That’s it. No fancy alternate titles. Just who’s accountable in the end?
Yesterday’s episode, Power Struggle, was followed fiercely by today’s news roll in which headlines read like a who’s who of doing things right and wrong here and there. Several would-be hacks and vulnerabilities still read the same but the overall thread tying things together felt like a trend among writers and organizations of wanting to know just who to hold accountable for hotly reported items.
2:00 Email scanning
- Yahoo! Oath
4:00 Nest outage
5:30 Novel attack
- data exfiltration via smart light bulb
- Ionut_Ilasku ! Genius!
8:30 Human Rights letter to Google
- opposing net neutrality in CA
- claims cell phone bills will rise
- Wilt that baby
17:00 Robocalls con’t
18:30 Global Network Initiative
- to which Google’s accountable
- Oath! on GNI?! selling personal data?
- An accountable business model
- More on Quora from the horse’s “bill”
- I Share
25:30 The CHEF joins briefly
26:00 Last Call
When I looked at the news roll and it occurred to me that accountability was a big underlying theme running behind and between so many stories, I was kind of fascinated by the concept of who should these groups be accountable to. To whom do they owe an explanation? and I was very satisfied with the idea that accountability existed and as I continued with the episode, it dawned on me that it was very difficult to garner an explanation from anyone. So what switch has to be ON in order to make the actions on the internet accountable actions; actions for which large corporations (large enough to be global) can be held accountable?
Do actions on the internet have to be tied to Human Rights? Should the internet be a right (being a form of communication and that is a right)? Is there a way to put protections for human rights in place? The Conversation-dot-com discussed this very thing last year on February 13th. They cited the United Nations guiding principles that have existed since 2011. That helps inform business decision making, promote human rights’ due diligence, and at a point in time, there was also the US government’s recommendations on the matter.
It was in the form of National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST) Cybersecurity Framework. These days that may or may not still be a standing framework but the UN has a PDF outlining the very basic principles. The (Nation) State’s duty to protect human rights, corporate responsibility to respect human rights, and then, access to remedy if the human rights are violated. It’s an interesting read and we are light years away from corporate responsibilities matching up to this publication. But it’s good to know it’s there as a rhetorical fallback and being thought of.
Accountability will always rest with the people whether they speak through peaceful protest or use the power of money to make their vote heard or create a remedy that is an opposing solution and force.