Todos os dados - mensagens, estados, comentários, toda a informação submetida, todas as alterações realizadas, assim como as datas dessas alterações, etc. - eram classificados em 57 categorias que possibilitam facilmente o cruzamento de dados, e assim descobrir qualquer informação que se pretenda sobre a vida pessoal, profissional, religiosa ou política de qualquer utilizador do Facebook. Além desse material, todas as mensagens, fotos e outros arquivos que ele tinha apagado continuavam armazenados nos servidores do Facebook. Quando questionado sobre isto, o Facebook afirmou que apenas "removia da página" e não que "apagava".
Isso significa tão somente, que tudo aquilo que for escrito no Facebook, jamais será apagado. Até as alterações de ideias no tempo ali ficarão registadas. O grande perigo de tudo isto não é, de todo, a venda de dados para efeitos comerciais, mas é muito mais profundo que isso porque significa que se algum dia algum governo quiser impor um regime ditatorial num país, não precisará sequer de criar uma PIDE. Através desta mina de informação será possível estabelecer todos os perfis dos cidadãos de um país. Escolher aqueles que devem ser arredados e eliminados logo à partida, chantagear e pressionar os outros, e simplesmente regular os menos incómodos.
É insustentável tudo isto. E se ontem aqui falava a propósito do meu desinteresse com as memórias digitais, hoje peço que esse desinteresse seja a norma, e que aquilo que eu disser num registo digital de conversação assuma exatamente o mesmo registo daquilo que eu digo numa conversação oral, não dure mais do que o estritamente necessário. Este assunto explodiu no ano passado e a Comissão Europeia já começou a tentar regular tudo isto, mas a verdade é que do meu uso do Facebook acredito que nada mudou ainda. E a reposta dada esta semana a um dos processos em curso pela Comissão de Dados da Irlanda é esclarecedora quanto ao poder do Facebook.
Os objectivos dos 22 processos movidos por Max Schrems, no âmbito do Europe-v-Facebook.org, passam por:
Transparency. It is almost impossible for the user to really know what happens to his or her personal data when using facebook. For example “removed” content is not really deleted by facebook and it is often unclear what facebook exactly does with our data. Users have to deal with vague and contradictory privacy policies and cannot fully estimate the consequences of using facebook.
A company that constantly asks its costumers to be as transparent as possible should be equally transparent when it comes to the use of its costumers personal data. [Request a full copy of all your personal data, “request your data!”].
Opt-in instead of Opt-out. Facebook often claims that all users have consented to the use of their personal data. But in reality facebook users know that facebook is more of an “opt-out”-system: If you do not change all the preset privacy settings most personal data will be visible without restrictions. Users that do not want this have to struggle with endless buttons and settings. This oftentimes means that the more privacy a user wants, the more clicks and the more care for every detail is necessary. Older or inexperienced users may not even be able to do so. New functionalities are activated automatically without proper information of the users.
Decide yourself. There are people that do not want to share too much information online. But facebook found a way to get their personal data too: Facebook is encouraging other users to deliver their data. Examples of this practice is the possibility of synchronizing mobile phones, importing e-mail addresses or by “tagging” other users in photos, videos or even at certain locations.
By allowing this, facebook is ignoring another principle of European data protection law: Only the individual user can consent to the use of his or her data. It is not sufficient that some other user think that they can tag you in an embarrassing picture or send other people’s e-mails to facebook. Other social networks have solved this problem and do not process the data until the individual user has agreed to the use of the specific data.
Data Minimization. Have you ever looked at your facebook wall all the way to the end? How much information have you collected that is useless (to you)?
Facebook offers no sufficient way of deleting old junk data. Every inconsiderate comment, every invitation to an event (e.g. a demonstration) and every “like” is recorded for an indefinite amount of time.
Open Social Networks. Today Facebook is a monopoly. Because Facebook drained the users from all other networks there is no realistic choice to chose an other provider. The failed Google+ experiment shows that not even Google was able to provide for an alternative in the market. This is typical for a “closed system”: Like a black hole Facebook managed to get more and more users until there was a point where everyone had to join because all of their friends moved to Facebook.
Uma outra reportagem em inglês da EuroNews.
Transparency. It is almost impossible for the user to really know what happens to his or her personal data when using facebook. For example “removed” content is not really deleted by facebook and it is often unclear what facebook exactly does with our data. Users have to deal with vague and contradictory privacy policies and cannot fully estimate the consequences of using facebook.
A company that constantly asks its costumers to be as transparent as possible should be equally transparent when it comes to the use of its costumers personal data. [Request a full copy of all your personal data, “request your data!”].
Opt-in instead of Opt-out. Facebook often claims that all users have consented to the use of their personal data. But in reality facebook users know that facebook is more of an “opt-out”-system: If you do not change all the preset privacy settings most personal data will be visible without restrictions. Users that do not want this have to struggle with endless buttons and settings. This oftentimes means that the more privacy a user wants, the more clicks and the more care for every detail is necessary. Older or inexperienced users may not even be able to do so. New functionalities are activated automatically without proper information of the users.
Decide yourself. There are people that do not want to share too much information online. But facebook found a way to get their personal data too: Facebook is encouraging other users to deliver their data. Examples of this practice is the possibility of synchronizing mobile phones, importing e-mail addresses or by “tagging” other users in photos, videos or even at certain locations.
By allowing this, facebook is ignoring another principle of European data protection law: Only the individual user can consent to the use of his or her data. It is not sufficient that some other user think that they can tag you in an embarrassing picture or send other people’s e-mails to facebook. Other social networks have solved this problem and do not process the data until the individual user has agreed to the use of the specific data.
Data Minimization. Have you ever looked at your facebook wall all the way to the end? How much information have you collected that is useless (to you)?
Facebook offers no sufficient way of deleting old junk data. Every inconsiderate comment, every invitation to an event (e.g. a demonstration) and every “like” is recorded for an indefinite amount of time.
Open Social Networks. Today Facebook is a monopoly. Because Facebook drained the users from all other networks there is no realistic choice to chose an other provider. The failed Google+ experiment shows that not even Google was able to provide for an alternative in the market. This is typical for a “closed system”: Like a black hole Facebook managed to get more and more users until there was a point where everyone had to join because all of their friends moved to Facebook.
Uma outra reportagem em inglês da EuroNews.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário