With ransomware attacks on the rise—and compromised passwords to blame for some of the hackings—there’s no better time to review your personal security practices.
It all starts with how you create and store passwords.
You may have read a thing or two about password managers, perhaps in my previous column on the subject.
This software can create strong randomized passwords, then remember them for you, and they can auto-fill credentials, simplifying the login process. Having unique passwords is critical to your online security: Around 25% of security breaches in 2020 involved the use of stolen usernames and passwords, according to a Verizon report published in May.
WASHINGTON—President Biden’s sweeping new competition order targets big tech companies in ways that could fundamentally alter how they do business.
But it will fall to government agencies to carry out the order, and they could take years to put its ideas into action. The Federal Trade Commission that already has Big Tech companies in its sights is likely to become a particular battleground.
A core thrust of the order is to encourage regulatory agencies such as the FTC to adopt new rules and policies to rein in the growing size and power of large tech platforms such as Amazon.com Inc., Alphabet Inc.’s Google and Facebook Inc. That could prove to be a tall order for the FTC, the principal federal regulator of internet commerce. Some observers say the agency—which had its sails trimmed by Congress in the deregulatory era of the 1970s and 1980s—has struggled to keep up with unfair practices online, particularly in the areas of user privacy, big data and tech mergers.
As the White House detailed its executive order, one Democratic FTC commissioner, Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, said in a tweet, “So excited about @POTUS’s EO on competition; it is an ambitious agenda that will help our markets work better and create a more equitable economy for all people – esp workers, marginalized communities, entrepreneurs, small biz.”
Gary Shapiro, chief executive of the Consumer Technology Association that counts Apple Inc., Facebook and Google among its members, defended the tech industry as competitive and vibrant and took issue with the White House’s action.
Google have privately warned the Hong Kong government that they could stop offering their services in the city if authorities proceed with planned changes to data-protection laws that could make them liable for the malicious sharing of individuals’ information online.
A letter sent by an industry group that includes the internet firms said companies are concerned that the planned rules to address doxing could put their staff at risk of criminal investigations or prosecutions related to what the firms’ users post online. Doxing refers to the practice of putting people’s personal information online so they can be harassed by others.
Hong Kong’s Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau in May proposed amendments to the city’s data-protection laws that it said were needed to combat doxing, a practice that was prevalent during 2019 protests in the city. The proposals call for punishments of up to 1 million Hong Kong dollars, the equivalent of about $128,800, and up to five years’ imprisonment.
“The only way to avoid these sanctions for technology companies would be to refrain from investing and offering the services in Hong Kong,” said the previously unreported June 25 letter from the Singapore-based Asia Internet Coalition, which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.
Tensions have emerged between some of the U.S.’s most powerful firms and Hong Kong authorities as Beijing exerts increasing control over the city and clamps down on political dissent. The American firms and other tech companies last year said they were suspending the processing of requests from Hong Kong law-enforcement agencies following China’s imposition of a national security law on the city.
Jeff Paine, the Asia Internet Coalition’s managing director, in the letter to Hong Kong’s Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data, said that while his group and its members are opposed to doxing, the vague wording in the proposed amendments could mean the firms and their staff based locally could be subject to criminal investigations and prosecution for doxing offenses by their users.
That would represent a “completely disproportionate and unnecessary response,” the letter said. The letter also noted that the proposed amendments could curtail free expression and criminalize even “innocent acts of sharing information online.”
The Coalition suggested that a more clearly defined scope to violations be considered and requested a videoconference to discuss the situation.
A spokeswoman for the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data acknowledged that the office had received the letter. She said new rules were needed to address doxing, which “has tested the limits of morality and the law.”
The government has handled thousands of doxing-related cases since 2019, and surveys of the public and organizations show strong support for added measures to curb the practice, she said. Police officers and opposition figures were doxed heavily during months of pro-democracy protests in 2019.
“The amendments will not have any bearing on free speech,” which is enshrined in law, and the scope of offenses will be clearly set out in the amendments, the spokeswoman said. The government “strongly rebuts any suggestion that the amendments may in any way affect foreign investment in Hong Kong,” she said.
Representatives for Facebook, Twitter and Google declined to comment on the letter beyond acknowledging that the Coalition had sent it. The companies don’t disclose the number of employees they have in Hong Kong, but they likely employ at least 100 staff combined, analysts estimate.
China’s crackdown on dissent since it imposed a national security law a year ago has driven many people in Hong Kong off social media or to self-censor their posts following a spate of arrests over online remarks.
While Hong Kong’s population of about 7.5 million means it isn’t a major market in terms of its user base, foreign firms often cite the free flow of information in Hong Kong as a key factor for being located in the financial hub.
The letter from the tech giants comes as global companies increasingly consider whether to leave the financial center for cities offering more hospitable business climates.
The anti-doxing amendments will be put before the city’s Legislative Council and a bill is expected to be approved by the end of this legislative year, said Paul Haswell, Hong Kong-based head of the technology, media, and telecom law practice at global law firm Pinsent Masons.
The tech firms’ concerns about the proposed rules are legitimate, Mr. Haswell said. Depending on the wording of the legislation, technology companies headquartered outside Hong Kong, but with operations in the city, could see their staff here held responsible for what people posted, he said.
A broad reading of the rules could suggest that even an unflattering photo of a person taken in public, or of a police officer’s face on the basis that this would constitute personal data, could run afoul of the proposed amendments if posted with malice or an intention to cause harm, he said.
“If not managed with common sense,” the new rules “could make it potentially a risk to post anything relating to another individual on the internet,” he said.
Corrections & Amplifications Doxing was prevalent during protests in Hong Kong in 2019. An earlier version of this article incorrectly said the year was 2109. (Corrected on July 5)
Tech companies are turning their attention to statehouses across the country as a wave of local bills opens a new frontier in the push to limit Silicon Valley’s power.
Arizona, Maryland and Virginia are among states where lawmakers are seeking to limit the power of tech companies like
Alphabet Inc.’s
GOOG -2.50%
Google and
Apple Inc.
AAPL -0.76%
on a range of issues, from online privacy and digital advertisements to app-store fees. State policy proposals have bipartisan support from lawmakers who want to temper companies’ influence and financial clout, which have grown during the pandemic.
Google, Apple and others are hiring local lobbyists and immersing themselves in the minutiae of proposed legislation, according to state representatives. Tech companies face potential rules that would curb the reach of their platforms, crimp revenues with taxes or force them to facilitate additional privacy disclosures.
Prominent tech companies are embracing remote work amid an exodus of skilled labor from Silicon Valley. WSJ looks at what that could mean for innovation and productivity and what companies are doing to manage the impact.
While federal lawmakers have held hearings and are in discussions about policies to regulate tech companies, debates and votes could occur in states first. If passed, state laws matter because they can become de facto national standards in the absence of federal action, as with California’s 2018 privacy law, which gave consumers both the right to access personal information that businesses collect from them and the right to request that data be deleted and not sold.
Facebook Inc.
FB -2.00%
initially opposed the California measures, but supported them after they took effect. Companies such as
Microsoft Corp.
have opted to honor the new rules across the country.
“So much has happened since California passed the original [data] privacy act” in 2018, said
Sam McGowan,
a senior analyst at policy research firm Beacon Policy Advisors LLC. Lawmakers’ concerns now stretch well beyond privacy to such topics as anticompetitive behavior and how social-media companies police content, he said.
In Arizona, a closely watched bill regarding app-store payments has cleared the state House and is expected to be debated in the Senate in the next several weeks. The legislation would free some software developers from fees that Apple and Google place on apps, which can run up to 30% of sales from paid apps and in-app purchases. App developers would be able to charge people directly through the payment system of their choice. The bill would apply to Arizona-based app developers and consumers yet could set a wider precedent.
Newsletter Sign-up
Technology
A weekly digest of tech reviews, headlines, columns and your questions answered by WSJ’s Personal Tech gurus.
Republican state
Rep. Regina Cobb,
the legislation’s chief sponsor, said the bill is about “consumer protection and transparency,” and said a final vote could take place within the next month. Ms. Cobb said she believes there are sufficient votes to pass the bill in the narrowly divided Senate. Apple and Google have lobbied heavily against the bill, Ms. Cobb said.
Apple declined to comment on lobbying in Arizona. A company spokeswoman said Apple “created the App Store to be a safe and trusted place for users to download the apps they love and a great business opportunity for developers. This legislation threatens to break that very successful model and undermine the strong protections we’ve put in place for customers.”
Google declined to comment on the legislation or any lobbying efforts in the state.
In February, Maryland lawmakers passed legislation that would tax the revenue of companies such as Google, Facebook and
Amazon.com Inc.
from digital ads. This month
Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam
signed into law new privacy rules similar to those in California, with added limits on the consumer data that companies can collect online.
Washington state has introduced privacy legislation. Some states have targeted online content moderation, with Texas proposing a measure that would prohibit social-media companies from banning users based on their viewpoints. New York state recently looked into changing its antitrust laws to make it easier for it to sue tech companies.
SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS
What steps, if any, should lawmakers take to rein in the power of tech companies? Join the conversation below.
States may have an easier path to pass laws than Congress does, Mr. McGowan said, because many state governments have fairly short legislative sessions lasting a few weeks or months, meaning bills can swiftly make their way through committees and to votes.
Tech companies’ soaring growth and influence during the pandemic has raised urgency at the state level, according to
Robert Siegel,
a lecturer in management and a business-strategy researcher at Stanford University.
The biggest five companies—Amazon, Google, Facebook, Apple and Microsoft—all saw staggering growth in 2020, as stuck-at-home Americans and businesses turned to online shopping, software and cloud-computing services, smart devices and video streaming. Those companies’ combined revenue grew by a fifth, to $1.1 trillion, and their collective market capitalization soared to $8 trillion during the pandemic.
Given the stakes and what some view as the inevitability of more regulation, tech companies must play a more active role in influencing legislation, Mr. Siegel said. Facebook and Google are among tech companies now calling for federal rules on issues such as data privacy and artificial intelligence.
“Large technology companies have no choice but to engage,” Mr. Siegel said. “So much money has been made by these companies, and that has everyone gunning for them. They have a size and scale and reach that nobody has.”
Facebook Vice President of State and Local Policy
Will Castleberry
said the company “will continue to support bills that are good for consumers, but a patchwork approach to privacy doesn’t give the consistency or clarity that consumers or businesses need. That’s why we hope Congress will pass a national privacy law.”
Technology companies have stepped up legislative spending at different levels of government recently. Facebook and Amazon outspent all other U.S. companies in federal lobbying last year, The Wall Street Journal reported in January.
Facebook spent nearly $20 million, up about 18% from the previous year, while Amazon spent about $18 million last year, up about 11%. Apple disclosed $6.7 million in lobbying spending, down from a record $7.4 million in 2019, and Google also reported a drop, spending $7.5 million. Google and Facebook are facing multiple antitrust lawsuits, and Amazon and Apple have been the subject of preliminary inquiries that could advance further under the Biden administration.
States are also using courts to seek change. A Colorado-led coalition of attorneys general filed an antitrust suit against Google in December over its dominance in online search. Meanwhile, California is looking into how Amazon treats sellers in its online marketplace, and authorities in Connecticut are investigating how Amazon sells and distributes digital books.
Amazon declined to comment.
Write to Sebastian Herrera at Sebastian.Herrera@wsj.com and Dan Frosch at dan.frosch@wsj.com
battle with publishers and regulators around the world over how the social-media giant handles news is far from finished after striking an agreement this week with the Australian government to pay for content.
The agreement Facebook reached Tuesday with Australia’s government to restore news content to its platform comes as political leaders elsewhere have pledged to increase scrutiny on tech giants, and as news outlets also plan to amp up pressure on the company to cut deals. The matter also raises questions about which publishers should get paid for news content and how much.
Facebook’s deal with Australia gives it a path to avoid required payments to publishers for news content, so long as the company works toward reaching agreements with publishers on its own accord.
“We appreciate the government has created flexibility to move forward making deals with publishers, while giving us 30 days’ notice before a designation,” said
Campbell Brown,
Facebook’s vice president of global news partnerships. If Facebook’s negotiations with individual Australian publishers fail to satisfy the government, the company could reimpose its news ban rather than be forced to comply with the new law’s terms for setting payments.
“I am hopeful there will not be a need for that step,” Ms. Brown said.
The compromise as envisioned would be an alternative to the voluntary payments that Facebook has made to “partner” news outlets for its News Tab product for mobile users in the U.S. and other countries.
The payments Facebook has made to date aren’t overly costly for the company, whose ad business drove it to a record $86 billion in revenue last year. News content accounts for only 4% of what people see in their main newsfeed, Facebook said when it announced that it would remove news from the platform in Australia last week.
Facebook blocked people in Australia from viewing or sharing news articles as lawmakers debated a bill to compel social-media companies to pay for content. The legislation is being watched globally and could offer a model for other countries. Photo: Josh Edelson/Getty Images
News publishers rely on the audience that Facebook and
Alphabet Inc.’s
Google deliver. In the hours after Facebook’s decision to shut off news sharing in Australia, news publishers in the country saw traffic from readers outside Australia decrease by about 20%, data from analytics firm Chartbeat showed.
Roughly 36% of Americans get their news from Facebook, according to a fall 2020 study from Pew Research, compared with 23% who get it from Alphabet’s YouTube and 15% from
Twitter.
If Facebook were to have to pay for news content on a global basis, the cost would be significant, said Cascend Securities analyst
Eric Ross.
“Margins disappear when you have to all of a sudden pay for things that were free,” he said.
“
There is finally a much greater appreciation of the value of credible journalism. ”
— USA Today Publisher Maribel Perez Wadsworth
The brouhaha between Facebook and Australia’s news providers comes as it and Google face antitrust lawsuits in the U.S. and regulatory scrutiny elsewhere. Australia and other countries seeking payment for news content on behalf of publishers argue that Facebook is abusing its market power by trying to minimize or avoid such expenses. A 2019 Australian report deemed the large platforms threatened upstart social-media companies as well as advertisers and the news industry at large.
Both Facebook and Google say that their platforms help journalism. As Facebook itself has noted, publishers world-wide already seek to maximize the attention their work receives on social media without any promise of compensation.
One U.S. news publisher said the Facebook dispute in Australia suggested the social-media company has renewed interest in paying publishers after being previously reluctant to do so.
“We’re at a tipping point,” said
Maribel Perez Wadsworth,
publisher of USA Today, the flagship title of
Gannett Co.
, the largest newspaper chain in the U.S. “There is finally a much greater appreciation of the value of credible journalism.”
USA Today participates in the Facebook news tab offering in the U.S. via a licensing agreement.
News Corp,
owner of The Wall Street Journal, has a commercial agreement to supply news through Facebook. Last week the company reached a three-year deal with Google to license content from its publication and produce new products for Google platforms.
Australia’s efforts could prompt nontraditional media, such as independent journalists who publish articles on writing platforms like Medium, to demand payments, said Bernstein analyst
Mark Shmulik.
“The concern is, what if we no longer draw a line at media conglomerates? … That’s a pathway Facebook doesn’t want to go down,” he said.
Earlier this month Australian officials talked with their counterparts from Canada, Germany, France and Finland about those countries making similar rules on tech platforms paying news publishers, said
Steven Guilbeault,
Canada’s minister in charge of cultural policy, adding that the coalition of countries could expand over time.
Mr. Guilbeault said he’s encouraged by developments in Australia, and intends to introduce measures this spring that have the support of its global allies and relevant stakeholders. On Monday Canadian Prime Minister
Justin Trudeau
spoke with his Australian counterpart,
Scott Morrison,
about potential cooperation in pursuing regulation of online platforms, according to a summary of the conversation released by Mr. Trudeau’s office.
”We need to find a solution that is sustainable for news publishers, small and large, digital platforms, and for the health of our democracy,” Mr. Guilbeault said.
The battle over payments to news outlets has simmered—and at times boiled over—in Europe for more than a decade. A new European Union copyright law passed in 2019 and the involvement of antitrust regulators have given news media fresh leverage by, among other things, creating new copyright control for press outlets over the use of their publications on the internet by tech companies, except in the case of very short extracts and hyperlinks.
In France, the only country that so far has so far implemented the EU law, Google last November signed licensing agreements for its News Showcase product with several publications, including Le Monde. The agreements came after a French court reaffirmed an order from the country’s antitrust regulator that Google must negotiate.
Google said it has signed News Showcase deals with more than 500 publications in a dozen countries, including Germany, the U.K. and Australia. Google last October pledged $1 billion over three years to such licensing deals, but declined to say Tuesday how much of that amount has been spent.
“We have hundreds of partnerships with news publishers large and small, making us one of the biggest funders of journalism,” a Google spokeswoman said.
Facebook said that publications’ posting of their articles to its platform constitutes a license under the French law, and remains unchanged. The company currently only shows links, rather than rich previews, when users post news articles from French publications themselves, unless the publication has given Facebook explicit permission.
A Facebook spokesman said the company is in talks in France and Germany to launch its Facebook News product, which pays to license articles from news outlets. The product launched last month in the U.K. with articles from publications including the Guardian.
Facebook has previously said it provided hundreds of millions of dollars to publications through its various tools for advertising and subscriptions.
—Sam Schechner and Paul Vieira contributed to this article.
Write to Jeff Horwitz at Jeff.Horwitz@wsj.com and Sarah E. Needleman at sarah.needleman@wsj.com
Corrections & Amplifications Facebook generated a record $86 billion in revenue last year. An earlier version of this article incorrectly said Facebook generated $70.7 billion in revenue. (Corrected on Feb. 23)