Facebook cofounder Chris Hughes on Monday said that public scrutiny of Facebook is “very much overdue,” adding that “it’s shocking to me that they didn’t have to answer more of these questions earlier on.”
Leaders in the information technology sector, especially in Europe, have been warning of the abuses by Facebook and other portals for years. Their insights and practical recommendations are especially urgent now.
Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg’s testimony before the US Senate on Tuesday did little to shore up public confidence in a company that traffics in its users’ personal data.
The most telling moment of testimony came when US Senator Richard Durbin asked whether Zuckerberg would be comfortable sharing the name of his hotel and the people he had messaged that week, exactly the kind of data tracked and used by Facebook.
Zuckerberg replied that he would not be comfortable providing the information.
“I think that may be what this is all about,” Durbin said. “Your right to privacy.”
Critics of Facebook have been making this point for years. Stefano Quintarelli, one of Europe’s top information technology experts and a leading advocate for online privacy — and, until recently, a member of the Italian parliament — has been a persistent and prophetic critic of Facebook’s abuse of its market position and misuse of online personal data.
Quintarelli has long championed a powerful idea — that each of us should retain control of our online profile, which should be readily transferable across portals. If we decide we do not like Facebook, we should be able to shift to a competitor without losing the links to contacts who remain on Facebook.
For Quintarelli, Cambridge Analytica’s abuse of data acquired from Facebook was an inevitable consequence of the social media firm’s irresponsible business model. Facebook has now acknowledged that Cambridge Analytica is not alone in having exploited personal profiles acquired from the company.
Quintarelli said that the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which takes effect on May 25, following six years of preparation and debate, “can serve as guidance in some aspects.”
The GDPR stipulates that “non-compliant organizations can face heavy fines, up to 4 percent of their revenues. Had the GDPR already been in place, Facebook, in order to avoid such fines, would have had to notify the authorities of the data leak as soon as the company became aware of it, well in advance of the last US election,” he said.
“Effective competition is a powerful tool to increase and defend biodiversity in the digital space,” he said, adding that the GDPR could help, because it “introduces the concept of profile portability, whereby a user can move her profile from one service provider to another, like we do when porting our telephone profile — the mobile phone number — from one operator to another.”
However, “this form of ownership of one’s own profile data is certainly not enough,” he said.
Just as important is “interconnection: the operator to which we port our profile should be interconnected to the source operator so that we don’t lose contact with our online friends. This is possible today thanks to technologies like IPFS [InterPlanetary File System] and Solid, developed by the Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee,” he said.
Sarah Spiekermann, a professor at the Vienna University of Economics and Business (WU) and chair of its Institute for Management Information Systems, is another pioneer of online privacy who has long warned about the type of abuses seen with Facebook.
Spiekermann, a global authority on the trafficking of our online identities for purposes of targeted advertising, political propaganda, public and private surveillance, or other nefarious purposes, emphasizes the need to crack down on “personal data markets.”
“Ever since the World Economic Forum started to discuss personal data as a new asset class in 2011, personal data markets have thrived on the idea that personal data might be the ‘new oil’ of the digital economy as well as — so it seems — of politics,” she said.
As a result, “more than a thousand companies are now involved in a digital information value chain that harvests data from any online activity and delivers targeted content to online or mobile users within roughly 36 seconds of their entry into the digital realm,” she said.
Nor is it “just Facebook and Google, Apple or Amazon that harvest and use our data for any purpose one might think of,” Spiekermann said.
“‘Data management platforms, such as those operated by Acxiom or Oracle BlueKai, possess thousands of personal attributes and sociopsychological profiles about hundreds of millions of users,” she said.
While Spiekermann thinks “personal data markets and the use of the data within them should be forbidden in their current form,” she thinks the GDPR “is a good motivator for companies around the world to question their personal data sharing practices.”
She added that “a rich ecosystem of privacy-friendly online services is starting to be up and running.”
A study by a class of WU graduate students “benchmarked the data collection practices of our top online services, such as Google, Facebook or Apple, and compared them with their new privacy-friendly competitors.”
The study “gives everyone a chance to switch services on the spot,” she said.
Facebook’s immense lobbying power has so far mostly fended off the practical ideas of Quintarelli, Spiekermann and their fellow campaigners. However, the scandal has opened the public’s eyes to the threat that inaction poses to democracy itself.
The EU has taken the lead in responding, thanks to its new privacy standards, and proposed greater taxation of Facebook and other peddlers of online personal data. Yet more is needed and feasible.
Quintarelli, Spiekermann and their fellow champions of online ethics offer us a practical path to an Internet that is transparent, fair, democratic and respectful of personal rights.
Jeffrey Sachs, a professor of sustainable development and health policy and management at Columbia University is director of Columbia’s Center for Sustainable Development and of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath