetize the show, does not sound to me like social progress.

*The proximate cause of death may not have been the choke hold.  I don’t mean to write  anything careless about the case itself and thank commenter Angry Villager for making a valid criticism.  The larger point, of course, is that even with a video viewed by millions, the conditions preventing further investigation or indictment may prevail.