Google, Facebook may have to reveal deepest secrets - Lawmakers threaten to pry lid off algorithm secrets...
Google, Facebook may have to reveal deepest secrets
The algorithms that helped the companies make their
fortunes are of growing interest to investigators probing interference in the
2016 election.
Critics of the tech industry say the time has come for
the companies to let policymakers take a closer look.
By NANCY SCOLA and JOSH MEYER 10/01/2017 06:49 AM EDT
The investigations into Russia's role in the 2016
election are threatening to pry the lid off tech companies' most prized
possessions: the secret inner workings of their online platforms.
As the probes unfold into social media’s role in
spreading misinformation, U.S. lawmakers are beginning to show an interest in
the mechanics of everything from how Facebook weights news items to how Google
ranks search results. The questions, which echo European regulators’
interventionist approach to technology, are a stark change for Silicon Valley
companies accustomed to deference from U.S. officials on how they run their
operations.
Rep. Adam Schiff of California, the top Democrat on the
House Intelligence Committee, warned Sept. 24 about "the use of Facebook's
algorithms and the way it tends to potentially reinforce people's informational
bias." He added, "This is a far broader issue than Russia, but one
that we really need to know more about."
A source close to the Senate Intelligence Committee said
staff investigators are eager to learn whether Russian elements used Twitter to
boost disinformation in Google's search rankings. While Google has previously
said it uses Twitter and Facebook links in calculating search rankings for
content, it hasn't revealed specifics on how social media mentions factor into
its algorithm. Google is famously closemouthed about how its immensely valuable
search engine works, only parceling out small clues over the years.
Critics of the tech industry say the time has come for
the companies to let policymakers take a closer look.
"Algorithmic transparency is also key to corporate
accountability," said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the
Washington-based Electronic Privacy Information Center, which has frequently
clashed with tech companies over what it sees as their mishandling of
consumers' personal data. "Without knowledge of the factors that provide
the basis for decisions, it is impossible to know whether companies engage in
practices that are deceptive, discriminatory or unethical."
Technology companies have traditionally balked at the
idea that they should have to lift their hoods to lawmakers or regulators. For
one thing, the algorithms in some cases constitute the bulk of their assets —
it’s a big reason most people use Google’s search engine instead of, say, Bing.
Sharing them with a leak-prone Congress or executive branch agency could mean
giving away a competitive advantage. The companies also argue that they often
improve their products so quickly that stopping to document what they've done
would slow technological progress.
"When it comes to something like a social network,
trying to regulate by demanding companies turn over their intellectual property
is going to have a dampening effect on innovation," said Daniel Castro,
vice president at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. What's
more, with platforms like Google and Facebook where people compete to get
attention, "they don't reveal exactly how it works because people would
cheat," he said.
Silicon Valley, though, has lately shown some signs of a
willingness — however grudging — to explain more of how its inventions work.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, in announcing changes to address foreign election
meddling, said in a Sept. 21 announcement that his company will boost
transparency by making it "so you can visit an advertiser’s page and see
the ads they’re currently running to any audience on Facebook.”
But some technology experts say the companies could do
much more.
"Technical shock-and-awe gets used as a political
shield to prevent scrutiny of what's happening on these platforms," said
David Robinson, co-founder of Upturn, a Washington, D.C.-based tech consulting
firm.
"You often have a situation where a technologist
goes to a bunch of policymakers and basically says: 'Don't worry your pretty
little heads about the details of how this works. It's complicated and hard to
explain,'" said Robinson. "But the parts that people care about
aren't the hard parts to explain," he said, citing as an example how
Facebook decides how to segment its audience for advertisers to target.
The notion that people should have more insight into how
computer-driven decisions shape their lives has made headway in Europe, under
the banner of the "right of explanation." German Chancellor Angela
Merkel said last year that "algorithms must be made more transparent, so
that one can inform oneself as an interested citizen about questions like ‘What
influences my behavior on the internet and that of others?'" And a
sweeping law called the General Data Protection Regulation, set to take effect
in the European Union in May, enshrines the standard that citizens deserve to
know how algorithms make decisions that affect them.
Meanwhile, European negotiators on the U.S.-EU Privacy
Shield — a pact that allows American companies to move data across the Atlantic
— want future versions to protect EU citizens from so-called automated
decision-making.
The political landscape in the United States has grown
rockier for Silicon Valley in recent months. But the most immediate risk for
the industry is lawmakers seizing upon Washington's multiple Russia-related
investigations to push through regulations that might not otherwise have gotten
traction.
Congressional offices have sometimes had their own
parochial concerns about how social media work, and they have run into roadblocks
when trying to learn more.
In one incident, the digital directors for a group of
lawmakers expressed frustration to representatives of Facebook during the Obama
era that the company's targeting tools made it difficult to reach their
constituents, according to a source who requested anonymity because the
discussions took place behind closed doors. The Facebook rep told the staffers
that the company's algorithm gave points for original content and multimedia,
but the rep offered nothing more, the source said.
"Beyond that, it is a complete mystery to us,"
the source said.
Comments
Post a Comment