Sunday, January 17, 2021

The Big Read: What’s the big deal with data privacy? Thorny, complex issues confront citizens and governments

By NG JUN SEN

January 16, 2021
  • The issue of data privacy has come under the spotlight, with debates triggered by the police’s use of TraceTogether data and the privacy policy changes of WhatsApp
  • Besides your name, age, gender, education and employment, data companies know what vehicle you own, the size of your home, your socioeconomic status, the websites you visit, your tendency to default on loans, and even your health problems
  • The enormous use of personal data by corporates and governments have become part and parcel of today’s connected society and quality of life, but also risks being misused or falling into the wrong hands
  • Data privacy law differs from country to country. Experts say Singapore’s Personal Data Protection Act is not designed to ensure data privacy as its chief aim, but was conceived to achieve a narrower goal of protecting personal user data
  • The onus is also on the individual to keep asking questions about their personal data and not simply sign away their privacy, experts added

SINGAPORE — When messaging app WhatsApp’s new privacy policy sparked a global exodus from its services, Mr Darren Chin’s company — a local tech firm — decreed that its entire staff was to cease using the Facebook-owned platform for work.

“We’ve all been using WhatsApp for many years, but the company’s top management decided to ban it and we cannot say no,” said Mr Chin, 52.

“Everyone in the tech chat groups in my company switched to Signal, so I did so as well. I agree with the decision too: Data privacy is important to me,” the IT operations specialist told TODAY — ironically in an interview conducted over Facebook at his request.

Signal, as well as Telegram, are rival encrypted messaging apps that have surged in popularity amid the fiasco as an alternative to WhatsApp.

WhatsApp has since come forward to clarify that its new terms will not allow its parent company to access the app users' messages, and delayed its February deadline for users to accept the terms. But the new policy will still allow WhatsApp to share more information with Facebook and roll out advertising and e-commerce.

Around the same time, a similar controversy unfolded involving Singapore’s contact-tracing system TraceTogether, after Singaporeans found out earlier this month that their Bluetooth proximity data could be used for criminal investigations.

This led some users to switch off their apps or leave their tokens at home, despite the fact that such data is critical in fighting the unprecedented Covid-19 pandemic, TODAY previously reported.

Wednesday, January 13, 2021

The scary power of the companies that finally shut Trump up

By Michelle Goldberg

January 12, 2021


THE NEW YORK TIMES


In the days after President Donald Trump whipped up a mob to overrun the United States Capitol in a desperate attempt to stop the certification of his defeat, many conservatives have voiced their outrage over the true victims of the failed putsch.

“I’ve lost 50k-plus followers this week,” an indignant Sarah Huckabee Sanders wrote on Twitter on Saturday, after the platform banned Mr Trump and purged accounts that promoted the QAnon conspiracy theory.

Complaining of “radical left” censorship, Sanders, Mr Trump’s former press secretary, wrote: “This is not China, this is United States of America, and we are a free country.”

In fact, Twitter and Facebook’s ejection of Mr Trump is pretty much the opposite of what happens in China; it would be inconceivable for the Chinese social media giant Weibo to block President Xi Jinping.

Mr Trump’s social media exile represents, in some ways, a libertarian dream of a wholly privatised public sphere, in which corporations, not government, get to define the bounds of permissible speech.

As a non-libertarian, however, I find myself both agreeing with how technology giants have used their power in this case, and disturbed by just how awesome their power is.

Mr Trump deserved to be deplatformed.

Parler, a social network favored by Trumpists that teemed with threats against the president’s enemies, deserved to be kicked off Amazon’s web-hosting service.

But it’s dangerous to have a handful of callow young tech titans in charge of who has a megaphone and who does not.

In banning Mr Trump, the big social media companies simply started treating him like everyone else.

Lots of people, including prominent Trump supporters like Alex Jones, Roger Stone and Steve Bannon, have been ousted from Facebook, Twitter or both for inciting violence, threatening journalists and spreading hatred.

Mr Trump, who has done all of those things, had until this past week been given special privileges as president.

There’s no First Amendment problem with taking these privileges away; Americans don’t have a constitutional right to have their speech disseminated by private companies.

On the contrary, the First Amendment gives people and companies alike the freedom not to associate with speech they abhor.

There’s a debate about how far this freedom should go.

Liberals, myself included, generally believe that freedom of association shouldn’t trump civil rights law, which is why bakeries shouldn’t be allowed to deny wedding cakes to gay couples.

But it seems obvious enough that the Constitution doesn’t compel either individuals or businesses to amplify seditious political propaganda.

Still, the ability of tech companies, acting in loose coordination, to mostly shut up the world’s loudest man is astonishing, and shows the limits of analogies to traditional publishers.

It’s true that Mr Trump can, any time he wants, hold a press conference or call into Fox News.

But stripping him of access to social media tools available to most other people on Earth has diminished him in a way that both impeachment and electoral defeat so far have not.

Social media bans matter because they work.

You can see it with villains as diverse as Isis, Milo Yiannopoulos and Alex Jones.

“Their ability to drive the conversation, reach wider audiences for recruitment, and, perhaps most importantly to a lot of these conflict entrepreneurs, to monetise it, is irreparably harmed,” said Peter W Singer, co-author of LikeWar: The Weaponization of Social Media.

It’s great that Mr Trump’s poisonous presence has been curtailed.

Private companies have shown themselves able to act far more nimbly than the US government, imposing consequences on a would-be tyrant who has until now enjoyed a corrosive degree of impunity.

But in doing so, these companies have also shown a power that goes beyond that of many nation-states, one they apply capriciously and without democratic accountability.

As The Verge noted, it’s hard to make sense of a system that leads to the trolly left-wing podcast “Red Scare” being suspended from Twitter, but not Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

So it’s not surprising that serious people including Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany and Russian dissident Alexei Navalny find the Trump bans disturbing.

“This precedent will be exploited by the enemies of freedom of speech around the world,” Mr Navalny wrote on Twitter.

“In Russia as well. Every time when they need to silence someone, they will say: ‘This is just common practice; even Trump got blocked on Twitter.’”

But the answer isn’t to give Mr Trump his beloved account back.

Mr Navalny pointed out that Mr Trump’s ban seems arbitrary because so many other bad actors, including autocrats, Covid-19 deniers and troll factories, still have access to the service.

He called for platforms to create a more transparent process, appointing committees whose decisions could be appealed. That would be a start.

In the long term, tech monopolies need to be broken up, as US Senator Elizabeth Warren has proposed.

Mr Singer described the tech barons who finally took action against Mr Trump after enabling him for years as “rulers of a kingdom that abdicated their responsibility for a long time.”

This time, with Mr Trump, they ruled judiciously. But they shouldn’t rule over as much as they do. 

THE NEW YORK TIMES



ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Michelle Goldberg has been an opinion columnist for The New York Times since 2017 and was part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize in 2018 for public service for reporting on workplace sexual harassment issues. She is the author of three books.


Thursday, January 7, 2021

440,000 Singaporeans eligible for matched CPF savings scheme

A total of 440,000 Singaporeans aged 55 to 70 are eligible for a new savings scheme this year where the Government will match cash top-ups made to their Central Provident Fund (CPF) Retirement Accounts.

06 Jan 2021


SINGAPORE: A total of 440,000 Singaporeans aged 55 to 70 are eligible for a new savings scheme this year where the Government will match cash top-ups made to their Central Provident Fund (CPF) Retirement Accounts.

To qualify for the Matched Retirement Savings Scheme, the CPF members must have less than the prevailing Basic Retirement Sum in their accounts, said the CPF Board in a media release on Wednesday (Jan 6).

The Basic Retirement Sum this year is S$93,000.

Other eligibility criteria are: An average monthly income of not more than S$4,000, an annual value of residence of up to S$13,000 – which covers all Housing Board flats – and ownership of not more than one property.

About 53 per cent of CPF members between 55 and 70 years old are eligible for the grant, the CPF Board said.

Monday, December 28, 2020

Commentary: How a catchphase shaped Japan’s COVID-19 response - for the better

By Leo Lewis

28 Dec 2020 


TOKYO: Sometimes, when Japanese academics select the single written character that best captures the essence of the year gone by, there are surprises.

In 2020, there could only be one choice: Mitsu, meaning “close”, “intimate” or “dense”.

The selection attests to a word whose usage has been recast by COVID-19. Nearly a year into the pandemic, the process of that recasting has been vital.

It places Japan in a group with Taiwan, South Korea, Vietnam and China, as theories form about the societal factors that might have contributed to keeping their infection and death rates comparatively low.

Tuesday, December 22, 2020

Commentary: Trump election fraud lawsuits tested the US judiciary. It passed

It turns out President Trump’s control does not extend to US federal courts, says an observer.


By Charles Gardner Geyh

22 Dec 2020



BLOOMINGTON, Indiana: A healthy constitutional culture, in which the people and their leaders respect the authority of their Constitution, requires a baseline of trust in the government – a baseline that, in the United States, has eroded from 77 per cent in the early 1960s to 17 per cent today.

This collapse of public confidence paved the way for a populist form of leadership that redirected public faith away from the institutions of government toward Donald Trump – whom voters trusted to consolidate power, neutralise opposition and “drain the swamp” of the experts and bureaucrats he deemed responsible for the government’s malaise.

In the past four years, President Trump has consolidated power to such an extent that the Republican Party has declined to adopt a party platform and effectively embraced the president as its alter ego.

Singapore’s hawker culture Unesco listing shows what’s missing in Thai street food scene

By Sirinya Wattanasukchai

December 21, 2020


Singapore has done it again! The island state's hawker culture has finally won United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (Unesco) recognition as an Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.

After almost three years, this island state has successfully made its people's everyday life — officially indicated on the list as "community dining and culinary practices in a multicultural urban context" — gain global acceptance through this prestigious list.

In a Facebook post, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong thanked the people who have worked very hard to get Singapore's hawker culture inscribed on the list.

"The biggest thanks must go to the generations of hawkers for nourishing a nation's stomach and spirits. This recognition would not have come without their sweat, toil and dedication to their profession," said Mr Lee.

He shared a few photos of hawker dishes and encouraged people to celebrate the week by ordering their favourite hawker dishes and sharing a photo under his post.

I'm sure many Thais would be jealous of their Association of Southeast Asian Nations neighbour, as they think their street food culture is second to none.

Monday, December 21, 2020

Commentary: Managers should stop treating work-from-home as a luxury

The office was never meant to be at home but because this arrangement is here to stay, bosses need to change the way they respond to their employees, says this observer.

By Sian Beilock

21 Dec 2020

NEW YORK CITY: Many managers are treating this year’s pandemic-induced shift to work-from-home as though it were standard telecommuting.

But it’s not, and operating under the assumption that it is can ultimately harm employees’ morale.

While office workers are typically faring better than essential workers during the pandemic, the abrupt shift to remote work was jarring, and its effects should not be overlooked.

Leadership experts and cognitive scientists can attest that resistance to change is less about the change itself and more about losing control and fear of uncertainty. Humans – and other animals, for that matter – respond defensively when the power to make decisions about their own lives is removed.

And in a recent study on COVID-19 and mental health, researchers found that adults surveyed in the United States and five European countries who believe that other people or random chance mostly dictates what happens to them also report greater symptoms of depression.