|
AlanWongFirstPaper 4 - 12 May 2016 - Main.AlanWong
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
The Sharing Economy and Our Privacy
-- By AlanWong - 05 Mar 2016 | |
<
< | Within recent years, consumers have witnessed and quickly adapted to the rise of the “sharing economy.” This phenomenon to the global economy can be best explained by listing some of the most prominent examples: Airbnb, Lyft, and Uber. These companies act as a sort of middleman by providing the technological platform, empowered by the internet and smartphones, that connects prospective consumers with nearby service providers. As the middleman and proprietor of the platform, sharing economy companies are able to collect a wealth of information about a specific industry and consumers on a global scale. At the same time, consumers have started to become aware of and concerned about intrusions into their technological privacy by entities such as the government, as evidenced by the ongoing fight between Apple and the FBI. Unfortunately, two previous incidents should warn consumers against assuming privacy and safety when dealing with sharing economies. | >
> | Within recent years, consumers have witnessed and quickly adapted to the rise of the “sharing economy.” This term is used to describe a recent trend in the global economy, where new technology companies create a service or platform that connects customers with independent service providers. For example, Uber and Lyft connects commuters with drivers, and Airbnb connects travelers with lodge providers. Similar applications have been created for other areas such as grocery deliveries, car rentals, and housekeeping. Instead of facilitating connections with traditional companies like taxis and hotels, the sharing economy purports to allow the common layperson to become a proprietor by utilizing already owned items such as their cars or houses. This trend has been greatly embraced by consumers, with some of these sharing economy companies being valued at over a billion dollars. In embracing these new technologies and companies, both consumers and market participants are unknowingly volunteering a wealth of information that could potentially be misused. This information can include personal interests, physical location and tracking, and ownership of certain items. The two below examples show that this information can be abused by both the company and also accessed and potentially abused by government entities. | | | Uber and the “God View” Incident | | | Within the previous example, the New York Attorney General was able to secure a settlement that advances privacy protections for consumers. On the other hand, state attorney generals may also be empowered to obtain and examine the wealth of information collected by sharing economy companies to identify potential lawbreaking. In 2013, the New York Attorney General initiated an investigation into Airbnb to determine whether hosts in New York City were violating the Multiple Dwelling Law and circumventing a hotel tax. See Airbnb, Inc. v. Schneiderman, 44 Misc. 3d 351, 356 (Sup. Ct. 2014). As part of this investigation, the Attorney General issued a subpoena that would require Airbnb to supply a spreadsheet that would include information on all New York City hosts, their listings, and their gross revenue. Id. at 354. After a lengthy legal battle, Airbnb agreed to relinquish this information with the one concession that the information was anonymized. | |
<
< | With this information in hand, the Attorney General released a comprehensive report in October of 2014. Despite the information being anonymized, the report’s methodology shows that officials were able to nevertheless reach a very high level of specificity for the majority of listings:
"NYAG also conducted a second-level analysis of the Reviewed Transactions using New York City’s Geosupport Desktop Edition. By geo-locating the building addresses associated with the 35,354 unique units in the Data, NYAG identified the unique Borough, Block, and Lot (“BBL”) identification number for all but 3,138 unique units. The BBL numbers allowed NYAG to search for the units in the Primary Land Use Tax Lot Output (“PLUTO”) database, which identifies the type of building for zoning purposes." | >
> | With this information in hand, the Attorney General released a comprehensive report in October of 2014. Despite the information being anonymized, the report’s methodology shows that officials were able to nevertheless reach a very high level of specificity for the majority of listings through the use of available government databases. | | | The report is then able to release information that demonstrates that a large majority of New York City Airbnb listings violate the law and are in fact illegal hotels. During this investigation period, more than a hundred New York hosts were upset to learn that Airbnb would be handing over information about them to the New York Attorney General unless prevented by a court. | |
<
< | This incident is an illuminating illustration of the power that the state wields in obtaining private information from a private company. While much more could be written on this subject, this immense power is derived from a concept known as the “Civil Investigative Demand” which essentially grants a state attorney general the power to engage in various discovery powers to uncover wrongdoing without the need for a pending trial or official complaint. See e.g., Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 93A, § 6. Furthermore, this demonstrates the sophistication and ability that state officials possess to analyze data even after it has been supposedly safeguarded by anonymizing the information. | >
> | This incident is an illuminating illustration of the power that the state wields in obtaining private information from a private company. Furthermore, this demonstrates the sophistication and ability that state officials possess to analyze data even after it has been supposedly safeguarded by anonymizing the information. | | | Conclusion | |
<
< | The rise of the sharing economy has been a boon for consumers as it creates more affordable choices. However, consumers are also entrusting a massive amount of trust to these sharing economy companies to protect their privacy. As the incidents with Uber and Airbnb demonstrate, consumers should not be so trusting of such companies. Companies, such as Uber, may show an internal disregard for everyone’s information that could prove dangerous if leaked. The Airbnb investigation warns consumers that the state has numerous powers that would allow it to legally access such information.
I don't understand what the definition of the "sharing economy" is
here. If you had been writing about free software, creative
commons, the "user-generated content" approach to media
construction, bittorrent uses of bandwidth, etc., I would be able to
locate the "sharing." Here you are not even talking about
disintermediation, but rather forms of new intermediation for
selling transport and short-term lodging services while undermining regulated
markets. If there is sharing as opposed to owning going on, the
essay does not identify what it is.
Privacy, on the other hand, the essay is about, but it's not clear
what, on this subject, the point is. Uber is a system of sensors,
operated by owners who pay for the sensing gear and 35% of their
operating revenue, in order to produce vast quantities of real-time
location data (the most valuable personal information there is,
right now) for an unscrupulous operator. But you describe only one
small, not particularly important, aspect of the consequences of
this business, and one administrative measure involved in that
peripheral aspect of the service's "business model." Joined to a
quite run-of-the-mill administrative subpoena for business records
of an intermediary for unregulated lodging services, the only common
point we can say the essay conveys is "you should be careful about
your data." This is true, but not exactly worth all the words spent
getting there.
The routes to improvement seem to me to be:
- Deciding whether the "sharing economy" is part of the subject, and if so writing about it; and
- Distilling the point you want to make about privacy into a brief statement of thesis, and putting that proposition at the front of the essay. You can then explicate that thesis, using these two and perhaps other brief illustrations in the body of the essay, setting up a conclusion in which you go beyond the thesis from which you began, to ask a question or offer a consequence that the reader can explore on her own.
| >
> | The rise of the sharing economy has been a boon for consumers as it creates more affordable choices. However, consumers are also entrusting a massive amount of trust to these sharing economy companies to protect their privacy. As the incidents with Uber and Airbnb demonstrate, consumers should not be so trusting of such companies. As seen within the Uber example, a company can gain an immense amount of information about consumers, which can be misused by the company. The Airbnb example is important because it demonstrates that such collected information is not beyond the reach of government. Even when such information is anonymized, the state has already shown that it is nevertheless able to narrow this information down with startling specificity. What happens if a government entity one day seeks to obtain all of Uber’s data for a certain location known to sell drugs in an attempt to locate potential purchasers? Sharing economy companies need to prove that they are protecting the information we provide as we utilize their services from both internal and governmental abuse | | | | |
<
< | -- AlanWong - 05 Mar 2016 | >
> | -- AlanWong - 12 May 2016 | | | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|
AlanWongFirstPaper 3 - 11 May 2016 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
The Sharing Economy and Our Privacy | | | The rise of the sharing economy has been a boon for consumers as it creates more affordable choices. However, consumers are also entrusting a massive amount of trust to these sharing economy companies to protect their privacy. As the incidents with Uber and Airbnb demonstrate, consumers should not be so trusting of such companies. Companies, such as Uber, may show an internal disregard for everyone’s information that could prove dangerous if leaked. The Airbnb investigation warns consumers that the state has numerous powers that would allow it to legally access such information. | |
>
> |
I don't understand what the definition of the "sharing economy" is
here. If you had been writing about free software, creative
commons, the "user-generated content" approach to media
construction, bittorrent uses of bandwidth, etc., I would be able to
locate the "sharing." Here you are not even talking about
disintermediation, but rather forms of new intermediation for
selling transport and short-term lodging services while undermining regulated
markets. If there is sharing as opposed to owning going on, the
essay does not identify what it is.
Privacy, on the other hand, the essay is about, but it's not clear
what, on this subject, the point is. Uber is a system of sensors,
operated by owners who pay for the sensing gear and 35% of their
operating revenue, in order to produce vast quantities of real-time
location data (the most valuable personal information there is,
right now) for an unscrupulous operator. But you describe only one
small, not particularly important, aspect of the consequences of
this business, and one administrative measure involved in that
peripheral aspect of the service's "business model." Joined to a
quite run-of-the-mill administrative subpoena for business records
of an intermediary for unregulated lodging services, the only common
point we can say the essay conveys is "you should be careful about
your data." This is true, but not exactly worth all the words spent
getting there.
The routes to improvement seem to me to be:
- Deciding whether the "sharing economy" is part of the subject, and if so writing about it; and
- Distilling the point you want to make about privacy into a brief statement of thesis, and putting that proposition at the front of the essay. You can then explicate that thesis, using these two and perhaps other brief illustrations in the body of the essay, setting up a conclusion in which you go beyond the thesis from which you began, to ask a question or offer a consequence that the reader can explore on her own.
| | | -- AlanWong - 05 Mar 2016
\ No newline at end of file |
|
|
AlanWongFirstPaper 2 - 05 Mar 2016 - Main.AlanWong
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| |
>
> | The Sharing Economy and Our Privacy | | | | |
<
< | It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | >
> | -- By AlanWong - 05 Mar 2016 | | | | |
<
< | Paper Title | >
> | Within recent years, consumers have witnessed and quickly adapted to the rise of the “sharing economy.” This phenomenon to the global economy can be best explained by listing some of the most prominent examples: Airbnb, Lyft, and Uber. These companies act as a sort of middleman by providing the technological platform, empowered by the internet and smartphones, that connects prospective consumers with nearby service providers. As the middleman and proprietor of the platform, sharing economy companies are able to collect a wealth of information about a specific industry and consumers on a global scale. At the same time, consumers have started to become aware of and concerned about intrusions into their technological privacy by entities such as the government, as evidenced by the ongoing fight between Apple and the FBI. Unfortunately, two previous incidents should warn consumers against assuming privacy and safety when dealing with sharing economies. | | | | |
<
< | -- By AlanWong - 02 Mar 2016 | >
> | Uber and the “God View” Incident | | | | |
>
> | In late 2014, the world learned that Uber allowed its employees to track its customers and view their travel logs through an internal application known as “God View.” . As part of this controversy, it was revealed that an Uber executive had tracked a journalist without permission and that the application was used to track customers during Uber’s Chicago launch party. It would take more than a year for corrective action to occur in January of 2016. Uber recently reached a settlement with the New York State Attorney General that included a paltry $20,000 fine, a commitment to encrypt and password protect geolocation data, and to limit access to the “God View” application. | | | | |
<
< | Section I | >
> | While this settlement provides needed privacy protections for consumers, one wonders why such actions only occurred after the controversy and subsequent settlement with the New York Attorney General. While the origin date of the “God View” app is unknown, one could assume that it was used for quite some time before it was revealed to the general public. Furthermore, it may also be assumed that privacy safeguards such as encryption and limited access were not in place for the year before the settlement. Consumers should be incredibly wary of entrusting their privacy, which includes travel information, geolocation tracking, and payment information to a company that has demonstrated a cavalier and reckless disregard for protecting such information. While there have not been any known breaches and access to such information, one can never eliminate that such a breach has been undertaken by either hackers or government spying entities. Finally, Uber was the victim of a data breach in May 2014 where the names and license plates of possibly 50,000 of its drivers were downloaded. | | | | |
<
< | Subsection A | >
> | Airbnb’s Settlement with the New York Attorney General | | | | |
>
> | Within the previous example, the New York Attorney General was able to secure a settlement that advances privacy protections for consumers. On the other hand, state attorney generals may also be empowered to obtain and examine the wealth of information collected by sharing economy companies to identify potential lawbreaking. In 2013, the New York Attorney General initiated an investigation into Airbnb to determine whether hosts in New York City were violating the Multiple Dwelling Law and circumventing a hotel tax. See Airbnb, Inc. v. Schneiderman, 44 Misc. 3d 351, 356 (Sup. Ct. 2014). As part of this investigation, the Attorney General issued a subpoena that would require Airbnb to supply a spreadsheet that would include information on all New York City hosts, their listings, and their gross revenue. Id. at 354. After a lengthy legal battle, Airbnb agreed to relinquish this information with the one concession that the information was anonymized. | | | | |
<
< | Subsub 1 | >
> | With this information in hand, the Attorney General released a comprehensive report in October of 2014. Despite the information being anonymized, the report’s methodology shows that officials were able to nevertheless reach a very high level of specificity for the majority of listings: | | | | |
<
< | Subsection B | >
> | "NYAG also conducted a second-level analysis of the Reviewed Transactions using New York City’s Geosupport Desktop Edition. By geo-locating the building addresses associated with the 35,354 unique units in the Data, NYAG identified the unique Borough, Block, and Lot (“BBL”) identification number for all but 3,138 unique units. The BBL numbers allowed NYAG to search for the units in the Primary Land Use Tax Lot Output (“PLUTO”) database, which identifies the type of building for zoning purposes." | | | | |
>
> | The report is then able to release information that demonstrates that a large majority of New York City Airbnb listings violate the law and are in fact illegal hotels. During this investigation period, more than a hundred New York hosts were upset to learn that Airbnb would be handing over information about them to the New York Attorney General unless prevented by a court. | | | | |
<
< | Subsub 1 | >
> | This incident is an illuminating illustration of the power that the state wields in obtaining private information from a private company. While much more could be written on this subject, this immense power is derived from a concept known as the “Civil Investigative Demand” which essentially grants a state attorney general the power to engage in various discovery powers to uncover wrongdoing without the need for a pending trial or official complaint. See e.g., Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 93A, § 6. Furthermore, this demonstrates the sophistication and ability that state officials possess to analyze data even after it has been supposedly safeguarded by anonymizing the information. | | | | |
>
> | Conclusion | | | | |
<
< | Subsub 2 | >
> | The rise of the sharing economy has been a boon for consumers as it creates more affordable choices. However, consumers are also entrusting a massive amount of trust to these sharing economy companies to protect their privacy. As the incidents with Uber and Airbnb demonstrate, consumers should not be so trusting of such companies. Companies, such as Uber, may show an internal disregard for everyone’s information that could prove dangerous if leaked. The Airbnb investigation warns consumers that the state has numerous powers that would allow it to legally access such information. | | | | |
<
< |
Section II
Subsection A
Subsection B
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list. | | | \ No newline at end of file | |
>
> | -- AlanWong - 05 Mar 2016 | | | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|
AlanWongFirstPaper 1 - 02 Mar 2016 - Main.AlanWong
|
|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted.
Paper Title
-- By AlanWong - 02 Mar 2016
Section I
Subsection A
Subsub 1
Subsection B
Subsub 1
Subsub 2
Section II
Subsection A
Subsection B
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list. |
|
| Revision 4 | r4 - 12 May 2016 - 14:35:09 - AlanWong |
| Revision 3 | r3 - 11 May 2016 - 21:01:28 - EbenMoglen |
| Revision 2 | r2 - 05 Mar 2016 - 18:21:42 - AlanWong |
| Revision 1 | r1 - 02 Mar 2016 - 19:16:50 - AlanWong |
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|