Prosecutors in the Bavarian capital are conducting an investigation into Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and other heads of the social media giant over potentially illegal posts on their website, Spiegel reported on Friday.
The Local.de: Facebook’s Zuckerberg being investigated in Germany »
The Economist: Left unchecked, the growing maze of barriers on the internet will damage economies and hamper political freedom »
The EU was warned not to hasten when replacing the fallen “Safe Harbour” agreement with the US with a new agreement to protect European personal data. But the EU Commission did. And it did a poor work.
The new agreement – the EU-US Privacy Shield – suffers much the same problems as its predecessor. Immediately here were warnings that if it is to be sent to court, it will meet the same fate as the previous agreement: Invalidation.
And here we go…
Privacy Shield legal spat puts EU-US data flows at risk again »
Google Brain has created two artificial intelligences that evolved their own cryptographic algorithm to protect their messages from a third AI, which was trying to evolve its own method to crack the AI-generated crypto. The study was a success: the first two AIs learnt how to communicate securely from scratch.
Ars Technica: Google AI invents its own cryptographic algorithm; no one knows how it works »
In times when most people (at least most young people) use social media as their main source for news, German Chancellor Angela Merkel demands that these platforms should disclose their privately-developed algorithms.
“The algorithms must be made public, so that one can inform oneself as an interested citizen on questions like: what influences my behavior on the internet and that of others?” (…)
“These algorithms, when they are not transparent, can lead to a distortion of our perception, they narrow our breadth of information.”
Of course, that would be very interesting. But, at the same time, demanding that private companies disclose their deepest trade secrets doesn’t seem very reasonable or likely to happen.
Nevertheless, Merkel touches on an important issue, with far-reaching democratic implications. Information is power. And whoever is in control of the flow of information has a huge influence on society and politics. She continued…
“The big internet platforms, via their algorithms, have become an eye of a needle which diverse media must pass through to reach users. This is a development that we need to pay careful attention to.”
On the other hand, what information will show up in your Facebook newsfeed or Google searches is largely decided by who your friends are, what they read, what they share and also by what web pages you yourself use to visit, like and on your own web search history. There is no universal model – rather all newsfeeds and all search results are personal.
And it would be rather strange to have news feeds insisting on trying to have you to read articles that you don’t care about or find interesting. Or search engines coming up with results that are not relevant to you or not in line with your preferences.
Taking the Chancellors remarks to the extreme, it would be quite terrifying if the government were to have influence over your news flow and your search results. It’s foreboding enough that politicians (on both national and EU levels) have had Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and Microsoft to censor posts with certain content.
In my opinion, the only way to tackle this issue is by introducing disruptive competition. And it will happen. Internet platforms rise and fall. We have absolutely no idea what platforms or what technical concepts will be used tomorrow.
The Internet and the World Wide Web is, by design, an unprecedented opportunity for humanity to discover of information and knowledge, distribute content and take part in a free and open debate. I don’t think it would be a good idea for governments to interfere in this free and dynamic evolution.
The focus should be on entrepreneurs, activists, academia and private individuals to develop new and better tools and platforms. In doing so, I’m quite sure that information diversity, as well as privacy, will be competitive advantages.
/ HAX
RT: Merkel says Facebook, Google ‘distort perception,’ demands they ‘reveal algorithms’ »
But what do we do when the same threats aren’t the result of a law or the practices of an individual company, but the result of a private industry agreement? For example, agreements between copyright holders and Internet companies that give copyright holders the ability to effectively delete users’ content from the Internet, and agreements on other topics such as hateful speech and terrorism that can be used to stifle lawful speech. Unlike laws, such agreements (sometimes also called codes, standard, principles, or guidelines) aren’t developed with public input or accountability. As a result, users who are affected by them are often completely unaware that they even exist.
EFF: Shadow Regulation: the Back-Room Threat to Digital Rights »
Thanks to the Snowden revelations, it was proven that Canada was conducting mass surveillance activities within the so-called “Five Eyes” arrangement. If brought to court, as the Austrian student Max Schrems did with the EU-US agreement on transfer of personal data (the “Safe Harbor agreement”), the adequacy status given by the EU could be overturned. However, if CETA is ratified, the EU would be prohibited from protecting personal data in this way.
EDRi: CETA puts the protection of our privacy and personal data at risk »
Reuters:
Yahoo Inc last year secretly built a custom software program to search all of its customers’ incoming emails for specific information provided by U.S. intelligence officials, according to people familiar with the matter.
Exclusive: Yahoo secretly scanned customer emails for U.S. intelligence – sources »
The EU has formed an alliance with Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and Microsoft to block Internet content that aims to radicalize people – and hate speech. It is called the Joint Referral Platform.
This is, per definition, about limiting free speech. As such, this taps into democratic core issues.
The plan is to have the social networks and platforms to carry out this censorship, referring to their user terms and conditions – that more or less allows them to censor or ban anyone. They don’t have to explain their actions. There is no possibility to appeal or redress.
Naturally, this is something that civil rights organisations and Internet activists must look into, analyse and keep a close eye on. Here is an apparent possibility for the political system to restrict free speech without getting its own hands dirty, without having to deal with legislation or the judicial system.
But when European Digital Rights, EDRi, asked for information – the European Commission first stalled their request and then refused to share information.
The reason presented by the Commission is notable. It is said that openness could undermine a highly sensitive on-going process. No shit, Sherlock.
The entire point is that this is highly sensitive. It’s about a public-private partnership to limit free speech. That is why transparency is of immense importance.
To make things even worse, the Commission seems to be unwilling to provide information about the legal basis for the Joint Referral Platform.
This is not how to conduct things in a democratic society.
Sadly, this is typical for how the EU apparatus works. Democratic principles and core values are brushed aside. Rule of law is disregarded. Human and civil rights are ignored.
And they usually get away with it.
This time, it’s about free speech online. Regardless of what people think of limiting what can be said on the Internet – everyone ought to agree that limitations of fundamental rights must be handled with extreme care and in an open, democratic process.
We must try to get the European Parliament to look into this. The MEP:s are democratically elected – and are, as such, at least somewhat uncomfortable with ignoring strong and loud public opinion.
This might also be a case for the European Court of Justice as well as the European Court of Human Rights.
You simply cannot stay silent when they take our civil rights away.
/ HAX
EDRi: Joint Referral Platform: no proof of diligent approach to terrorism »
A worldwide class-action privacy lawsuit against Facebook, initiated by Max Schrems, has been referred to Europe’s top court. (…)
Schrems first brought his suit in 2014, and accuses Facebook of breaking EU privacy law in multiple ways, including supporting the NSA’s Prism surveillance program. Later, 25,000 Facebook users from around the world—except those in the US and Canada, where different rules apply—joined Schrems in a class action under Austrian law by assigning their rights to him.
Ars Technica: Worldwide privacy class action against Facebook heads to EU’s highest court »
