FULL TEXT A year ago, the world learned that Facebook allowed a political consulting company called Cambridge Analytica to exploit the personal information of up to 87 million users, to obtain data that would help the company's clients "fight a culture war" in America. Since then, a torrent of reports has revealed that the Cambridge Analytica scandal was part of a much broader pattern of misconduct by Facebook. It has paid teenagers to spy on their behavior, even asking users "to screenshot their Amazon order history page," according to the website TechCrunch. The company has secretly collected highly sensitive data through the back doors of other apps, such as ovulation trackers, to target ads at users "even if no Facebook account is used to log in and if the end user isn't a Facebook member," The Wall Street Journal reported. And in its pursuit of dominance, Facebook gave at least 60 device makers direct access to its users' data. Those actions are under criminal investigation, The Times reported last week. Facebook has also engaged in campaigns to obstruct congressional oversight and to smear and discredit critics -tactics reminiscent of the big tobacco playbook. After each misdeed becomes public, Facebook alternates between denial, hollow promises and apology campaigns. But nothing changes. That's why, as chairman of the House Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law, I am calling for an investigation into whether Facebook's conduct has violated antitrust laws. Since the Cambridge Analytica scandal, the Federal Trade Commission has confirmed that it is investigating Facebook to determine whether it violated a consent order it entered into with the commission in 2011. While we await the outcome of the commission's investigation, other enforcement agencies and government authorities have already taken action. The attorney general for the District of Columbia filed a complaint months ago. German antitrust authorities issued an order finding that Facebook abused its dominance and limiting Facebook's data collection practices. And an investigation by the British Parliament compared Facebook to a company of "digital gangsters" that considers itself "ahead of and beyond the law." The F.T.C. is facing a massive credibility crisis. For years, privacy advocates have alerted the commission that Facebook was likely violating its commitments under the agreement. Not only did the commission fail to enforce its order, but by failing to block Facebook's acquisition of WhatsApp and Instagram, it enabled Facebook to extend its dominance. How the commission chooses to respond to Facebook's repeated abuses will determine whether it is willing or able to promote competition and protect consumers. If the commission does conclude that Facebook has violated the consent order, how it fixes this problem through a legal remedy will be a test of its effectiveness. The commission has the authority to impose substantial fines on Facebook. Given that the corporation had more than $55 billion in revenue in 2018 alone, even a fine in the low billions of dollars will amount to a slap on the wrist, a mere cost of doing business. Moreover, because Facebook is a repeat offender, it is critical that the commission's response is strong enough to ProQuest PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 1 of 4 prevent future violations. America's laws are not suggestions. When a company has repeatedly shown contempt for its legal commitments, the remedy must change how the company operates. Enforcement agencies can do this through deep reforms of the company's structure. This includes removing members of the company's board, or even top executives, along with other changes to the company's business model to address dysfunction at the top. The F.T.C. can also pursue other ways to fix this problem. For example, after German antitrust enforcers found that Facebook abused its dominant market position, it required Facebook to stop combining different sources of its users' data without their consent. But the commission should not stop there. There is also mounting evidence of anticompetitive conduct by Facebook that may warrant scrutiny by federal antitrust enforcers. For example, the social media goliath has reportedly systematically spied on its rivals, giving it valuable information on how people used competitive products. Facebook's predatory acquisition strategy has also arguably resulted in fewer innovative services. When it bought TBH, a polling app popular with teenagers, Facebook announced that the app would still operate independently and under its own brand. Less than a year later, Facebook scuttled it due to "low usage." Facebook also appears to have used its dominance to cripple other competitive threats by cutting them off from its massive network. In 2013, Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook's chief executive, personally approved the company's decision to block Vine, a fast-growing rival, from a critical Facebook feature, to the advantage of its own online video service. Finally, in what looks to be a dangerous power grab to head off antitrust action, Facebook recently announced plans to merge Instagram, WhatsApp and Facebook into one integrated product, furthering its monopoly power. Together, these reports suggest a disturbing pattern of anticompetitive conduct. Watchdogs and consumers alike report that the quality of Facebook's products has declined. It has killed innovation and eliminated competitive threats. And the price for advertising on the platform has continued to rise. In other words, there is a smoking gun. American antitrust agencies have not pursued a significant monopoly case in more than two decades, even as corporate concentration and monopoly power have reached historic levels. It's clear that serious enforcement is long overdue. David N. Cicilline, a member of the House of Representatives, is chairman of the House Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law. The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We'd like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here's our email:letters@nytimes.com. Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

FULL TEXT A year ago, the world learned that Facebook allowed a political consulting company called Cambridge Analytica to exploit the personal information of up to 87 million users, to obtain data that would help the company's clients "fight a culture war" in America. Since then, a torrent of reports has revealed that the Cambridge Analytica scandal was part of a much broader pattern of misconduct by Facebook. It has paid teenagers to spy on their behavior, even asking users "to screenshot their Amazon order history page," according to the website TechCrunch. The company has secretly collected highly sensitive data through the back doors of other apps, such as ovulation trackers, to target ads at users "even if no Facebook account is used to log in and if the end user isn't a Facebook member," The Wall Street Journal reported. And in its pursuit of dominance, Facebook gave at least 60 device makers direct access to its users' data. Those actions are under criminal investigation, The Times reported last week. Facebook has also engaged in campaigns to obstruct congressional oversight and to smear and discredit critics -tactics reminiscent of the big tobacco playbook. After each misdeed becomes public, Facebook alternates between denial, hollow promises and apology campaigns. But nothing changes. That's why, as chairman of the House Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law, I am calling for an investigation into whether Facebook's conduct has violated antitrust laws. Since the Cambridge Analytica scandal, the Federal Trade Commission has confirmed that it is investigating Facebook to determine whether it violated a consent order it entered into with the commission in 2011. While we await the outcome of the commission's investigation, other enforcement agencies and government authorities have already taken action. The attorney general for the District of Columbia filed a complaint months ago. German antitrust authorities issued an order finding that Facebook abused its dominance and limiting Facebook's data collection practices. And an investigation by the British Parliament compared Facebook to a company of "digital gangsters" that considers itself "ahead of and beyond the law." The F.T.C. is facing a massive credibility crisis. For years, privacy advocates have alerted the commission that Facebook was likely violating its commitments under the agreement. Not only did the commission fail to enforce its order, but by failing to block Facebook's acquisition of WhatsApp and Instagram, it enabled Facebook to extend its dominance. How the commission chooses to respond to Facebook's repeated abuses will determine whether it is willing or able to promote competition and protect consumers. If the commission does conclude that Facebook has violated the consent order, how it fixes this problem through a legal remedy will be a test of its effectiveness. The commission has the authority to impose substantial fines on Facebook. Given that the corporation had more than $55 billion in revenue in 2018 alone, even a fine in the low billions of dollars will amount to a slap on the wrist, a mere cost of doing business. Moreover, because Facebook is a repeat offender, it is critical that the commission's response is strong enough to ProQuest PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM Page 1 of 4 prevent future violations. America's laws are not suggestions. When a company has repeatedly shown contempt for its legal commitments, the remedy must change how the company operates. Enforcement agencies can do this through deep reforms of the company's structure. This includes removing members of the company's board, or even top executives, along with other changes to the company's business model to address dysfunction at the top. The F.T.C. can also pursue other ways to fix this problem. For example, after German antitrust enforcers found that Facebook abused its dominant market position, it required Facebook to stop combining different sources of its users' data without their consent. But the commission should not stop there. There is also mounting evidence of anticompetitive conduct by Facebook that may warrant scrutiny by federal antitrust enforcers. For example, the social media goliath has reportedly systematically spied on its rivals, giving it valuable information on how people used competitive products. Facebook's predatory acquisition strategy has also arguably resulted in fewer innovative services. When it bought TBH, a polling app popular with teenagers, Facebook announced that the app would still operate independently and under its own brand. Less than a year later, Facebook scuttled it due to "low usage." Facebook also appears to have used its dominance to cripple other competitive threats by cutting them off from its massive network. In 2013, Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook's chief executive, personally approved the company's decision to block Vine, a fast-growing rival, from a critical Facebook feature, to the advantage of its own online video service. Finally, in what looks to be a dangerous power grab to head off antitrust action, Facebook recently announced plans to merge Instagram, WhatsApp and Facebook into one integrated product, furthering its monopoly power. Together, these reports suggest a disturbing pattern of anticompetitive conduct. Watchdogs and consumers alike report that the quality of Facebook's products has declined. It has killed innovation and eliminated competitive threats. And the price for advertising on the platform has continued to rise. In other words, there is a smoking gun. American antitrust agencies have not pursued a significant monopoly case in more than two decades, even as corporate concentration and monopoly power have reached historic levels. It's clear that serious enforcement is long overdue. David N. Cicilline, a member of the House of Representatives, is chairman of the House Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law. The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We'd like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here's our email:letters@nytimes.com. Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

Database System Concepts

7th Edition

ISBN:9780078022159

Author:Abraham Silberschatz Professor, Henry F. Korth, S. Sudarshan

Publisher:Abraham Silberschatz Professor, Henry F. Korth, S. Sudarshan

Chapter1: Introduction

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 1PE

See similar textbooks

Related questions

Question

While SMIS are presented as a benefit to businesses and consumers, they also have a dark side. Read the attached article titled “The Case for Investigating Facebook” by David N. Cicilline, a member of the House of Representatives and chairman of the House Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law, and discuss.

FULL TEXT
A year ago, the world learned that Facebook allowed a political consulting company called Cambridge Analytica to
exploit the personal information of up to 87 million users, to obtain data that would help the company's clients
"fight a culture war" in America.
Since then, a torrent of reports has revealed that the Cambridge Analytica scandal was part of a much broader
pattern of misconduct by Facebook.
It has paid teenagers to spy on their behavior, even asking users "to screenshot their Amazon order history page,"
according to the website TechCrunch. The company has secretly collected highly sensitive data through the back
doors of other apps, such as ovulation trackers, to target ads at users "even if no Facebook account is used to log
in and if the end user isn't a Facebook member," The Wall Street Journal reported.
And in its pursuit of dominance, Facebook gave at least 60 device makers direct access to its users' data. Those
actions are under criminal investigation, The Times reported last week. Facebook has also engaged in campaigns
to obstruct congressional oversight and to smear and discredit critics -tactics reminiscent of the big tobacco
playbook.
After each misdeed becomes public, Facebook alternates between denial, hollow promises and apology
campaigns.
But nothing changes. That's why, as chairman of the House Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and
Administrative Law, I am calling for an investigation into whether Facebook's conduct has violated antitrust laws.
Since the Cambridge Analytica scandal, the Federal Trade Commission has confirmed that it is investigating
Facebook to determine whether it violated a consent order it entered into with the commission in 2011.
While we await the outcome of the commission's investigation, other enforcement agencies and government
authorities have already taken action. The attorney general for the District of Columbia filed a complaint months
ago. German antitrust authorities issued an order finding that Facebook abused its dominance and limiting
Facebook's data collection practices. And an investigation by the British Parliament compared Facebook to a
company of "digital gangsters" that considers itself "ahead of and beyond the law."
The F.T.C. is facing a massive credibility crisis.
For years, privacy advocates have alerted the commission that Facebook was likely violating its commitments
under the agreement. Not only did the commission fail to enforce its order, but by failing to block Facebook's
acquisition of WhatsApp and Instagram, it enabled Facebook to extend its dominance.
How the commission chooses to respond to Facebook's repeated abuses will determine whether it is willing or
able to promote competition and protect consumers. If the commission does conclude that Facebook has violated
the consent order, how it fixes this problem through a legal remedy will be a test of its effectiveness. The
commission has the authority to impose substantial fines on Facebook. Given that the corporation had more than
$55 billion in revenue in 2018 alone, even a fine in the low billions of dollars will amount to a slap on the wrist, a
mere cost of doing business.
Moreover, because Facebook is a repeat offender, it is critical that the commission's response is strong enough to
ProQuest
PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM
Page 1 of 4

Transcribed Image Text:prevent future violations. America's laws are not suggestions. When a company has repeatedly shown contempt for its legal commitments, the remedy must change how the company operates. Enforcement agencies can do this through deep reforms of the company's structure. This includes removing members of the company's board, or even top executives, along with other changes to the company's business model to address dysfunction at the top. The F.T.C. can also pursue other ways to fix this problem. For example, after German antitrust enforcers found that Facebook abused its dominant market position, it required Facebook to stop combining different sources of its users' data without their consent. But the commission should not stop there. There is also mounting evidence of anticompetitive conduct by Facebook that may warrant scrutiny by federal antitrust enforcers. For example, the social media goliath has reportedly systematically spied on its rivals, giving it valuable information on how people used competitive products. Facebook's predatory acquisition strategy has also arguably resulted in fewer innovative services. When it bought TBH, a polling app popular with teenagers, Facebook announced that the app would still operate independently and under its own brand. Less than a year later, Facebook scuttled it due to "low usage." Facebook also appears to have used its dominance to cripple other competitive threats by cutting them off from its massive network. In 2013, Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook's chief executive, personally approved the company's decision to block Vine, a fast-growing rival, from a critical Facebook feature, to the advantage of its own online video service. Finally, in what looks to be a dangerous power grab to head off antitrust action, Facebook recently announced plans to merge Instagram, WhatsApp and Facebook into one integrated product, furthering its monopoly power. Together, these reports suggest a disturbing pattern of anticompetitive conduct. Watchdogs and consumers alike report that the quality of Facebook's products has declined. It has killed innovation and eliminated competitive threats. And the price for advertising on the platform has continued to rise. In other words, there is a smoking gun. American antitrust agencies have not pursued a significant monopoly case in more than two decades, even as corporate concentration and monopoly power have reached historic levels. It's clear that serious enforcement is long overdue. David N. Cicilline, a member of the House of Representatives, is chairman of the House Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law. The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We'd like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here's our email:letters@nytimes.com. Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

Expert Solution

Step by step

Solved in 3 steps

SEE SOLUTION Check out a sample Q&A here

Knowledge Booster

Learn more about

Need a deep-dive on the concept behind this application? Look no further. Learn more about this topic, computer-science and related others by exploring similar questions and additional content below.