The number of massive data breaches is accelerating, and your personal information is increasingly at risk of being exposed. In June it was reported that identity verification company AU10TIX had exposed login credentials online, allowing access to sensitive user data including names, birth dates and drivers licenses. In July the news broke that hackers had stolen phone numbers, call records and text records of up to 109 million AT&T customers.
But the latest exposure of personal information is one of the largest ever, and one of the most serious. Back in April hackers claimed that they’d accessed the records of 2.7 billion people kept by a company called National Public Data that serves businesses doing background checks. This month the hackers offered the complete database on-line, which apparently includes names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers and e-mail addresses. Having access to this kind of personal information would make it much easier for hackers to access your accounts, steal money from you or assume your identity.
This is a huge problem, and it’s only going to get worse. There are some things you can do to protect yourself. At the end of the LA Times article above, they offer some good suggestions, to which I would add: Don’t give away any of your personal info unless you really need to. Retailers and on-line services have become more and more aggressive about asking for your info, and most of they time it’s because they plan to share it with someone else. Don’t give them your data unless you really need to. Don’t sign up for services you don’t really need.
Unfortunately, in our surveillance society, there are also companies collecting your data without your knowledge. Google, Facebook and others have already been busted for this. Digital outdoor advertising, including billboards and bus stop displays, is also collecting your device data using wireless technology.
How much money is being lost due to cybercrime? According to the FBI, in 2023 over $12 billion was taken. That number is up $2 billion over 2022 and more than triple the amount reported in 2019. These numbers are expected to grow. And as data breaches become more frequent and more significant, hackers will have increasing access to personal info, making their job easier than ever.
This is why we need to start contacting our elected representatives to ask what they’re going to do to protect us. What’s really needed is legislation at the national level to set standards for companies that handle personal data, followed up with meaningful enforcement when those companies fail to comply. Many states are passing laws to address this problem, but in most cases the laws are too limited to offer the kind of protection we need.
We have to start taking this seriously. If you think you won’t be a victim, think again. Millions of people have already been hit by hackers. Real money is being stolen. Data brokers are collecting your info every day, and many of them don’t do nearly enough to secure the data. We have to take action. This has already gotten way out of hand.
These days government agencies are trying hard to modernize the way they operate by revamping their data management systems. This is understandable. Entities that interact with thousands or millions of citizens are trying to offer 21st century efficiency to the people they serve.
The problem is, very few government agencies actually understand the 21st century digital landscape. Often unelected bureaucrats are making decisions about tech contracts without having any idea whether the vendors can actually deliver what they’re promising. It’s even worse when politicians get involved, because as we know, politicians sometimes try to steer contracts toward people that have supported them.
So it’s really not surprising to learn that the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) has had some serious problems handling student data. In June it was reported that data belonging to LAUSD students had been obtained by a hacker and was being offered for sale on the dark web. This was related to the massive Snowflake breach, in which customers of AT&T, Live Nation and dozens of other companies had their info exposed. Then, at the beginning of July, it was reported that a whistleblower had alleged that AllHere, a vendor working with LAUSD, had violated the District’s privacy policies in the course of setting up an on-line information system to serve students and parents. The icing on the cake is that AllHere seems to have collapsed, and it’s unlikely it will be able to fulfill its contract.
If the whistleblower’s account is accurate, it appears that AllHere promised way more than it could deliver, and LAUSD didn’t vet the company thoroughly enough. This is actually a fairly common story. You may remember a few years back when the City of LA was trying to force neighborhood councils to switch to on-line voting. The City had signed a contract with a company called Everyone Counts, which claimed they were offering a tech breakthrough that would boost citizen engagement. They also claimed that the personal data submitted by citizens to verify their identity was absolutely secure. Not surprisingly, Everyone Counts was bought by another company, Votem, which collapsed soon after. All the hype about on-line voting turned out to be just hype, and no one was ever able to explain what happened to the personal data that citizens had submitted for verification.
LAUSD Superintendent Alberto Carvalho deserves a good deal of the blame for what’s gone down. Carvalho spent a lot of time hyping LAUSD’s tech ambitions. AllHere was supposed to be creating a comprehensive data management system that would allow LAUSD students and parents to find all sorts of information quickly and easily. The face of the system was an AI chatbot named “Ed”, which appeared as a bright, smiling sun. Carvalho went on the road telling everybody how great it was going to be. Check out this video from the ASU+GSV Airshow, where the Superintendent lays out his vision for what “Ed” could do for students and parents.
At the time, it seems that Carvalho thought LAUSD was on the cutting edge of a major breakthrough. Now it’s clear that he had no idea what he was talking about. Carvalho is just one of the legions of people who have been hyping so-called Artificial Intelligence without really understanding what it is or what its impacts will be. At this point nobody really knows how AI will affect the landscape, but there are still lots of people out there making ridiculous statements that have no basis in fact. As an example, check out this quote from the web page for the ASU+GSV Airshow.
Artificial Intelligence…
Ubiquitous. Invisible. Required for life.
Unfortunately, this kind of idiotic blather is saturating the media. Why? Because tech companies want you to buy in to an untested technology that they don’t even understand yet. It’s not about taking society to the next level. It’s about conning you into spending your money on something you don’t need.
To be fair, Carvalho is doing a tough job at a time when LAUSD (and school districts across the US) are facing serious challenges. He probably saw this tech initiative as a rare piece of good news that he could boast about. And the members of the LAUSD Board also deserve a good deal of blame. Just last March, the District issued a press release where board members lined up in support of the project.
This is a serious problem. Thousands of LAUSD students had their personal data posted for sale on the dark web. If the whistleblower’s allegations are correct, the problem could be much larger. Politicians and bureaucrats making decisions about technology need to realize the dangers. They need to stop believing the hype, and start getting serious about due diligence, or we’ll be seeing a lot more disasters like this one.
In 2021, some customers at the Hollywood Trader Joe’s were surprised when they were told that they now had to download an app in order to park in the underground garage. Those who took the time to read the privacy policy were even more surprised to learn that by downloading the app they were agreeing to let the company behind the app, Metropolis, track their browsing activity, collect information about services they used, and follow their activities across different devices.
Many landlords are now pushing their tenants to use apps for paying rent, handling complaints, etc., but renters should look at the privacy policy before getting on board. One such app, Door Loop, collects a lot of sensitive info from its users, including date of birth, job title, e-mail provider with (login info), social media you use (with login info), race, and social security number. Their privacy policy says they may share that data, along with any other data you provide, with vendors, consultants and third-party service providers. In other words, their privacy policy seems to describe how they can invade your privacy.
Now, when I talk to people about how their data is being collected by apps and services, their response is usually something like, “Oh, well, they already have all my data anyway.” Another common response is, “I haven’t done anything wrong, so I don’t care if they’re tracking me.”
If you don’t think giving up your data can create any problems for you, you need to think again. For instance….
Consumers who’ve bought cars from GM in recent years have been able to sign up for a service called Smart Driver, which collects data about your driving habits, like how often you brake quickly or whether you go over the speed limit. Supposedly it was up to customers to choose whether or not they wanted to participate. But it was recently revealed that GM had been collecting data from people who had never signed up for Smart Driver. Not only that, the company shared the data with a leading data broker. Why should this worry you? A number of GM owners have filed lawsuits alleging, among other things, that their insurance rates went up substantially because insurers had access to the data.
Let’s talk about mental health apps. There are a number of them out there, and lots of people are relying on them to deal with mental health issues. But unless the app you’re using is connected to your health care provider, there’s probably nothing to prohibit the company from sharing the data they collect with anyone they like. A recent report from Duke University found that data brokers advertise their holdings of sensitive mental health data, which includes information on people suffering from depression, ADHD, anxiety and bipolar disorder. This information is for sale, and there are few meaningful controls on who can access it or how they use it. Do you think insurance companies might want to know if you’ve been struggling with substance abuse? Do you think a prospective employer might be interested in knowing whether you’ve been diagnosed with ADHD? Could there be other folks out there who want to exploit this information for their own ends?
People download apps all the time for all sorts of reasons. Some apps may be useful, some of them may be fun, but it’s important to remember that many of them are designed and marketed with the sole purpose of collecting data from you. Collecting and sharing/selling your data is big business. In 2022 data brokers made more than $250 billion by selling consumer data. That number is only going to grow.
Apps are a crucial part of this ecosystem. When you use a browser to surf the net, there are some protections in place to inform you about what information is being collected and you can often choose to opt out of sharing your data. But with apps, they’re not only collecting your data, they’re sharing it as well, and there are no meaningful protections in place. When you download the app, you often get a small pop-up that asks you to agree to the company’s terms and conditions. That’s it. They generally don’t make any further effort to disclose that they’re going to collect your data. To learn about what you’re getting into, you’d have to read their terms and conditions, which contains their privacy policy, which usually starts with something like, “We take your privacy seriously.” The extent of the data they collect and their intent to share it with others is usually buried deep in these documents. And how many people actually take the time to read these things? Most people just click “Accept” and move on.
The best protection is to think carefully about which apps you use, and avoid downloading those that you don’t need. If in doubt, take the time to read the privacy policy so you at least know what you’re getting into. If you don’t, you’re taking the chance that the app will collect and share personal info that could have an impact on your life.
If you have kids, you should also be thinking about the apps they’ve got on their phone. What data are they sharing? If the apps are connected to social media, are they collecting info on family and friends? Are they collecting location data? Places your kids hang out?
Data brokers are making big money on this stuff because there are lots of folks out there that want to have access to your personal info, and they’re willing to pay good money for it. These include insurance companies, employers, government agencies and a host of others. Don’t assume that any of these people have any interest in protecting your privacy. In most cases, the only interests they’re protecting are their own.
Are you ready to have scores of digital billboards installed in neighborhoods all over the City of Los Angeles? Well, whether you’re ready or not, the City is moving forward with approval of a new ordinance that would allow exactly that. LA City Planning has posted the Final Draft Ordinance which would allow LA Metro to install scores of digital billboards throughout the city for its so-called Transportation Communication Network (TCN). There are reasons to believe that the TCN has been a con from the start, but more about that later.
Under the new ordinance, Metro would be allowed to erect 86 digital billboards at locations throughout the City of LA. The billboards would range in size from 672 square feet to 1,200 square feet, for a total maximum amount of up to 55,000 square feet. Metro wants us to believe we’re getting a good deal because they’ll be taking down 110,000 square feet of conventional billboards, but does that really seem like a good trade-off to you? Since the images on digital billboards are constantly changing, we’ll be subjected to more advertising than ever, and with more ads competing for our attention, it seems likely to cause an increase in distracted driving.
There are also serious privacy concerns. One of the reasons digital outdoor advertising is so profitable is that it involves the collection of consumer data to learn about consumer behavior. Metro claims that no personal data will be collected as part of the program, but can we really trust them? William Eccleshare, former CEO of Clear Channel Outdoor, has bragged about how the company can follow you to a store, can gather info on what you purchase, and can even find out what you’re watching on TV. This August 2020 article from the LA Times offers more chilling background on how advertisers are collecting your data.
Metro has already allowed Clear Channel to install digital billboards in Downey and Long Beach. Ad companies insist that no personally identifiable information is being collected, but no one really knows what they’re gathering. And because the data collection industry is almost totally unregulated, you really don’t know where the data goes or who has access to it.
The digital billboards will be installed in communities all across the city. Check out these maps from the Environmental Impact Report to see the locations.
TCN digital billboard locations in the ValleyTCN digital billboard locations in Central and South LATCN digital billboard locations in Downtown LA
If you want to let your LA City Council rep know how you feel about the Transportation Communication Network Ordinance, and the prospect of opening the door to digital billboards citywide, here’s their contact info.
Before going on, in the interest of full disclosure, I should acknowledge that I work with a group called Citizens for a Better Los Angeles that has filed a lawsuit to stop the TCN. But I’m writing about this as an individual because I’m so disturbed by so many aspects of this program. I’m concerned about the collection of personal data on a massive level. I’m outraged by this massive invasion of our public space. And I’m furious about the level of dishonesty exhibited by both the Metro Board and members of the LA City Council.
Remember that, although these billboards will all land in the City of LA, the so-called “Transportation Communication Network” is Metro’s project. The City of LA is preparing this ordinance to change the LA Municipal Code to allow widespread deployment of digital billboards by Metro. Metro announced it would preparing an Environmental Impact Report for the TCN in 2022. According to the Notice of Preparation, the TCN would….
[….] provide a network of structures with digital displays (TCN Structures) that would incorporate intelligent technology components to promote roadway efficiency, improve public safety, augment Metro’s communication capability, provide for outdoor advertising where revenues would fund new and expanded transportation programs consistent with the goals of the Metro 2028 Vision Plan, and result in an overall reduction in static signage displays throughout the City of Los Angeles.
The first problem with this is that we already have existing infrastructure that does most of the things that the TCN is supposed to do. The Regional Integration of Intelligent Transportation Systems (RIITS) is a network of systems that gathers transportation related data throughout Southern California and offers it to local transportation agencies. Here’s what it says on the RIITS “About” web page….
Vision
RIITS’ vision is to deliver multi-modal transportation information services through a flexible platform to achieve regional mobility, safety and sustainability goals.
Mission
Our primary mission is to support the exchange of transportation information and resources between and within government organizations for regional operational mobility improvements.
If it sounds like RIITS and TCN have a lot in common, it’s because they do. The existing RIITS network is already doing a lot of the things Metro claims TCN will do. And Metro could expand the RIITS system without installing a single digital billboard. Sensors, cameras and wireless infrastructure are already widely deployed across our system of roads and freeways, so TCN isn’t really offering anything new.
Except, of course, digital billboards.
Remember, according to the 2022 Notice of Preparation, the TCN involved the placement of new advertising structures and a reduction in the number of existing static billboards. But was this really something new? Actually, no. It’s a continuation of Metro’s Billboard Program, which has been in existence for over a decade. An August 2016 Metro Board Report gives a detailed account of how Metro has been working with a company called Allvision to cut deals with cities where they agree to allow new digital billboards in exchange for the removal of static billboards. Here’s what the report says about the City of LA….
“All Vision and Metro staff have had preliminary discussions with the City of Los Angeles. The City is considering various options for the adoption of a new billboard ordinance. The City of Los Angeles Project offers Metro the greatest potential for new revenue from the conversion of static billboards to digital billboards.”
So in 2022 Metro announced it was preparing an EIR for the Transportation Communication Network, and also in 2022 Councilmember Paul Krekorian submitted his motion for an ordinance that would allow “digital off-site signs to be displayed on structures that are part of the Transportation Communication Network Program”. But the Metro Board Report shows they’ve been talking about this since 2016. By calling it the “Transportation Communication Network” they’re actually just rebranding Metro’s long-standing Billboard Program. And the “new billboard ordinance” mentioned in the Board Report is obviously the TCN Ordinance which Krekorian proposed.
Above I suggested that people call their LA City Council rep if they’d like to share their views on the Transportation Communication Ordinance (TCN). You can also submit something in writing by posting a comment to the council file.
Could we see universal high-speed connectivity come to Los Angeles in the near future? Maybe. The CityLinkLA initiative, backed by Mayor Eric Garcetti and Councilmember Bob Blumenfield, aims to make internet access available to all. Here’s a brief outline from the CityLinkLA web site.
CityLinkLA is an initiative designed to address both the digital divide and our virtual competitiveness. Launched in 2014 by Mayor Eric Garcetti and Councilmember Bob Blumenfield, CityLinkLA is an effort to encourage the private sector to deploy advanced wireline and Wi-Fi digital communications networks so that every residence and business in Los Angeles has access to world-class, high-speed Internet and at prices comparable to those in other innovative communities around the world. The goal is to provide basic access to all for free or at a very low cost and gigabit (1 Gbps) or higher speed access at competitive rates. CityLinkLA is envisioned to include wired gigabit access to every home and business and as close to ubiquitous wireless coverage for the entire City as possible.
First, let me say that I totally support the goal of giving everybody high-speed access to the internet. And I give Garcetti and Blumenfield credit for getting the ball rolling on this. High-speed connectivity will play a major role in making urban centers competitive in the future, and other other cities have already gotten the jump on us. Tech is something Garcetti understands, and he’s done a great job of luring tech companies to the LA area. Entertainment and media companies will also see the attraction of widely available broadband access. And I’m glad the CityLinkLA web site clearly states that one of the goals is to make the internet available to everybody, regardless of income or neighborhood.
But I do have a few reservations. There are different ways to wire a city for universal access. Take Chattanooga, Tennessee and Austin, Texas. Chattanooga’s network is owned by the city, and offers very high speeds to everyone for very low rates. Austin, on the other hand, is pursuing the same approach as LA. That is, inviting private industry the opportunity to do the job, in the hope that competition will keep rates low. And so far that doesn’t seem to be getting the job done. For details, check out the two articles below.
Personally, I’d prefer to see LA offer broadband through a public utility, because I think it would lead to lower rates, more transparency and more control. Having said that, it’s important to note that Chattanooga is pretty small (population under 200,000) and LA is really big (population almost 4,000,000). There would certainly be huge hurdles to overcome in setting up a publicly owned network here. I’d like to know, though, if anybody really explored that possibility before opening this up to private companies.
My other reservation has to do with the fact that the City is offering some of its assets to the private sector in order to make the deal attractive. To a degree, this is reasonable, but I think we have to analyze this carefully to make sure we’re not compromising the City’s infrastructure or giving sweetheart deals to companies that stand to make a pile of money. In other words, we have to control the process, and we need to make sure we’re not getting ripped off.
I want to thank Stephanie Magnien Rockwell, Policy Director at Bob Blumenfield’s office, for her quick response to my e-mail asking for more information. She sent me the link to the council file on this initiative, which you’ll find below.
If you’re interested in getting more details, there’s tons of info here. It’s worth highlighting the fact that a number of neighborhood councils have submitted statements in support of the intitiative, though the South Robertson Neighborhood Council “requests that the City
include provisions protecting and requiring net neutrality”. Not a bad idea. For a thorough breakdown of the intitiative, click on this link to read the CAO’s analysis.
This could be a real breakthrough for Los Angeles. High-speed access for all would be a huge step forward, but there are also huge risks involved. We need to stay informed and engaged as this process unfolds.
I am not a techie. When I started this blog what I had in mind was writing about the built environment, but more and more our cities are defined by technology. I had heard about Google possibly installing a fiber optic network in LA. This could allow area residents to download data with amazing speed, but at the moment it seems to be just speculation. Then I came across this article about Google making a deal with Austin, Texas to bring fiber optic to them.
The article makes some pretty broad claims about Google’s intentions. I was skeptical. So I sent the link to my nephew, Morgan, in Santa Cruz, who is a techie. Here’s an excerpt of what he had to say:
I’m not so sure Google is planning to takeover. They might, but only if they think they can significantly improve service. I think for them the ideal case is that the existing ISPs just upgrade their service, currently the problem is that all the ISPs have more or less realized it’s easier to just make incremental upgrades as opposed to laying new infrastructure. There’s been severe stagnation because ISPs have a lot of power. Because of that, US internet is way behind.
Google wants everyone to have high speed internet because that increases their ad revenue, but it probably doesn’t make much of a difference to them whose internet service it is. From what I’ve read, these services are likely breaking even at best, since it’s a lot more expensive for them to lay new infrastructure. Therefore, Google’s probably hoping that by threatening ISPs with this service, they’ll push them to lay new infrastructure so that Google won’t have to. If the ISPs don’t get with it, they might just end up taking over, but I doubt that’s really what they want to do.
He also sent me this link from Wired. The premise of the article is that government needs to get out of the way and let ISPs build what they want.
I don’t buy all of the author’s arguments. The idea that government should just step back and let business take over is called into question by recent history. You can look at the Enron debacle in California, where the state’s Democratic legislature let the energy giant write its own ticket. Enron proceeded to steal billions of dollars from California consumers, and there are numerous other examples of this kind of abuse. But he gives an interesting breakdown of the challenges that companies have to face when dealing with city government.
Lastly, a brief article from Maximum PC about a small town that did install its own fiber optic network and is doing quite well.
I have no idea where all this is going. My grasp of this stuff is pretty tenuous. But it seems clear that cities, especially major cities that want to attract business, will need to create this kind of tech infrastructure if they want to be competitive. The future is here.
The Horizon and the Skyline 