2020年7月15日 星期三

On Tech: Just collect less data, period.

Every company wants the biggest data stockpile possible. We need unilateral data disarmament.

Just collect less data, period.

Paloma Dawkins

Let’s list some anxieties about digital life: We’re being tracked all the time. Internet superpowers hold sway over what information we see and what we buy. Our sensitive information keeps getting hacked.

There’s no simple fix for these complex worries. But there’s a step that works toward addressing them all: Americans deserve a national limit on the information companies collect about us.

If you want to focus on one broad approach to tackle many of our internet horribles, remember this motto: Just collect less data, period.

Companies want to harvest as much data about us as possible because — well, why wouldn’t they? More information could help them target advertisements at us, track high-traffic areas in stores or show us more dog videos to keep us on their site longer.

For the companies, there’s no downside to limitless data collection, and there’s little to prevent them from doing so in the United States.

Why should we care? Fair question. (My Opinion section colleagues tackled this in their Privacy Project series.) Personally, I feel icky knowing that political campaigns can buy data showing who attends church, and that the Internal Revenue Service bought bulk records of people’s locations to (ineffectively) hunt for financial criminals. When there’s an arms race for our personal data, we lose control over where our information winds up and how it’s used.

ADVERTISEMENT

And I can’t shake what my colleague Paul Mozur said about digital surveillance in Hong Kong. For people to feel free, he told me, we need to know that we’re not always being watched. On some level, I’d bet that goes for Facebook and our television sets just as it does for governments.

Data also consolidates power. If you worry about Google, Facebook and Amazon having too much influence, you should be aware that at the root of their power is control over reams of information on where we go, what we do and what we like.

Competitors then do icky things to play catch up, like buying information from data-harvesting companies. The digital economy is a game of data intrusion one-upmanship.

When we and elected officials try to fight this, our efforts are often too myopic. Data privacy regulation and legislation has focused on requiring disclosure of data-targeted political advertisements, making privacy policies more clear, or forcing companies to show their digital dossiers on us.

ADVERTISEMENT

Fine, those are pragmatic steps. Better still is to step back to the underlying problem: All companies collect too much data about us in the first place.

I recognize that the devil is in the details, and I’m not offering that. (I’ll work on it. My Opinion colleagues had suggestions for lawmakers and regulators.) Senator Sherrod Brown, a Democrat from Ohio, released a draft privacy bill last month that proposed companies collect information only when it’s “strictly necessary.” Senator Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, introduced a relatively similar proposal last year.

They weren’t the first to try for a sweeping federal privacy law, and they probably won’t be the last to fail. But I’m glad they’re trying to coalesce us around a big idea: Unrestricted harvesting of personal data has gone too far.

If you don’t already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

ADVERTISEMENT

In praise of unflashy technology

While I was reporting an article last year about expanding internet access in parts of Africa, no one wanted to talk about hot air balloons that transmit the internet.

Instead, people couldn’t stop praising metal poles that made it far easier and cheaper to bring internet connections to places where conventional cellphone towers weren’t a good option.

It was a useful reminder to me that sometimes the biggest innovations are the ones we never notice.

David M. Perry, a journalist and academic adviser at the University of Minnesota, wrote in The New York Times this week about how spell-check, smartphone voice control and other technology we take for granted can be life changing for people with disabilities.

“Disability technology can be so quotidian that nondisabled users don’t even notice,” Perry wrote.

To be fair, things like voice-activated helpers were marvels when they were first introduced, and now we’ve gotten used to them. And we do still want people to think big. Modern smartphones are an example of a flashy technology that really did change everything.

But what Perry highlighted is that we sometimes fixate too much on big-bang technologies that turn out to be impractical — driverless cars, to pick one example — or are trying to solve problems that people don’t really have, at the expense of lower-tech ideas that can be magical.

Perry said, for example, that there are constantly ideas to replace the white canes used by people with vision impairments, and blind people think the canes are great as is. (Here are some more boring but important technologies.)

Remember that when you get excited about drones that deliver library books, all-seeing shopping carts or whatever flashy thing that makes us think, “Cool!” Sometimes the stuff that draws the most attention will never work, and the seemingly simple stuff has the biggest impact.

Before we go …

  • Apple scores a legal (and financial) win: A European court overruled an order that would have forced the company to pay $14.9 billion in unpaid taxes, the Times tech reporter Adam Satariano reported. In 2016, a European Union regulator said Apple had made illegal deals with Ireland to keep its tax bill low.
  • Memes for a cause in Iran: People in Iran are coalescing around the hashtag #DontExecute and other social media messages to push for an end to government executions based on murky charges, from drinking alcohol to political activism. My colleague Farnaz Fassihi wrote that it was a “rare moment of solidarity among Iranians of varying political views around a single issue” in a country where the government has brutally crushed other forms of dissent.
  • Why does that textbook cost $24 million? Fortune digs into the oddities of computerized pricing to explain why a pillow might list for more than $10,000 on Amazon. Among the culprits are computers programmed to respond to price changes of competing products — with sometimes illogical results — and merchants setting artificially high prices so you won’t try to buy something.

Hugs to this

A simple but beautiful idea: This website drops you in on a view from someone else’s window.

We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you’d like us to explore. You can reach us at ontech@nytimes.com.

If you don’t already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for On Tech with Shira Ovide from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

They Go to Mommy First

How the pandemic is disproportionately disrupting mothers’ careers.

They Go to Mommy First

Monica Garwood

Maggie Levine was on maternity leave from her job as a children’s librarian in Boston for the first few months of the pandemic, but she started working again in the middle of May. She and her husband, James Maher, an engineer, had no outside child care between mid-May and early July, while she was working from home and he was working part time from home and part time from the office. They were both caring for their baby, who is now 9 months old.

“I’m usually expected to do 35 hours a week, and I have been hitting, I would say, 10,” Levine said, “which would be a really generous way of thinking about the time I’m able to put in.”

When I asked Maher how many hours a week he worked in pre-pandemic times, compared to how many hours he works now: “My usual is around 40, and I’m probably hitting around 40,” he said.

Levine and Maher are representative of a nationwide trend. A pre-print of a study soon to be published in the academic journal Gender, Work & Organization showed that in heterosexual couples where both the mother and father were continuously employed and have children under 13, mothers “have reduced their work hours four to five times more than fathers.” This has exacerbated the gender gap in work hours by 20 to 50 percent, the study found.

ADVERTISEMENT

William Scarborough, Ph.D., an assistant professor of sociology at the University of North Texas and a co-author of the study, said that he and his colleagues analyzed data from the Current Population Survey, because that data set followed the same group of families from February to April.

“It created this good empirical opportunity to see what mothers' and fathers’ work hours were prior to the pandemic, and how they changed at the peak when schools and day cares across the country closed down,” Dr. Scarborough said.

While the parents examined in this study were not a nationally representative group — they are dual earning, straight married couples who tended to be middle or upper class, and many had jobs that could be done from home — the study’s findings were consistent with other research about who handles the majority of child care during the pandemic.

A Syracuse University research brief examined data from the Census Household Pulse survey, conducted in late April and early May, and found that over 80 percent of U.S. adults who weren’t working because they had to care for their children who were not in school or day care were women.

ADVERTISEMENT

Dr. Scarborough said that their study did not examine why women whose work circumstances were the same as their husbands were doing more of the child care. However, he said that his co-author, Caitlyn Collins, an assistant professor of sociology at Washington University, speculated that part of the issue may be that “when a child needs help, they go to mommy first,” and over days and weeks, that has a cumulative, undermining effect.

Nick Kahl, the dad of a 2-year-old in Portland, Ore., and a lawyer in private practice, said his son doesn’t interrupt him as much as he interrupts his wife, Jenny Smith, who is the communications director of a state agency.

Terri E. Givens, a mom of two boys in Menlo Park, Calif and the chief executive and founder of a company that provides career development for academic leaders, had another explanation for the gender disparity: Moms are the emotional barometers for the household, and they’re managing an unseen amount of extra work, thinking about child care, dentist appointments and the happiness of their children, even when men are making an effort. “My husband is one of the best you’ll find,” she said of her spouse, who is an engineer. “But it’s that emotional labor that’s really hard to quantify.”

Sandi Villarreal, the executive editor of Sojourners, a Christian social justice magazine, said that her husband, Michael Middaugh, a pastor of a Lutheran church in Silver Spring, Md., is doing the same amount, if not more, of the caretaking for their three children, ages 6, 4, and almost 1, because his schedule is more flexible than hers — for now.

ADVERTISEMENT

“I don’t know what’s going to happen when church starts to reopen in August,” Villarreal said. Her husband will no longer be able to solely telecommute and he will have to go in for services. They have a nanny coming one day a week right now, but the situation is not sustainable.

“I think at some point it’s going to give,” Villareal said of their tenuous arrangement. “I think the hard part is there’s no end in sight.”

Want More on the Gender Gap in Child Care and Working from Home?

Tiny Victories

Parenting can be a grind. Let’s celebrate the tiny victories.
When my 2-year-old fell and started to cry, I said, “Can you show me your Hulk muscles?” Tears were replaced by superhero grunts and muscle displays! — Sarah Bielecki, California

If you want a chance to get your Tiny Victory published, find us on Instagram @NYTparenting and use the hashtag #tinyvictories; email us; or enter your Tiny Victory at the bottom of this page. Include your full name and location. Tiny Victories may be edited for clarity and style. Your name, location and comments may be published, but your contact information will not. By submitting to us, you agree that you have read, understand and accept the Reader Submission Terms in relation to all of the content and other information you send to us.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for NYT Parenting from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018