I will never forget a conversation I had with an employee of a very large internet company. The firm (Apple) had just retreated from an excellent position they had taken in relation to a key online child protection issue. They did so without ever abandoning or qualifying any of the technical underpinnings of the solution they were proposing to adopt, nor the reasons for promoting it in the first place. I’m talking about client-side scanning.
When I asked why they had nevertheless changed their mind, the reply went something like this
“When we first announced our plans for a new child protection policy, the privacy lobby and techies, including prominent academics, were all over us like a rash. Straight away. Very hostile and from all over the world. By the time we heard from the children’s lobby it was too late. The damage had been done”.
So it was the fault of the children’s lobby for not being alert enough, or nimble enough?
Ludicrous.
And yet there was a kernel of harsh truth in there and maybe it at least partly explains why we were not favoured with advance notice or leaks in the way our opponents were. Although even if we had been I am still doubtful we could have got our act together in anything like the same broad way or at the same speed, let alone got ahead of the curve.
Particularly on the international scene we simply do not have the same (relatively) mature institutional infrastructure or capacities as the various tech companies’ wide networks.
Individuals and organizations within the networks I have in mind may not agree on everything all of the time – may even be adversaries on occasions – but they share a similar outlook in respect of the kind of measures currently being considered by Governments and legislatures on every continent. In particular they share a similar outlook in respect of a new Regulation being brought forward by the European Union to combat and prevent child sexual abuse.
The imbalance between the protagonists engaging in the debate on the Regulation, in the end, comes down to resources. A comparative abundance of them on one side and a chronic, severe lack on the other. It flies in the face of any notion of equal access to justice. In fairy tales Beauty usually triumphs over The Beast. But that’s fairy tales for you. To put that slightly differently, having public opinion substantially on our side helps but in the world of policy-making in the tech space the good guys don’t always win. The bad guys don’t always lose.
Impossible choices
The children’s lobby in the online space needs to embrace the logic of global businesses dominating a global medium. When faced with the pressing demands of actually existing children who need food, clean water or therapy, or a safe place to sleep, and they need it now, it’s hard to convince many decent human beings to put their scarce money into developing or sustaining a lobbying and advocacy arm, particularly one which operates internationally. It may be strategic. But it isn’t immediate.
We need to look to and learn from the consumer, environmental and animal welfare movements. We need strong national chapters linked to respected bodies that work within and around major international institutions, but without being compromised by them.
Bromides and comfortable illusions
It is not always a question of sitting in a room long enough to find the words which reflect a consensus that will propel everyone to act in short order to put everything right. In a similar vein, useful and necessary as research often is, we must stop thinking all we need do is produce the killer new evidence that will, once and for all, make everyone see reason and agree to change their ways.
If Frances Haugen’s revelations and other disclosures have taught us anything it is that Big Tech knows exactly what bad things are happening to children on their platforms but they will often decline to act in a meaningful way to counter them until required to by external forces. They will fund any amount of education and awareness or empowerment actions. These too are necessary. But in key areas they are a long way from being enough, particularly if what is really needed involves addressing structural or technical stuff which costs serious money and may change the existing business model. That’s an altogether different kettle of bananas.
Governments and legislatures are key among the span of relevant external forces. Which is why the lobbying and advocacy landscape matters. Acutely. Not that we will ever be able to match Silicon Valley. Governments and inter-governmental bodies cannot do that either, but the children’s lobby must aim to get to a better position, one which allows our strengths to shine through. We will not do that if we are hooked on discretionary industry money or are dependent on the changing whims of political institutions. Who said this was going to be easy?
The lobbying and advocacy landscape
When looking at the lobbying and advocacy landscape in tech we can identify three principal constituencies who line up against us on a regular basis.
There are trade associations, the companies themselves and a kaleidoscope of more or less knowing allies.
I am going to focus on the latter two. Trade associations really should be the subject of a separate study. They can be, in effect aggressive surrogates, not always too clever about disguising their true purposes. So, first, lets look at two large and permanent parts of the kaleidoscope.
The Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
Obviously both the CDT and the EFF work across a range of issues, sometimes actively opposing Big Tech but that does not mean they do not occasionally act in complete harmony with Silicon Valley, which is why Silicon Valley helps keep them alive. Or at any rate has done so far.
Self-evidently the CDT and EFF are not solely focused on limiting the ability of internet companies to protect young users (it just feels like that) but neither do the interests of young users feature prominently or constantly in their thinking about online policy. It looks like the CDT and EFF spring to life and drag children into an argument if it’s useful while trying to deflect or delay something they are against anyway. If you cannot outright defeat something, delay is the next best thing.
Yet children constitute 1 in 3 of all internet users worldwide, rising to over or about 1 in 2 in some territories. That’s a large constituency of users. Worthy of special consideration and attention by people who know about and work with children? You would have thought so. But I can’t find anyone with that kind of background on the staff or Boards of either the CDT or the EFF. Everyone seems to be a niche lawyer or a techie. CDT employs someone with a specialism in disabled people’s rights and workers’ right. Bravo. But not children’s rights. Go figure.
The CDT’s latest published accounts for the year 2022 show an annual income of over US$9 million dollars. That’s for a single year. I would hazard a guess that, in the context of the kinds of activities under discussion here, the CDT’s income for 2022 exceeds the total amount spent globally by children’s organizations since Year Zero.
In its Annual Accounts the CDT declared its “EU Office” cost them US$396,355, funded by “Donor Subscriptions Without Restrictions”. Wow. Maybe I should us a better or different adjective because at least one Brussels insider says that sum in no way represents the true cost of the CDT’s sizeable operation in the capital of Belgium. Maybe there is another sum to be added. One that comes from a general fund rather than “Donor Subscriptions Without Restrictions”.
The EFF is the older organization with a much larger income. In the 2020-2021 Annual Report their income is shown as US$15.3 million. Impressive.
And where did the CDT’s and EFF’s money come from? In the case of the CDT only 3% came from individuals. The largest lump (46%) came from Foundations and the next biggest was “Corporations” (29%).
The EFF is obviously better connected with rich (but unnamed) individuals. Individuals contributed US$ 9 .2 million to the EFF’s coffers, well over half of its total income. The EFF breaks down individual donations by size and a goodly number contributed over US$50,000. They also have an odd category of “Individuals through Foundations”, whatever that is, but it yielded a small amount. The EFF’s income stream from “Corporate” likewise was small whereas “Foundations” are a big deal, contributing over US$ 3 million in that year.
Who are these Corporations and Foundations? Do they crossover and fund both the CDT and the EFF? Yes. They do. The Ford Foundation and the Open Society Foundation contribute to both. Some years ago, the Open Society Foundation would not even receive or consider an application from UK children’s groups because we did not fit their funding criteria. Happy to fund groups opposing us but not us.
CDT has a Microsoft employee on its main Board and on its Advisory Board. Who else is on the CDT’s Advisory Board? Someone from Apple, someone from Meta, Cloudflare, plus loads of lawyers and a body seemingly dedicated to defending the 1st Amendment. Then there’s the Internet Society, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Consumer Technology Association. Are you catching a certain, unifying ideological alignment here?
CDT received donations in excess of US$500,000 from Amazon, the “Chan Zuckerberg Foundation”, Google and in excess of US$100,00 from each of Apple, Meta, Tik Tok, WhatsApp, (is that three Facebook donations? I think it is), and “anonymous”. US$50,000 came from each of Airbnb, Spotify, Uber and Verizon. It’s a long list.
Thus, referring back to my earlier point about shared interests or outlooks, when ostensibly independent bodies such as the CDT and EFF put out their briefing papers and help organize the opposition they give a benediction of apparent, financially disinterested objectivity which is thoroughly undeserved.
The companies themselves
I don’t have access to data on the spending on advertising which Big Tech promotes to help shape public opinion in general and that of policy-makers in particular. However, when I read the full page ads in The Economist and elsewhere or I walk through the tube station in Westminster and see the hoardings pinned to the walls, I’m guessing the sums are large. Very large.
More directly on the question of face-to-face lobbying in Brussels, according to one highly respected source, since 2015 spending by businesses on lobbying EU institutions has increased by 33%, with Apple, Google, Meta, Microsoft and Qualcomm now taking five of the top 6 places in the overall rankings. Energy companies used to dominate the Brussels lobbying scene. Now it’s Big Tech.
Between them in 2022 the five companies just named spent 28 million Euros and employed 39.3 full-time equivalents on lobbying. Nearly half of the 39.3 worked for Meta. Those five companies held 758 meetings with various bits of the European institutions and have 36 passes for the European Parliament. Moreover, an astonishingly high proportion of people working as lobbyists for Big Tech were formerly employed either by the EU or some other governmental agency with links to the EU. Big Tech pays big bucks for your Rolodex.
The children’s organizations
According to “Integrity Watch”, in the latest period for which data are available there were 12,324 organizations registered as employing lobbyists who engage with EU institutions. Between them they employ 7,586 accredited lobbyists. If you search on “tech” according to these guys there are 272 recognised organizations, employing 88 accredited lobbyists.
If you search on “children” there are sixteen organizations, employing between them 17 people. I think there must be a difference here between full-time equivalents and individuals who may work part-time because the largest children’s actor is Missing Children Europe, apparently with six accreditations and 11 registered lobbyists. Save the Children Europe is next with five accreditations and 10 lobbyists. That makes 21. Perhaps more tellingly and less ambiguously (?) only 5 children’s organizations had meetings with EU institutions and there were only 63 of these in total. It would be good to know how many requests for meetings were made and how many were turned down.
According to this same source the EFF has one lobbyist and held three meetings. The CDT had no lobbyists registered, and held zero meetings. Hmmm. Maybe the dates on which the data were collected need checking out.
The difference in capacities is stark
It is very likely Big Tech’s lobbyists were covering a range of different issues, not just the child sexual abuse Regulation. This will also be true in respect of children’s organizations. They too will have engaged with the EU on other matters during the same timeframe.
However, the scale of Big Tech’s capacity and what it is actually doing leaves the children’s organizations trailing a million miles behind. The difference is stark. Unconscionable.
A word about academics. Playing or being played?
A few weeks ago about 300 academics signed a letter attacking the Regulation the European Union is proposing to adopt. This measure could lead to the wider use of client-side scanning to protect children. See above.
The academics’ letter is headed
A European sister body of the EFF and CDT, EDRI, headlined the letter as follows
“Hundreds of scientists warn against EU’s proposed CSA Regulation”
These headings and much of what followed is intended to convey the idea that the Olympians – “scientists” or “scientists and researchers” (presumably we are meant to think they are researching in related “scientific” areas) had given careful consideration to the technical and scientific questions at issue in the Regulation and solemnly reached a conclusion.
In the trade this is what we call a sleight of hand.
Many of the signatories don’t work in the fields covered by the core subject-matter of the letter (machine learning/AI/ encryption) or the relevant parts of the EU regulation in question, so the best we can say is these learned citizens were willing to wave their unrelated Professorial gowns as a political act of solidarity with their mates. I spotted at least one signatory whose reputation is based entirely on his command and knowledge of the law because, er, he is a practicing lawyer, as well as a teacher of law.
I guess these guys move in the same or similar circles as the initiators of the letter. They meet at or in the margins of cyber insecurity conferences ( Ed- shouldn’t that read “cyber security” conferences?). By degrees large numbers of them are symbiotically linked with various parts of the internet industry, depending on it for access, funds, data, maybe placements or future jobs for their students, and the rest. And don’t get me started on pantouflage (look it up).
Let’s leave the Pirate Party out of it for now but later we could come back to them and their narrow weirdness. They were definitely a motivating force for the Professors’ letter even if many of the 300 signatories might not have been aware of it. I say this because one of the prime originators of the 300 letter had previously penned and published a similar one where he adopted and used the exact same language as the Pirate Party although I noticed in the later letter, the one that went to the 300, such language had been carefully edited out. Smart move Prof.
An important part of the academics’ letter – maybe the only part that matters – is its claim to “scientific” authority.
Nevertheless, recalling that some of the technical tools in question had been in use since at least 2009, with zero known ill-effects but a great deal of evidence of positive benefits, and reminding ourselves of Apple’s proposed solution, the letter nonetheless said it would only be possible for the stated objectives of the EU Regulation to be realised in “between 10 and 20 years”. This reminded me of the old adage about when we might expect to obtain large quantities of electricity through nuclear fusion. “It’s about 30 years off. And probably always will be.”
With digital technologies it is sometimes hard to know with any level of certainty where things will be next week. The world can turn upside down in the metaphorical twinkling of an eye. So 10-20 years is a political statement of opposition based on nothing at all. It is wishful thinking or guesswork. Shame on you for trying to suggest there was anything in the least bit “scientific” about it.
For a fuller destruction of the highly unscientific intervention by the academics see the blogs posted by the EU Commissioner and by the Canadian Centre for Child Protection.
I apologise for the inordinate length of this blog. I’ll try hard to make them shorter. Honest.
Desiderata 