Strong legislation on the way Will 2022 be the beginning of the decline from the top for major technology companies? Strong legislation on the way Will 2022 be the beginning of the decline from the top for major technology companies?

Strong legislation on the way Will 2022 be the beginning of the decline from the top for major technology companies?

Strong legislation on the way Will 2022 be the beginning of the decline from the top for major technology companies?  Major technology companies have been subject to a number of fines and legislative orders during the past period, but they have not had a significant impact on the companies' regulatory or financial position. But talking now for the first time about strict laws coming in the way could have a fundamental impact.  According to an article published by the Wall Street Journal, new laws under study in Europe, Asia and the United States could place severe restrictions on how big tech companies deal with small competitors and restrict their use of artificial intelligence such as facial recognition.  Executives and analysts say some of the proposals would ban common practices such as giving companies a preference for their products, which could have a significant impact on competitors, for example preventing Google from showing its products in the first positions in search.  Meanwhile, regulators worldwide are conducting dozens of competition and privacy investigations that could lead to more than just the tech giants' quick infractions.  According to regulators and executives, there are orders or compromises that can cut off transatlantic data flows, disrupt some types of digital advertising, delay major product changes, or impose ongoing oversight of activities.  Facebook of Meta Platforms said last November that it would partly shut down its facial recognition system due to potential regulations.  Difficulty earning money To be sure, regulation has so far had little effect on the status of Silicon Valley's big tech companies, where 5 of the world's biggest tech companies have a market capitalization of $9.31 trillion, nearly 4 times their market value 5 years ago.  But that could change, as the new wave of scrutiny has already made it difficult for these companies to make money from acquisitions, says Mark Mahaney, head of internet research at Evercore Inc's research arm.  The UK Competition and Markets Authority has asked Facebook to halt its purchase of motion picture company Giphy, saying the acquisition would limit competition between UK platforms and advertisers. Facebook says the deal benefits consumers, and it has appealed the ruling.  “There is definitely a sense of new momentum” to regulation, says Sinead McSweeney, global vice president of public policy at Twitter, noting that in recent weeks the company has had to implement new legislative requirements in at least six countries.  Alphabet's Google subsidiary has agreed to work closely with the Competition and Markets Authority on its plan to remove cookies that track online activity from the Chrome browser.  Google executives are now looking at how to raise new appeals against the decision to remove content on the YouTube video service, and reshape how it handles user and partner information internally, says Kent Walker, senior vice president of global affairs.  "There's a lot on the table right now," Walker says. "It's a tough exercise because - in many cases - compliance requests are short, and we really have to start preparing now for the rules before the ink dries."  Tech companies say they agree their industry needs new regulation, but are resisting some specific proposals, in part because of the impact they could have.  Some tech executives, such as Ms. McSweeney of Twitter, say they are concerned that requirements in the proposed online content rules may encourage companies to remove only content they disagree with, restricting freedom of expression.  What effect? Advocates of more regulation worry that big tech companies may emerge unscathed from the latest wave of new laws and regulations.  Gabriel Weinberg, founder and CEO of DuckDuckGo, a privacy-focused search engine, says 3 EU antitrust decisions against Google, and fines of more than $9 billion, have done little to change the first search site. In the market.  Now Weinberg is concerned that policymakers are focusing more on passing laws than on making sure regulators have the know-how and tools to properly implement the new requirements.  "I am very optimistic," says Mr. Weinberg. "But it seems that the devil is in the details of actually managing the market."  In return, policy makers assert that they are confident that they can make it work. Cedric O, France's junior minister for digital affairs, which holds the presidency of the Council of EU member states for the first half of this year, says he is confident the EU can pass effective laws and they should seize the momentum.

Strong legislation on the way Will 2022 be the beginning of the decline from the top for major technology companies?


Major technology companies have been subject to a number of fines and legislative orders during the past period, but they have not had a significant impact on the companies' regulatory or financial position. But talking now for the first time about strict laws coming in the way could have a fundamental impact.

According to an article published by the Wall Street Journal, new laws under study in Europe, Asia and the United States could place severe restrictions on how big tech companies deal with small competitors and restrict their use of artificial intelligence such as facial recognition.

Executives and analysts say some of the proposals would ban common practices such as giving companies a preference for their products, which could have a significant impact on competitors, for example preventing Google from showing its products in the first positions in search.

Meanwhile, regulators worldwide are conducting dozens of competition and privacy investigations that could lead to more than just the tech giants' quick infractions.

According to regulators and executives, there are orders or compromises that can cut off transatlantic data flows, disrupt some types of digital advertising, delay major product changes, or impose ongoing oversight of activities.

Facebook of Meta Platforms said last November that it would partly shut down its facial recognition system due to potential regulations.

Difficulty earning money
To be sure, regulation has so far had little effect on the status of Silicon Valley's big tech companies, where 5 of the world's biggest tech companies have a market capitalization of $9.31 trillion, nearly 4 times their market value 5 years ago.

But that could change, as the new wave of scrutiny has already made it difficult for these companies to make money from acquisitions, says Mark Mahaney, head of internet research at Evercore Inc's research arm.

The UK Competition and Markets Authority has asked Facebook to halt its purchase of motion picture company Giphy, saying the acquisition would limit competition between UK platforms and advertisers. Facebook says the deal benefits consumers, and it has appealed the ruling.

“There is definitely a sense of new momentum” to regulation, says Sinead McSweeney, global vice president of public policy at Twitter, noting that in recent weeks the company has had to implement new legislative requirements in at least six countries.

Alphabet's Google subsidiary has agreed to work closely with the Competition and Markets Authority on its plan to remove cookies that track online activity from the Chrome browser.

Google executives are now looking at how to raise new appeals against the decision to remove content on the YouTube video service, and reshape how it handles user and partner information internally, says Kent Walker, senior vice president of global affairs.

"There's a lot on the table right now," Walker says. "It's a tough exercise because - in many cases - compliance requests are short, and we really have to start preparing now for the rules before the ink dries."

Tech companies say they agree their industry needs new regulation, but are resisting some specific proposals, in part because of the impact they could have.

Some tech executives, such as Ms. McSweeney of Twitter, say they are concerned that requirements in the proposed online content rules may encourage companies to remove only content they disagree with, restricting freedom of expression.

What effect?
Advocates of more regulation worry that big tech companies may emerge unscathed from the latest wave of new laws and regulations.

Gabriel Weinberg, founder and CEO of DuckDuckGo, a privacy-focused search engine, says 3 EU antitrust decisions against Google, and fines of more than $9 billion, have done little to change the first search site. In the market.

Now Weinberg is concerned that policymakers are focusing more on passing laws than on making sure regulators have the know-how and tools to properly implement the new requirements.

"I am very optimistic," says Mr. Weinberg. "But it seems that the devil is in the details of actually managing the market."

In return, policy makers assert that they are confident that they can make it work. Cedric O, France's junior minister for digital affairs, which holds the presidency of the Council of EU member states for the first half of this year, says he is confident the EU can pass effective laws and they should seize the momentum.

An uproar in Israel, The police use the Pegasus spy program to pursue civilians  The Israeli Calcalist newspaper reported, "Between 2013 and 2015, the police used the Pegasus mobile phone penetration technology as a loophole to spy and prosecute Israeli citizens, suspected of criminal cases, without court orders."  A Hebrew newspaper said on Tuesday, "The Israeli police used the Israeli-made spyware (Pegasus) to prosecute suspected Israeli citizens in criminal cases, without court orders."  And the Israeli Calcalist newspaper stated in a report it published that, "Between 2013 and 2015, the police used Pegasus mobile phone penetration technology as a spying loophole, because the prohibition of the technology used in the program is not stipulated in the current law."  However, the Israeli police quickly denied these accusations. In a written statement, the Israel Police said: "Following the publications that the Israel Police allegedly using an espionage mechanism, as published this morning in the Calcalist newspaper, we would like to make it clear that the allegations in the published article are unfounded."  She added, "All police activities in this area are carried out in accordance with the law on the basis of judicial orders issued by the courts, and strict internal instructions on how the police operate."  And the Israeli police continued: "These procedures in this regard are subject to intensive supervision and control systems inside and outside the Israel Police."  For its part, the Israeli news website The Times of Israel said, "The entire system of searches, seizures, wiretaps by the police, and other procedures is supposed to be based on a carefully calibrated device to obtain approvals from the courts."  "If true, the police's use of Pegasus against suspects in ordinary criminal murder, corruption and other cases, would be a flagrant violation of legal limits if carried out without a court order," he added.  However, Israeli Minister of Internal Security Omer Bar-Lev said in a tweet on Twitter: "There is no practice of wiretapping or hacking of devices by the Israeli police without the approval of a judge."  The Pegasus program is based on hacking mobile phones through malicious messages.  The Israeli spy program caused global scandals after it was discovered that it was used to spy on politicians, journalists and activists.

An uproar in Israel, The police use the Pegasus spy program to pursue civilians


The Israeli Calcalist newspaper reported, "Between 2013 and 2015, the police used the Pegasus mobile phone penetration technology as a loophole to spy and prosecute Israeli citizens, suspected of criminal cases, without court orders."

A Hebrew newspaper said on Tuesday, "The Israeli police used the Israeli-made spyware (Pegasus) to prosecute suspected Israeli citizens in criminal cases, without court orders."

And the Israeli Calcalist newspaper stated in a report it published that, "Between 2013 and 2015, the police used Pegasus mobile phone penetration technology as a spying loophole, because the prohibition of the technology used in the program is not stipulated in the current law."

However, the Israeli police quickly denied these accusations.
In a written statement, the Israel Police said: "Following the publications that the Israel Police allegedly using an espionage mechanism, as published this morning in the Calcalist newspaper, we would like to make it clear that the allegations in the published article are unfounded."

She added, "All police activities in this area are carried out in accordance with the law on the basis of judicial orders issued by the courts, and strict internal instructions on how the police operate."

And the Israeli police continued: "These procedures in this regard are subject to intensive supervision and control systems inside and outside the Israel Police."

For its part, the Israeli news website The Times of Israel said, "The entire system of searches, seizures, wiretaps by the police, and other procedures is supposed to be based on a carefully calibrated device to obtain approvals from the courts."

"If true, the police's use of Pegasus against suspects in ordinary criminal murder, corruption and other cases, would be a flagrant violation of legal limits if carried out without a court order," he added.

However, Israeli Minister of Internal Security Omer Bar-Lev said in a tweet on Twitter: "There is no practice of wiretapping or hacking of devices by the Israeli police without the approval of a judge."

The Pegasus program is based on hacking mobile phones through malicious messages.

The Israeli spy program caused global scandals after it was discovered that it was used to spy on politicians, journalists and activists.

Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post