Category: Legal matters

A musing about social media and ‘Black Friday’…

Posted on by The Information Badger in Education, Information Technology, Learning, Legal matters, Security, social media

It’s ‘Black Friday’ in the UK on Friday and High Street and online businesses are marketing their ‘epic deals’. This year the Badger’s received a plethora of email notifications from organisations warning to be wary of online shopping scams as ‘Black Friday’ approaches. One from a UK bank has the opening line ‘Did you know that 70% of online shopping scams start on social media?’  Yes, the Badger already knows this. It’s just one of many facts about social media that illustrates that diligent wariness is necessary when using these platforms.

Today the public feel uneasy about the world which is the most unsettling and unstable it’s been for decades. Global tensions abound. Politics is highly polarised. Economies are fragile. Conflict abounds. Shocks are more frequent. Power seems to rest with the handful of billionaires that dominate the digital world, and so on. Earlier this week, the Badger and a plumber friend chatted over a seasonal mince pie and coffee about factors that may have facilitated the instability the public observes. The internet is to blame, the Badger’s friend suggested. However, we dismissed that and decided instead that while social media can’t be blamed for all the world’s woes, it has certainly played a part.

We concluded this because social media platforms often say they are ‘free speech zones’ while simultaneously curating communication to protect their own business models. They are, after all, not democracies but huge, controlled, money-making ecosystems where the primary liability for what’s posted rests with the poster, not the platform. The persistent misinformation, disinformation, and offensive, inflammatory, and deceptive material that can often be encountered on them polarises opinions and facilitates scams from any part of the globe. The US President’s suing of the BBC, we decided, simply illustrates that there’s one rule for social media and another for everyone else. Why? Because the platforms often provide equally reprehensible edited videos that appear to go unpunished. Many will disagree, but we decided that social media has poisoned attitudes and thus contributed to fuelling an unsettled world.

The message here is not that social media is completely bad. It’s simply a reminder to understand their underlying business model and to think carefully about what you post or view. Think about whether your social media interactions are contributing to the very unsettled and disrupted world we are currently experiencing. Remember that these platforms are not the bastions of free speech that many would have you believe. Free speech, at least here in the UK, existed long before the advent of giant money-making social media platforms. Finally, take care when shopping online for ‘Black Friday’. Be wary of ‘limited time’ or ‘selling fast’ offers from organisations with social media profiles that don’t seem right. If something looks too good to be true, then it’s probably not what it seems…

Do acquisitions disproportionately shed older staff?

Posted on by The Information Badger in Acquisitions, Business, Education, Human Resources, Information Technology, Leadership, Learning, Legal matters

A youngster about to join a large enterprise after completing a degree at University asked an interesting question last weekend. ‘Does an enterprise that acquires another company use the purchase as a smokescreen to shed older, long-serving, higher-paid employees?’  That’s an interesting and unusual question from someone at the very start of their career. So why did they ask it? Well, firstly their new employer has acquired another substantial company and restructuring activities are underway. Secondly, they knew the Badger had some experience in navigating a number of mergers and acquisitions. Lastly, the tech-savvy youngster had come across online chatter that his new employer’s older staff with long service were being disproportionately targeted during restructuring. The youngster, with no experience within large enterprises, anticipates a long career with their new company, but they were a little perturbed that their new employer might possibly be engaging in age discrimination, something that’s prohibited under the UK Equality Act 2010.

Answering required words that were balanced, honest, and rooted in personal experience of post-acquisition integrations. So, what did the Badger say? Firstly, that acquisitions often lead to reorganisations which can legally justify redundancies based on performance or role duplication at any age or level of seniority. Loyalty and long-service counts for nothing in such a scenario, and older employees may be more vulnerable because they typically have higher salaries and benefits, which means shedding them can significantly reduce payroll costs. Secondly, an acquisition can be a vehicle to change an enterprise’s culture, especially in fast moving industries subject to rapid innovation pressures. This always favours the retention of younger, tech-savvy staff and those with in-demand skills. Thirdly, not every acquisition is a smokescreen for eliminating older, higher-paid employees, but, in reality, some acquirers do quietly use their purchase to shed older, higher-paid employees because they know that it’s normally difficult in these circumstances for individuals to prove age discrimination for their redundancy. Do acquisitions disproportionately shed older staff? Some do, some don’t.

The youngster nodded, reaffirmed their intent on a long career with their new employer, and asked if the Badger had any advice for the long term. Yes. Maintain skills that are current and valuable outside your company, as mergers and acquisitions rarely reward loyalty or long service. As you get older and more experienced, watch out during acquisition integration activities for a) silence about future roles for you or your peers, b) performance reviews, and c) role redefinitions. These often signal something is afoot that affects you personally. Also, never forget that HR works in your employer’s interest, not in yours.

The youngster grinned and said they obviously had lots to learn! The Badger smiled too, pleased that he’d sown a few seeds of awareness in a youngster who will soon learn that things are never quite what they seem inside organisations when it comes to workforce matters.

AI and copyright…

Posted on by The Information Badger in AI, Digital Transformation, Education, Ethics & Regulation, Information Technology, Intelligent machines, Legal matters, Online Services, Technology

Elton John recently had some sharp words to say about the UK government’s plans to exempt AI technology firms from copyright laws. Apparently, there’s currently a game of ping-pong underway between the House of Commons and the House of Lords regarding this plan. Many writers, musicians, and artists are furious about the plan, and Elton’s comments caused the Badger to scratch his head and ponder. Why? Because, like many individuals and bloggers, his website’s content could be plundered by AI without his knowledge or permission regardless of the copyright statement on its home page. With AI models and tools increasingly mainstream, Elton’s words made the Badger realise that he, and probably many others around the globe, should have copyright more prominent in our thoughts.

Copyright law is complex and, as far as the Badger understands, ‘fair dealing’ or ‘fair use’ allows limited use of copyright material without permission from the copyright owner under specific circumstances. Fair dealing/use is not a blanket permission, and what constitutes this depends on factors such as how much of the material is used, whether its use is justified, and whether it affects the copyright owner’s income. The Badger’s not a lawyer, but  he senses that AI and copyright is a legal minefield that will keep experts with digital and legal qualifications in lucrative work for years to come.

As the Badger pondered, he scratched his head again and then asked Copilot if AI used material held on copyrighted websites. The short response was that it (and other AI) follows strict copyright guidelines and only generates brief summaries of copyrighted material respecting fair use principles and with pointers to official sources. To test the efficacy of the answer, the Badger asked Copilot for the lyrics of Elton John’s song ‘Candle in the wind’. Copilot responded with ‘Can’t do that due to copyright’. Typing the same request, however, into the Badger’s browser readily produced the lyrics. Make of that what you will, but it does make you wonder why you would need to use AI like Copilot for this kind of interaction.

At the heart of Elton John’s point is the long-established principle that if someone or an enterprise wants to use copyrighted material in something that produces a commercial gain for themselves, then the copyright owner should give prior permission and be paid. AI is a disruptive technology, much of it controlled by the same giant US corporations that already dominate the tech world. AI cannot be ignored, but exempting tech firms from copyright law seems wrong on many different levels. The Badger’s concluded that he should improve his understanding of copyright law, and that AI tech firms must not be exempt from such laws. After all, if you were to take a leaf out of President Trump’s playbook then if you want something, you need permission AND  you must pay.

Air Canada and the ‘hallucination’ of a chatbot…

Posted on by The Information Badger in AI & Robotics, Business, Chatbots, Information Technology, Legal matters, Technology

An email arrived from the Badger’s car insurance provider recently. It advised that a renewal quote was in his online account. Logging in revealed a 25% increase in premium! A check using market comparison sites provided quotes for the same cover within a few pounds of his existing premium. The Badger thus used the provider’s chatbot within his account to signal his intent to take his business elsewhere. The chatbot dialogue, however, ultimately resulted in the Badger staying with his provider with the same cover at the price he currently pays!

This is a commonplace renewal dynamic, but the Badger found himself musing on his experience. Apart from being irritated by his provider’s attempted 25% price rise when they were obviously prepared to retain their customer for a much lower price, using the chatbot was easy, efficient, and quick. However, it  wasn’t obvious at any stage in the chatbot dialogue whether the Badger had really conversed with a human in the provider’s organisation. This meant that both he and the provider were implicitly accepting the validity of the chatbot’s deal. A number of ‘what if’ scenarios regarding customer use of AI chatbots started bubbling in the Badger’s brain. And then he read, here and here, about Air Canada and its AI chatbot!

An AI chatbot on the Air Canada website advised a passenger that they could book a full-fare flight to attend their grandmother’s funeral and claim for a discounted bereavement fare thereafter. Guidance elsewhere on the website was different. The passenger did as the chatbot guided and subsequently claimed for the bereavement discount. Air Canada refused the claim, and the parties ended up at a Tribunal with the airline arguing that the chatbot was ‘responsible for its own actions’. The Tribunal ruled for the passenger and that the airline was liable for negligent misrepresentation. The case not only establishes the principle that companies are liable for what their AI chatbots say and do, but it also highlights – as noted here – broader risks for businesses when adopting AI tools.

The amount of money for the discount claim was small (<CAN$500) but the Tribunal’s findings will reverberate widely. The case also exposes something which is commonplace with many big companies, namely the dominance of a legalistic behavioural culture regardless of common-sense within an organisation. This was a bereaved customer complying with advice given by the company’s AI chatbot on the company’s own website, and yet rather than be empathetic, take responsibility, and apply common-sense, the company chose a legal route and to hide behind ‘the hallucination’ of its chatbot. So, bravo to the passenger for fighting their corner, bravo to the Tribunal for their common-sense judgement, and yes bravo to Air Canada for making sure that we all now know that companies cannot shirk responsibility for the behaviour of their AI chatbots…

Your face, your voice, AI, and human rights…

Posted on by The Information Badger in AI & Robotics, Automation, Education, Ethics & Regulation, Information Technology, Legal matters, Online Safety, Privacy and Surveillance, social media

In the gap between completing his undergraduate degree and starting post-graduate study, the Badger took a temporary job as an assistant in a dockyard laboratory performing marine metallurgical failure investigations and associated corrosion research. It was a great few months which enabled the application of what he learned during his undergraduate degree to real world events. Those few months are the reason why, for example, the Badger has a particular interest today in the findings of the investigation into the Titan deep-sea submersible failure. The dockyard lab staff were experts with colourful personalities and diverse opinions on a wide range of topics. Engaging in wide-ranging discussions with them, especially at lunchtime in the canteen, was enlightening, thought-provoking, and has been the source of fond memories lasting for years.

One particular memory is of one senior expert, highly respected but always cantankerous and quarrelsome, refusing to be photographed sitting at their electron microscope for a newspaper feature about the laboratory. They didn’t want their image captured and used because, they claimed, it was part of ‘who they were as an individual’ and therefore it was part of their human rights to own and control its use. The lab boss saw things differently, and for days there was a lot of philosophical discussion amongst staff about the expert’s position. The newspaper feature ultimately used a photo of the electron microscope by itself.

The current strike by Hollywood actors, due in part to proposals relating to AI and the use of an actor’s image and voice, brought the memory of the lab expert’s stance regarding their image to the fore. In those days, the law was more straightforward because the internet, social media, personal computers, smart phones, and artificial intelligence didn’t exist. In today’s world, however, images of a person and their voice are routinely captured, shared, and manipulated, often for commercial gain without an individual’s real awareness. The law has, of course, developed – all be it slowly – since the expert’s days at the lab, but the surge in AI in its various guises over the last year seems to illustrate that the gap between legal/regulatory controls and the digital world continues to widen.    

Today, and with advancing AI, an image of you or snippet of your voice can be manipulated for any purpose, good or evil. Whilst there’s some teaching of online safety at school, is it enough? Does it sufficiently raise awareness about protecting ‘your image and your voice which are both key attributes that characterise who you are as a person’? Did the dockyard lab expert have a point, all those years ago, in asserting that it was part of their human rights to own and control their image? The Badger doesn’t have the answers, but he senses that AI and human-rights will inevitably be a fertile ground for campaigners, legislators, and regulators for many decades to come…

From Self-driving cars to the Thought Police and Big Brother…

Posted on by The Information Badger in Driverless transport, Internet of Things, Legal matters, Privacy and Surveillance, Smart & New Technology

As widely reported, for example here, here and here, a Law Commission of England and Wales report recommends a new system of legal accountability for vehicles with self-driving capabilities, anticipating the future when vehicles drive themselves for a part, or all, of a journey without a human driver paying attention to the road. When the vehicle’s driving itself, the Commission recommends that the ‘human driver’ is immune from prosecution if anything goes wrong. Instead, liability will rest with the company or body that produced and approved the vehicle and its technology for use.

The Badger read this while taking a break from entertaining his energetic grandson who’d tired himself out and was having a nap on the sofa. The mass use of completely driver-less cars at level 5, a nirvana for some, is still years away, but the report illustrates that there’s more than technology to be addressed if vehicles with higher levels of self-driving capability are to be introduced and used safely on busy public road networks.

Three thoughts came to the fore. The first was that at the higher levels of self-driving capability, cars are like aeroplanes for the roads, and so manufacturers and operators will need to adhere to airline industry-type standards in order to keep vehicle occupants safe. The second was that enormous amounts of data needs to be stored and available for use as evidence in insurance claims and legal disputes when there are, for example, accidents. Who stores it and where? Who has access to it and under what circumstances? How is privacy and personal freedom protected? The answers aren’t yet clear, at least to the Badger. The third was that insurance companies will progressively find ways of minimising their liabilities as the higher levels of self-driving cars become commonplace in the mix of traffic. The Badger has thus resolved to henceforth read his motor insurance policy terms with a laser-like legal focus on renewal every year! Overall, it seems clear that the requirement for a vehicle to have a human driver will be with us for a very long time yet.

The move towards driver-less cars is just another example of how the relentless march of technology means the toddler sleeping peacefully on the sofa will grow up in a world with similarities to that in Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four.   That’s an uncomfortable thought, but for all the conveniences and benefits, the internet and digital revolution of recent decades has eroded privacy and made surveillance in society easier. The Badger’s wife chided him for being gloomy before confidently saying that our grandson will grow up to be a scientist or engineer solving life’s real problems and won’t worry about such matters. The Badger chuckled. Regardless of his career choices, the toddler already has the rebellious independence and intelligence that means he will never succumb to the Thought Police and Big Brother!

A ‘man in a van’ and his drone…

Posted on by The Information Badger in Business, Delivery, Driverless transport, Drones, Legal matters, Life

If you believed the hype of five or so years ago, then commercial drones delivering the packages we buy online should be commonplace in the sky today. That clearly isn’t the case, and the downsizing of Amazon’s  Prime Air outfit in the UK makes you wonder if delivery to the doorstep by drones will ever happen.   There’s still technical, regulatory, and legal issues to be overcome. Regulatory matters are complex and never progress speedily, as this interesting article about drones in the US illustrates.    

Drones have been used commercially for surveys and aerial photography for many years, but in recent times there’s been a significant increase in the number of companies offering drone services and many assessments of the economic potential, see here, for example. However, few regular members of the public – including the Badger – have had dealings with someone using a drone for commercial purposes. That changed for the Badger last week.   

After heavy rain, lumps of mortar appeared on the patio at the back of the Badger’s home. They had fallen from the crown of the chimney. The chimney cowl was askew, and it looked likely to come tumbling down too. A local ‘man with a van’ who undertakes chimney repairs was contacted to provide an estimate for repairs. The man arrived in his Ford Transit with ladders strapped to its roof.  The Badger anticipated that he would use the ladders to get onto the roof, inspect the chimney, and then provide the worrying shake of the head and sucking of teeth that usually precedes being told the price for repair.  It was a pleasant surprise, therefore, when it wasn’t like that at all!

On arrival, the man slid the van’s side door open, took out a small drone, and expertly flew it up and around the chimney. In just a couple of minutes, we were both watching the captured video on the man’s laptop. The footage immediately raised the level of trust in the tradesman regarding the repair work needed because it removed any scope for ambiguity and embellishment. A competitive price was quickly agreed for a new cowl and re-cemented chimney crown.

The ‘man in a van’ said the drone was one of his key tools. It was quick to use, built trust with his potential customers because they could see the repairs necessary for themselves, and it meant that he climbed fewer ladders and roofs which lowered his risk of accidents and injury. He finds the drone so useful as a tool that he carries a spare one as a backup!  When a ‘man with a van’ says it’s a key tool of his trade then you know that we will definitely be seeing more and more drones used as tools in routine daily life.  Industrialised, coordinated, fleets of delivery drones, on the other hand, still seem a very long way off.

Your privacy? Look before you leap…

Posted on by The Information Badger in Education, Ethics & Regulation, Legal matters, Life, Privacy and Surveillance, Technology, Uncategorized

The Badger was paying little attention to a dialogue between two experts on the radio until one said, ‘What the lockdowns have made us appreciate is that the world before the pandemic was not what it ought to be’.  The Badger’s ears pricked up. Why? Because this chimed with a recent debate the Badger participated in. It centred on whether people take enough personal responsibility for their privacy in today’s world and the Badger had stirred the pot with the following.

Pandemic or no pandemic, today’s world is dominated by the conduct of business, personal, and official affairs online.  Recent lockdowns just reinforce how over the last 20 to 25 years, since personal internet banking started to gain real traction, ‘online’ has become critical infrastructure for daily life. Most of us use online services to operate and administer bank accounts, investments, pensions, utilities, to search and apply for jobs, to interact with government departments (e.g. for vehicle licencing, benefit claims, taxation, health, passports, etc), to search for information, to buy things from Amazon, eBay, Uber, Deliveroo, supermarkets and retailers, for maps and directions on journeys, and – of course – to use various types of social media platforms.

Compare this with how we functioned 20 to 25 years ago and you’ll realise just how much of our personal data, likes, and life habits are now held somewhere in cyber space.  But ask yourself the following. Do you really know how the organisations or platforms you interact with use what they hold about you and your habits? Do you really know how they share your information with others and for what purposes? Do you really know if they sell your information, and if so to whom?

You will probably not answer with a crisp Yes. Why? Because you are unlikely to have really read the Terms & Conditions and Privacy statements presented to you, and if you have, then it’s doubtful you really absorbed what they said. Your privacy is not what it was 20 years ago, and we all bear some responsibility for that! Your information is a valuable commodity.  Others will use it to generate profits or influence the way you think and behave  and so we all need to be aware of good guidance and take more personal responsibility for preserving our privacy.

From the sheepish looks of others, the Badger had struck a chord.  The debate ultimately agreed that ‘technology has eroded personal privacy and governments must act to counter this’, and that ‘everyone must accept they have a personal responsibility for how they use online services’. The latter is crucial, even though it’s a challenge in a world where blaming someone else for our own failings is commonplace. However, one thing is certain, there’s truth in the saying ‘look before you leap’. If you value your privacy, always read and understand the Terms & Conditions and Privacy statements presented to you when you do anything ‘online’.

 

‘Stench’ – a virtual fragrance for the festive season?

Posted on by The Information Badger in Education, Ethics & Regulation, Legal matters, Psychology, social media, Training, Uncategorized

If you work for an organisation that takes the development of its people seriously then you’ll have attended courses with elements that sensitise you to the importance of body language when engaging with others. The Badger was first sensitised to this when attending two short courses in quick succession many years ago. The first course covered interviewing and recruiting new graduates, and the second covered leading software and system development teams. Both featured personal interaction sessions that were videoed and critiqued by the trainers and other attendees – a very effective way of learning about the powerful signals our body language conveys. Since then, and with many other courses under the belt, the Badger has been in many situations where controlling one’s body language and watching that of others has helped to convert difficult circumstances into acceptable outcomes.

People have been communicating with each other for millennia. We are conditioned by our heritage to know that the best communication happens when we are physically face to face so that we can hear what’s said and simultaneously see the physical nuances of those in the same room. Modern technology, however, encourages instant communication that is devoid of a contextual body language component. Email’s a good example. How many times have you sent an email that’s been misinterpreted when read by recipients? More times than we all care to admit. The body language component is missing from the words.

Another example is the recent Elon Musk v Vernon Unsworth court case relating to comments made on Twitter. A jury found in favour of Mr Musk. His offending Tweets were judged to be essentially ‘playground insults’ rather than real defamatory insults. The Badger has no opinion on the right or wrong of this finding, that’s a matter for the courts, but isn’t it somewhat sad that the finding seems to legitimise trading hurtful insults using modern social media platforms like Twitter? Surely this isn’t good for society? ‘Playground insults’ normally take place in a real playground where words are said with body language visible. Surely if it’s okay to trade ‘playground insults’ using Twitter, then that’s clear evidence that civilisation is crumbling into an anarchistic morass?

After the Musk ruling, one of the Badger’s friends commented – admittedly after more mulled wine than prudent – that Twitter should invent a virtual fragrance called ‘Stench’ for anyone who wants to make playground insults using its platform over the forthcoming festive season. The Badger laughed, because the amusing and playful intent was clear in their words and body language. We laughed again when we decided that ‘playground insults’ should stay in a real playground and not be traded in the virtual world. Why? Because ‘playground fisticuffs’ are a much cheaper and more effective way of resolving playground disputes than resorting to lawyers. Oh, and finally, in case you’re wondering, for the avoidance of doubt and all that, none of this is intended to insult anyone or any organisation!