Navigation

Archive | Big Data

And now… automated web censorship

By on July 13, 2016 in Big Data, Censorship, Civil liberties, EU, Europol, Facebook, Freedom of Speech, Google, Internet, Rule of law, social media

Automated systems to identify child abuse material (and flag it for removal) on the Internet is now going to be used to combat “extremist” and “hateful” content on social media.

“However, the definition of “extremist content” is everything but clear; CEP’s algorithm does not (and logically cannot) contain this definition either. Even if it were to use a database of previously identified material, that still would create problems for legitimate quotation, research and illustration purposes, as well as problems regarding varying laws from one jurisdiction to another.”

“The Joint Referral Platform has the potential to automate Europol’s not-formal-censorship activities by an automatic detection of re-upload. However, it remains unclear whether any investigative measures will be taken apart from the referral – particularly as Europol’s activities, bizarrely, do not deal with illegal material. There is obviously no redress available for incorrectly identified and deleted content, as it is not the law but broad and unpredictable terms of service that are being used.”

What could possibly go wrong..?

EDRi: Algorithms – censorship à la carte? »

0

FAQ: EU-US Privacy Shield

By on July 12, 2016 in Big Data, Data Protection, EU, EU-US Privacy Shield, Privacy, US

“There are a few improvements, the most obvious being on the purpose limitation and the duration of data retention by private companies. But even here, the EU standard that data can only be stored as long as this is “necessary” is watered down to “relevant”. Of course, any data can be relevant for the company, but that does not mean it meets the necessity test.”

“At the very least, it should get a sunset clause and expire in two years, when the new EU data protection rules have to be applied. The negotiations should in the meantime continue with the next US administration, which also should amend its laws in the next two years. I know this is difficult given the current situation on Capitol Hill in Washington, but we can’t give US companies such privileged access to EU data transfers market if they don’t follow our standards.”

“All I have seen is a funny attempt to define “bulk collection” as not being “mass surveillance”. The US government is still allowed to do bulk data collection in at least six cases, including gathering “foreign intelligence information”, which can be information on anything from illicit arms trade to legitimate trade agreement protests.”

German Green MEP Jan Philipp Albrecht on the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield.

Link: EU-US “Privacy Shield” – Background and Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) »

0

EU to adopt EU-US Privacy Shield shotrly

By on July 7, 2016 in Big Brother, Big Data, Data Protection, EU, EU-US Privacy Shield, IT security, Privacy, US

Privacy Shield—the much maligned replacement to the Safe Harbour deal between the European Union and the US—looks set to be approved by national representatives on Friday, Ars understands.

The scheme, which will allow the transfer of personal data from the EU to the US despite privacy and data protection concerns, has faced an uphill battle. Brussels officials who negotiated the deal on behalf of the EU have been desperate to push it through in the face of criticism from the European Data Protection Supervisor, national data protection authorities, and the European Parliament, in order to give some legal certainty to companies that rely on transatlantic data flows. (…)

The agreement is expected to be formally adopted by the European Commission next Monday, followed by the deal being inked by justice commissioner Vera Jourová and US secretary of commerce Penny Pritzker on Tuesday.

Jennifer Baker in Ars Technica: Privacy Shield to be dragged across finish line—sources »

0

Next up: EU e-Privacy Directive

By on July 7, 2016 in Big Brother, Big Data, Civil liberties, Data Protection, EU, Freedom of Speech, Internet, Privacy

The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Data Protection Directive for Law Enforcement Agencies (LEDP) have now been approved — after being watered down as the result of an unprecedented lobbying campaign.

Next up is the EU e-Privacy Directive. EDRi explains…

The e-Privacy Directive contains specific rules on data protection in the area of telecommunication in public electronic networks. It is hugely important, as it is the only EU legislation that regulates confidentiality of communications. (…)

Specifically, the ePrivacy Directive regulates aspects related to the right to confidentiality of communications and the right to freedom of expression.

Once again, we can expect a massive lobby campaign to weaken citizens rights.

To get up to date with what is at stake, read this blog post from EDRi:

• e-Privacy Directive revision: An analysis from the civil society »

/ HAX

0

Belgian court: Facebook can keep tracking non-users

By on July 3, 2016 in Big Data, Data Protection, Facebook, Privacy

A Belgian court has overturned a ruling that would have forced Facebook to stop tracking non-users who had visited its pages, The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday. A Brussels appeals court found that the Belgian Privacy Commission, which brought a case against Facebook last year, does not have jurisdiction over the company’s Ireland-based European headquarters. As The Guardian reports, it also rejected a claim that the case was urgent and needed to be expedited.

This reverses a decision made last year, when a court ordered Facebook to stop using cookies to keep tabs on the web browsing of people who were not logged into accounts or had otherwise opted out of tracking

The Verge: Facebook wins Belgian privacy case over tracking logged-out users »

Ars Technica: Facebook wins privacy case, can track any Belgian it wants »

0

Data Protection: Is the EU just incompetent or… evil?

By on July 1, 2016 in Big Business, Big Data, Data Protection, EU, Privacy, US

According to usually well informed sources the Council of the European Union (the member states representatives) is ready to greenlight the so called EU US Privacy Shield.

The Privacy Shield is supposed to replace the previous Safe Harbour agreement on protection of personal data being transferred from the EU to the US. The latter was used in a sloppy way by US companies and it did not offer sufficient protection against US mass surveillance. The European Parliament has frequently called for the Safe Harbour agreement to be revoked – and finally the European Court of Justice (ECJ) invalidated it on grounds that it did not respect European citizens right to privacy.

Since then, the EU and US have been working hard to secure a new agreement – the Privacy Shield.

The problem is that the Privacy Shield, ruffly speaking, has the same problems as the Safe Harbour agreement. So much so that the ECJ have found that it ought to look into the matter once again. (The Max Schrems case, part 2.)

So, why is the EU so eager to give the Privacy Shield its approval? First off all both the EU and the US is under pressure from Big Data to get this stumbling block out of the way. Second, some US government agencies are getting quite frustrated. Third, the EU screwed up in the negotiations, but hopes that no one will notice (!) if they hurry to adopt the agreement.

In other words, protection of European citizens data and privacy has not been an EU priority. The Council (and the Commission) seems to be more interested in good relations with the NSA and Big Data.

Is the EU just incompetent or… evil?

/ HAX

Links:
• Previous blog post on the EU US Privacy Shield, with many useful links »
• The latest leaked EU documents (PDF) »
• Reuters: EU, United States agree on changes to strengthen data transfer pact »
• German IT Law: Data flows to the US: Why the EU Model Clauses may soon be no longer state of the art »
• The Irish Times: Data protection groups seek to join key High Court case »
• NSA Mass Surveillance: US Government wants to intervene in European Facebook-Case (PDF) »

Thanks to Amelia Andersdotter and Dataskydd.net for digging up relevant links and documents.

1

Corporatism vs. free speech

By on June 16, 2016 in Big Brother, Big Business, Big Data, Big Government, Censorship, Civil liberties, Democracy, EU, Facebook, Freedom of Speech, Google, Human rights, Rule of law, social media

Politics should stick to lawmaking. Companies should stick to making business.

When the two mix, the result is usually damaging. Politicians lose their focus on principles, their mandate from the voters and the public good. Companies who lobby for subsidies and (often competition reducing) special laws will find themselves worse of in the long run, as they detach from the realities of the market.

Nevertheless, politicians and businessmen are often involved in mutual back-scratching.

Lately, the political EU-apparatus and big data companies have ganged up to curb free speech. The EU, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and Microsoft have decided on a mutual approach to keep back hate speech and religious radicalisation on the net.

In other words, the EU encourages private companies to censor statements on the Internet that the politicians do not approve of.

If you are to limit free speech at all — the rules must be clearly set out in law. If there should be any censorship at all — it must be decided in a court of law, in accordance with the laws. And if anyone is being censored — there must be a possibility to appeal the decision.

All these three principles are being thrown out in the EU-Big Data agreement.

And there is nothing you can do about it. Having signed e.g. various social networks terms and conditions, you have essentially given up your rights.

From a political point of view, the EU is acting in a deceptive way. When there are no legal means to censor voices they would like to silence – they turn to private companies to do what they themselves cannot accomplish. (It’s just like when US authorities had PayPal, credit card companies, and the banks to throttle the stream of donations to Wikileaks.)

The EU is short-circuiting the rule of law and democracy itself – in order to curb the people’s civil rights.

This is totally unacceptable.

/ HAX

2

Who should Police the Internet?

By on June 14, 2016 in Big Data, Censorship, Copyright, File Sharing, Freedom of Speech, Intellectual Property, Internet, Rule of law

copyfail_3-1-768x377

Privatised law enforcement undermines democracy and creates serious risks for fundamental rights, particularly for freedom of expression. Despite this, in current copyright debates, the focus is far too often on how private companies should police the internet, not on the need of a copyright reform.

Internet companies will always take the easiest option. If they fear laws, punishment or bad publicity, it’s always easier and safer for them to delete legal content along with possibly unauthorised or illegal content, just in case.

EDRi: Copyfail #3 – Google and Facebook becoming the Internet police force »

0

Does Google rule the world? Really?

By on June 11, 2016 in Big Brother, Big Data, Democracy, Freedom of Speech, Google, Internet, Privacy

“The Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME) and Its Unparalleled Power To Influence How We Think”- Robert Epstein of American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology.

This is really interesting, even if it in part might be dangerously close to conspiracy theories.

At least, I think that Search Engine Manipulation might be possible and very effective. But is it really done – intentionally or unintentionally? It is difficult to say, especially as all search results seems to be personalised.

Youtube »

2