#tech reporting

It can be proven if you bother to put thirty minutes’ work.

Always good to read a post by Nick Heer.

This week, several Australian news organisations reported a world-first initiative between Facebook and the Missing Persons Advocacy Network (MPAN) to use facial recognition technology to help locate missing persons. The initiative involves Facebook users adding the profiles of ten missing persons, set up by police, to their list of “friends” on Facebook. Ultimately, it is hoped that  Facebook’s facial recognition technology will “tag” the faces of these missing persons if they appear in the background of any photos or videos uploaded to the site. Facebook’s system automatically “tags” the name of any person from a user’s list of “friends” whose face it recognises in a photo or video. In this way, the location of a missing person could potentially be narrowed down if their face happens to be “tagged” in a particular location.

Overall, news reports about the MPAN’s strategy were supportive of this initiative, and none of the stories that I encountered identified that there were any potential drawbacks or ethical concerns about the strategy.

However, there are a number of serious questions that should be raised about the ethics and potential danger of publicly identifying missing people without their consent.

Moreover, this failure by journalists in the mainstream media to acknowledge potentially serious repercussions of this initiative by the MPAN raises important questions about whether the mainstream media have a responsibility to address any ethical concerns involved in an issue they are reporting. Arguably, it is a journalist’s job to provide an accurate account of an issue, and provide balanced reporting, by addressing any ethical concerns or drawbacks of the topic they are reporting on. This becomes particularly important when a story involves the use of technology which will have a direct impact on people’s lives.

In the case of using Facebook’s facial recognition technology to potentially identify and locate missing persons, there are several ethical and safety concerns with this proposal. Yet, none of the television, radio, or online news reports that I encountered acknowledged drawbacks or potential safety issues that could arise from this initiative.

At the heart of the MPAN’s initiative is the assumption that the people who are the subject of these missing persons profiles did not go missing voluntarily, and that they therefore wish to be found by those searching for them. This assumption is deeply flawed, however, and potentially unethical, as there are several legitimate reasons why one may decide to “disappear”.

Consider a person fleeing domestic violence, for whom the only viable way out seems to be going into hiding or packing up and starting a new life, potentially with a new identity. Others might have left abusive family environments, or have become involved with dangerous groups from which they are trying to escape. There are also people who go to great lengths to change or hide their identity, having previously witnessed a serious crime. Each of these scenarios puts forth compelling reasons for missing persons not wanting to be “found”. Furthermore, the unwanted identification of these people by Facebook’s facial recognition technology may actually pose a serious threat to their safety.

It is important also to remember that being a missing person is not a crime, and that as hard as it might be for the loved ones left behind, there are sometimes significant reasons why a person chooses to go missing.

The question of whether it is ethical and appropriate to harness new technology and, despite having the best of intentions, apply it to an individual without their consent, is complex and requires a detailed examination of the pros and cons. In the case of using facial recognition technology to locate missing persons, however, news reports failed to acknowledge or explore any of the cons associated with this issue.

While it is always difficult to provide a detailed analysis of issues in a 60 second news clip or 500 word news article, such challenges do not absolve journalists of their responsibilities to provide balanced reporting. In this instance, a simple acknowledgement along the lines of, “experts say that there could be privacy and safety concerns associated with this development“, would at least point out to the audience that there are some drawbacks to the issue, and hence provide a balanced assessment of it. Failure to acknowledge or point to any potential downsides, however, leads the audience to the conclusion that the MPAN’s initiative is a positive step, and that there are no potentially negative repercussions.

At a time when there is ongoing public debate about the use and misuse of users’ online data by third parties (such as the Cambridge Analytica revelations), it is vital that journalists draw attention to any potential repercussions of using technology and data to target individuals. It is this failure by the media to thoroughly examine the implications of companies using “big data” for advertising and other commercial purposes that has contributed to companies like Cambridge Analytica flourishing.

Balanced news reporting of the potential ethical repercussions of technological developments is crucial to creating an informed community of internet users. As we have seen with the Cambridge Analytica revelations, mass user backlash against unethical data practices such as those undertaken by Facebook creates pressure on corporations to improve conditions for users overall. However, this is only possible once the public is sufficiently aware of these unethical activities, as was the case when the Guardian published the Cambridge Analytica stories in March 2018.  

The Wall Street Journal recently made a small change in its format that reflected a big transformation in the world of business. The newspaper re-branded its venerable “Marketplace” section as “Business & Tech,” a move much more substantive than those of earlier days when other papers refashioned their “Women’s Section” as “Living” or “Movies” as “Entertainment.” The Journal’s business editor, Dennis Berman, suggested the new banner affirms an expanding trend, observing:

"It reflects the fact that every business is a technology business, whether it's farming or mining or consumer packaged goods or travel. Tech is permeating every industry."

The tech that Berman is talking about goes beyond automated machines, assembly and all the other more traditional business technologies that emerged in the 20th century. He’s acknowledging that what we used to call “high tech” is now the norm in every business. It’s digitally dominant, Internet-driven, massively connected technology that is changing every aspect of business operations.

I would go further, in fact, and argue that every business is or soon will be a consumer-technology business. Certainly business-to-business marketing and commerce will remain critical to our economy, but increasingly it’s being carried out with technology originally designed for consumers.  

In a new white paper called Bye-Bye to B2B, I contend that the growing convergence of consumer technology with every aspect of life and business is rapidly making the distinction between B2C and B2B technology irrelevant. When we market to businesses today, we’re marketing to consumers within the business who rely on consumer tech.

Offices, labs, plants and warehouses bristle with B2C devices, software and networks, from iPhones and iPads to mapping and video apps.

“Bring your own device” has become a policy for employees in many companies; Gen Y workers trust their personal mobile devices and clouds far more than their company’s computers and clouds.

Corporate customer service departments are intently focused on Twitter, Facebook and other social media to track and respond to complaints.

Look around your own office; you’re certain to see many more ways consumer tech is directly impacting your processes and your products.

This new business landscape demands new marketing methods, using technology in smart ways to reach tech-savvy audiences. Marketers must develop an understanding of technology to be able to compete effectively in a world where the first definition of IP no longer is “instrument panel” or “intellectual property.”

Airfoil has helped shape the tech PR and marketing profession throughout this 21st century. This year we’re celebrating our 15th anniversary, a milestone on a course that has taken many sharp turns at breakneck speeds. When we founded Airfoil as a tech PR firm in 2000, the nation was riding high atop the tech bubble, which burst just months later. Yet, Airfoil remained aloft and continued to rise while many other tech agencies dropped from sight. Over the years, we’ve earned the confidence of many of the world’s most noted brands that sought to gain a foothold among traditional businesses and consumers, as well as U.S. and European brands seeking to open new local and national markets.

In more recent years, it’s been gratifying to note that a wide array of businesses not generally considered to be rooted in tech have sought and benefited from Airfoil’s insights, analysis and market engagement. That’s because, as the Wall Street Journal has recognized, all businesses today are tech businesses. Companies that we wouldn’t immediately consider to be part of the tech sector–Starbucks, Brookstone, Walsh College, Thomson Reuters and Armaly Brands (which markets Brillo products, among others)—have joined our client list alongside more traditionally tech businesses, like Microsoft, Altair, Faurecia, Creditera, Parrot, eBay Motors and Comcast. They’re all tech companies now, and they’re all driven by consumer tech that is pulling more B2C technology than ever into their business operations.

What the Heck is Happening to Windows? | Windows 8 content from Paul Thurrott’s SuperSite for Windows

When I wrote for a magazine about Windows use in corporate America, Thurrott seemed to be very well informed Microsoft cheerleader. To see him write a column this scathing is a bit surprising.

I closely followed what Walt Mossberg and Kara Swisher had to say during their years as tech reporters for The Wall Street Journal, but it wasn’t until January 1st that I felt I really “got” them. They announced the launch of their new tech website, Re/code, and in doing so revealed something incredibly intimate about themselves: they’re entrepreneurs, just like me. And just like many of you.

Coverage of Mossberg and Swisher’s split with WSJ – and their new venture – has been significant. They’ve gone on record as saying that Re/code is going to reimagine tech news as we know it, as well as allow them to “reinvent” themselves. As two of the nation's most daring tech journalists, each with sky high brand equity, I’m fascinated by this desire to begin anew. Not only because it reflects the drive for change shared by Airfoil and our clients, but also because it signals how we might move forward working with this new media entity.

I can only speculate so much, for Re/code – now only in its infancy – has so far handled news in a way that’s reminiscent of AllThingsD (the property the 2 helmed for WSJ). The new era of Mossberg & Swisher has yet to fully realize itself. But if Re/code ultimately proves to be a new journalistic model for the digital age, I can make some early educated guesses about what this reinvention could mean for our work here:

New spirit, same people = controlled risks. The entire staff of AllThingsD followed Mossberg and Swisher to Re/code. This means that we can start fresh with people we already know – it’s a best-case scenario. Media with whom we’re already connected, telling us that they’re expanding who they are and how they cover the news? Sounds like an open invitation for creative pitches, for brainstorming, or – at a minimum – reaching out and saying, “Tell me more about what you’re doing there, and how I can help you.”

It’s a serious chance to show our stories.  Per Mossberg,“…we will be able to finally have added resources, so we can grow in new and exciting ways, including hiring more journalists and doing much more video.”  It’s a reference to a content partnership Revere Digital, Mossberg and Swisher’s holding company, has entered into with NBC Universal News Group properties, including TV networks such as NBC, CNBC and MSNBC.  Everything Re/code covers online has the potential for a broadcast extension, so our teams should always think in terms of multimedia content when storytelling with these folks.

Their events will still matter. A lot. In fact, it’s going to be very interesting to see how these events evolve under the Re/code brand.  AllThingsD was originally launched as a series of conferences on business and technology, and although WSJ appears ready to abandon the ATD brand, it is still holding a signature tech event in October. So, Re/code’s conferences – the first event happening  May 27 - 29 near Los Angeles – present new marketing opportunities in both quantity and quality.  It’s entirely possible that we end up with 2 sets of competitive events from Re/code and WSJD (the new Wall Street Journal Digital) unlike anything we’ve seen prior – each media property has an urgent and vested interest in separating itself from the legacy of AllThingsD conferences (as successful as they were).

The earliest known example of crappy, shallow tech reporting:

This week Bell Labs plans to roll out the Telephone, the first viable Telegraph alternative, but reports indicate they may not be ready. Many of the rollers are said to be jammed and the Telephone might have to be carried out instead. For agreeing to help lift the contraption, we have been given exclusive access to what experts are already calling "a device which emits sound and is not filled with bees."