Employees Are Feeling Burned Over Broken Work-From-Home Promises As Employers Try To Bring Them Back To The Office

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the working-form-home dept

As vaccinations and relaxed health guidelines make returning to the office a reality for more companies, there seems to be a disconnect between managers and their workers over remote work.

A good example of this is a recent op-ed written by the CEO of a Washington, D.C. magazine that suggested workers could lose benefits like health care if they insist on continuing to work remotely as the COVID-19 pandemic recedes. The staff reacted by refusing to publish for a day.

While the CEO later apologized, she isn?t alone in appearing to bungle the transition back to the office after over a year in which tens of millions of employees were forced to work from home. A recent survey of full-time corporate or government employees found that two-thirds say their employers either have not communicated a post-pandemic office strategy or have only vaguely done so.

As workforce scholars, we are interested in teasing out how workers are dealing with this situation. Our recent research found that this failure to communicate clearly is hurting morale, culture and retention.

Workers relocating

We first began investigating workers? pandemic experiences in July 2020 as shelter-in-place orders shuttered offices and remote work was widespread. At the time, we wanted to know how workers were using their newfound freedom to potentially work virtually from anywhere.

We analyzed a dataset that a business and technology newsletter attained from surveying its 585,000 active readers. It asked them whether they planned to relocate during the next six months and to share their story about why and where from and to.

After a review, we had just under 3,000 responses, including 1,361 people who were planning to relocate or had recently done so. We systematically coded these responses to understand their motives and, based on distances moved, the degree of ongoing remote-work policy they would likely need.

We found that a segment of these employees would require a full remote-work arrangement based on the distance moved from their office, and another portion would face a longer commute. Woven throughout this was the explicit or implicit expectation of some degree of ongoing remote work among many of the workers who moved during the pandemic.

In other words, many of these workers were moving on the assumption ? or promise ? that they?d be able to keep working remotely at least some of the time after the pandemic ended. Or they seemed willing to quit if their employer didn?t oblige.

We wanted to see how these expectations were being met as the pandemic started to wind down in March 2021. So we searched online communities in Reddit to see what workers were saying. One forum proved particularly useful. A member asked, ?Has your employer made remote work permanent yet or is it still in the air?? and went on to share his own experience. This post generated 101 responses with a good amount of detail on what their respective individual companies were doing.

While this qualitative data is only a small sample that is not necessarily representative of the U.S. population at large, these posts allowed us to delve into a richer understanding of how workers feel, which a simple stat can?t provide.

We found a disconnect between workers and management that starts with but goes beyond the issue of the remote-work policy itself. Broadly speaking, we found three recurring themes in these anonymous posts.

1. Broken remote-work promises

Others have also found that people are taking advantage of pandemic-related remote work to relocate to a city at a distance large enough that it would require partial or full-time remote work after people return to the office.

A recent survey by consulting firm PwC found that almost a quarter of workers were considering or planning to move more than 50 miles from one of their employer?s main offices. The survey also found 12% have already made such a move during the pandemic without getting a new job.

Our early findings suggested some workers would quit their current job rather than give up their new location if required by their employer, and we saw this actually start to occur in March.

One worker planned a move from Phoenix to Tulsa with her fianc? to get a bigger place with cheaper rent after her company went remote. She later had to leave her job for the move, even though ?they told me they would allow me to work from home, then said never mind about it.?

Another worker indicated the promise to work remotely was only implicit, but he still had his hopes up when leaders ?gassed us up for months saying we?d likely be able to keep working from home and come in occasionally? and then changed their minds and demanded employees return to the office once vaccinated.

2. Confused remote-work policies

Another constant refrain we read in the worker comments was disappointment in their company?s remote-work policy ? or lack thereof.

Whether workers said they were staying remote for now, returning to the office or still unsure, we found that nearly a quarter of the people in our sample said their leaders were not giving them meaningful explanations of what was driving the policy. Even worse, the explanations sometimes felt confusing or insulting.

One worker complained that the manager ?wanted butts in seats because we couldn?t be trusted to [work from home] even though we?d been doing it since last March,? adding: ?I?m giving my notice on Monday.?

Another, whose company issued a two-week timeline for all to return to the office, griped: ?Our leadership felt people weren?t as productive at home. While as a company we?ve hit most of our goals for the year. ? Makes no sense.?

After a long period of office shutterings, it stands to reason workers would need time to readjust to office life, a point expressed in recent survey results. Employers that quickly flip the switch in calling workers back and do so with poor clarifying rationale risk appearing tone-deaf.

It suggests a lack of trust in productivity at a time when many workers report putting in more effort than ever and being strained by the increased digital intensity of their job ? that is, the growing number of online meetings and chats.

And even when companies said they wouldn?t require a return to the office, workers still faulted them for their motives, which many employees described as financially motivated.

?We are going hybrid,? one worker wrote. ?I personally don?t think the company is doing it for us. ? I think they realized how efficient and how much money they are saving.?

Only a small minority of workers in our sample said their company asked for input on what employees actually want from a future remote work policy. Given that leaders are rightly concerned about company culture, we believe they are missing a key opportunity to engage with workers on the issue and show their policy rationales aren?t only about dollars and cents.

3. Corporate culture ?BS?

Management gurus such as Peter Drucker and other scholars have found that corporate culture is very important to binding together workers in an organization, especially in times of stress.

A company?s culture is essentially its values and beliefs shared among its members. That?s harder to foster when everyone is working remotely.

That?s likely why corporate human resource executives rank maintaining organizational culture as their top workforce priority for 2021.

But many of the forum posts we reviewed suggested that employer efforts to do that during the pandemic by orchestrating team outings and other get-togethers were actually pushing workers away, and that this type of ?culture building? was not welcome.

[Like what you?ve read? Want more? Sign up for The Conversation?s daily newsletter.]

One worker?s company ?had everyone come into the office for an outdoor luncheon a week ago,? according to a post, adding: ?Idiots.?

Surveys have found that what workers want most from management, on the issue of corporate culture, are more remote-work resources, updated policies on flexibility and more communication from leadership.

As another worker put it, ?I can tell you, most people really don?t give 2 flips about ?company culture? and think it?s BS.?

Kimberly Merriman, Professor of Management, Manning School of Business, University of Massachusetts Lowell; David Greenway, Doctoral Candidate in Leadership/Organization Studies, University of Massachusetts Lowell, and Tamara Montag-Smit, Assistant Professor of Business, University of Massachusetts Lowell

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Filed Under: covid, employers, promises, remote working, work from home

Canada Still Won't Commit To Supporting A Pandemic Patent Waiver

Patents

from the inexcusable dept

Few things illustrate the broken state of our global intellectual property system better than the fact that, well over a year into this devastating pandemic and in the face of a strong IP waiver push by some of the hardest hit countries, patents are still holding back the production of life-saving vaccines. And of all the countries opposing a waiver at the WTO (or withholding support for it, which is functionally the same thing), Canada might be the most frustrating.

Canada is the biggest hoarder of vaccine pre-orders, having secured enough to vaccinate the population five times over. Despite this, it has constantly run into supply problems and lagged behind comparable countries when it comes to administering the vaccines on a per capita basis. In response to criticism of its hoarding, the government continues to focus on its plans to donate all surplus doses to the COVAX vaccine sharing program — but these promises were somewhat more convincing before Canada became the only G7 country to withdraw doses from COVAX. Despite all this, and despite pressure from experts who explain how vaccine hoarding will prolong the pandemic for everyone, the country has continually refused to voice its support for a TRIPS patent waiver at the WTO.

Last week, the US finally said that it would support a waiver. This position has issues — there’s no commitment to a specific proposal, just to negotiating a new one, so the devil is very much in the details — but the top-line promise of support for the general concept is meaningful and welcome. Some suspected that Canada might finally follow suit with, at least, a similarly open-to-interpretation promise — but apparently the government can’t even go that far, and has stated that it’s still “weighing support”:

Following a meeting with his G7 counterparts, Foreign Affairs Minister Marc Garneau said discussion on whether to lift patents, as was done in the AIDS crisis, was ?very active? but said Canada is still weighing the options.

?Canada?s position is that we need to obtain more vaccines, we need to all put more money into the COVAX program, and by the way Canada is the fourth largest contributor to the COVAX program, and we need to discuss with manufactures whether they?re prepared to make licensing arrangements to allow greater production of the vaccine,? he said in an interview on CTV News Channel?s Power Play.

This position is baffling and infuriating. Canada has already missed its chance to be a leader in the call for a truly cooperative global vaccine production strategy, and now it’s missing its opportunity to at least be an early supporter among high-income countries. Meanwhile, the country’s struggling rollout has convinced many citizens that its procurement has been too slow despite being the world’s biggest hoarder of orders. As other countries like India face devastation, the ruling Canadian Liberal party’s opposition (especially Conservative provincial premiers, who are among the most responsible for the failed rollout) are taking the opportunity to shift blame and bring dangerous isolationist dog whistles into the mainstream by claiming the country’s only real problem is poor border controls. Canada is also struggling to fund development of a homegrown vaccine, and build out domestic manufacturing capacity that was sorely lacking when the pandemic hit. All of this is ample reason for Canada to support an IP waiver that would increase global supply, stem the spread of COVID around the world and especially in hard-hit places like India that traditionally have lots of people traveling to the country, and maybe even accelerate domestic vaccine production. Instead, Canada is hedging its bets and letting its struggling pandemic response become a partisan football in a political debate laced with misinformation and toxic nationalism while millions of Canadians — and billions around the world — still wait for their chance to get vaccinated.

Filed Under: canada, covid, ip waiver, patents, vaccines, wto

Huge News: US Gov't Agrees To Support Intellectual Property Waiver To Help Fight COVID

Patents

from the devil-in-the-details dept

Earlier this week we wrote about the absolutely ridiculous coalition of folks who were lobbying against the US supporting a TRIPS intellectual property waiver to support fighting COVID. As we noted, it was totally expected that Big Pharma would object to it, but the surprising thing was seeing Hollywood and the legacy entertainment industry — an industry that needs COVID to go away to get back to normal — coming out strongly against the waiver as well. They claimed they had to do so since the waiver would apply to copyright as well, but that’s nonsense. The waiver (1) explicitly excluded entertainment products and (2) is expressly limited to “prevention, containment or treatment of COVID-19.”

On top of that, the waiver process was built into the TRIPS agreement, and if a full on global pandemic that has already killed over 3 million people (and counting) isn’t the time to use the waiver, then the waiver is effectively meaningless.

Thankfully, the US has now announced that it will be supporting a waiver. USTR Katherine Tai made the announcement:

Her quote:

?This is a global health crisis, and the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic call for extraordinary measures. The Administration believes strongly in intellectual property protections, but in service of ending this pandemic, supports the waiver of those protections for COVID-19 vaccines. We will actively participate in text-based negotiations at the World Trade Organization (WTO) needed to make that happen. Those negotiations will take time given the consensus-based nature of the institution and the complexity of the issues involved.

?The Administration?s aim is to get as many safe and effective vaccines to as many people as fast as possible. As our vaccine supply for the American people is secured, the Administration will continue to ramp up its efforts ? working with the private sector and all possible partners ? to expand vaccine manufacturing and distribution. It will also work to increase the raw materials needed to produce those vaccines.?

Of course, the details here matter. Tai says the US will support a waiver for vaccines… but did not definitively say if it will support the waiver currently applied for from South Africa and India. It would be just like the US to say it supports the waiver to get everyone who supports the effort to cheer… and then go into negotiations and push for a much, much narrower (and potentially effectively meaningless) waiver. Hopefully that’s not the case.

Still, just getting the USTR to support any waiver was a big step. This was far from the most likely outcome. The pharma industry is incredibly powerful at the lobbying game, and when you add Hollywood’s muscle to it as well, many people felt that the US would refuse to support the waiver. Hell, earlier this week they even got Dr. Fauci to come out leaning against it, saying he was agnostic on the actual waiver, but thought there were better ways to fight COVID (Fauci may be an expert in infectious diseases, but his expertise in intellectual property is… that he holds a few patents of his own). And, of course, Biden has always had a close relationship with Hollywood and has long been a copyright maximalist.

And, while Fauci may be correct that this may not be the most important thing for fighting COVID, no one is saying this is the only thing. This is just one of a long list of things, and it will undoubtedly help deal with restrictions in some areas that are costing people lives.

In the end, this came down to a simple question: is the best way to protect the global economy to protect the monopoly interests of a few giant companies, or to use knowledge, information, and expertise to help spread better treatments and vaccines faster. The US chose the latter, and it was the only moral choice.

Filed Under: biden administration, copyright, covid, ip waiver, katherine tai, knowledge, patents, treatments, trips waiver, ustr, vaccines, wto

Wall Street Journal Editorial Tries To Pretend That Fixing Repair Monopolies Is Bad For Your Health

Overhype

from the greed-is-not-an-argument dept

So we’ve noted for a long time how efforts to monopolize repair have resulted in a growing, bipartisan interest in right to repair legislation in more than a dozen states. Whether it’s Sony and Microsoft’s efforts to monopolize game console repair, Apple’s tendency to monopolize phone repair (and bully independent repair shops), or John Deere making its tractors a costly nightmare to fix, a sustained backlash has been growing against draconian DRM, rampant abuse of copyright, and other behaviors that make repairing products you own as annoying and expensive as possible.

Granted this anger has extended into the medical arena, where the problem isn’t just a costly hassle, it’s a matter of life and death. This was particularly true during COVID, given many hardware manufacturers made getting access to repair manuals and parts cumbersome and expensive, if not impossible. As such, several states (including Texas) have been pushing both right to repair legislation that generally protects consumers, as well as legislation that takes aim at device manufacturers that make it an expensive headache for hospitals to repair their own equipment in a timely fashion.

Granted as more and more states push such legislation, more and more companies have taken to pushing misleading claims about what this legislation does. Whether it’s Apple’s attempt to claim that such legislation will turn states into “meccas for hackers” (which sounds kind of cool, honestly), or the auto industry’s false claim that such laws will help sexual predators, there’s been no shortage of sleazy efforts to undermine such laws using specious reasoning and unethical claims. And given that legislative efforts keep getting blocked, it has proven pretty effective.

Enter the Wall Street Journal, which this week joined the fun with a nonsensical editorial claiming that medical device right to repair legislation being pushed in Texas is somehow harmful to human health. The piece basically just consists of several paragraphs of author Tom Giovanetti lauding the miraculous innovation of copyright, while claiming the bipartisan right to repair movement is some kind of “leftist” plot. Why would the activist and reform groups operating on a shoestring budget do this? They hate innovation, apparently:

“American innovation is dependent on the protection of intellectual property. It encourages innovation by discouraging theft. But there are those who are philosophically opposed to intellectual property protection. Left-leaning public interest law firms and activist groups led by U.S. PIRG, an association of public-interest law firms, have been trying for years to undermine intellectual-property protection through ?right to repair? campaigns in state legislatures. During this legislative session they are pushing their anti-innovation agenda in the guise of a ?right to repair? advanced medical devices.”

For one thing, USPIRG is neither “left-leaning” nor a law firm (but no matter I guess, huh?). But it’s also amazing how the author just cheerfully floats over the fact that manufacturers enjoy a monopoly on tools, documentation, and replacement parts, and that those monopolies have been putting human lives at risk before, during, and likely after COVID. These restrictions often drive repair technicians to dangerous third-party fixes and firmware because they literally can’t get the help, tools, parts, or documentation they need; so often it’s the repair monopolies and DRM that are putting lives at risk, not the efforts to fix the problem.

Industry pretty consistently tries to claim that opening up access to essential repair tools and documentation somehow always poses some diabolical threat to security, privacy, and safety, when that’s never really been true. That doesn’t really stop Giovanetti, who also trots out the China bogeyman for good measure:

“Forcing disclosure of these advanced medical technologies and opening them up to uncertified technicians may also represent a cybersecurity threat. You may be troubled by the idea that voting machines can be hacked, but what about opening up MRI machines and PET scanners? Patients could be endangered by sabotaged medical devices, but they might also suffer from malfunctions that cause inaccurate test results and thus unidentified medical problems. Such concerns also include direct theft of American innovation by bad actors seeking advanced U.S. technology, such as China.”

Those who work in the industry and realize that draconian DRM, idiotic applications of copyright, and ham-fisted repair monopolies actively harm public health weren’t particularly impressed with the Journal’s latest hot take:

In particular, many of the editorial’s claims about how the FDA works weren’t even remotely close to being true:

As is the Wall Street Journal’s habit on many subjects, the author tries to dress up greed as some kind of elaborate ethos, and efforts to actually implement reform as some kind of dangerous, diabolical partisan plot. But the “right to repair” movement is growing at an amazing rate because it enjoys broad bipartisan support, from John Deere owners who don’t want to drive a thousand miles and pay a small fortune just to fix the tractors they own, to medical professionals who don’t want patients to die while they navigate some company’s obnoxious repair monopoly bureaucracy just to get a ventilator to work again.

Filed Under: covid, innovation, intellectual property, medical devices, right to repair, tom giovanetti

Hollywood Lobbyists So Afraid Of Any Public Benefit From 'Intellectual Property' That They're Trying To Block COVID Vaccine Sharing

Patents

from the you-did-what-now? dept

Throughout the COVID pandemic, it’s been truly shameful to watch how patent maximalists have tried to insist that we just need more patents to deal with COVID — even though the incredible breakthroughs that brought such quick development of vaccines were not due to patents, but rather the free and open flow of information from a bunch of researchers and scientists who didn’t care about whether or not information was locked up for profit, but did care about saving millions of lives.

And now that we’ve got vaccines, we’re dealing with significant problems in rolling them out around the world — and patents are often in the way, holding that rollout back. And we actually have a way of dealing with that: what’s known as a TRIPS waiver. TRIPS is the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, which set up a variety of standards among member nations and the WTO regarding intellectual property. I have many problems with TRIPS (and the WTO), but TRIPS does include a process to grant waivers on intellectual property rights. This was in response to (very legitimate!) concerns by less well off nations that rich nations would use the patent system to block access to important life saving medicines.

So, to ease such concerns, the TRIPS agreement includes a process by which the WTO can grant a compulsory licensing regime that will allow others to make patented drugs, and thus increase availability. A key point of this so-called waiver is that it allows for better allocations of certain drugs during medical emergencies. Given that, issuing such a waiver right now seems like a no-brainer. But… it has not been.

India and South Africa put forth a a fairly straightforward waiver request for dealing with COVID-19. The key part of the request is that intellectual property requirements under TRIPS solely in relation to the “prevention, containment or treatment of COVID-19” should be waived during the course of the pandemic. It seems pretty straightforward. Even reliable patent maximalist sites like IP Watchdog are now publishing articles saying that the TRIPS waiver “is a necessary first step towards facilitating increased, rapid production of vaccines” and noting that it won’t undermine the value of innovation in any way.

We’ve already noted that Big Pharma is lobbying against it — which is to be expected. However, what is perhaps less expected is the fact that Hollywood is vehemently lobbying against it as well. Why? Well, they claim that because the waiver is not limited to just patents, it will be used to wipe away copyright as well.

This is… misleading at best. It is true that the waiver would cover copyrights, but only in an extremely limited fashion. As the part I quoted above notes, it only applies to intellectual property protections that are blocking the prevention, containment, and treatment of COVID-19. And, that can include a very limited set of copyrights. For example, there still remain shortages of ventilators in many parts of the world, and early on in the pandemic, people were working on 3D printing replacement parts to help deal with this extreme shortage. However, with some companies issuing threats over these 3D printed parts, there are legitimate concerns that copyright could be used to shut down such operations. Another area where a copyright waiver is likely to help is in allowing researchers easier access to important scientific journals and research that may help them develop more and better solutions.

As if to make Hollywood calm down, South Africa and India included an explicit statement in the waiver request to say that the waiver cannot be used for entertainment products: “The waiver in paragraph 1 shall not apply to the protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms (Sound Recordings) and Broadcasting Organizations under Article 14 of the TRIPS Agreement.” That’s literally the 2nd paragraph in a four paragraph waiver request. Already, it’s kind of insulting that officials crafting this waiver request in an attempt to save lives had to waste time making sure that Hollywood wouldn’t get angry at them.

And even then it didn’t work.

The Motion Picture Association, which represents major movie and television studios, deployed five lobbyists to influence Congress and the White House over the waiver. The Association of American Publishers as well as Universal Music have similarly revealed that they are actively lobbying against it.

Neil Turkewitz, a former Recording Industry Association of America official, blasted the proposal on Twitter, claiming it will harm musicians, performers, and other cultural workers who are already struggling. 

?As COVID has undermined the livelihoods of creators around the [globe emoji], you want to further expand their precarity?in the name of justice?? Turkewitz wrote.

The Turkewitz quote is particularly disgusting. There is nothing in the waiver that will harm the livelihood of creators. Indeed, getting the world vaccinated is how we bring things back to normal to help open up the world to help those musicians, performers, and other cultural workers survive. For him to even suggest that this waiver somehow harms them is not just disinformation, it’s disinformation that will kill people. It’s disgusting.

And the lobbying by Hollywood goes beyond just what was reported in the above linked Intercept article. ITIF, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, which may sound like a think tank that is focused on the tech industry, but which has long had close ties to Hollywood (and, indeed, an ITIF paper was the basis for the terrible SOPA/PIPA laws a decade ago), recently came out with a laughably ridiculous attack on the waiver, claiming that there’s no possible way copyrights should be included in it:

This latest affront to IP rights is, to say the least, ill-placed, if not misinformed. There is simply no compelling reason to focus on the suspension of copyright in this case.

Oh come on. People are fucking dying and this is the fight you want to have? It’s not “suspension of copyright” that people are asking for. They’re asking for a narrowly tailored, specific exemption to excessively restrictive copyright solely in cases where that exception is needed to help fight COVID. The idea that it is “ill-placed” or “misinformed” is pure propaganda.

And then, just as I was putting the finishing touches on this article, Senator Thom Tillis, who has made it clear that his main goal in the Senate is to push for Hollywood’s extremist interests, wrote up one hell of an oped against the waiver. It is chock full of nonsense.

Yet, waiving intellectual property rights abroad would not hasten the end of COVID-19. It would harm our domestic IP industries, hand India and China valuable government-supported research free of charge and weaken the global IP system for decades to come. Just last week, in remarks before the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) Spring Summit Daren Tang, Director General of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), stated that a strong intellectual property ecosystem was primarily responsible for allowing COVID-19 vaccines to ?be brought to people in the fastest time in history.? I wholeheartedly agree…

First off, it wouldn’t “harm” any domestic industry. That’s nonsense. And if the research is for saving lives and (as Tillis states) was “government-supported” then it should be freely available to anyone. Government supported research means that the public paid for it and it should be widely available to anyone.

Second, just because a long time advocate of patent and copyright maximalism says something, doesn’t automatically make it true. There is no evidence whatsoever that “strong intellectual property… was primarily responsible for allowing COVID-19 vaccines” to come about. Indeed, the stories about how the vaccines were developed show the opposite. They show how the free flow of information and ideas among researchers and scientists around the globe, and them agreeing to work together, rather than trying to lock up ideas, is what helped make it possible.

I can understand pharma companies fighting against it, even if that alone is disappointing given the situation. That Hollywood and its friends are flat out lying about it and creating a moral panic, claiming this will somehow hurt the creative industries, is dangerous disinformation.

Filed Under: copyright, covid, health, hollywood, intellectual property waiver, patents, vaccines, wto

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished: Google/Apple Criticized… For Seeking To Protect Privacy In UK Gov't Covid Contact Tracing

Privacy

from the always-a-complaint dept

There are plenty of legitimate things to complain about regarding some of the big internet companies — but so many people these days view things through a weird prism in which every single action absolutely must be for evil intent, even when it’s actually for a good reason. Sometimes this leads to crazy reactions in which the companies are criticized for doing the exact opposite things, with both approaches being framed as nefarious.

The latest is a very odd piece by Rory Cellan-Jones in the UK. The National Health Service (NHS) there had a contact tracing app early in the pandemic, but last summer, recognizing the limitations of its own system, switched to the framework developed by Apple and Google early on. As you may recall, Google and Apple (somewhat surprisingly) came together early on to set up a framework for contact tracing — and the two companies put privacy front and center in the development of the system, with both recognizing (1) the inherent privacy concerns of medical information, and (2) the fact that many people already were skeptical of the two companies.

And, pretty quickly we saw some weird pushback, like the Washington Post whining that the app was too protective of privacy, keeping your health information out of the hands of government officials.

When the UK decided to switch over to Apple/Google’s system, it agreed to abide by the privacy rules that Apple and Google established. But, it appears the NHS tried to push the boundaries and go beyond the privacy framework. Specifically, under the updated version, if a user tested positive for COVID, the app asked the user to upload their “venue” history (all the places they had “checked in” to according to the app). But a core part of the privacy setup was that your location info was designed to be kept decentralized and on your phone. The fear being that if you’re uploading your locations it becomes a prime surveillance tool. Thus, Google and Apple rejected the updated app.

And that leads to the BBC piece that explains all of this, but then concludes by complaining about Google and Apple’s ability to block these privacy-invasive feature:

What this underlines is that governments around the world have been forced to frame part of their response to the global pandemic according to rules set down by giant unelected corporations.

At a time when the power of the tech giants is under the microscope as never before, that will leave many people feeling uncomfortable.

Really? It seems odd that this should be the point that leaves people feeling uncomfortable. It set up rules to help keep everyone’s data private. The government tried to violate those rules. Google and Apple said no. If we should feel uncomfortable about anything it’s about the government trying to sneak around the clearly established privacy framework.

And, no, governments are not being “forced” to frame part of their response according to the rules set down by “giant unelected corporations” (I’m separately unclear who elected the NHS officials working on this app, but alas…). After all, the NHS had its own app before, but decided that the Google/Apple framework was a better one to adapt.

So what a bizarre stance to take to argue that this effort to better protect privacy somehow makes those two companies look bad.

The thing that gets me the most about stories like this is that they undermine stories in which real concerns and real bad behavior are called out. When you automatically lump all actions into the “ooooh, evil big company” pile, without determining whether there are legitimate, non-nefarious reasons for their actions (or, as in this case, concepts that are designed to better protect end-user privacy), it makes it that much harder to focus in on the real concerns.

Filed Under: contact tracing, covid, privacy, uk
Companies: apple, google

Britain Helps Children Learn From Home By Procuring Them Laptops Preloaded With Russian Malware

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the whoops dept

As the COVID-19 pandemic swept across the world, one of the main points of contention has been how to handle schools. Some countries sent all students home to keep them from spreading the virus. Other countries made schools the last thing they shut down, if they ever did, arguing that schools haven’t been a major source of transmission and teaching kids is too important to shut down. Here in America, most states did a hybrid model, choosing the absolute worst of both worlds. Teachers get hamstrung having to teach students both locally and remotely, which is basically impossible, while still having students and teachers come into schools to transmit the virus to one another.

Along the way, lots of schools took lots of actions meant to help students learn remotely, most of which were also quite dumb. Incorporating biometrics and AI to assist with remote testing sounds like a good idea, except these always go sideways. Privacy issues are discovered and kids learn how to game the AI-driven tests. Still other districts forced teachers to come into the school solely to teach kids who were at home and then told teachers to take their masks off if they were causing audio problems.

But to see the cake-taking, best combination for good intentions gone horribly wrong, you really have to hand it to the UK ordering a ton of laptops for remote learning… that also came pre-loaded with Russian malware.

The affected laptops, supplied to schools under the government’s Get Help With Technology (GHWT) scheme, which started last year, came bundled with the Gamarue malware – an old remote access worm from the 2010s.

The Register understands that a batch of 23,000 computers, the GeoBook 1E running Windows 10, made by Shenzhen-headquartered Tactus Group, contained the units that were loaded with malware. A spokesperson for the manufacturer was not available for comment.

This is almost certainly an instance of someone prepping these machines using an image that somehow was infected with the malware… but still. Not having any checks prior to the machines getting out to school districts for this sort of thing and nearly rolling the machines out to students sure feels like incompetence. Also likely factoring into all of this is the extreme lack of supply for laptops from the more traditional manufacturers, leading some schools to go find off-brand alternatives. The GeoBook is one of those.

But again, still, Gamarue calls home somewhere inside of Russia and allows nefarious actors to remotely access these machines. Machines that almost certainly have webcams on them. That’s… not good?

If the pandemic has exposed anything at all about humanity, it surely must be how wildly unprepared we were for it.

Filed Under: covid-19, laptops, malware, pandemic, school children, uk

New York Times Decides Kids Are Playing Too Many Video Games During The Pandemic

Culture

from the sigh dept

One of the most predictable things in the world is that if anything is going on in the universe, people will try to find some way to make video games into a villain over it. This is doubly true if there are children within a thousand miles of whatever is going on. Notable when these claims arise is the velocity with which any nuance or consideration of a counter-vailing opinion is chucked out the window.

Meanwhile most of the world, and the United States in particular, is suffering in all manner of ways from the COVID-19 pandemic. Hundreds of thousands dead. Millions falling ill. Economic fallout for large swaths of the public. High tensions due to all of this, compounded by a mad would-be-king inciting violence in the house of government. And, even for those not suffering health or massive economic crises, there’s the simple matter that we’re all more isolated, all home more often, and all mired in a severe lack of socialization and life-affirming activities.

And it’s in this environment, apparently, that the New York Times has decided to chide parents for letting their kids play video games and allowing more screen time more generally.

The article, which ran on January 16, quoted some experts and presented a lot of “scary” numbers about screentime. But it also glossed over the fact that video games and the internet have helped many people, kids and adults, stay connected and sane during this terrible time.

The whole post is also oddly bookended by a random small family that is currently struggling during the pandemic. Their son plays a lot of video games as a way to connect with his friends. His father and mother are concerned about how much time he spends in front of the screen, but also know it’s one of the few ways he has to safely socialize while covid-19 runs wild across the world. This is a hard situation I imagine many parents around the globe are going through right now. But highlighting only kids and how much screentime they are using ignores that all of us, not just children and teens, are dealing with increased screentime and a lack of real human interaction. Instead, the article goes on and on about how potentially unhealthy and dangerous all this screentime could be for kids. How kids need to disconnect more. How kids are playing too much Roblox.

This whole diatribe is off for a number of reasons. First, let’s start off with the obvious: these are not normal times. If experts want to make arguments or present data that one amount of screen time or another, or even certain amounts of video game playing, is harmful to children, I’m open to those arguments. They need to come with actual scientific data, but I’m open to them. But during a pandemic, when most children are incredibly isolated form their normal activities — team athletics, outdoor play with other children, school and after-school activities, etc. — someone is going to have to tell me how increased time playing video games or in front of a computer screen is somehow more harmful than the void of any affirming activity. There are only so many books a child is going to read. Only so many games of cards. Only so much time in imaginative play, or in discussion with his or her parents. Now is not a normal time, so why are we grading parents by normal rules?

Hell, even the experts on the matter have made their recommendations for screen time during the pandemic a moving target.

Dr. Jenny Radesky, a pediatrician who studies children’s use of mobile technology at the University of Michigan, said she did countless media interviews early in the pandemic, telling parents not to feel guilty about allowing more screen time, given the stark challenges of lockdowns. Now, she said, she’d have given different advice if she had known how long children would end up stuck at home.

“I probably would have encouraged families to turn off Wi-Fi except during school hours so kids don’t feel tempted every moment, night and day,” she said, adding, “The longer they’ve been doing a habituated behavior, the harder it’s going to be to break the habit.”

It’s also very much worth keeping in mind that discussions on recommended limits to screen time and, even more so video games, are relatively new things given the rapid pace with which technology has been developed. And those recommendations regarding screen time for children have been moving targets over the years. New studies come out all the time on the topic and recommendations from experts likewise get updated.

Moving targets upon moving targets. If you’re getting the sense that what experts say about all of this during the COVID-19 pandemic has a make-it-up-as-we-go quality to it, ding ding ding!

And instead of any nuance afforded to the fact that video games have changed wildly to become multiplayer social platforms as much as games, and what that means for children who need to socialize during a pandemic, the article instead just further vilifies game-makers.

Children turn to screens because they say they have no alternative activities or entertainment — this is where they hang out with friends and go to school — all while the technology platforms profit by seducing loyalty through tactics like rewards of virtual money or “limited edition” perks for keeping up daily “streaks” of use.

“This has been a gift to them — we’ve given them a captive audience: our children,” said Dr. Dimitri Christakis, director of the Center for Child Health, Behavior and Development at Seattle Children’s Research Institute. The cost will be borne by families, Dr. Christakis said, because increased online use is associated with anxiety, depression, obesity and aggression — “and addiction to the medium itself.”

To give the Times an ounce of credit, that quote is immediately followed by an acknowledgement that Christakis’ claims aren’t actually born out by anything other than association metrics. In other words, correlation rather than causation. So why bother even including the quote at all?

To conclude: these are not normal times. An over-indulgence of video games in lieu of other healthy activities is surely not optimal for the health and growth of children. But right now there are severe limits on those other healthy activities. And if some gaming gets children in touch with their friends who they can’t see otherwise, vilifying video games makes zero sense.

Filed Under: journalism, kids, moral panic, pandemic, video games
Companies: ny times

Surprise! Singapore Backtracks On Privacy Pledge And Opens Contact Tracing Data To Police

Privacy

from the making-contact dept

Singapore has a relatively long history when it comes to using modern technology to create a surveillance state within its borders. The monitoring of use of the internet and other digital services goes way back to 2002, sold to the citizenry as both an anti-terrorism bulwark and a tool to keep hate-speech at bay. Of course, though the populace as a whole seemed to take to the government’s use of surveillance for a variety of reasons, Singapore also has a history of clamping down on any speech it simply doesn’t like.

At present, of course, surveillance of populations has increased worldwide, though in the form of contact tracing to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. All sorts of technology and tools have been rolled out to accomplish effective contract tracing, with unfortunately far less emphasis put on securing the data of participants. It should go without saying that if contact tracing is going to be effective, it needs to be widely trusted and adopted. Any breaks in the links of the contact chain render it worthless. Which is probably why Singapore had assured its citizenry, when rolling out its plan for contact tracing using the TraceTogether app, that any data collected from it would be secured and used only for tracing purposes.

In its efforts to ease privacy concerns, the Singapore government had stressed repeatedly that COVID-19 data would “never be accessed unless the user tests positive” for the virus and was contacted by the contact tracing team. Personal data such as unique identification number and mobile number also would be substituted by a random permanent ID and stored on a secured server.

Minister-in-Charge of the Smart Nation Initiative and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Vivian Balakrishnan, also had insisted the TraceTogether token was not a tracking device since it did not contain a GPS chip and could not connect to the internet. He further noted that all TraceTogether data would be encrypted and stored for up to 25 days, after which it would be automatically deleted, adding that the information would be uploaded to the Health Ministry only when an individual tested positive for COVID-19 and this could be carried out only by physically handing over the wearable device to the ministry, Balakrishnan said.

The promises went on, including assurances that a very small number of contact tracers would have access to the data. This, again, was done specifically to increase the adoption in use of the app in order to get the pandemic in Singapore under control. The interests of public health ruled supreme, said the government.

Those interests lasted mere months, however, now that the Singapore government has announced that law enforcement would get access to the data for any number of reasons, including for use in open investigations.

However, the Singapore government now has confirmed local law enforcement will be able to access the data for criminal investigations. Under the Criminal Procedure Code, the Singapore Police Force can obtain any data and this includes TraceTogether data, according to Minister of State for Home Affairs, Desmond Tan. He was responding to a question posed during parliament Monday on whether the TraceTogether data would be used for criminal probes and the safeguards governing the use of such data.

He noted that “authorised police officers” may invoke the Criminal Procedure Code to access TraceTogether data for such purposes as well as for criminal investigation, but this data would, otherwise, be used only for contact tracing and to combat the spread of COVID-19.

It’s hard to imagine any such assurances finding much purchase given the one-eighty the government already performed on its previous promises. Privacy advocates are crying foul, with ProPrivacy’s Ray Walsh noting that the Singapore government appears poised to mandate the use of TraceTogether while also opening that data up to law enforcement, a scenario sure to breed distrust of the app during a global pandemic.

“This is extremely concerning considering that the government is planning to make the use of the TraceTogether app mandatory for all citizens,” he said. “Test and trace systems forced on the general public for the purposes of preventing the spread of the pandemic have no right being used to create an extensive surveillance network, and it is extremely unnerving to see a soon-to-be mandatory app being exploited in this way.”

As Churchill said, “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” One hopes that, when he said it, Churchill didn’t have the creation of a mass surveillance tool excused by a pandemic in mind.

Filed Under: contact tracing, covid, law enforcement, privacy, singapore, surveillance