Archive for category: Diversified Industries

Here’s What You Need To Know

Elon Musk has had a tough go at it lately. With safety concerns and delays on the Tesla production line, a disappearing classified government satellite launched from a SpaceX rocket, and a descent into Twitter wars with critics, Musk is discovering what happens when the shine comes off in the public arena. His recent experience is illustrative of the importance of reputation in today’s fluid operating environment and of the political risk faced by companies, organizations, and individuals when there is a gap between public perception and reality. This reputation gap foreshadows public affairs challenges, and so keeping these three key points in mind will help you understand and mitigate such challenges before they occur:

1. Fundamentals Matter: Facts are the foundation of any compelling narrative and successful public affairs effort. Because of this, no amount of “spin” can negate a problematic business model or lack of results. In Musk’s case, he has been lauded as a “visionary of the future,” but from SpaceX to SolarCity to Tesla to Hyperloop, his business models have relied on receiving significant government investment – often secured by prodigious lobbying and campaign expenditures. The financial market, and the public, have largely ignored this reality until now through a combination of Kool-Aid and dubious corporate governance to mask failing businesses, but it was only a matter of time until this bubble burst.
2. How You Respond Is An Indication Of The Truth: When the bubble burst, Musk’s response only made it worse. Recent criticism, which included articles questioning whether this is his “Kayne West moment,” appear to have touched a nerve with the billionaire, who has taken to Twitter to criticize journalists. It goes without saying that if you need to explain you are not anti-Semitic, you are losing in the public arena. An aggressive, personal response demonstrates that the debate has centered on a pressure point, because if he could counter the negative coverage with facts, he would not have to lash out at the media. Unsurprisingly, Musk’s behavior has only fanned the flames of the viral narrative challenging him, suggesting that every aspect of his empire may soon come under even greater scrutiny in the weeks and months ahead.
3. The Greater The Reputation Gap, The Greater The Political Risk: Musk has floated above the reality of his businesses for some time. The past few weeks have shown that he has not appreciated the political risk he faced due to that reputation gap, and his response in the public arena indicates that he did not adequately prepare to anticipate and mitigate those risks. When such a fall from grace occurs, the reputational damage can lead to hard financial costs and even influence investors’ behavior, which is why managing political risk and protecting one’s reputation is more important than ever.

Unlike the Tesla vehicle he launched into space earlier this year (environmental impact be damned), Elon Musk’s reputation is hurtling back towards earth as he finds himself on the losing end of a public affairs challenge largely of his own making. To avoid a similar fate for you and your interests in the public arena, follow the above framework to manage your reputation gap – before you’re in a fight.

News You Can Use

MISSION (NOT) IMPOSSIBLE?

The political world has been fixated by the on-again, off-again summit scheduled to take place between President Trump and Kim Jong Un in Singapore next month, and the media coverage focused on the evolving drama has provided a teachable moment in consuming and analyzing news that we would be remiss to ignore. Last week, a New York Times story claimed “a senior White House official told reporters that even if the meeting were reinstated, holding it on June 12 would be impossible,” which the President took to Twitter to criticize as “wrong” as he insists that date is still a possibility.

The media swung into full action, defending the Times’ reporting, with one fellow reporter leaking that actual recording from the briefing alluded to in the Times story. Yet the recording shows the official never used the word “impossible,” or said June 12th could not work, just that it would be challenging given the short time frame. The word “impossible” was chosen by reporters to characterize (and subsequently, editorialize) the official’s remarks, proving what we here at Delve often find to be the case: just because something is reported doesn’t make it the truth.

BREXIT: CHASE YOUR SWISS BLISS

Conventional wisdom holds that Brexit is an impossible situation for the United Kingdom (UK), but Pieter Cleppe of the independent think tank Open Europe holds the contrary view, offering an analysis highlighting how Switzerland’s experience in negotiating with the European Union (EU) can be instructive for the UK. Switzerland is not a member of the EU yet trades heavily with it, and since the Swiss voted against joining the EU’s single market in 1992, they have negotiated arrangements on the economic, political, and security fronts to their benefit – despite the dire warnings of serious economic consequences from its business community at the time.

While noting differences between the two countries, Cleppe cites the UK’s advantages such as its substantial economic clout and geostrategic prominence as reasons why it too can “have its cake and eat it,” suggesting that the Swiss experience may provide Brexit Britain the roadmap it needs to chase its bliss.

GETTING SCHOOLED ON THE FACTS 

In an April edition of TL;DR, we wrote about the trend of public educators organizing across the country to demand an increase in teacher pay, which has only continued since then. From the statistics cited in the public arena, however, one receives an incomplete and misleading picture that obfuscates the true nature of teacher compensation, thereby doing a disservice towards a serious, constructive policy debate. Department of Labor data shows that benefits such as health insurance, paid leave, and pensions comprise an average of 33% of compensation for public school teachers.

These benefits are typically richer than those provided in the private-sector, and private-sector employees work an average of 37% more hours per year than public school teachers. Teacher pensions are also placing a serious burden on state taxpayers that many states have yet to resolve, which is why addressing new demands for higher pay can be financially difficult for states. With the prevailing narrative focused on teacher salary detached from the full context of teacher compensation, this public policy debate has greatly misinformed the public and demonstrates the harm that viral narratives devoid of context can inflict on substantive policy issues if unchallenged. 

BEWARE OF…EXTREME CENTRISTS?

Much is made of the influence of today’s extreme fringes on our politics, but it may be that those “cold and timid souls” in the center are no less dangerous to democracy. Writer and researcher David Adler examined research showing that “across Europe and North America, centrists are the least supportive of democracy, the least committed to its institutions and the most supportive of authoritarianism.” This finding may come as a surprise, but it can be speculated that centrists who are less steeped in ideology desire “strong and efficient government over messy democratic politics,” and are therefore more comfortable with authoritarianism so long as it appears benevolent and gets stuff done.

In light of this data, Winston Churchill’s timeless observation on democracy bears repeating: “Democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried …”

Here’s What You Need To Know

President Trump’s rhetoric toward drug companies, which he has accused of “getting away with murder,” has been heated at times. That is why the industry and others in the health care space were watching closely when the Administration’s plan to lower prescription drug prices was unveiled last Friday. The plan, entitled “American Patients First,” would be a step to fulfilling the President’s campaign promise to reduce the costs that U.S. patients pay for their medications, which are the highest in the world. Here is what you need to know about the plan:

1. What The Plan Does: Despite the President’s past rhetoric and initial industry fears of “biting” action, the plan included few specifics that would immediately impact prices and no large reforms to the way the system currently operates. The plan seeks to “increase competition, improve negotiation and create incentives to lower list prices of prescription drugs and out-of-pocket costs for consumers,” and some of the ways it proposes to do that is by implementing rebate-sharing in Medicare drug plans (an idea supported by the Obama Administration), promoting generic versions of drugs, including drug pricing in trade negotiations with foreign countries, and requiring manufacturers to publish prices in advertisements. After Trump’s plan was criticized for being light on substance, Health and Human Services Secretary (HHS) Alex Azar briefed reporters on concrete actions he can take as HHS Secretary “with [his] pen” to make changes to the pharmaceutical marketplace without Congressional approval, suggesting the Administration’s seriousness about ultimately backing up its rhetoric.
2. The Industry’s Reaction To The Plan: The gravest concern for the industry was that the proposal would allow the federal government to negotiate lower Medicare drug prices directly with insurance companies. When this did not come to pass, biotech and pharmaceutical stocks went soaring, as well as those of the pharmacy benefit managers like Express Scripts and CVS – “middlemen” previously condemned by the President. While drug companies that engaged in lobbying the executive branch in hopes of helping shape the plan may be relieved in having been spared from drastic changes to the operating landscape at this time, there is a possibility that the President may diverge from his current course, meaning that companies should continue to remain vigilant in monitoring developments in this policy area.
3. What Remains Unclear Going Forward: The timeline for the implementation of the plan’s policy changes remains uncertain, as is the extent to which the HHS Secretary will use his pen to implement proposed changes in the marketplace. Because of this, parts of the industry are already signaling a more public lobbying campaign in the coming months while the plan is being debated. Particularly in the runup to the midterm elections, the industry may be a prime target for further public shaming, as well as more robust regulatory attention from both the Administration and Congress, that may impact research and development efforts and raise the specter of greater political risk.

As Trump’s FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb has noted, there is no “silver bullet” to bring down the costs of drug prices, especially when many Americans have unrealistic expectations regarding the trade-offs that would be required to implement policies to lower them. As long as these expectations persist, actual policy proposals will pale in comparison to the rhetoric used in the public arena and contribute to an operating landscape fraught with political and reputational peril for the industry.

News You Can Use

DONATION PROTESTATIONS

The Bay Area has become one of the wealthiest regions in the country and many tech moguls have already pledged to give away much of their fortunes, yet how some have chosen to donate their wealth has attracted scrutiny due to the potential benefits they receive in doing so. The Atlantic investigated the increasing popularity of a donor-advised fund, which is a certain type of charitable account that allows “donors to receive big tax breaks for giving money or stock” with “little transparency and no requirement that money put into [the account] is actually spent.” The rise in use of these funds has also correlated to a drop in donations to more traditional charities and private foundations in the Bay Area.

However, supporters of donor-advised funds point to the benefits of the accounts, which are better-equipped to accept non-liquid assets like stock, reduce the costs of operation needed by traditional nonprofit organizations, allow wealth to accumulate and grow like a charitable savings account, and incentivize people to get more bang for their philanthropic buck as opposed to giving more money in taxes to the federal government. So, while donor-advised funds may become another front in the public affairs campaign against Silicon Valley or the wealthy, as with all narratives in the public arena, there is more than one side to this story.

ROBOTS, CHINA, OR SOMETHING ELSE?

If you thought you knew the cause of the decimation of manufacturing jobs in the United States, think again. In fact, you would not be alone. Although economists’ popular consensus is that Chinese trade is the leading cause, a key expert disputes this consensus, pointing to research he recently posted that links job loss in manufacturing to the displacement of jobs resulting from automation.

China is blamed for the decline of the manufacturing sector largely based on a body of work that shows China’s 2001 entry into the World Trade Organization coincided with stalled growth in the American manufacturing economy, but Carl Frey – the Oxford economist whose study found that automation still has “a significant impact” while controlling for Chinese trade – disagrees, based off of his findings from examining automation anxiety and the 2016 election. For those trying to highlight the benefits of free trade in an operating landscape where consensus is constantly evolving, and where we all at times have only partial information, a competitive advantage that makes sense of the mass of information flows available is more important than ever in achieving their policy objectives.

FACTS AND CREDIBILITY

Much of the focus on curbing the rise of fake news has been on top-down government regulation of tech companies and their platforms, but to curb fake news in favor of a more elevated, fact-based debate may instead require a grassroots approach. Felicia Cravens is a conservative activist who started the Unfakery Facebook page, which hunts for fake news, fake profiles, baiting spammers from overseas, and other forms of misinformation targeting conservatives online.

Since founding the group, Cravens has attracted like-minded conservatives from across the country who have credibility with their side of the political spectrum – which Snopes, PolitiFact, or Media Matters for America may not – to take a discerning view of the facts and context of articles and news shared online, lead where they may, and push back on misinformation by sharing credibly-sourced links. Besides demonstrating a way to curb fake news online without federal regulation, which ultimately stifles competition and benefits entrenched incumbents, another aspect highlighted by Unfakery’s work is that credibility is an integral aspect of leveraging facts to gain a competitive advantage. 

THE “CUT CUT CUT” LIST

The Executive Office of the President’s (EOP) Spring 2018 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions was recently released, and to help you better prepare for what comes next, here is where you can review by agency the proposed deregulatory measures on deck. The “steady, bit-by-bit” deregulation by the Administration has continued persistently despite all of the noise, confusion, scandals, and unforced errors that undermine The White House’s work on a near-daily basis, and will likely have a profound impact on the regulatory landscape beyond the life of this Administration. While the President was ridiculed when he wanted last year’s tax reform law to be called the “Cut Cut Cut Act,” given the Administration’s continuing work to cut regulations, might we propose a simpler name: the “Cut Cut Cut” List.

Here’s What You Need To Know

Here’s What You Need To Know

Educators across the country have been emboldened by the teacher’s strike in West Virginia that resulted in a 5% pay raise, and although it ended last month, since then, teachers in red states like Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Arizona have followed suit – in some cases shutting down schools – to pressure lawmakers to respond to their concerns. As with most public policy issues that gain notoriety, grow quickly, and feed into a larger narrative, it can be difficult to untangle the particular concerns of different stakeholders from whatever focus the media and organizations with their own agendas latch onto. Here is what you need to know about these teacher protests:

• What Are Teachers Protesting? Teachers in different states have raised different concerns. For example, in West Virginia, where teacher pay ranked 48th in the country, the focus was on a pay increase for the coming school year to help control rising healthcare costs. Teachers in Arizona have also targeted pay as their key issue, while those in Oklahoma have focused on a broader set of demands pertaining to an increase in teacher pay, public school funding, and health care funding. In Kentucky, teacher protests are in response to recently approved legislation that reforms their pension system, which has ranked as one of the worst pension crises in the country.
• Why Now? In the wake of the Great Recession, many states and districts cut costs by reducing spending on education, which has naturally impacted teachers. As the economy has improved and the labor market has tightened, teachers that accepted pay freezes and budget cuts are less inclined to continue doing so now. There is also speculation that political considerations are to blame for the protests, which some in the media and among progressive activists are framing as a backlash “to Paul Ryan’s conservatism” and the “GOP austerity mindset” that predominates in those states. However, this appears to be projecting by partisans seeking to simplify this complex issue into “us vs. them” political tribalism, as exhibited by the fact that both West Virginia and Kentucky had Democratic governors as recently as 2017 and 2015, respectively.
• Have Teachers Been Successful In Obtaining Their Objectives? While teachers in West Virginia succeeded in receiving their desired 5% increase, and Arizona Governor Doug Ducey announced a plan to increase teacher pay by 20% by 2020, teachers in Oklahoma have obtained only 60% of the pay raise they wanted. The results are likewise less clear in Kentucky, where pension reforms enacted by the state legislature were considered mild but necessary to move the system back from the brink of financial collapse, suggesting that the teachers’ particular concern there will not be solved anytime soon. But, the relative success overall thus far seems to showcase the power of “unseemly teachers’ strikes” in achieving public policy objectives.
• What Happens Now? The West Virginia strike was just the beginning of more teacher protests across the country, as demonstrated by professionalized activists and organizations coming into the fold to boost localized protesters voicing their concerns on specific policy issues. Predictably, such politicization by professionals has catapulted state policy issues into larger political ones, as Democrats hope to use the protests to mobilize support ahead of this year’s midterm elections and center-right groups work to counter this momentum. When protest movements get further and further away from the original, concrete policy issue, the narrative being propagated at the national level may only loosely resemble the facts. Going forward, teachers at the local level may want to keep this challenge in mind as the temptation to raise the profile of their particular concerns present itself.

It remains to be seen whether this year’s wave of protests will be different from those experienced in Wisconsin in 2011 or Chicago in 2012, or if protests like these will become more common as there is greater demand for increasingly scarce public funds (and the midterm elections grow closer). Already, teachers in places like Colorado and California are continuing the wave of protests, and as developments unfold there and elsewhere, remember that the sum of a larger protest narrative is often different from its parts.

News You Can Use

GOT FAKE MILK? 

Maryland dairy farmers Randy and Karen Sowers are suing the FDA over labeling requirements that would require their South Mountain Creamery to relabel the skim milk they sell to thousands of mid-Atlantic customers as “imitation” milk. The suit, which was filed with the help of the non-profit Institute for Justice, focuses on an FDA regulation that allows a product to be called “skim milk” only if it includes added synthetic vitamins A and D.

However, the Sowers’ product follows the dairy origin of the term, ’skimming’ the cream off of the fresh milk without any additives, meaning that they need to label their product as an “imitation” – thereby confusing consumers and potentially hurting business – or face thousands of dollars in fines and even jail time. While there is legitimate need for regulations ensuring food safety, as this week’s 200-million-plus egg recall over salmonella fears demonstrates, the Sowers’ lawsuit highlights some of the nonsensical regulations that could stand to be “skimmed” for the benefit of small businesses and consumers.

SOMETHING SYRIASLY WRONG

Few roles are as crucial as chair of next month’s United Nations (UN) Conference on Disarmament, particularly in light of further chemical attacks in Douma, Syria. Yet in another irony fit for the UN, the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad is set to preside over the 65-nation conference, which has been integral, along with its predecessors, in negotiating the treaties limiting proliferation and use of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.

Given that the U.S. and its allies have concluded that the Assad regime is responsible for the use of chemical weapons against its own citizens in Syria, the U.S. ambassador to the conference, Robert Wood, has stated that Syria “has neither the international credibility nor any moral authority” to lead the forum, despite being its turn in the alphabetical rotation used among the 65 member countries. It remains to be seen whether the U.S., European Union, and UN chief Antonio Guterres will protest the conference, but regardless, the Syrian regime’s participation would be seriously wrong and undermine the body’s credibility at the precise time when it is needed most.

CONGRESS, THE COURT, AND QUILL

It’s tax week, and the ramifications on this week’s events may go beyond just write-offs, federal income taxes, and local taxes. That is because the Supreme Court heard arguments on Tuesday in a case brought by South Dakota that urges the Court to overturn a 1992 decision in Quill Corp v. North Dakota, which prevents states from collecting sales tax from out-of-state vendors. South Dakota, which has no state income tax and therefore depends on sales tax revenue, describes the ruling in Quill as outdated, arguing that the Court needs to act because Congress has not addressed this issue in the 26 years since the original ruling. Furthermore, the growth in  online e-commerce giants like Amazon, eBay, and others has only added to the urgency to resolve it.

Yet, while overturning Quill may seem to benefit states in a step toward 21st century commerce, the patchwork of state-specific sales tax laws could result in a regulatory burden on small businesses and startups. If states would be looking for policymakers to then enact a nationwide e-commerce policy, they may ultimately find themselves waiting for Congress to act again.

VISITOR LOGS IN PERSPECTIVE

A lawsuit brought by the watchdog group Public Citizen will allow voters to examine the visitor logs for four agencies in the White House complex, and may raise further questions about whether such information is useful on its own to the public. Despite the lawsuit’s focus on the current administration, other administrations have not escaped scrutiny due to their actions on this issue. Visitor logs, like many raw records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), can be difficult to decipher due to too much information and too little context, the result of which can lead people to miss important trends.

So, while the new logs will offer a glimpse of who is visiting certain White House offices, it is just that – a glimpse, and one without much context at that – which is why Delve analysts are specially trained to synthesize vast amounts of public records through a public policy lens and into neatly-packaged, actionable insights.

Here’s What You Need To Know

In a retrospective piece celebrating protesters that gathered at Standing Rock in 2016 and 2017 to fight against the Dakota Access pipeline (DAPL), one veteran of the protests told Buzzfeed, “I’m still fighting. I’m only done when that pipeline is dug out of that ground. I’ve only just begun.” Another declared, “After Standing Rock there will be so much more to fight for. Corporations and dirty politicians might have thought they won the battle, but they will not win the war.” It is not surprising, given these comments, that energy executives gathered in Houston last month for CERAWeek, one of the premiere energy events in the world, had the issue of protests at the top of their minds. But do these potentially disrupting events matter outside of the industry?

In vowing to “fight back” against environmental activism and sabotage, pipeline CEOs have made clear that the clashes at DAPL, the biggest story of 2016 after the presidential election, were not a one-off occurrence. They were a demarcation into a new age of activism, which has only continued to percolate beneath the surface – and appear at other energy projects across North America. While this key issue does not tend to reach national attention until protests become massive, its implications could impact the economy and our security before then. Here is what you need to know about it:

1. Energy Activism Past? Not So Fast: Anti-pipeline protesters reaffirmed that Standing Rock was only the beginning. As an activist told Buzzfeed, the “sacred fire in the camp left with all of us and ignited a larger movement of Water Protectors all over the globe. Standing Rock was the beginning of something special and the work is not done.” This “sacred fire” has gained significant momentum, with DAPL veterans leading protests across the continent. Don Gentry, the chairman of the Klamath Tribes in Oregon, published a New York Times op-ed saying the next Standing Rock fight is against the Jordan Cove terminal and Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline in the Northwest. He is far from the only activist hoping to create the next DAPL. The increased media coverage of DAPL veterans highlights that energy activism is continuing, despite the lull in coverage over the prior year. If anything, the consequences of the upcoming confrontations may be more severe.
2. Financial And Legal Actions Threaten Economic Growth: Notably, new climate lawsuits have the potential to result in disastrous financial and legal consequences for the energy industry and the millions of jobs that depend on it. Besides financial reparations, climate change cases could establish a new legal standard that environmentalists will use across the country to block critical infrastructure projects necessary for meeting American and global energy needs. Should courts in different jurisdictions reach different conclusions, it could also potentially set up a U.S. Supreme Court battle that further politicizes and polarizes views of the industry. If courts start being more sympathetic to activists, as some are already doing, energy companies could be stuck in litigation for years. In addition, divestment campaigns targeting major financial institutions backing pipeline projects and fossil fuels investment continue, posing serious political and reputational risk to the financial sector.
3. Energy Tensions Impacting National Security: A report by the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space and Technology concluded that Russians exploited American social media to promote a campaign hurting fossil fuel research and the expansion of natural gas development in the U.S., with the ultimate goal of benefitting the Russian energy sector. Prominently, the report also claimed the Russian government may have funneled money to U.S. environmental NGOs, including the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters. While the committee provided little evidence of this funding in their public report, Russian-funded propaganda outlets, such as RT and Sputnik, frequently promote leaders from these groups and their messaging has been utilized in Russian influence campaigns. More broadly, as long as Europe depends on Russian natural gas – highlighted by Germany’s approval last week of Russian oil giant Gazprom’s Nord Stream 2 pipeline a day after expelling four Russian diplomats due to the Skripal poisoning in the United Kingdom, as well as the import of natural gas to the U.S. from a sanctioned Russian company in January – national security challenges are ripe to be exacerbated by environmentalists seeking to advance their green agenda.
4. Enviros Focus On Pipelines Over People: New England’s extremely cold winter has already pushed its energy grid to the brink, and it will likely happen again, making the need for more pipeline infrastructure for natural gas critical to “relieving this constraint” and preventing a future of “rolling blackouts” at the precise time residents in the region need energy the most. Unfortunately, the Northeast is an epicenter of energy activism, illustrated by the 2015 protest in West Roxbury, Massachusetts where 198 activists were arrested protesting a gas pipeline. Last week, a judge acquitted 13 of those protesters after they argued that their actions to stop climate change were a legal “necessity.” If activists are able to find more sympathetic judges like this one across the country, the climate action defense could become common and encourage more lawless tactics by protesters that damage property and threaten public safety, greatly impacting law-abiding residents of all and no ideology who depend on energy.

Although not featured in today’s national media spotlight, actions taken by environmentalists to advance their anti-pipeline agenda across North America have ramifications on policies well-beyond the energy sector. While energy executives at CERAWeek were discussing the implications of this activism on their businesses, their attention should serve as a warning to policymakers and business leaders who need to take this risk seriously and prepare for it now – before the next crisis hits.

News You Can Use

CENSUS HYSTERIA

Seventeen states, seven cities, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors are suing the Census Bureau and Commerce Department to remove a new citizenship question from the 2020 Census. The lawsuit, which is the third filed on this issue in just two weeks, has led to hysteria alleging sinister motives, everything from “suppress[ing] the political influence of Latinos and communities of color” to “whitewash[ing] Latinos out of existence.” The Census has not asked all U.S. households a question about citizenship since 1950, although it has continually asked some variation of the question to a subsample of households using the now-defunct “long form” or ongoing annual surveys, and, ironically, the Justice Department asked to reintroduce the citizenship question to help with its enforcement of Section Two of the Voting Rights Act, which requires majority-minority districts.

Given that the Obama Administration used Section Two “as a cudgel against GOP redistricting plans and voter ID laws,” and that its increased and more informed enforcement would “continue a longtime progressive policy,” the hysteria surrounding the Census seems to be an overreaction based on hostility to this Administration, rather than the policy itself. As with many claims about policy pronouncements in the Trump era, we would all do well to take a deep breath, because the hysteria obfuscates the facts about the important policy question at hand and makes it more difficult to address meaningful problems with proposals.

DIGITAL ASSISTANTS’ NEXT ACT?

Amazon and Google, makers of the Alexa and Google Home digital assistant devices, recently filed patents that outline what the future may look like for devices that monitor what their owners do or say at home. Among the patents under consideration include a “voice sniffer algorithm” that can hear and analyze words in real-time to tailor ads, audio monitoring to detect whether a child is engaged in mischief, and even an application to determine a speaker’s mood.

Both companies insist that their devices only record and process audio “after users trigger them by pushing a button or uttering a phrase,” but with high scrutiny due in part to calls to regulate Facebook and other tech firms amid growing mistrust of tech in a “post-Cambridge Analytica world,” the legal and ethical implications of such technologies raise further questions for policymakers to consider as they build the regulatory framework for proliferating 21st century technologies. It also shows that in this era, public records that used to be fairly inaccessible to the public can now bring significant scrutiny if not presented correctly.

UNDERWATER, NOT UNAPPRECIATED, CABLES 

The increased activity of Russian ships and submarines around underwater communications cables is causing alarm among the U.S. and its allies, who fear “the Kremlin might be taking information warfare to new depths.” There are approximately 400 fiber-optic cables that run 620,000 miles under the sea, which are mostly owned by private companies, and “carry almost all of the communications on the internet – including calls, emails, texts and $10 trillion worth of daily financial transactions.”

It remains to be seen whether Moscow is interested in cutting the cables, tapping into them, posturing, or perhaps there is a completely innocent explanation altogether. However, particularly in the aftermath of cyber offensives on the U.S. energy grid and the political processes in the U.S. and Europe, critical underwater communications infrastructure that is vital to business and national security operations should be included in the policymakers’ public policy discussions to protect critical infrastructure going forward, or otherwise risk being the target tomorrow’s asymmetrical offensive.

BIG OIL TO BIG ELECTRIC?

Royal Dutch Shell and Total, Europe’s biggest private oil producers, are dipping their toes into a whole new market that may foreshadow the future for Big Oil. With growth in renewable energy and electric vehicles, as well as pressure to limit climate change, Shell and Total expect low-carbon electricity to become more prevalent within the coming decades and are buying or creating retail power businesses in preparation.

Maarten Wetselaar, Shell’s head of gas and new energies, said such investment “makes [Shell] future proof in a world where electricity becomes the biggest game in town,” although selling electricity profitably and competing with tech companies that may enter the space mean that success is anything but certain. Regardless, Shell’s and Total’s “long-term bet” on an increasingly electric future suggests one way some Big Oil firms are shifting toward “Big Energy” as the public pressure for cleaner energy increases and the market provides opportunities to adapt.