- Boeing admitted that it knew of a safety issue with its 737 Max 8s, the model involved in both the Ethiopian Airlines and Lion Air crashes, and did not report it until after the Lion Air accident.
- Boeing discovered that many of its Max 8s did not have a key safety feature that determined when the plane was receiving conflicting data from its sensors, because the company had made that feature an optional premium add-on.
- The company claims this feature is not essential, but others argue that it could have prevented the crashes because conflicting sensor data caused both planes to repeatedly nosedive after an automated system was triggered.
Boeing released a statement Sunday saying that the company was aware of a problem with a safety feature in its 737 Max 8s in 2017, but did not disclose the issue to regulators or airlines until after a Max 8 operated by Lion Air crashed in October 2018, killing 189.
The announcement also comes nearly two months after another Max 8, operated by Ethiopian Airlines, crashed just outside of Addis Ababa. That crash killed all 157 people on board.
According to the statement, within a few months of delivering the Max 8 planes to buyers, Boeing’s engineers found a problem with an essential warning light. The feature, which is called an Angle of Attack (AOA) Disagree alert, tells pilots if the sensors on either side of the plane are giving contradictory information about the direction of the plane’s nose.
Boeing intended for this feature to be on all the Max 8 models as it had been a feature on the previous generations of 737s. However, after months of delivering the planes, their engineers found that the sensors only worked on Max 8’s where buyers had also purchased a separate, optional safety feature.
This basically means that a key safety feature that the company thought was standard was actually optional– sort of like a premium add-on.
Following the discovery, a review was launched after the engineers discovered the problem. “That review, which involved multiple company subject matter experts, determined that the absence of the AOA Disagree alert did not adversely impact airplane safety or operation,” according to company’s statement.
Boeing said it reported the problem to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) a year after they knew about it. The FAA determined that the problem was “low-risk,” but still told Boeing they should have informed them earlier.
Boeing also reported the problem to the airlines that operated the planes. However, only 20 percent of buyers had purchased the optional indicator, according to the New York Times, which meant that an important warning light did not work on most of the 737s.
Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines
Unsurprisingly, neither of the two flights that crashed had that indicator.
Immediately, after the Ethiopian Airline crash, people began drawing lines between the Lion Air crash off the coast of Indonesia just four months earlier. In addition to the fact that both planes were Max 8, the pilots of both planes reported issues and requested to return to the airports they took off from but did not make it back.
Following the incident, tons of countries grounded their Max 8 planes until Boeing investigated the situation. Numerous pilots also came forward to say that they had not been fully informed about software changes to the MAX 8’s autopilot and that they had not been trained to use the new software
The pilots specifically referenced a new feature that causes the plane to automatically correct the planes level if it’s sensor’s think it is flying at an angle that puts it at risk of stalling. Investigations from both the Lion Air and the Ethiopian Airlines crashes found that this software was engaged, and that it caused the noses of both the planes to be pushed down repeatedly.
Boeing initially responded to the pilots by arguing that there should not be a problem as long as pilots followed procedures. Boeing’s CEO, Dennis Muilenburg, later said that the company would update the Max 8’s software and provide training.
However, throughout the whole process, Boeing executives have denied that there is anything wrong with the planes.
The Debate Goes On
Boeing still maintains that this feature is not essential.
“Neither the angle of attack indicator nor the AOA Disagree alert are necessary for the safe operation of the airplane,” the company said in Sunday’s statement. “They provide supplemental information only, and have never been considered safety features on commercial jet transport airplanes.”
Others disagree. If AOA sensors on the Max 8 think that the nose of the plane is too high, the automated control system forces the nose of the plane down automatically. That is exactly what happened to both the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines planes.
In fact, investigators of both crashes found that a faulty sensor gave the system incorrect data, which then forced the nose of the plane down repeatedly. Logically, experts say, it seems like if those two flights had this safety feature that Boeing itself said tells pilots when sensors are giving contradictory information, this would likely not have happened.
Boeing is still refusing to draw that line. The combination of the lack of knowledge that their planes did not have key safety feature and the fact that they didn’t disclose their knowledge of this issue for a year just add to Boeing’s problems.
In their statement Sunday, Boeing also pushed back on the criticism that the aircraft certification system Boeing and the FAA have in place is flawed, which is the subject of congressional inquiries, a Department of Transportation panel, and a criminal investigation.
During a Congressional hearing in March, Daniel Ewell, the acting head of the FAA, stated that the agency’s certification procedures “are extensive, well-established and have consistently produced safe aircraft designs for decades,” also adding that the FAA was “fully involved” in certifying the 737 Max.
However, this was contradicted by Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, who said the FAA has allowed plane manufacturers to help certify that their own aircraft meets safety standards.
Boeing’s management of the Max 8’s design has continually come under fire, which in turn has resulted in strained relations with airlines and customers, several federal investigations, and huge financial losses.
Still, time and time again, Boeing has continued to essentially skirt responsibility, even as the Max 8, which was the fastest-selling plane in the company’s history, remains grounded world-wide.
See what others are saying: (NPR) (New York Times) (Washington Post)
Facebook Rolls Out “One-Strike” Policy After New Zealand Terror Attack
- Facebook has implemented a new ‘one strike’ policy that will prevent users who violate its community standards from using the Facebook Live service for a set period of time.
- The rule change is in response to the livestreamed terror attack in Christchurch, New Zealand, that left 51 people dead.
- The company also said it was investing $7.5 million into new research partnerships to help improve image and video analysis technology, after several modified reuploads of the attack managed to bypass its current system.
Facebook unveiled a “one-strike” policy on Tuesday that bans users from using its live streaming feature for a certain amount of time if they violate the platform’s community standards
“From now on, anyone who violates our most serious policies will be restricted from using Live for set periods of time — for example 30 days — starting on their first offense,” Facebook’s VP of integrity Guy Rosen wrote in a blog post.
“For instance, someone who shares a link to a statement from a terrorist group with no context will now be immediately blocked from using Live for a set period of time,” the post continued.
The social network also said that it plans on extending these restrictions in the near future to include other policies, like one that would prevent “those same people from creating ads on Facebook.”
What was the policy before?
Before the changes, if a user posted content that violated the company’s community standards, their post would be removed. Then if the individual continued to post violating content, they would be blocked from using Facebook for a certain amount of time. This included a block from the user’s ability to livestream.
In some cases, Facebook said it banned violating users from the platform after a single violation if the instance was severe enough to warrant it. The company cited “using terror propaganda in a profile picture or sharing images of child exploitation” as examples.
Investing in Research
The new rules came in response to the Christchurch, New Zealand terror attack. On March 15, a gunman killed 51 people at two mosques in Christchurch while live streaming the attack on Facebook. The footage was later reposted on other social sites like YouTube and Twitter.
The reposting and sharing of the footage was a massive issue for all the platforms. Facebook, for instance, said they removed about 1.5 million copies of the footage within 24 hours.
In the first 24 hours we removed 1.5 million videos of the attack globally, of which over 1.2 million were blocked at upload…— Facebook Newsroom (@fbnewsroom) March 17, 2019
However, according to Facebook, many reuploads of the Christchurch attack were modified to avoid detection. Because of this, the company said it would invest $7.5 million into new research partnerships to help improve image and video analysis technology.
“Although we deployed a number of techniques to eventually find these variants, including video and audio matching technology, we realized that this is an area where we need to invest in further research,” Rosen wrote.
Facebook said it is partnering with The University of Maryland, Cornell University and The University of California, Berkeley to research new techniques to: “Detect manipulated media across images, video and audio, and distinguish between unwitting posters and adversaries who intentionally manipulate videos and photographs.”
The company hopes that the changes will help them battle future attempts to abuse the platform. “Our goal is to minimize risk of abuse on Live while enabling people to use Live in a positive way every day.”
iPhone Users Can Sue Apple For Monopolizing App Store, Supreme Court Rules
- The Supreme Court ruled Monday that iPhone user can sue Apple on the grounds that the company is monopolizing the market.
- The decision stems from a 2011 class-action lawsuit that argues Apple essentially forces users to only use its App store and forces developers to raise their prices because of the company’s membership and commission fees.
- Apple and other tech companies like Google and Amazon are concerned this judgment will bring more lawsuits and antitrust complaints against them.
The Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that iPhone users can sue Apple on the grounds that the company is monopolizing the marketplace with their App store, as well as increasing prices of the apps with additional charges.
This judgment overturns a previous court decision involving four iPhone users who filed a class action suit against Apple in 2011. In their complaint, the users claim Apple essentially forces them to use only the Apple App store. The complaint also says Apple requires an annual $99 membership fee for app developers and says Apple takes 30 percent commission on every app sale.
“Through these actions,” the complaint states, “Apple has unlawfully stifled competition, reduced output and consumer choice, and artificially increased prices in the aftermarkets for iPhone.”
Apple turned to a previous Supreme Court decision for their defense, citing the 1977 case Illinois Brick Company versus Illinois. In that case, the court ruled that only those directly purchasing bricks from Illinois Brick Company had the right to sue. The tech company argued that because the app store was technically a middleman between the app developers and the consumers, the iPhone users had no right to pursue legal action. In 2013, the court ruled in favor of Apple and dismissed the complaint.
“Given that none of the exceptions to the Illinois Brick doctrine apply,” the judge ruled, “Plaintiffs are barred from bringing claims because they are indirect purchasers.”
The iPhone users immediately filed an appeal to attempt to overturn the judgment, ultimately bringing the case to the Supreme Court of Appeals in 2017. The appeal case finally ended with a five to four vote on Monday in favor of the consumers. Justice Brett Kavanaugh was the deciding vote, going against Apple and surprising many by forgoing his usual conservative stance.
“The plaintiffs purchased apps directly from Apple and therefore are direct purchasers under Illinois Brick,” Kavanaugh stated as the reason for his vote.
What Does the Ruling Mean?
The Supreme Court, however, did not directly rule on the 2011 case on Monday, they only determined that the original plaintiffs had the right to continue pursuing their lawsuit. Many big-name tech companies like Google and Amazon have voiced concerns over the new judgment.
They fear that allowing class action suits like the one from 2011 to proceed, will open the floodgates to many more antitrust complaints, resulting in costly and lengthy lawsuits.
Edward Black, the CEO of the nonprofit organization Computer and Communications Industry Association, echoed the tech companies’ worries.
“We are concerned that the outcome of this ruling expands a previous ruling (Illinois Brick’s), and increases liability risks for multi-sided business models,” Black stated. “The decision may unintentionally expose businesses offering digital platform services to unintended liability.”
Apple’s response to the judgment, however, does not appear to show any concern about future litigation.
“We’re confident we will prevail when the facts are presented and that the App Store is not a monopoly by any metric,” they said in a statement. “We’re proud to have created the safest, most secure and trusted platform for customers and a great business opportunity for all developers around the world. Developers set the price they want to charge for their app and Apple has no role in that.”
If the plaintiffs decide to continue with their original class action suit, it will be the district courts decision to determine if Apple did, in fact, violate any antitrust laws. For now, they have the support of the Supreme Court to fight on.
See what others are saying: (Market Watch) (The Hill) (Bloomberg)
Facebook Co-Founder Says It’s Time To Break Up the Platform in NYT Op-Ed
- The New York Times published an op-ed by Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes on Thursday in which he calls for Facebook to be broken up.
- Hughes hasn’t been connected to the platform since 2012, but says that CEO Mark Zucerkberg has too much power over speech and the digital marketplace.
- Hughes is calling for more government regulation on tech companies overall and says that Facebook should be forced to split Instagram and WhatsApp into separate companies.
In an op-ed published Thursday by the New York Times, Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes says that the company has too much power and should be broken up by the government.
Hughes hasn’t worked for Facebook since 2008 and sold his final shares in 2012. However, the co-founder argues that because of the company’s position in the marketplace, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has an amount of power that is “unprecedented and un-American.”
In the op-ed, Hughes said that it is “time to break up Facebook.” Hughes is calling for more government regulation of the company and argues that Facebook should be forced to split Instagram and WhatsApp into separate companies.
“I’m angry that his focus on growth led him to sacrifice security and civility for clicks. I’m disappointed in myself and the early Facebook team for not thinking more about how the News Feed algorithm could change our culture, influence elections and empower nationalist leaders,” Hughes wrote in the piece.
“And I’m worried that Mark has surrounded himself with a team that reinforces his beliefs instead of challenging them.”
Hughes went on to say that the most problematic aspect of Facebook’s dominance is the amount of power Zuckerberg has over speech. “There is no precedent for his ability to monitor, organize and even censor the conversations of two billion people,” Hughes said.
Hughes argues that the root of the issue is that Facebook has effectively become a monopoly with no government oversight. He points out that when Facebook hasn’t been able to buy out a competitor, the company just copies the competitor’s idea. For instance, when Snapchat grew in popularity, Facebook copied its stories and disappearing messages. Afterwards, Zuckerberg allegedly said, “Don’t be too proud to copy,” and it became an informal slogan at Facebook.
In the op-ed Hughes warns that without competition like MySpace, Facebook would never have innovated the way they did in the early days.
“Imagine a competitive market in which they could choose among one network that offered higher privacy standards, another that cost a fee to join but had little advertising and another that would allow users to customize and tweak their feeds as they saw fit,” Hughes wrote.
Over the past few years, there have been increased calls for regulation on tech companies including Facebook, especially after the Cambridge Analytica scandal and the spread of misinformation leading up to the 2016 election.
Aside from calling on the FTC and the Justice Department to break up Facebook, Hughes also wants to see more regulation on the industry including a government agency dedicated to regulating tech companies with its first mandate being to protect privacy.
He also wants a privacy bill that specifies what control Americans have over their digital information and guidelines for “acceptable speech on social media,” because he says, “there is no constitutional right to harass others or live-stream violence.”
Hughes closes the op-ed by saying, “Mark Zuckerberg cannot fix Facebook, but our government can.”