Tuesday, March 5, 2013

Why Isn't Congress Considering an Internet Protection Act?


It's probably safe to say that in the coming weeks and months, we'll be seeing dozens more stories relating to the vulnerability of virtually every facet of our online lives, e.g., the pictures we post, the things we buy, the messages we send, etc., etc.

And, why not? Given the fact that millions upon millions of us now spend the better part of our days communicating with each other through the use of phones and laptops, it's probably fair to say we've become an "anti-social media" society.

When it comes to compromising the security measures put into place by the various companies we trust our data to, it seems every corner of your virtual bedroom is cluttered with all kinds of modern invisible monsters, hiding under your bed, competing for a chance to steal your virtual soul, no matter your age; cyber-hackers, identity thieves, overseas counterfeiters, social media trojans/malware, etc. These new age cyber-crooks know how to identify the patterns in how we communicate, and the new trends we're going to latch onto, before we do.

According to the New York Times, half of all Americans use some form of social media. The article states that number made an astonishing jump from just 5 percent less than six years ago. Which, if you do the math, means in about five years, close to 100 percent of us will be using social media to communicate.

Considering there are regulations for every other form of mass communication, e.g., cable, phone, etc., wouldn't you think Congress would at least be thinking about a bill that aims to protect the general population from cyber-harm?

I happened to be in a certain congressman's office just last week discussing a separate issue, and posed the question of some sort of legislation when it comes to the protection and privacy of social media users, and, possibly more important, holding these tech giants responsible in their daily decision-making process, and how those decisions affect the end user; i.e., everyone.

The response I got was a very flippant, "No matter what we do now, the tech world moves so fast, by the time legislation's passed, it will be obsolete." Translation - "Why bother?"

That was incredibly disheartening to hear. Congress is always behind technology, so, why bother doing anything? Matter of fact, they're usually a decade behind every facet of public policy, but they still try. They still talk about it. They still debate it. The way they currently see it, we may as well let the cyber-crooks drive their Ferraris down Main St., looting and pillaging everything in sight, while the rest of us roam around in wheel barrows.

Of course, when talking about cyber-hacking these days, you're primarily talking about Facebook - as over a billion of us currently use the social media site to do everything we used to do in the real world; chat, share pictures, keep in touch with relatives, buy clothing and food, watch movies, date, propose, break-up, etc. So, for the sake of argument, let's focus on them.

And, incidentally, when talking about "protection," I'm not talking about the recently passed Privacy Act that keeps the police from searching your emails without a warrant (although it's a good start).

I'm talking about regulations that mandate sites like Facebook, which was recently hacked and came this close to having millions of its users' data compromised, to be beholden to some sort of 'Internet Oversight Committee' made up of impartial folks from the worlds of technology, education, as well as public policy. FYI, in this one recent episode, alone, several watchdog sites observed, had Facebook simply turned off the Java app, the entire incident could have been avoided.

Factor that into the accusations of Zuckerberg and co. knowingly selling your data to Chinese counterfeiters in the hopes of a smoother entry into the media-hungry nation - as well as offering the grand gesture of a short "FAQ page" to deal with the myriad of issues from its billion-plus users -, and perhaps some sort of 'user support arm' would be a good start. Especially considering the thesis recently completed by University of California Riverside grad student, Sazzadur Rahman, which explains how social media networks are now the preferred way to spread viruses across the Net (note: the last several pages offer hyperlinks to dozens of articles on cyberscams currently attacking the social network). Why should the only way to get a human response from Facebook - or Google - be through a lawsuit?

Then, there's the 'lawlessness' of the Wild West when it comes to allowing these media giants to police themselves; case in point, Janet Tavakoli, President of Chicago-based, Tavakoli finance, and author of three books, revealed that not only was she, herself, the victim of identity theft on Facebook - her statement regarding the social media site's suspicions of her own identity reads,

"Facebook reminded me of a punk holding a screw driver over your parked car's paint job demanding payment to 'protect' it as you run errands,"

- but, the Huffington Post's own, Bianca Bosker, Executive Tech Editor, was 'friended' by herself and was forced to provide an I.D., along with a notarized statement to satisfy her claim. A classic example of victimizing the victim.

Ms. Tavakoli's paper also highlights the Europeans who are, once again, ahead of us when it comes to regulating the kind of data Facebook is permitted to share with its subsidiaries. Of course, in the U.S., Facebook still tells us what to do, instead of the other way around.

Then, there's USC's Annenberg Innovation Lab, who provide a link between mega-sites, such as Google and Yahoo, and the financing of pirate sites which provide illegal movies, music, etc., through countless millions in advertising dollars.

No one's accusing Google or Yahoo or even Facebook - well, maybe Facebook - of knowingly supporting these illegal enterprises, but shouldn't there be some sort of regulatory board overseeing some of this stuff? Shouldn't there be some type of penalty, maybe even jail time, if the folks at Facebook are proven to be allowing counterfeit ads on your page? Just because it's in cyberspace doesn't mean it's not real. They're still committing a crime, no matter how many overseas marketing companies they hide behind.

I'm not saying I have all the answers, odds are no one does, but when sites like Yapzap keep tabs on all things Facebook that the government should really be doing, it makes for doing something seem a lot better than the nothing that's currently being done.

These companies are bigger and richer and more powerful than any previous entities the world has ever seen. Shouldn't they be forced to be responsible in some ways to their users who entrust them with their information? Shouldn't there be at least a few 'general' laws on the books that force companies with a certain amount of users to operate within certain established parameters, say, at least a 24hr. response by a live human being?

As our knowledge of technology, the companies that dictate it, and the crooks who seek to undermine it, grows exponentially on a daily basis, it seems foolish to let these billionaire college dropouts play Oz, unchecked, without some sort of guidance from mom and dad.