On the 3^rd of October the Irish High Court agreed with the DPC, the Irish Data Protection Commission, regarding legality concerns about the channels Facebook uses to transfer data from EU member states to the US.

Facebook, like many other multinationals, is split up into separate companies: Facebook Inc. the parent company, registered in the US, and Facebook Ireland Ltd, registered in Ireland. In the above mentioned case Facebook is on trial for transporting data from European citizens, registered under Facebook Ireland Ltd, to the US based Facebook Inc.

Unknown to many European customers, storing European visitor data on servers based outside of the EEA falls underneath exporting “Personally Identifiable Information” and is prohibited since the invalidation of the US-EU Safe Harbor Agreement (European Commission, 2016).

Since this invalidation Facebook and others have moved on to different channels, so called SCCs (Standard Contractual Clauses). These SCCs are sets of contracts clauses issued by the European Commission in order to establish safeguards to allow for the transfer of personal data from the EU to countries outside of the EEA (McLellan & Hellmuth, 2015)

The Irish high court has now referred to the CJEU, Europe’s highest court, for a preliminary ruling on the validity of the SCC Decisions (Irish High Court rules on Facebook surveillance case, 2017).

In simple terms, Facebook Inc. is required to help the American government with mass surveillance and thus transfers European data to US servers, while EU law prohibits just these practices. As Facebook is registered in both Ireland and the US ,“they [Facebook] got themselves in a legal dilemma that they cannot possibly solve in the long run.” according to Max Schrems, plaintiff in the case.

Did you know that European data is prohibited to be transferred outside of Europe? Are you oké with your data being on US servers, to be spied on by the NSA? What do you think about these regional data protection limits?

Irish High Court rules on Facebook surveillance case. (2017). Retrieved from http://www.europe-v-facebook.org/sh2/PA.pdf

European Commission. (2016). EU Commission and United States agree on new framework for transatlantic data flows: EU-US Privacy Shield. Retrieved from http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-216_en.htm

McLellan, M., & Hellmuth, W. (2015). Safe Harbor Is Dead, Long Live Standard Contractual Clauses? | Data Privacy Monitor. Data Privacy Monitor. Retrieved 7 October 2017, from https://www.dataprivacymonitor.com/enforcement/safe-harbor-is-dead-long-live-standard-contractual-clauses/

The Past
At the core of the traditional newspaper industry are print products. These print products rely on advertisements and subscribers and are physically distributed, often on a daily or weekly basis (Karimi & Walter, 2015). The invention of the internet in 1989 severely impacted the industry and its advertisement and subscription based business model. Buyer power increased as customer were now no longer limited to physically distributed print products (Steglich, 2015). The effect of ‘first copy costs’ increased as advances in information technology led to falling distribution costs (Shapiro & Varian, 1988). Meanwhile substitutes, such as Nu.nl, grew in size, eating into the profits of traditional news suppliers. Coupled with increased competitive rivalry due to economies of scale, and an enormous growth in content, decreased margins to rock bottom.
Two of the substitutes and disruptors of the yesteryear business model are Nu.nl and Blendle. Both companies have distinct business models, but are equally important in the disruption of the newspaper industry.

The Present
The news website Nu.nl was founded in 1999 and was the first Dutch news organisation to publish news 24 hours a day. Instead of relying on subscription payments or print advertisements Nu.nl solely relies on online advertisements to run its business. Two distinct advantages Nu.nl offers are the fact that their website is freely accessible, and there is very little delay between events and publishing. Moreover Nu.nl greatly benefited from its first mover advantage and continues to be the most visited news website of the Netherlands. Blendle is an online news aggregator aimed at debundling news consumption. Founded in 2014 by two Dutch entrepreneurs the main selling point of Blendle is offering consumers the ability to pay for individual articles from multiple sources. Blendle’s business model relies on multipart pricing: firstly, prices per article differ based on length and journalistic effort. Secondly, Blendle has a reliable stream of income from subscriptions. They position themselves as the iTunes of news through disaggregation and then reselling it as a mixed bundle, or more accurately, a ‘mixed debundled rebundle’.

The Future
Despite having significantly different business models both companies are disrupting the current market. Blendle has interesting selling points, however as news becomes more commoditized, and consumers continue to expect free content Blendle might have to fight for survival. Meanwhile Nu.nl, the mainstay among the most used sources for news consumption in the Netherlands, will need to remain vigilant regarding possible substitutions. Though still a small player in the Netherlands, with a mere 9% market share, Facebook continues to grow as consumers’ primary news source (Emerce.nl, 2017). Meanwhile the increased use of ad-blocking software might be a threat to an advertisement based business model.
Do you still read a printed newspaper? Do you use an adblocking program while browsing journalistic websites? What are your thought about the future of ‘news’?

References
Emerce.nl (2017).Nederlander gebruikt Facebook niet als nieuwsbron. Retrieved 24 September 2017, from https://www.emerce.nl/nieuws/nederlander-gebruikt-facebook-nieuwsbron
Karimi, J., & Walter, Z. (2015). The role of dynamic capabilities in responding to digital disruption: A factor-based study of the newspaper industry. Journal of Management Information Systems, 32(1), 39-81.
Muck, A. (2017). Digital Disruption In The Newspaper Industry: How Publishers Are Pushing Back. Retrieved 24 September 2017 from https://www.forbes.com/sites/delltechnologies/2017/07/27/digital-disruption-in-the-newspaper-industry-how-publishers-are-pushing-back/#5257826ededb
Shapiro, C., & Varian, H. R. (1998). Information rules: a strategic guide to the network economy. Harvard Business Press.
Steglich, F. (2015). Disruption In The Newspaper Industry – A Framework. Retrieved 24 September 2017 from https://medium.com/@fst/disruption-in-the-newspaper-industry-f821aab38d26

Suppose it’s the year 2025, you’re driving down the highway in your all new Tesla Model 7. Suddenly a dog steps in front of your car. Time stops and you are to decide to: wander of the road hitting a tree injuring yourself, hitting the brakes risking a multiple-car accident, or running over Teddy, killing man’s best friend?

A recent publication by the German Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure’s Ethic Commission, featured a set of 20 points/guidelines whom could shape the future of automated driving systems. The ethics commission, consisting of 14 academics and experts from the a multitude of disciplines such as ethics, law, and technology, came up with guidelines for automated transport systems. These guidelines, meant for policymakers and lawmakers, set out requirements in terms of safety, human dignity, personal freedom of choice and data autonomy.

Key elements of this report include the primary purpose for partly and fully automated transport systems: “To improve safety, increase mobility opportunities and to make further benefits possible” for which individuals themselves are responsible. In addition the commission concludes that “the protection of individuals takes precedes over all utilitarian considerations”. Meaning that automated transporting systems are only justifiable if they lead to a positive balance of risk, in comparison to human drivers. In simpler terms, automated transporting systems should only be used when it is proven to cause fewer accidents than human drivers (this does not mean that they need to be perfect)

Most strikingly, the guidelines report that “In the event of unavoidable accident situations, any distinction based on personal features (age, gender, physical or mental constitution) is strictly prohibited. It is also prohibited to offset victims against one another.”

Going back to the year 2025, suppose that instead of Teddy a pregnant lady is crossing the street. What would you do? Would you distinguish between ‘personal features’, should an automated car distinguish?

References:
Bmvi.de. (2017). BMVI – Dobrindt: First guidelines in the world for self-driving computers. [online] Available at: https://www.bmvi.de/SharedDocs/EN/PressRelease/2017/084-ethic-commission-report-automated-driving.html [Accessed 23 Sep. 2017].
ETHICS COMMISSION AUTOMATED AND CONNECTED DRIVING. (2017). [pdf] Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure. Available at: http://www.bmvi.de/SharedDocs/EN/publications/report-ethics-commission.pdf?__blob=publicationFile [Accessed 23 Sep. 2017].
ETHIK-KOMMISSION AUTOMATISIERTES UND VERNETZTES FAHREN. (2017). [pdf] Bundesministerium für Verkehr und digitale Infrastruktur. Available at: http://www.bmvi.de/SharedDocs/DE/Publikationen/G/bericht-der-ethik-kommission.pdf?__blob=publicationFile [Accessed 23 Sep. 2017].