mfioretti: data ownership*

Bookmarks on this page are managed by an admin user.

234 bookmark(s) - Sort by: Date ↓ / Title / Voting / - Bookmarks from other users for this tag

  1. earlier this month, The Australian uncovered something that felt like a breach in the social contract: a leaked confidential document prepared by Facebook that revealed the company had offered advertisers the opportunity to target 6.4 million younger users, some only 14 years old, during moments of psychological vulnerability, such as when they felt “worthless,” “insecure,” “stressed,” “defeated,” “anxious,” and like a “failure.”

    The 23-page document had been prepared for a potential advertiser and highlighted Facebook’s ability to micro-target ads down to “moments when young people need a confidence boost.” According to The Australian’s report, Facebook had been monitoring posts, photos, interactions, and internet activity in real time to track these emotional lows. (Facebook confirmed the existence of the report, but declined to respond to questions from WIRED about which types of posts were used to discern emotion.)

    The day the story broke, Facebook quickly issued a public statement arguing that the premise of the article was “misleading”
    Voting 0
  2. The High Court of Delhi (‘the High Court’) pronounced, on 23 September 2016, its decision in a public interest litigation case, Karmanya Singh Sareen and Anr v. Union of India and Ors (‘the Decision’), in relation to WhatsApp Inc.’s new privacy policy that allows for the sharing of users’ data with Facebook, Inc., for advertising and marketing purposes. The High Court ordered WhatsApp to delete users’ data completely from its servers and refrain from sharing users’ data with Facebook, provided that the users requested the deletion of their WhatsApp account before 25 September 2016, the date on which the users were asked to agree to the new terms, and also prohibited WhatsApp from sharing existing users’ data dated before 25 September 2016.

    Parul Sharma, Analyst at the Centre for Communication Governance at National Law University of Delhi, told DataGuidance, “In the absence of a privacy law and strong data protection measures it is a strong judgement. » The general implication of the case on mobile application providers and internet based messaging services is dependent on how courts interpret this judgement in the future.”

    Although the High Court ordered WhatsApp not to share its users’ data with Facebook, which have been collected before WhatsApp changed its privacy policy on 25 September 2016, it emphasised that WhatsApp users have voluntarily agreed and are bound by the new terms of service offered. In addition, WhatsApp’s 2012 privacy policy provides that in the event of a merger WhatsApp reserves the right to transfer or assign users’ information.

    While the existence of this right is pending before the Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy, multiple courts have affirmed the constitutional right to privacy since then

    Smitha Krishna Prasad and Abhishek Senthilnathan, Associates at Nishith Desai Associates noted, “There is no statutory framework to govern the functioning of internet based messaging services like WhatsApp in India » Therefore, the High Court has correctly taken the view that WhatsApp may choose to change the terms and conditions of service and users cannot compel WhatsApp to operate within specific parameters.”

    It was argued in the case that the right to privacy guaranteed under Article 2I of the Constitution of India could be a valid ground to prevent WhatsApp sharing data with Facebook. However, the High Court rejected this argument on the basis that the existence of the fundamental right to privacy is yet to be decided in the pending case K.S. Puttaswamy and Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (2015) 8 SCC 735.
    Voting 0
  3. Economic development and growth theory have long grappled with the consequences of cross-border flows of goods, services, ideas, and people. But the most significant growth in cross-border flows now comes in the form of data. Like other flows, data flows can demonstrate imbalances among exports and imports. Some of these flows represent ‘raw’ data while others represent high-value-added data products. Does any of this make a difference in national economic development trajectories? This paper argues that the answer is yes. After reviewing the core logic of ‘high development theories’ from the twentieth century, I analyze the sometimes implicit applications of these arguments to data as they are evolving in the existing literature. I then put forward a different argument which takes better account of unique characteristics of the political economy that emerges at the intersection of data, machine learning, and the platform firms that use them. I explore the implications of this new argument for some policy choices that governments face with regard to data localization, import substitution, and other decisions relevant to growth in both advanced and emerging economies.
    Tags: , by M. Fioretti (2017-05-10)
    Voting 0
  4. Read the map from the centre outwards: starting with the application itself, examine the list of permissions each requires, followed by what these permissions really imply, ranked by how intrusive they are. “Even with just these six apps, you are giving away pretty much all the metadata that exists on your phone,” Joler says. “They have permission to access sensitive information such as who you called, when you called them and how long the call lasted.”

    His goal is to remind you that every free app makes money by collecting your personal data and creating a profile of you that can be monetised and sold on to third parties. “Mobile phones have hugely expanded the intimacy and quality of the information they gather,” says Joler.
    Voting 0
  5. Facebook, which now owns WhatsApp, is fighting a challenge to its new privacy policy that it unveiled last year. According to the new privacy policy WhatsApp can share some user data with Facebook, which the Mark Zuckerberg-led company can then use in various ways. Although WhatsApp says that it will (still) not share all the information that users generate through their chats, India Today Tech noted earlier , Facebook only needs the phone number of a user to build a full WhatsApp profile for that user. The company most likely already has other details on users.

    Also Read: WhatsApp will ONLY share phone number but that is all Facebook needs

    The new WhatsApp privacy has been criticised worldwide. Just days ago, a court in Germany asked Facebook to stop harvesting user information from WhatsApp. After the court order, Facebook said that it was pausing the sharing of WhatsApp user data with Facebook in whole of Europe. The ruling came even as the European Union privacy watchdog continues to probe the new privacy policy.

    However, in India where privacy laws are non-existent, Facebook and WhatsApp have so far defended their new privacy policy. It is also important to note that India is one of the biggest markets for both Facebook and WhatsApp and that could also be one of the reasons why Facebook wants to enforce its new privacy policies here. Data from Indian users could be commercially very attractive for the company.
    Voting 0
  6. Facebook’s entire project, when it comes to news, rests on the assumption that people’s individual preferences ultimately coincide with the public good, and that if it doesn’t appear that way at first, you’re not delving deeply enough into the data. By contrast, decades of social-science research shows that most of us simply prefer stuff that feels true to our worldview even if it isn’t true at all and that the mining of all those preference signals is likely to lead us deeper into bubbles rather than out of them.

    What’s needed, he argues, is some global superstructure to advance humanity.

    This is not an especially controversial idea; Zuckerberg is arguing for a kind of digital-era version of the global institution-building that the Western world engaged in after World War II. But because he is a chief executive and not an elected president, there is something frightening about his project. He is positioning Facebook — and, considering that he commands absolute voting control of the company, he is positioning himself — as a critical enabler of the next generation of human society. A minor problem with his mission is that it drips with megalomania, albeit of a particularly sincere sort. With his wife, Priscilla Chan, Zuckerberg has pledged to give away nearly all of his wealth to a variety of charitable causes, including a long-term medical-research project to cure all disease. His desire to take on global social problems through digital connectivity, and specifically through Facebook, feels like part of the same impulse.

    Yet Zuckerberg is often blasé about the messiness of the transition between the world we’re in and the one he wants to create through software. Building new “social infrastructure” usually involves tearing older infrastructure down. If you manage the demolition poorly, you might undermine what comes next.
    Voting 0
  7. To further protect consumer privacy and ensure that neither Uber nor anyone else can ever know too much about you, Uber should ensure that raw sensor data is never be combined with PII. Uber, and really all companies asking for always-on location, should separate the raw data they are collecting and sanitize it before combining it with PII.

    Uber’s latest controversy is just the beginning. Over the next few years, a lot of functionality will move into the background and more sensor data will be exposed. Now is the time to establish the practices for how best to protect consumer privacy around background sensor data; namely, all apps requesting this data should be upfront about why they are collecting it, provide an easy mechanism for consumers to opt-in or out and ensure that the data is never combined with PII data.

    If apps comply with this basic framework, I believe everyone will win. Consumers will be better off because they will have access to better services, apps will be properly serving the needs of consumers and advocacy groups will know they have helped protect consumer privacy.
    Voting 0
  8. Dalla breve sintesi dei tre casi sopra esposti si possono trarre alcune considerazioni di ordine generale. C’è una commistione impropria tra gli addebiti mossi a Facebook come società commerciale che offre servizi in Europa e le rimostranze avanzate contro il social network per aver ceduto i dati personali degli Europei dietro ordine dell’intelligence americana. Quella della sorveglianza di massa è una questione di tenuta democratica degli ordinamenti occidentali e fare di Facebook il parafulmine delle “malefatte” dell’amministrazione americana non aiuterà la causa delle libertà civili. L’azienda ha infatti risposto a ordini legittimi di autorità costituite statunitensi. Pensare che questa vicenda si possa affrontare col fioretto del diritto anziché con gli strumenti della politica non sarebbe serio; tanto più che uno degli Stati architrave della civile Europa, la Francia, ha appena approvato una normativa antiterrorismo che conferisce ampi poteri di spionaggio alle forze di polizia senza supervisione di un giudice terzo.

    Lungi dal proteggere le libertà civili degli Europei, l’uso giudiziale della privacy sembra invece rispondere a un obiettivo di competition by litigation, volto a limitare il potere commerciale di aziende estere più che a favorire innovazione, efficienza e sviluppo nel mercato interno, il cui successo fu costruito al contrario proprio sulla minimizzazione dell’impatto regolatorio sulla libertà economica. Una lezione da attualizzare, mutatis mutandis, anche per il mercato digitale.
    Voting 0
  9. Una gamma di fornitori sempre più ampia. Della pratica Repubblica ne ha già parlato nel 2013, quando Facebook ha lanciato Categorie Partner, il servizio con cui Mark Zuckerberg ha messo a disposizione dei propri inserzionisti queste notizie raccolte da aziende terze, in modo da garantire la pubblicità giusta alla persona giusta. Ma, se inizialmente il sistema era attivo solo negli Stati Uniti, oggi è disponibile anche in Francia, Germania e Regno Unito. Mentre i fornitori della rete in blu si sono moltiplicati fino a includere: Acxiom, Experian, Greater Data, Epsilon, Quantium, TransUnion, WPP e Oracle data cloud. Quest'ultimo, in particolare, ha un ruolo di primo piano nel settore grazie all'acquisizione nel 2014 sia di BlueKai, piattaforma basata sul cloud che permette alle società di personalizzare le campagne di marketing online, offline e su mobile, sia di Datalogix, che aggrega e fornisce informazioni relative a oltre due trilioni di spesa dei consumatori di 1500 partner commerciali, tra cui Visa, Mastercard e TiVo.

    LEGGI: Svelato il codice etico. Così Facebook sceglie i post da cancellare

    Diffile uscirne. Per comprendere meglio quali siano esattamente le informazioni che il social di Menlo Park compra da queste aziende, il sito di giornalismo investigativo ha scaricato una lista di 29mila categorie che Facebook fornisce agli inserzionisti pubblicitari. La scoperta: di queste 29mila, 600 sono riconducibili a dati forniti da terzi e si tratta per lo più di notizie finanziarie. Nessuna di queste categorie, però, risulta presente tra le "Preferenze relative alle inserzioni": la pagina che Facebook ci mette a disposizione per capire quali informazioni influenzano gli spot che vediamo in bacheca e controllarli. "Non sono onesti", ha commentato Jeffrey Chester, direttore esecutivo del Center for Digital Democracy. "Le persone dovrebbero poter aver accesso a questo pacchetto". Inoltre, i giornalisti di ProPubblica hanno messo in evidenza che è difficilissimo uscire fuori da questa forma di profilazione. Per esempio, stando alla loro indagine, impedire a Oracle data cloud di fornire i nostri dati a Facebook richiede ai consumatori statunitensi di spedire via posta una richiesta scritta, con la copia di un documento rilasciato dalle autorità, al responsabile della privacy di Oracle.
    Voting 0
  10. Key functions of an ecosystem of collaborative software tools:

    Here are a number of areas that we have decided are critical to this collaborative ecosystem.

    Notifications Dashboard: aggregated notifications of activity that is sourced from activity from tools in the ecosystem
    Chat and Direct Messaging: one-to-one and one-to-many messaging, with tunable privacy as appropriate to communication goals
    Representation of Group Membership and Group Auth: a tool that stores who is a member of which group, who can see the data that the group contains, and can invoke single-purpose tools through “group authentication”
    Representation of which groups are using which tools: this enables the community to understand which tools are part of the set of tools in use in a given environment
    Intent-casting + Collaborative discovery: discovery of aligned intentions + matching of available requests and offers. Can include bounties/price tags in a variety of currencies.
    Collaborative ideation & brainstorming: allows decentralized groups to ideate and brainstorm together
    Collaborative decision making: allows decentralized groups to come to decisions together
    Collaborative budgeting: allows decentralized groups to allocate common-pool resources
    Network visualization: allows users to interact with different types of visual representations of shared data and membership
    __Reputation: allows users to assess the past actions of network participants based on user tunable, context aware preferences
    Identity: allows users to be aware of the identity of other users over time tied to reputation
    Mutual Credit: allows users to create and track mutual credit exchanges
    Voting 0

Top of the page

First / Previous / Next / Last / Page 2 of 24 Online Bookmarks of M. Fioretti: Tags: data ownership

About - Propulsed by SemanticScuttle