2021年7月27日 星期二

On Tech: An obsession with secrets

Tech companies throw around nondisclosure agreements like confetti, but they can hurt the rest of us.

An obsession with secrets

Tech companies throw around nondisclosure agreements like confetti, but they can hurt the rest of us.

Gianluca Alla

Before visitors set foot inside many tech company offices, they must sign a (digital) promise not to blab about what they overhear or see there. Religious leaders in the United States entered into legally binding agreements not to talk in detail about their online worship collaboration with Facebook. And Amazon demanded that testers of a revealing body-scanning technology not reveal anything about the experience.

Nondisclosure agreements like these have become a fixture for many influential people and institutions that want to keep secrets, sometimes for understandable reasons and other times for horrifying ones. NDAs and similar legal agreements have been used to cover up sexual abuse and harassment and discrimination at work.

NDAs are definitely not confined to the tech industry. But the power of large technology companies and the popularity of their products make their attempts at enforced secrecy particularly dangerous because of the ways NDAs keep the public from fully understanding how these companies shape the world.

The use of NDAs, including in trivial or routine circumstances like visiting a tech office, is ironic in an industry that praises openness and transparency. Facebook says it values free expression, but it might stop you from talking about the grapes that you ate at the company cafeteria.

ADVERTISEMENT

Yes, there are often good reasons for people and companies to demand confidentiality or try to prevent competitors from learning their best ideas. And because many people, including journalists, are eager to know about potential tech products or projects, there may be a higher risk of stuff leaking out of those companies.

But it's also easy to find fault in the willingness of many technology companies to throw around NDAs like confetti, in both silly and unsettling ways. Ifeoma Ozoma, the former Pinterest public policy executive, is among those pressing to ban NDAs that limit people who experienced workplace discrimination from speaking publicly about their experiences. Some laws restrict NDAs if they keep sexual misconduct or dangerous products a secret. (The people leading the charge against abusive NDAs or other restrictive workplace legal agreements are often women or Black tech workers like Ozoma.)

If tech workers hadn't risked breaking NDAs at their companies, the public might have never learned about fraud at the blood testing company Theranos, the emotional and physical health risks faced by those who review Facebook posts containing violence and sex, and details of Russian online propaganda to create voter chaos in the United States.

"The vast reach of these companies is what makes their use of exploitative agreements the biggest issue," Ozoma told me in an email. "Companies based in California are exporting overly restrictive, silencing agreements to every corner of the world. And they're doing all of this while claiming to give a damn about speech rights and free expression."

ADVERTISEMENT

It might hurt other customers when Airbnb makes customers sign NDAs if they encounter bedbugs at rented homes, or when nondisclosure provisions limit customers from complaining publicly about their experiences with teeth aligners. And is it fair for Amazon and other companies to require elected officials to sign nondisclosure agreements about projects that use taxpayer dollars?

The requirement to sign NDAs before entering tech companies stunned me when I first encountered it. It feels like an unnecessary and trivial exercise of power. (Another question: Are these agreements even enforceable?)

Lots of sensitive details are discussed inside investment banks, law firms, news organizations and hospitals, and as far as I know they don't have nondisclosure agreements for everyone who walks through the doors. Instead, employees tend to be careful not to discuss secrets where outsiders might hear them.

Again, NDAs aren't unique to technology. The Trump White House used them. Some celebrities apparently require NDAs for friends or romantic partners. My colleagues reported last year that many companies require employees to sign nondisclosure agreements in order to receive severance packages.

ADVERTISEMENT

Companies and people have legitimate reasons to want to keep many of their secrets, but they could choose other legal means to do so, including confidentiality provisions, which are more limited in scope. When powerful and trendsetting tech companies use NDAs for everything and anything, it often protects them at the expense of the rest of us.

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

TIP OF THE WEEK

When to quit your fancy headphones

Are your cord-free headphones way more frustrating than magical? Brian X. Chen, the consumer tech columnist for The New York Times, is here to share your {SCREAMS} and advise us when to give up:

Wireless earphones are great. They let you move around freely, are easier to put away than wired earphones and have decent sound quality. Recently, however, I called it quits on wireless earbuds for one type of use: video calls on a computer.

For more than a year of remote work, my Apple AirPods were unreliable for video calls on my desktop. Occasionally, the AirPods would vanish from the list of available Bluetooth devices on my Mac, forcing me to reset my earbuds. Other times, I wasn't able to choose the wireless earphones as a microphone or speaker when I entered a new video call.

I tried a number of troubleshooting steps to no avail, and saw that many others had similar headaches. Then I read an article about this issue by my colleague Lauren Dragan at Wirecutter, our sister publication that tests products. It turns out that Bluetooth headphones often encounter issues connecting with computers — this happens so frequently that manufacturers emphasize that wireless earphones are "optimized for mobile devices" and do not guarantee that they will work well with computers.

This makes sense to me: We tend to upgrade smartphones more regularly than we do computers, so mobile devices have newer Bluetooth technology that presumably works better with newer earbuds.

After reflecting on all of the video calls that have gone wrong for me, I bit the bullet and bought a relatively cheap, old-school wired headset from Logitech just for my virtual meetings. It costs $25 and works perfectly every time. Sometimes, you have to know when to call it quits on fancy tech.

Subscribe Today

We hope you've enjoyed this newsletter, which is made possible through subscriber support. Subscribe to The New York Times with this special offer.

Before we go …

  • The not-so-invisible hand of Beijing: The company behind China's wildly popular WeChat app suspended new user registrations, which my colleague Paul Mozur said raised fears of new regulatory pressure. In recent months, Chinese authorities have been on a spree of tech scrutiny that has affected Uber-like Didi, food delivery services and online tutoring start-ups.
  • Questioning a technology frequently used in law enforcement: Vice's Motherboard publication reviewed court records that suggest that ShotSpotter, a technology that detects gunfire and alerts law enforcement, has sometimes modified data on the location and time of gunshots at the request of police departments.
  • The online video that brought attention and danger: An Iraqi teenager recorded an online video listing the troubles of his country and asking President Biden for help. The video went big, and my colleague Jane Arraf reported that the teen has been flooded with thousands of negative social media comments and is afraid to leave home.

Hugs to this

Mother and son set out to make origami cranes to mark the passage of time and learn about perseverance during the pandemic. They took the final photos last month of all 465 cranes.

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. You can also read past On Tech columns.

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

LiveIntent LogoAdChoices Logo

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

歡迎蒞臨:https://ofa588.com/

娛樂推薦:https://www.ofa86.com/

The year and a half when liberty died

Taking hypocrisy to a whole new level.
Marcio Jose Sanchez/Associated Press
Author Headshot

By Paul Krugman

Opinion Columnist

Once a year I teach a graduate seminar called "Economics of the Welfare State," covering topics ranging from retirement to health care to unemployment insurance, with a strong focus on international comparisons — because these are policy areas in which different countries have taken startlingly different paths. By the way, nobody does everything either wrong or right. For example, the United States does a pretty good job on retirement but a horrible job on health care, while France does the reverse.

Obviously I have political views on these issues, and my students know that, but I try as hard as I can both to distinguish my preferences from the evidence and to give a fair hearing to other views. In particular, I like to tell the students that on the really big issues, the argument is essentially a philosophical debate about values rather than policy analysis, and that there's a legitimate conservative position that no amount of wonkery can debunk.

But right now I'm wondering how I'll manage to give my potted version of political philosophy with a straight face.

I usually teach this stuff as a dispute between John Rawls and Robert Nozick. (A note to real philosophers: Yes, I know I'm drastically oversimplifying.) Rawls wrote a famous book titled "A Theory of Justice" in which he argued for a thought experiment: Imagine yourself being asked to choose a form of society to live in before knowing which role in that society you'd end up playing. You might be heir to a huge fortune, but you might be desperately poor. What kind of society would you choose?

ADVERTISEMENT

Rawls argued, basically, that you'd go for a big welfare state, with highly progressive taxation and a strong social safety net. And most liberals are more or less Rawlsian — less in the sense that their sense of social justice disappears, or at least gets greatly attenuated, at the water's edge: A full-on Rawlsian would surely advocate massive foreign aid.

But leave that aside. What's the conservative position? I usually invoke Nozick's book "Anarchy, State, and Utopia," which centers on the concept of freedom of choice. In the Nozickian worldview people should have the right to act as they like, so long as it doesn't hurt others, and this principle of freedom should prevail even if you might prefer that some people have more and others less.

Nozick acknowledged that there would have to be some limits to libertarianism: Individuals can't simply refuse to pay the taxes that support national defense, nor does freedom of choice include the freedom to, say, dump toxic waste into a river. But the Nozickian view does call for a government as limited as possible, certainly much smaller than the big welfare states all advanced countries currently operate.

And I can't say that Nozick's view is wrong — nor can anyone say it's right. It all depends on your values.

ADVERTISEMENT

But here's the thing: My usual effort to offer maximum sympathy to the conservative position falls apart completely when one tries to make sense of the U.S. right's response to Covid-19. Oh, people have used the usual words — we've been hearing a lot about freedom. But their actions have been so far from any defensible notion of libertarianism that they take hypocrisy to a whole new level.

I mean, suppose you declare that people should be free to make their own choices so long as others aren't hurt. How does this apply to refusing to wear a mask or get vaccinated? In both cases the actions taken in the name of liberty very much come at others' expense; indeed, the main point of mask-wearing has always been to protect other people, not yourself. And while sheer self-preservation should be a good enough reason to get vaccinated, refusing the shots for whatever reason is also putting other peoples' lives at risk by keeping the pandemic going.

It has also been amazing to watch many conservatives do a complete 180 on the rights of business owners. We've seen repeated court cases in which conservatives insisted that employers had the right to deny employees benefits based on the owners' religious beliefs, sellers could refuse to provide service to gay couples and so on. What you do with your business, the doctrine seemed to be, was up to you.

But in the pandemic we suddenly had conservative politicians trying to prohibit stores from requiring that their customers wear masks, trying to prohibit cruise ships from requiring that passengers be vaccinated, and so on. All that rhetoric of freedom suddenly didn't apply when it came to protecting public health.

ADVERTISEMENT

OK, I'm not naïve: I've long argued that there are very few true libertarians in American politics, that the language of freedom is largely used to defend privilege. I also understand that the anti-vaccination campaign was driven in large part by cynical political calculation: There are politicians and media figures who consider it more important that President Biden fail than that their supporters/viewers live.

But for all my cynicism, I didn't think it would get this raw.

As it happens, it's looking as if the cynical political calculation has backfired — the Delta variant surge in low-vaccination states has become too obvious to ignore — and we're now seeing a desperate scramble by various politicians and media figures to get on the right side of the issue. And my guess is that over the next few months we'll get a de facto vaccine mandate enforced, not by law, but by employers terrified of becoming Covid hot spots.

But it has been quite an education. I'll continue to teach the logic of libertarian opposition to the welfare state. But I won't pretend that it represents any significant political force.

Quick Hits

Europe has closed the vaccination gap.

Not libertarians but reactionaries.

Before Covid, there was climate change.

Mask madness goes on.

Feedback If you're enjoying what you're reading, please consider recommending it to friends. They can sign up here. If you want to share your thoughts on an item in this week's newsletter or on the newsletter in general, please email me at krugman-newsletter@nytimes.com.

Facing the Music

There's lots of stuff we should be doing faster.YouTube

Still hoping to be able to see live music again.

Subscribe Today

New York Times Opinion curates a wide range of views, inviting rich discussion and debate that helps readers analyze the world. This work is made possible with the support of subscribers. Please consider subscribing to The Times with this special offer.

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

You received this email because you signed up for Paul Krugman 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

LiveIntent LogoAdChoices Logo

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

歡迎蒞臨:https://ofa588.com/

娛樂推薦:https://www.ofa86.com/