WebProNews

Tag: NYT

  • TikTok Accused of Violating Child Privacy—Again

    TikTok Accused of Violating Child Privacy—Again

    TikTok is in hot water yet again, with consumer groups accusing the social media company of violating child privacy.

    The Center for Digital Democracy and the Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood are leading a coalition of some 20 children’s and consumer groups that have filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), accusing TikTok of violating a previous agreement with the FTC.

    In 2019 TikTok was fined $5.7 million for violating child privacy. As The New York Times reports, TikTok agreed to a number of changes designed to better protect the privacy of children.

    According to the NYT, “as part of the settlement, the video-sharing app agreed to obtain a parent’s permission before collecting their child’s personal information. It also agreed to delete personal information, including videos, of any children identified as younger than 13 and to remove videos and other personal details of users whose ages were unknown.”

    In spite of the agreement, it appears that TikTok has not followed through on its promise. This is just the latest issue the social media app has dealt with, as it has faced ongoing scrutiny over security and privacy concerns, with the Pentagon and some government agencies banning the app from employees’ devices.

    If the FTC finds that TikTok has reneged on its agreement, the company’s problems will only go from bad to worse.

  • ToTok Removed From Apple and Google Stores Amid Claims It’s a Government Spying App

    ToTok Removed From Apple and Google Stores Amid Claims It’s a Government Spying App

    ToTok was released only months ago and has climbed the charts to become one of the most popular messaging apps in Britain, India, Saudi Arabia and Sweden, as well as becoming one of the most downloaded social media apps in the U.S. last week.

    According to a report by the New York Times, however, the app is actually a spying tool for the United Arab Emirates government, giving it the ability to “track every conversation, movement, relationship, appointment, sound and image of those who install it on their phones.” The allegation is based on American officials who were aware of classified intelligence, as well as the NYT’s own investigation.

    The app is distributed by a company called Breej Holding. However, investigation indicates the firm is likely a front company associated with DarkMatter, a cyberintelligence and hacking firm located in Abu Dhabi. DarkMatter is staffed with individuals who previously worked for the NSA, Israeli intelligence and Emirate intelligence, and is under FBI investigation for possible cyber crimes.

    In the wake of these revelations, both Apple and Google have removed the app from their respective stores. ToTok released a post to their user community to address the allegations, but stopped short of denying them outright. In fact, their privacy policy expressly says they may share data with “group companies,” as well as “to comply with a legal obligation to which we are subject.” Either of those clauses come into play if the allegations are correct and the app is actually backed by the government.

    As the NYT comments, this is a significant “escalation in a digital arms race among wealthy authoritarian governments.” Whereas many governments have banned apps like WhatsApp and Signal, since they employ end-to-end encryption, the UAE took it a step further by lulling their citizens into a false sense of security with an app deliberately designed to spy on them and anyone else using it.

  • Interpol Delays Encryption Criticism After Pushback

    Interpol Delays Encryption Criticism After Pushback

    A week ago news broke that the FBI had drafted a resolution for Interpol to release condemning the use of strong encryption. Ultimately the resolution was not passed, with Interpol contacting Nicole Perloth with the New York Times to deny the resolution was ever under consideration.

    When the story first came out, we wrote:

    “There is no doubt the resolution was drafted, with both Reuters and Ars Technica having seen a copy of it. The only question is whether Reuters’ sources about Interpol’s intentions were incorrect, or whether Interpol is attempting to backpedal after the news broke.”

    In an update by Reuters, it appears Interpol was backpedaling.

    “The international police organization Interpol put off plans to condemn the spread of strong encryption after objections by tech companies and civil liberties advocates, according to two people familiar with the matter.

    “After the Reuters article appeared, Facebook and others complained that strong encryption also deters criminal hacking and surveillance of peaceful political activists by repressive regimes, the people said.

    “Conference organizers told some who had attended that they were surprised by the feedback and delayed putting out a statement while they reconsidered, those people said.”

    Interpol is still denying there was ever any plans to release the statement and the agency did not return Reuters’ request for comments.

    If Reuters’ sources are correct, it is reassuring Interpol was willing to hold off in response to feedback and criticism of the proposal. At the same time, it’s still disconcerting the agency was surprised by the pushback and shows how little understood the privacy issue is—even by those who should understand it best.

  • Maureen Dowd’s Paranoid Pot Ramblings, at Your Fingertips, for Just $6 per Month

    Yes, I’m kind of mixing a couple of stories here, but two interesting things happened today in New York Times land.

    First, the venerable newspaper launched a new digital subscription for Opinions only, and second, columnist Maureen Dowd got really, really high (and lived to tell the tale!).

    The New York Times has focused their paywall options to allow readers who presumably only care about the various op-ed columns the paper regularly publishes to gain all access. For $6 a month, the new nytOpinion option gives you access to the full Opinion section online and on the new iOS app, as well as “curated commentary from around the globe and new features like Q&A with columnists.”

    If you jump on it now, they’ll let you have your first three months for just $0.99.

    And if you do, you can (hopefully) expect more articles like this.

    In Don’t Harsh Our Mellow, Dude, veteran columnist Maureen Down shows why you should always ask someone who knows about the drug you’re about to ingest, before you ingest said drug.

    Dowd flew up to Denver to sample the newly legal cash crop, and didn’t have a great time. Edibles can be tricky, Maureen.

    For an hour, I felt nothing. I figured I’d order dinner from room service and return to my more mundane drugs of choice, chardonnay and mediocre-movies-on-demand.

    But then I felt a scary shudder go through my body and brain. I barely made it from the desk to the bed, where I lay curled up in a hallucinatory state for the next eight hours. I was thirsty but couldn’t move to get water. Or even turn off the lights. I was panting and paranoid, sure that when the room-service waiter knocked and I didn’t answer, he’d call the police and have me arrested for being unable to handle my candy.

    I strained to remember where I was or even what I was wearing, touching my green corduroy jeans and staring at the exposed-brick wall. As my paranoia deepened, I became convinced that I had died and no one was telling me.

    Good lord.

    It was only the next day that she thought to ask someone about how much she should eat, considering she was a novice.

    The rest of the op-ed…well, you can go read it yourself–unless you’ve already used up your free views for the day. With the new Opinions only subscription option, this won’t be a problem.

    I can’t wait for Thomas Friedman’s op-ed on that huuuuge bong rip that completely changed his thinking on globalization.

    Image via Wikimedia Commons

  • News Corp. Splits Publishing and Entertainment Businesses

    Just two days ago, we reported News Corp., and chairman Rupert Murdoch were contemplating the idea of splitting their news and film assets from their print publication and newspaper divisions.

    News Corp owns 20th Century Fox film studio, Fox broadcast network and Fox News channel, in the way of television and film. As far as newspaper and print media goes, they own the Wall Street Journal, the Times of London, the Australian newspaper, HarperCollins book publishing, and more.

    Today, Murdoch sent out a memo to his staff confirming that indeed the split is going to be a reality. While Murdoch will remain chairman to both entities, and lead what he calls the creation of new companies, many changes will have to take place for the businesses to function independently. All Things D has published Rupert’s Memo to his employees.

    Here’s a few segments:

    “It is with much enthusiasm and personal pride that I share with you today’s news regarding our plan to drive towards the next, transformative phase of this organization you and I have built together into one of the largest, most innovative media companies of our time.”

    “That very size and breadth has created an opportunity to separate News Corporation into two global leaders in their own right — we will wow the world as two, as opposed to merely one.”

    “I believe our leadership is born out of a spirit of innovation. We have never accepted the status quo. We have always been driven by the belief that we can do better — deliver a better product for our audiences and provide better performing businesses for our shareholders. Our success has come from our speed, flexibility and creativity in responding to changing markets, in combination with our commitment to serving our customers’ needs.”

    “I will personally be leading the creation of our new companies and will serve as Chairman of both organizations and as CEO of the media and entertainment company. Chase Carey will continue to partner with me on leading the media and entertainment business, by serving as President and COO. We are busy working on other important details and will inform you as they become available.”

    It will take about a year to get through the process of splitting the two companies, and in the end, the broadcasting and film side of the business will be much larger. Current shareholders of News Corp. will be given one share in each company, for each share they hold now.

    Murdoch says the decision to split the company comes after a three year review of the structure of the organization, and that the two companies that result from the split, will be better managed than the one is right now. No doubt many issues and alterations will arise as a result of the split. We’ll keep you posted as the situation with the News Corp. split evolves.

  • New York Times Price Rises 25%

    The New York Times newsstand price for its Monday-Saturday paper just went from $2.00 a copy to $2.50. The news giant has steadily increased cover prices over the past few years as consumers have shifted to online sources for news.

    Despite being affected by the same print downturn that affects all other newspapers, the NYT is still the third-largest print newspaper in the United States. The Times is available online free for “light” users, those who read 20 or fewer articles per month. There are smartphone apps available for iPhone and Android that channel Times content.

    This latest price increase is yet another move by the old-school media titan making its way in the digital age. Back in 2002, The Times bought a fifteen percent stake in the Boston Red Sox, not because they had an interest in Red Sox baseball, but to get a piece of the New England Sports Network television channel that came with the team.

    Indeed, many newspapers are changing their old business model for one that can remain profitable as more and more people get news via smartphone, tablet and laptop. Managers look for profit centers outside of the normal advertising sales and cover price that sustained papers throughout the 20th century.

    For example, local papers may produce an entire insert for a single advertiser with a significant event, such as a job fair or grand opening. They may even assign writers to adorn the ad space with pseudo-articles that highlight topics that dovetail with the advertiser. This is one of many new approaches that smaller papers feel forced to take to keep their presses running. Others have turned to online video of news events, becoming de facto online television producers, with mixed results.

    Finding ways to make these endeavors pay, via pay subscriptions, etc. has been the real challenge. So much news is available for free online that readers are loathe to pull out the plastic. Price increases like this one are sure to keep coming until the fateful day that paper is no longer viable, however far off that may yet be.

  • New York Times Paywall Loophole – Access Through Links

    Back in January, the New York Times announced that it would be gravitating to a metered paywall system at the beginning of 2011. This would let readers access an as-of-yet unspecified number of articles for free each month, until requiring payment for further access. Meanwhile, print subscribers would have full access to content online.

    The publication said the move would create a second revenue stream and preserve its ad business. "It will also provide the necessary flexibility to keep an appropriate ratio between free and paid content and stay connected to a search-driven Web," it said.

    There has been a great deal of speculation around what this would mean for bloggers, who frequently link to the New York Times. The publication is clearly not anti-blogger or anti-link, because they are now saying they’ll not even include referrals from blog links in a reader’s limited free access. A spokesperson for the NYT tells Peter Kafka of MediaMemo, "The pay model will be designed so readers that are referred from third party sites such as blogs will be able to access that content without hitting their limit, enabling NYTimes.com to continue being a part of the open web."

    NYTimes.com

    That’s good news for bloggers who rely heavily on the New York Times as a source, because nobody wants to point readers to a link in which they are prompted to subscribe for access (though it certainly does occur from time to time, and is perhaps unavoidable in some cases). It’s also probably in the New York Times’ best interest, because the casual reader arriving from a blog link is much more likely to simply backtrack than actually subscribe.

    The NYT says it hasn’t set the limit number for free access yet, but the paywall isn’t supposed to go up until January, so there is plenty of time to work that out. The limit is not something they’re going to want to launch without some careful consideration, though they can always change it depending on its success/failure.

    By the way, a recent study found that the New York Times is one of the top four sites most often linked to by bloggers.

    Would you pay for unlimited access to New York Times online content? Even if the most popular articles are linked to from blogs, from which you can gain free access? Tell us what you think.

  • Is the New York Times Jumping the Gun on Paid Content?

    There has been a lot of talk of late about how the New York Times would probably be moving towards a paid model for its online content. The newspaper has now come right out and said that starting in early 2011, visitors to NYTimes.com will get "a certain number of articles" for free every month, before asking to pay a flat fee for unlimited access. Subscribers to the print edition would receive full access to the site for no additional charge.

    There are still a lot of details to be worked out from the sound of it, and since the change won’t go into effect for a year, maybe they will have enough time to get it right. However, publishers have been trying to get this right for years already, and are still struggling to find that true answer. You have to wonder, what makes them think they can get the details ironed out by then?

    It would be one thing to announce it and start doing it. Other publications do this, but a year is an incredibly long time in the online world. There are so many things that could happen and questions that may still remain unanswered in the online news industry. News Corp. for example, has set off a firestorm over whether or not people should be able to freely link to free content on the web. There are just so many things that come into play that it seems rather strange to assume everything will fall into place a year from now. Who knows what condition the industry will be in by then? Publications that are using paid models right now may decide it’s not working and switch to a different plan. To reiterate, a year is a long time, particularly in an industry with so many question marks.

    NYTimes.com

    "This announcement allows us to begin the thought process that’s going to answer so many of the questions that we all care about," Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the company chairman and publisher of the newspaper is quoted as saying. "We can’t get this halfway right or three-quarters of the way right. We have to get this really, really right."

    I would say the thought process has been in motion for some time, and it’s hard to imagine setting a deadline for the discussion to wrap up in such a timeframe. Does setting such a deadline suggest a hint of desperation? The Times says that any changes will be closely watched by other publishers of online content, and there is no doubt that this will indeed be the case.

    The publication refers to Nielsen Online and analysts’ data indicating that NYTimes.com is "by far" the most popular newspaper site in the country with over 17 million readers a month in the U.S. alone.

    Do you read the New York Times? Would you pay for frequent access or get your news from other sources? Share your thoughts.

    Related Articles:

    > New York Time’s Could Announce Paid Model This Week

    > Do You Have the "Right" to Link?

    > Is This the Answer for Online News Revenue?