Latest news with #Ekō
The Guardian
25-03-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
One brave woman wrenched back control of her data from the tech giants. Now, go and do the same
Social media companies are the global corporate giants of our time. They make vast profits and hold great influence over our governments and institutions. However, the inconvenient truth is that they have only managed to become so powerful and profitable because they help themselves to our personal data. These are mostly US companies – but they extract and exploit vast amounts of data, and with that data economic value, from British citizens. At a time when many are struggling with the cost of living, it is paradoxical that vast amounts of money are being made by the richest companies in history from the data being provided by the same people. This data often contains extremely intimate personal information, which is then used to influence people's behaviour. Despite protections under British law, the social media companies have been allowed to get away with these activities largely unchallenged. They need to be reminded that they are not too big to have to abide by our laws. That is why the news that Tanya O'Carroll, a human rights campaigner from London, has reached a settlement in her landmark case against Facebook's parent company, Meta, is a most important development. Four years ago, O'Carroll wrote to Meta stating that she wished to exercise her right under Europe's general data protection regulation or GDPR to object to the processing of her personal data. The law is clear that the right to object is absolute when it comes to targeted advertising, and people are entitled to exercise the right free of charge. O'Carroll was worried about the extremely detailed and private information that Facebook was using to target advertisements at her – including matters such as her family relationships, financial interests and political views. This wasn't information that Tanya had provided to Facebook, but characteristics it had inferred about her based on her activity online. Now, just days before going to trial, Meta has agreed, for the first time, to stop targeting advertising to a user, based on their personal data. O'Carroll's case is certainly a watershed: it suddenly opens up the possibility for millions of people across the UK to follow in her footsteps, and object to the processing of their personal data by Meta. The nonprofit organisation Ekō is running a campaign to help people do just that. By using their right to object, people could trigger a change in their relationship with tech giants. Instead of continuing to passively be the product that these companies sell to advertisers for vast profit, social media users may now be able to force these companies to rethink the value they offer them. Locking in users and huge, seemingly guaranteed, profits have long created hubris among the social media platforms – and, in recent years, a sharp decline in the quality of the product that they offer. This could therefore be a significant moment in the short history of social media in our country. It is crucial that our courts and regulators now robustly enforce the law. The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) intervened in support of O'Carroll in the run-up to this outcome. Now, if Meta starts to push back, the ICO must enforce the right for others to object. But the government could still get in the way. The tech giants have considerable influence over politics around the world, and the UK is no different. The government has suggested that it will create a favourable policy environment for these US companies to do what they like with British consumers. The decision to replace the head of the Competition and Markets Authority with a former Amazon boss looks like a step in this direction and this must not happen with the ICO and other regulators. It is also crucial that potential legislative changes under the data (use and access) bill do not undermine the ICO's independence. If the law is now properly enforced, O'Carroll winning her right to privacy against one of the wealthiest companies in history represents a significant tip in the balance of power between social media platforms and ordinary people in our country. It is also a reminder of the importance of public interest cases, and how crucial it is that they are adequately funded and thus able to be brought. For too long Meta has used its size and influence to lobby its way out of accountability. The law exists to protect citizens and uphold their rights. It is high time technology giants were obliged to respect these rights. Dominic Grieve was Conservative MP for Beaconsfield from 1997 to 2019, and attorney general from 2010 to 2014
Yahoo
18-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Maersk Shareholders Vote Against Halting Military Equipment Shipments to Israel
Maersk shareholders voted down two separate investor proposals related to the ocean carrier's shipments of military equipment to Israel at the company's annual meeting Tuesday. The votes were tallied the day after Israel resumed airstrikes in Gaza, breaking a two-month ceasefire between the country and Palestinian governing group and terrorist organization Hamas. More from Sourcing Journal Red Sea Risks Re-Escalate as US Hits Houthis with Airstrikes China Urges USTR to 'Stop its Wrongdoings' Over Proposed Port Fees Houthis Threaten Resumption of Attacks on Israeli Ships in Red Sea More than 400 Palestinians have been killed in the attacks, according to Gaza's health ministry. This marks the largest single-day death count in the region since Nov. 7, 2023—one month after the Israel-Hamas war began. The first proposal, led by activist group Ekō, the Palestinian Youth Movement (PYM) and Danish shareholder Zen Donen, urged Maersk to disclose its human rights due diligence as part of a wider plea to end arms transfers to Israel. According to a statement from Ekō, more than 70 civil society organizations including Amnesty International and Oxfam backed the shareholder resolution calling for transparency. A second proposal from Danish shareholder group Kritiske Aktionærer and chairman Frank Aaen specifically called on the container shipping giant to halt shipments of arms to Israel. Maersk has denied the claims, stating that it is only carrying military equipment to the country, not weapons or ammunition. 'The premise of the [second] proposal is not correct, as the company is not transporting arms to Israel,' Maersk said. The Maersk board did not support either proposal. The first proposal sought disclosures into details like how Maersk identifies, assesses and mitigates actual and potential human rights impacts, including those associated with the logistics of shipping military equipment and arms. The activists also sought to gain detailed actions and strategies for heightened due diligence employed by the company for contracts and projects that carry high risks of human rights violations. The proposal sought that the disclosed information would be updated and published at least once a year. Ahead of the meeting, Ekō pushed back against Maersk's denial, although the ocean carrier's shipments appear to be largely vehicles and related sub-components. The activist group cited an article from Denmark-based investigative publication DanWatch, which obtained more than 2,000 bills of lading from ImportGenius to find hundreds of shipments from Oshkosh Defense, a tactical military vehicles manufacturer. According to the article published Feb. 9, 14 different Maersk-owned container ships across 43 trips transported thousands of tons of military equipment during the first year of the war. Military equipment such as sub-components for armored personnel carriers, combat vehicles, missile casings and other goods for military use were included, DanWatch said. After the Monday night airstrikes took place, Danish Palestine support movement Stop Annekteringen af Palaestina (Stop the Annexation of Palestine) said a demonstration will be held Tuesday outside Maersk's headquarters in Copenhagen. A prior demonstration already took place at the headquarters on Feb. 24, attracting nearly 1,000 protesters. The Israel-Hamas war has not only put Maersk under the activist microscope—it has shaken up the global shipping landscape, in that is the primary catalyst of the current Red Sea crisis. In support of Palestinians, the Yemen-based Houthi movement began attacking commercial vessels with missiles and drones in late 2023 around the Red Sea, the Bab el-Mandeb Strait and the Gulf of Aden. The onslaught lasted throughout 2024. This effectively forced all container shipping companies to avoid traversing through the Suez Canal, instead opting to reroute around southern Africa's Cape of Good Hope. That adds anywhere between one and two extra weeks of extra travel time for cargo on vessels, particularly causing some hiccups in Asia-to-Europe trade. In the annual general meeting, Maersk chair Robert Uggla pointed out that a vessel sailing from Shanghai to Rotterdam now must travel 13,000 extra kilometers (8,100 extra miles) due to the mass rerouting. Despite a 10 percent global fleet expansion, 'vessel capacity remained tight in 2024,' Uggla said. The tightened capacity contributed to separate spikes in ocean spot freight rates throughout last year, and is likely preventing rates from plummeting to the more subdued levels it experienced in 2023 across most trade lanes. The increasing freight rates were a boon to the container shipping industry at large, which generated $15.8 billion in net income (not including privately owned Mediterranean Shipping Company) in the fourth quarter alone, according to analysis pulled together by industry expert John McCown. Across the whole of 2024, McCown pointed out that industrywide net income total $58.3 billion. Due to the uncertainty surrounding the ceasefire, Maersk and its ocean carrier rivals have not committed to a Red Sea return. The combination of the Israeli airstrikes in Gaza and the U.S. airstrike of the Iran-backed Houthis just two days prior represents a major blow to near-term stability in the region. Without any security guarantees, as well as elevated war-risk insurance premiums still in place, container shipping is unlikely to make a return.
