mfioretti: privacy* + data ownership*

Bookmarks on this page are managed by an admin user.

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

  1. uno studio legale noleggia una stampante di alto livello, poi la macchina viene passata ad un altro cliente. Nulla di strano, il bello del noleggio è proprio di poter rinunciare alla macchina o cambiarla con una più nuova o performante. Però bisognerebbe ricordarsi di svuotare l’hard disk e di formattarlo con programmi di sicurezza che impediscono il recupero dei dati, non lasciare migliaia di scansioni di documenti legali a disposizione dell’utilizzatore successivo. Così come la ditta di noleggio dovrebbe attivarsi per un doppio controllo.

    Non dimentichiamo che la perdita di una chiavetta USB, il furto di un portatile o di uno smartphone possono causare una data breach, con tutta la procedura e le sanzioni conseguenti.
    https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/avvoca...-alla-faccia-del-gdpr-andrea-monguzzi
    Tags: , , , by M. Fioretti (2018-05-13)
    Voting 0
  2. The move also flags up contradictions in Unroll.me’s messaging to its users. For instance we’ve asked the company why it’s shutting down in the EU if — as it claims on its website — it “respects your privacy”. We’re not holding our breath for a response.

    The market exit also looks like a tacit admission that Unroll.me has essentially been ignoring the EU’s existing privacy regime. Because GDPR does not introduce privacy rules to the region. Rather the regulation updates and builds on a data protection framework that’s more than two decades old at this point — mostly by ramping up enforcement, with penalties for privacy violations that can scale as high as 4% of a company’s global annual turnover.

    So suddenly the EU is getting privacy regs with teeth. And just as suddenly Unroll.me is deciding it needs to shut up the local shop…
    https://techcrunch.com/2018/05/05/unr...users-saying-it-cant-comply-with-gdpr
    Voting 0
  3. The company’s financial performance is more of a reflection of Facebook’s unstoppability than its cause. Despite personal reservations about Facebook’s interwoven privacy, data, and advertising practices, the vast majority of people find that they can’t (and don’t want to) quit. Facebook has rewired people’s lives, routing them through its servers, and to disentangle would require major sacrifice. And even if one could get free of the service, the social pathways that existed before Facebook have shriveled up, like the towns along the roads that preceded the interstate highway system. Just look at how the very meaning of the telephone call has changed as we’ve expanded the number of ways we talk with each other. A method of communication that was universally seen as a great way of exchanging information has been transformed into a rarity reserved for close friends, special occasions, emergencies, and debt collectors.

    Most of the general pressures on the internet industry’s data practices, whether from Europe or anywhere else, don’t seem to scare Facebook. Their relative position will still be secure, unless something radical changes. In the company’s conference call with analysts last week, Sheryl Sandberg summed it up.

    “The thing that won’t change is that advertisers are going to look at the highest return-on-investment » opportunity,” Sandberg said. “And what’s most important in winning budgets is relative performance in the industry.”

    As long as dollars going into the Facebook ad machine sell products, dollars will keep going into the Facebook ad machine.

    As long as their friends are still on Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp, people will keep using Facebook products.
    https://www.theatlantic.com/technolog...18/05/facebook-the-unstoppable/559301
    Voting 0
  4. Un altro dei possibili punti di contesa è probabilmente legato alla pubblicità e alla condivisione di dati tra Whatsapp e Facebook. Al momento non sappiamo se la casa madre intenda introdurre inserzioni sulla app di messaggistica, una mossa che è stata sempre osteggiata da Koum e Acton. All’epoca della acquisizione i due cofondatori avevano ricevuto rassicurazioni sul fatto che non sarebbe stata aggiunta.

    Ma un anno e mezzo dopo Facebook ha convinto Whatsapp a cambiare i suoi termini di servizio per ottenere i numeri di telefono dei suoi utenti e inviare loro pubblicità mirata sul social (non sulla base delle loro conversazioni Whatsapp, che restavano inaccessibili all’azienda; ma sulla base del loro numero di telefono, che permetteva di farli trovare ad aziende che avevano liste di clienti e di loro cellulari, e che volevano raggiungerli con delle promozioni su Facebook).

    Nel maggio 2017 l’Unione europea ha multato Facebook con 110 milioni di euro per aver fornito informazioni fuorvianti al tempo dell’acquisizione di Whatsapp. Nel 2014 infatti il social aveva sostenuto che non avrebbe potuto collegare in modo automatico gli account degli utenti della app di messaggistica con i propri.

    Nello stesso periodo anche l’Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, in Italia, sanzionava Whatsapp per 3 milioni di euro, per aver indotto gli utenti “ad accettare integralmente i nuovi Termini di Utilizzo, in particolare la condivisione dei propri dati con Facebook, facendo loro credere che sarebbe stato, altrimenti, impossibile proseguire nell’uso dell’applicazione”.
    II futuro dopo Koum

    Alla base dell’uscita dei due cofondatori sembra esserci soprattutto uno scontro culturale fra il modello Whatsapp, che punta sull’idea di privacy, e il modello Facebook, che punta sull’utilizzo dei dati degli utenti per guadagnare con la pubblicità. E malgrado Facebook avesse vinto alcuni passaggi cruciali – come l’abbandono della sottoscrizione da 0,99 centesimi per Whatsapp (che era stata introdotta per nuovi utenti) o il cambio di termini di servizio ecc - i due cofondatori resistevano a modifiche più radicali. Che d’ora in poi potrebbero non trovare più ostacoli.

    Ma tutto ciò potrebbe anche essere un boomerang per Whatsapp. Non sembra il momento migliore per svendere la propria identità di servizio orientato alla privacy. Non a caso all’inizio del 2018 Acton ha deciso di mettere 50 milioni di dollari in Signal, la app cifrata, di nicchia ma apprezzatissima dalla comunità tecnologica, sul cui protocollo si basa la stessa cifratura di Whatsapp (di fatto i milioni li ha messi nella Signal Foundation, no-profit che dovrà ampliare la missione della app di “rendere più accessibili e ubique le comunicazioni private”).

    Nel contempo l’altra appcifrata più nota, Telegram, si erge (almeno a livello di immagine e marketing, non sulla qualità della cifratura e della sua implementazione) a paladina della libertà di espressione e della privacy, facendosi mettere al bando in Russia. In questo scenario, c’è da scommettere che difficilmente Koum se ne starà a lungo a giocare con le Porsche.
    https://www.agi.it/innovazione/koum_w...scia_facebook-3837553/news/2018-05-01
    Voting 0
  5. Today’s Internet and digital platforms are becoming increasingly centralised, slowing innovation and challenging their potential to revolutionise society and the economy in a pluralistic manner.

    The DECODE project will develop practical alternatives, through the creation, evaluation and demonstration of a distributed and open architecture for managing online access and aggregation of private information to allow a citizen-friendly and privacy-aware governance of access entitlements.

    Strong ethical and digital rights principles are at the base of DECODE’s mission, moving towards the implementation of open standards for a technical architecture resting on the use of Attribute Based Cryptography, distributed ledgers, secure operating system and a privacy focused smart rules language
    https://decodeproject.github.io/whitepaper/#pf6
    Voting 0
  6. Journalists have been asking me whether the revulsion against the abuse of Facebook data could be a turning point for the campaign to recover privacy. That could happen, if the public makes its campaign broader and deeper.

    Broader, meaning extending to all surveillance systems, not just Facebook. Deeper, meaning to advance from regulating the use of data to regulating the accumulation of data. Because surveillance is so pervasive, restoring privacy is necessarily a big change, and requires powerful measures.
    After the Facebook scandal it’s time to base the digital economy on public v private ownership of data
    Evgeny Morozov
    Read more

    The surveillance imposed on us today far exceeds that of the Soviet Union. For freedom and democracy’s sake, we need to eliminate most of it. There are so many ways to use data to hurt people that the only safe database is the one that was never collected. Thus, instead of the EU’s approach of mainly regulating how personal data may be used (in its General Data Protection Regulation or GDPR), I propose a law to stop systems from collecting personal data.

    The robust way to do that, the way that can’t be set aside at the whim of a government, is to require systems to be built so as not to collect data about a person. The basic principle is that a system must be designed not to collect certain data, if its basic function can be carried out without that data.

    Data about who travels where is particularly sensitive, because it is an ideal basis for repressing any chosen target. We can take the London trains and buses as a case for study.

    The Transport for London digital payment card system centrally records the trips any given Oyster or bank card has paid for. When a passenger feeds the card digitally, the system associates the card with the passenger’s identity. This adds up to complete surveillance.

    I expect the transport system can justify this practice under the GDPR’s rules. My proposal, by contrast, would require the system to stop tracking who goes where. The card’s basic function is to pay for transport. That can be done without centralising that data, so the transport system would have to stop doing so. When it accepts digital payments, it should do so through an anonymous payment system.
    Advertisement

    Frills on the system, such as the feature of letting a passenger review the list of past journeys, are not part of the basic function, so they can’t justify incorporating any additional surveillance.
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ata-law-privacy-big-tech-surveillance
    Voting 0
  7. “I believe it’s important to tell people exactly how the information that they share on Facebook is going to be used.

    “That’s why, every single time you go to share something on Facebook, whether it’s a photo in Facebook, or a message, every single time, there’s a control right there about who you’re going to be sharing it with ... and you can change that and control that in line.

    “To your broader point about the privacy policy ... long privacy policies are very confusing. And if you make it long and spell out all the detail, then you’re probably going to reduce the per cent of people who read it and make it accessible to them.”
    https://www.theguardian.com/technolog...testimony-to-congress-the-key-moments
    Voting 0
  8. Should there be regulation?#
    Yes. On privacy disclosure, and prohibiting the most draconian uses of user data. It should not be possible for users to give those rights up in exchange for use of a social system like Facebook. The idea is similar to the law in California that says that most non-competes are not enforceable. The benefit you receive has to be somewhat equivalent to the data you give up. #
    What about Google, Apple, Amazon?#
    This is the really important stuff.#
    This affair should get users, government and the press to look at other tech companies who have business models based on getting users to disclose ever-more-intimate information. Here are some examples.#
    Google, through Android, knows every place you go. They use that data. Do they sell it? I don't know, but I'm pretty sure you can use it to target ads. Apple, through the iPhone also knows where you go.#
    Apps on Android or iPhones can be told where you go. Many of them are only useful if you let them have the info. Apps can also have all your pictures, contacts. Face recognition makes it possible to construct a social graph without any access to the Facebook API.#
    Google and Apple can listen to all your phone calls.#
    Google, through their Chrome browser, knows everywhere you go on the web, and everything you type into the browser. #
    Amazon Echo and Google Home are always listening. Imagine a leak based on conversations at home, phone calls, personal habits, arguments you have with your spouse, kids, any illegal activities that might be going on in your home. #
    If you have a Gmail account, Google reads your mail, and targets ads at you based on what you're writing about. They also read the email that people send to you, people who may not also be Gmail users. Some examples of how creepy this can be -- they seem to know what my investments are, btw -- I assume they figured this out through email. Recently they told me when a friend's flight to NYC was arriving. I don't know how they made this connection. I assume it was through email.#
    Amazon, of course, knows everything you buy through Amazon. #
    Google knows everything you search for. #
    And on and on. We've reconstructed our whole society around companies having all the data about us that they want. It's kind of funny that we're all freaking out about Cambridge Analytica and Facebook. The problem is so much bigger. #
    Summary#
    It seems like a non-event to me. The press knew all about the API going back to 2012. That they didn't foresee the problem then is a result of the press accepting the hype of big tech companies on their terms, and not trying to find out what the implications of technology are from non-partisan experts. This was a story that could have and should have been written in 2010, warning users of a hidden cost to Facebook.#
    Today's scandal, the equivalent of the one in 2010, is that Google is attempting to turn the web into a corporate platform. Once they control the web as Facebook controls the Social Graph, we'll have another impossibly huge problem to deal with. Better to head this one off with regulation, now, when it can do some good
    http://scripting.com/2018/04/11/140429.html
    Voting 0
  9. These users have invested time and money in building their social networks on Facebook, yet they have no means to port the connectivity elsewhere. Whenever a serious competitor to Facebook has arisen, the company has quickly copied it (Snapchat) or purchased it (WhatsApp, Instagram), often at a mind-boggling price that only a behemoth with massive cash reserves could afford. Nor do people have any means to completely stop being tracked by Facebook. The surveillance follows them not just on the platform, but elsewhere on the internet—some of them apparently can’t even text their friends without Facebook trying to snoop in on the conversation. Facebook doesn’t just collect data itself; it has purchased external data from data brokers; it creates “shadow profiles” of nonusers and is now attempting to match offline data to its online profiles.

    Again, this isn’t a community; this is a regime of one-sided, highly profitable surveillance, carried out on a scale that has made Facebook one of the largest companies in the world by market capitalization.

    There is no other way to interpret Facebook’s privacy invading moves over the years—even if it’s time to simplify! finally!―as anything other than decisions driven by a combination of self-serving impulses: namely, profit motives, the structural incentives inherent to the company’s business model, and the one-sided ideology of its founders and some executives. All these are forces over which the users themselves have little input, aside from the regular opportunity to grouse through repeated scandals.

    And even the ideology—a vague philosophy that purports to prize openness and connectivity with little to say about privacy and other values—is one that does not seem to apply to people who run Facebook or work for it. Zuckerberg buys houses surrounding his and tapes over his computer’s camera to preserve his own privacy, and company employees went up in arms when a controversial internal memo that made an argument for growth at all costs was recently leaked to the press—a nonconsensual, surprising, and uncomfortable disclosure of the kind that Facebook has routinely imposed upon its billions of users over the years.

    This isn’t to say Facebook doesn’t provide real value to its users, even as it locks them in through network effects and by crushing, buying, and copying its competition. I wrote a whole book in which I document, among other things, how useful Facebook has been to anticensorship efforts around the world. It doesn’t even mean that Facebook executives ...
    https://www.wired.com/story/why-zucke...nt-fixed-facebook?mbid=social_twitter
    Voting 0
  10. Di nuovo: dove sta lo scandalo di questi giorni, dunque? Lo scandalo sta nell’evidenza di un errore di fondo nella concezione delle interazioni umane, la concezione che Mark Zuckerberg ha imposto — per sua stessa ammissione, nel tanto agnognato intervento post-Cambridge Analytica — dal 2007. L’idea cioè di costruire un “web dove si è social di default”. Dove cioè la norma è condividere. Un principio che è strutturalmente opposto alla tutela della privacy individuale, che si fonda sulla riservatezza come norma, riguardo ai propri dati personali.

    Zuckerberg lo spiega benissimo nel suo più recente intervento, individuando - giustamente - in quell’errore filosofico e antropologico la radice della tempesta in cui è costretto a destreggiarsi: “Nel 2007, abbiamo lanciato la Facebook Platform nella convinzione (“vision”) che più app dovessero essere social. Il tuo calendario doveva poterti mostrare il compleanno degli amici, le tue mappe mostrare dove vivono i tuoi amici, il tuo address book le loro foto. Per farlo, abbiamo consentito di accedere alle app e condividere chi fossero i tuoi amici e alcune informazioni su di loro”.

    È questo che conduce, nel 2013, Kogan a ottenere l’accesso ai dati di milioni di persone. E certo, quei dati hanno un immenso valore scientifico — ed è giusto che la ricerca, se condotta nel pieno rispetto del consenso informato degli utenti divenuti soggetti sperimentali, possa accedervi. Per soli scopi accademici, però. E anche così, già nel 2014 il famoso esperimento condotto da Facebook stessa sulla manipolazione delle emozioni di centinaia di migliaia di utenti, a cui erano stati mostrati deliberatamente più contenuti positivi o negativi, aveva dimostrato che anche quando non ci sono di mezzo fini commerciali, la questione è ambigua, complessa. E che no, non basta accettare condizioni di utilizzo intricate e che non legge nessuno per dire che allora ogni utente ha, per il fatto stesso di avere accettato di essere su Facebook, di diventare indiscriminatamente un topo di laboratorio arruolato in esperimenti di cui ignora tutto.

    Eppure è proprio la piattaforma a rendersi conto, già in quello stesso anno, che così le cose non vanno. Che a quel modo Facebook perde il controllo su quali terze parti hanno accesso ai dati dei suoi utenti. La policy dunque cambia, e da allora gli “amici” devono acconsentire al trattamento dei propri dati da parte di una app. La nuova filosofia, ricorda Albright, è “people first”. Ma è tardi. E l’incapacità di rientrare davvero in possesso di quell’ammasso di informazioni, dimostrata dal caso Cambridge Analytica – possibile Facebook debba scoprire dai giornali che l’azienda non aveva cancellato i dati che diceva di aver cancellato, o che debba comunque condurre un auditing serio per verificarlo ora, dimostrando di non avere idea se lo siano o meno? – fa capire che il problema va ben oltre il singolo caso in questione, ma è sistematico.

    Per capirci più chiaramente: come scrive Albright, la prima versione delle API v.1.0 per il Facebook Graph – cioè ciò che gli sviluppatori di applicazioni potevano ottenere dal social network tra il 2010, data di lancio, e il 2014, data in cui la policy è cambiata – consentiva di sapere non su chi si iscriveva a una determinata app, ma dagli amici inconsapevoli, i seguenti dati: “about, azioni, attività, compleanno, check-ins, istruzione, eventi, giochi, gruppi, residenza, interessi, like, luogo, note, status, tag, foto, domande, relazioni, religione/politica, iscrizioni, siti, storia lavorativa”. Davvero si poteva pensare di controllare dove finissero tutti questi dati, per milioni e milioni di persone?

    E davvero Facebook lo scopre oggi? Nel 2011, la Federal Trade Commission americana aveva già segnalato la questione come problematica. Non ha insegnato nulla
    https://www.valigiablu.it/facebook-cambridge-analytica-scandalo
    Voting 0

Top of the page

First / Previous / Next / Last / Page 1 of 12 Online Bookmarks of M. Fioretti: Tags: privacy + data ownership

About - Propulsed by SemanticScuttle