Monthly Archives: May 2019

How European telcos are monitoring our online activity

The security and privacy of personal data are being jeopardized as Deep Packet Inspection is deployed by internet service providers.
By Katherine Barnett – Europe has not escaped the global move towards ‘surveillance capitalism’. Numerous pieces of legislation are under consideration which put online freedoms and privacy at risk—the UK’s Online Harms white paper is just one example.

The European Digital Rights (EDRi) organization recently discovered that European telcos were monitoring internet connections and traffic through a technique known as Deep Packet Inspection (DPI).

European telcos have so far escaped penalization for their use of DPI, on the grounds that it counts as ‘traffic management’. Under current net-neutrality law, it is technically allowed for purposes of network optimization—but its use for commercial or surveillance purposes is banned.

In January, however, the EDRi produced a report, outlining how as many as 186 European ISPs had been violating this constraint, using DPI to affect the pricing of certain data packages and to slow down internet services running over-capacity. Alongside 45 other NGOs and academics, it is pushing for the use of DPI to be terminated, having sent an open letter to EU authorities warning of the dangers.

Deep Packet Inspection is a method of inspecting traffic sent across a user’s network. It allows an ISP to see the contents of unencrypted data packets and grants it the ability to reroute or block traffic.

Data packets sent over a network are conventionally filtered by examining the ‘header’ of each packet, meaning the content of data traveling over the network remains private. They work like letters, with simple packet filtering allowing ISPs to see only the ‘address’ on the envelope but not the contents.

DPI however gives ISPs the ability to ‘open the envelope’ and view the contents of data packets. It can also be used to block or completely reroute data.

Regulators have so far turned a blind eye to this blatant disregard for net-neutrality law and telcos are pushing for DPI to be fully legalized.

This sparks major concerns about user privacy and security, as DPI renders visible all unencrypted data sent across a user’s connection, allowing ISPs to see browsing activity. more>

A primer on how Chinese law might enforce a US-China trade deal

By Jamie P. Horsley – As recently as early May, optimism ran high that the United States and China were nearing an agreement to resolve their escalating trade dispute. But talks have hit an impasse, with both sides announcing new rounds of tariffs over the past few days.

In an interview on Fox News Sunday, White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow explained that a key point of contention is U.S. insistence that Chinese commitments be “codified by law in China, not just a State Council announcement.” According to Kudlow, the U.S. seeks “very strong enforcement provisions” to correct past Chinese behavior on trade, which he characterized as unfair, nonreciprocal, and sometimes unlawful.

Various U.S. media reported that the Chinese side was averse to the idea of a foreign country dictating Chinese law. Instead, negotiators from Beijing reportedly offered to codify the agreement through regulatory and administrative actions. The standoff raises an important question: If the other substantive issues can be resolved, would an agreement be enforceable even if it falls short of being codified in national laws?

National laws, local regulations, State Council regulations, and rules are all part of what is collectively called “legislation” (lifa). National laws (falü) are adopted by China’s National People’s Congress (NPC) and the NPC Standing Committee pursuant to formal procedures—including public notice and comment—set forth in the Legislation Law.

Similarly, local regulations (difangxing fagui) are adopted by the people’s congress operating in a particular province or autonomous region. State Council regulations (xingzheng fagui), which are legally binding and enforceable, are also governed by the Legislation Law and subject to public comment and other procedures stipulated in State Council implementing regulations (colloquially, the “Rulemaking Regulations”).

The same applies to rules (guizhang), which are promulgated by central departments and local governments. more>

Updates from Siemens

By Maria M – The foundation of smart manufacturing is an integrated platform that unites the domains required to engineer, manufacture and deliver today’s smart products. Smart manufacturing is a digitalized development strategy that is particularly critical for the electronics industry. Today it’s considered a must have and no longer touted as state of the art or nice to have, cost prohibitive, functionality.

Smart manufacturing is for every company, any size large and small and no longer thought to apply only to high volume production. It is in fact the perfect solution for high mix, low volume manufacturers. Providing them with the agility and flexibility they need to be most efficient and adaptable to change.

To take full advantage of smart manufacturing all processes from printed circuit board (PCB) design and factory floor optimization to incorporating customer feedback in new designs must be included. This approach has been shown to reduce time-to-market by up to 50 percent, shrink development costs by as much as 25 percent and enable electronics companies manufacturing processes to yield near-perfect results.

Most electronics manufacturers have digitalized their operations in a piecemeal fashion over time. Their digital landscapes have expanded as the technologies and their business cases have evolved, and manufacturers have applied solutions for a range of individual functions.

To truly reap digitalization’s potential benefits, electronics manufacturers need integrated smart manufacturing solutions that break down the silos. Such solutions use product lifecycle management (PLM) technologies to link design verification, manufacturing planning and process engineering, allied with electronics-specific manufacturing execution systems (MES) that unite production scheduling, production execution, and manufacturing analytics. more>

Related>

The unlikely origins of USB, the port that changed everything

By Joel Johnson – In the olden days, plugging something into your computer—a mouse, a printer, a hard drive—required a zoo of cables.

If you’ve never heard of those things, and if you have, thank USB.

When it was first released in 1996, the idea was right there in the first phrase: Universal Serial Bus. And to be universal, it had to just work. “The technology that we were replacing, like serial ports, parallel ports, the mouse and keyboard ports, they all required a fair amount of software support, and any time you installed a device, it required multiple reboots and sometimes even opening the box,” says Ajay Bhatt, who retired from Intel in 2016. “Our goal was that when you get a device, you plug it in, and it works.”

But it was an initial skeptic that first popularized the standard: in a shock to many geeks in 1998, the Steve Jobs-led Apple released the groundbreaking first iMac as a USB-only machine.

Now a new cable design, Type-C, is creeping in on the typical USB Type-A and Type-B ports on phones, tablets, computers, and other devices—and mercifully, unlike the old USB cable, it’s reversible. The next-generation USB4, coming later this year, will be capable of achieving speeds upwards of 40Gbps, which is over 3,000 times faster than the highest speeds of the very first USB.

Bhatt couldn’t have imagined all of that when, as a young engineer at Intel in the early ’90s, he was simply trying to install a multimedia card. The rest is history, one that Joel Johnson plugged in to with some of the key players. more>

Eight Reasons Why Inequality Ruins the Economy

What matters is not so much the level of inequality as the effect it has.
By Chris Dillow – Roland Benabou gave the example (pdf) of how egalitarian South Korea has done much better than the unequal Philippines. And IMF researchers have found (pdf) a “strong negative relation” between inequality and the rate and duration of subsequent growth spells across 153 countries between 1960 and 2010.

Correlations, of course, are only suggestive. They pose the question: what is the mechanism whereby inequality might reduce growth? Here are eight possibilities:

1. Inequality encourages the rich to invest not innovation but in what Sam Bowles calls “guard labor” (pdf) – means of entrenching their privilege and power. This might involve restrictive copyright laws, ways of overseeing and controlling workers, or the corporate rent-seeking and lobbying that has led to what Brink Lindsey and Steven Teles call the “captured economy.

An especially costly form of this rent-seeking was banks’ lobbying for a “too big to fail” subsidy. This encouraged over-expansion of the banking system and the subsequent crisis, which has had a massively adverse effect upon economic growth.

3. “Economic inequality leads to less trust” say (pdf) Eric Uslaner and Mitchell Brown. And we’ve good evidence that less trust means less growth.

One reason for this is simply that if people don’t trust each other they’ll not enter into transactions where there’s a risk of them being ripped off.

5. Inequality can cause the rich to be fearful of future redistribution or nationalization, which will make them loath to invest. National Grid is belly-aching, maybe rightly, that Labour’s plan to nationalize it will delay investment. But it should instead ask: why is Labour proposing such a thing, and why is it popular? more>

Updates from Chicago Booth

How to react to a colleague’s microaggression
Should you intervene when one coworker is being insensitive toward another?
By Jane L. Risen and George Wu – The fourth installment of our quarterly Business Practice feature invites you to imagine witnessing a slight in a group meeting.

Greg’s request that Becky take notes is commonly termed a microaggression, described by Columbia’s Derald Wing Sue and his coresearchers as “brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative . . . slights and insults.”

The term, as coined by the psychiatrist Chester Pierce, refers to an action that denigrates a racial group; but in this case, Greg’s request can be seen as disparaging Becky and women more generally.

Scholars such as Joan C. Williams of the University of California, Hastings College of the Law have observed that women get “stuck” disproportionately with administrative tasks, such as taking notes, ordering lunch, and scheduling meetings, and research by Carnegie Mellon’s Linda Babcock and Laurie Weingart, Maria P. Recalde of the International Food Policy Research Institute, and Lise Vesterlund of the University of Pittsburgh has found women are more likely to be assigned or volunteer to take on “nonpromotable work.”

Interpersonal conflict is seldom pleasant, and this scenario is especially tricky because Greg may not have meant to slight Becky. A confrontation, particularly a public one in front of other product managers, could therefore lead Greg to be defensive.

Finally, the situation is complex strategically: Should you speak to Greg now or later?

Is a subtle approach or a more direct confrontation appropriate?

Should you talk about the specific behavior or provoke a larger conversation about culture and norms? more>

Related>

Updates from Ciena

Learn about the technology behind Ciena’s WaveLogic 5
By Kacie Levy – If you are like me your to-do lists get longer every day, so finding the time to stay up-to-date on industry trends can be a challenge. Which is why we created Ciena’s Chalk Talk Video series. These videos provide an opportunity for you to spend a few minutes with our experts and learn more about the future of networking.

We recently introduced Ciena’s WaveLogic 5 to the market, our next-gen 800G-capable coherent optical chipset, which includes two distinct solutions to address the divergent requirements network operators and Internet Content Providers are encountering:

  • WaveLogic 5 Extreme: will deliver 800G of capacity over a single wavelength with tunable capacity from 200G, supports customers who need maximum capacity and performance from their networks.
  • WaveLogic 5 Nano: will deliver the strength of Ciena’s coherent optical technology and expertise in footprint-optimized 100G-400G solutions, targeting applications where space and power are the primary considerations.

As Ciena’s Scott McFeely said during the unveiling, there was a lot to unpack in the announcement.

So, in the Chalk Talk Videos below Joe Shapiro, the product manager responsible for Ciena’s WaveLogic Coherent solutions, provides an overview of what each WaveLogic 5 solution is, key technological features, and the benefits of these important solutions. more>

Related>

The free market is not the answer

By Jochen Steinhilber – We are discussing the digital transformation, which will profoundly change how we live, work and participate in politics and society in the decades to come.

The political and social significance of digital networking, smart factories and big data depends on how technology is used. It can deepen social inequalities and cement domination and profit maximization, or it can improve working and living conditions and facilitate participation. That is why digitalization needs political direction and should be based on social agreements.

But how can this be achieved without, for example, bringing those companies under tighter democratic control that, for many years, have been engaged in secret negotiations on international trade policy to ‘protect’ the digital and services agenda from all state intervention for years to come?

Also, those who will rightly champion the ecological transformation in the coming years and want to pursue it in a maximally inclusive way will have to ask themselves how this can be achieved under the current relations of power between the economy, politics and democracy—especially under lower growth rates that allow less space for redistribution.

Anyone who now claims that, considering the challenges of climate protection, a debate on economic democracy is a diversionary tactic and at best of theoretical rather than political interest, ignores the fact that the important strategic decisions must be taken at the economic level.

Do we really want to leave crucial questions—where can growth continue because it serves the common good? what must be dismantled because it is ecologically and socially harmful? and who pays for the change?—for the most part to the dominant market players?

And finally, the frequently-invoked crisis of democracy at least suggests that we need to rethink how the economy works. more>

Why no-platforming is sometimes a justifiable position

By Neil Levy – The discussion over no-platforming is often presented as a debate between proponents of free speech, who think that the only appropriate response to bad speech is more speech, and those who think that speech can be harmful. I think this way of framing the debate is only half-right. Advocates of open speech emphasize evidence, but they overlook the ways in which the provision of a platform itself provides evidence.

No-platforming is when a person is prevented from contributing to a public debate, either through policy or protest, on the grounds that their beliefs are dangerous or unacceptable.

Open-speech advocates highlight what we might call first-order evidence: evidence for and against the arguments that the speakers make. But they overlook higher-order evidence.

Higher-order evidence is evidence about how beliefs were formed. We often moderate our confidence in our beliefs in the light of higher-order evidence. For instance, you might find the arguments in favor Continue reading

Updates from Chicago Booth

Trade policy is upending markets—but not investment
By Steven J. Davis – Trade-policy concerns became a major source of US stock market volatility in 2018. For example, the S&P 500 fell 2.5 percent on March 22, 2018, reacting to news about just-announced US tariffs on tens of billions of dollars of Chinese imports. Four days later, the index rose 2.7 percent on news the United States and China had begun trade negotiations. Still, tariffs and tariff threats between the two countries ratcheted upward over the next several months.

This prominence marks a striking change, as demonstrated in my research with Northwestern’s Scott R. Baker, Northwestern PhD candidate Marco Sammon, and Stanford’s Nicholas Bloom. We took a systematic look at the role of trade-policy developments and other news in large daily stock market moves. We first identified every daily move of 2.5 percent or more, up or down, in the US stock market. By this criterion, there were 1,112 large daily moves from 1900 to the end of 2018.

For each large move, we read next-day news articles in the Wall Street Journal to classify perceptions of what moved the market. The WSJ attributed seven of 1,103 large moves from 1900 to 2017 mainly to news about trade policy. But in a remarkable turnabout, the newspaper attributed three of nine large moves in 2018 to trade-policy news. From a historical perspective, the prominent role of trade policy in recent US stock market swings is highly unusual.

The highly visible US–China dispute is only one of the heightened trade-policy concerns behind the pattern we chart. The US has also become enmeshed in trade-policy disputes with several other major trading partners since Donald Trump became president.

How much do these heightened concerns affect capital-investment expenditures by US businesses? Not as much as you might think. more>

Related>