This week’s Caveat podcast, hosted by Dave Bittner and Ben Yelin, delves into significant legal and technological issues surrounding online platforms, data breaches, and the pervasive problem of disinformation. The episode features an interview with Barbara McQuade, author of “Attack From Within: How Disinformation is Sabotaging America,” and explores a fascinating legal case involving Facebook and a software tool designed to allow users to unfollow all content. The podcast also covers the leak of biometric data from an Australian facial recognition company.
The first segment focuses on a legal battle brewing between Nathan Zuckerman, a University of Massachusetts professor, and Meta (formerly Facebook), concerning Zuckerman’s development of “Unfollow Everything 2.0.” This software allows Facebook users to unfollow all accounts and groups, providing a clean slate and offering data for social science research. Zuckerman, preemptively suing Meta for declaratory judgment, argues the legality of his tool under a little-known provision of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This provision, Section 230(c)(2)(B), typically protects third-party companies assisting social media platforms in removing objectionable content. Zuckerman argues this protection extends to his software, which enables users to restrict content. This novel interpretation, untested in court, hinges on whether the court considers the software an “interactive computer service” and whether the adversarial nature of the tool, hindering Facebook’s advertising revenue model, falls within the scope of the law’s intent. Adding another layer of complexity is a possible typo in the statute’s wording referencing “Paragraph 1” instead of “Paragraph A,” which could further complicate the case.
The discussion then pivots to the implications of this case, highlighting the potential ramifications for adversarial interoperability and the future of middleware applications. A ruling in Zuckerman’s favor could significantly impact social media companies’ abilities to control access to their platforms and restrict functionalities that counteract their business models. The conversation touches on the broader context of data scraping and the changing stance of tech companies towards it, especially given the rise of AI and the need for vast datasets for training language models. The hosts speculate on the outcome of the case, acknowledging the legal and practical hurdles Zuckerman faces, and the potential reluctance of courts to disrupt established online platform dynamics.
Shifting gears, the podcast addresses a security breach impacting the Australian facial recognition company, Outabox. This system, implemented in bars and clubs during the COVID-19 pandemic, collected facial biometrics, temperature readings, and information related to gambling habits. The data was found to be improperly secured and subsequently leaked. A website, “Have I Been Outaboxed,” allows individuals to check if their data was compromised. While there’s no current evidence of malicious use of the stolen data, the incident raises serious concerns about the security of biometric data, particularly in the context of unregulated facial recognition systems. The arrest of a Sydney man attempting to blackmail individuals linked to the breach underscores the potential for misuse of such sensitive information. The hosts emphasize the importance of data encryption and regulatory oversight for these technologies.
The final segment features an interview with Barbara McQuade, a former U.S. Attorney and current law professor, discussing her book, “Attack From Within: How Disinformation is Sabotaging America.” McQuade highlights the evolution of national security threats, from external actors like Al-Qaeda to the internal threat of disinformation, fueled by actors prioritizing political agendas and profit over truth. The conversation addresses criticisms regarding censorship and the First Amendment, with McQuade emphasizing the importance of distinguishing between protected speech and the spread of demonstrably false information. She argues that while free speech is a cherished right, it is not absolute and can be limited when it presents a clear and present danger.
McQuade delves into the historical precedents of disinformation tactics, drawing parallels between contemporary rhetoric and techniques employed by figures like Hitler and Stalin. She emphasizes the concept of “declinism,” the narrative of societal decay used to scapegoat specific groups and justify extreme measures. The conversation then turns to the role of the internet in amplifying disinformation. McQuade cites the Russian Internet Research Agency’s activities during the 2016 U.S. presidential election, highlighting their use of social media to sow discord and manipulate public opinion. The creation of fake personas and targeted messaging within specific online communities are discussed as particularly effective strategies.
The interview concludes with a discussion of potential solutions to the disinformation crisis. McQuade advocates for improved media literacy education, teaching individuals to critically analyze online information and identify deceptive tactics. She also emphasizes the importance of personal responsibility, urging individuals to avoid engaging with online trolls and bots, and to prioritize respectful dialogue with those holding differing viewpoints. McQuade suggests amending Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to hold social media companies accountable for paid content and algorithmic manipulation. She also advocates for stronger regulations on data collection and microtargeting, empowering individuals to control their personal information. The podcast closes with a powerful message emphasizing the importance of an informed electorate and the crucial role of truth in maintaining a healthy democracy.