[ANSOL-geral] A radical proposal to keep your personal data safe | Richard Stallman

[André Esteves]

Compreendo. De qualquer maneira só estou a lançar a discussão e informação.

A posição do Stallman é de reduzir o problema a uma situação mais
simples e até sem deixar de haver progresso nas transações
electrónicas...
Acredito que a legislação europeia tente fazer mais um casamento entre
interesses, mas não nos deviamos perguntar se isso não nos irá causar
problemas no futuro?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlO2gcs1YvM

A tentação de fazer listas e mandar uns drones assassinos é real e é
só uma questão de tempo...
Basta ver algumas das bestas que andam nos nossos partidos para o perceber.

Talvez a alternativa seja a transparência radical com drones sempre
prontos a abater os outros em retaliação.

Destruição mútua assegurada. Funcionou bem durante a guerra fria...

Um abraço por enquanto livre,

André Esteves

2018-04-05 13:26 GMT+01:00 Diogo Constantino <diogoconstantino  sapo.pt>:
> Olá,
>
> Eu não concordo totalmente com a opinião do RMS sobre a GDPR. Eu acho que
> ele não a conhece o suficiente, mas há claramente pontos válidos na sua
> opinião e na proposta que ele faz. Mas assim como a GDPR não chega, aliás
> está a ser preparada mais um regulamento de privacidade (ver:
> http://direitosdigitais.pt/comunicacao/22-noticias/31-call-to-action-regulamento-eprivacy-privacidade-online
> e
> http://direitosdigitais.pt/comunicacao/22-noticias/44-eprivacy-carta-aberta-aos-estados-membros
> ), também a proposta do RMS embora positiva é insuficiente.
>
>
> Resumindo:
> Não acredito que a solução passe apenas por regular uma das coisas.
>
>
>
> Cumprimentos
> Diogo
>
> Às 13:43 de 05-04-2018, André Esteves escreveu:
>>
>>
>>   A radical proposal to keep your personal data safe
>>
>> The surveillance imposed on us today is worse than in the Soviet Union. We
>> need laws to stop this data being collected in the first place
>>
>> • Richard Stallman is president of the Free Software Foundation
>>
>> Tue 3 Apr 2018 12.05 BST First published on Tue 3 Apr 2018 12.00 BST
>>
>>
>> Journalists have been asking me whether the revulsion against the abuse of
>> Facebook data
>> <https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/31/big-data-lie-exposed-simply-blaming-facebook-wont-fix-reclaim-private-information>
>> 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
>> <https://www.theguardian.com/technology/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.
>>
>> 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 <https://www.eugdpr.org/> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> These additional services could be offered separately to users who request
>> them. Even better, users could use their own personal systems to privately
>> track their own journeys.
>>
>> Black cabs demonstrate that a system for hiring cars with drivers does not
>> need to identify passengers. Therefore such systems should not be /allowed
>> /to identify passengers; they should be required to accept
>> privacy-respecting cash from passengers without ever trying to identify
>> them.
>>
>> However, convenient digital payment systems can also protect passengers’
>> anonymity and privacy. We have already developed one: GNU Taler
>> <https://taler.net/en/index.html>. It is designed to be anonymous for the
>> payer, but payees are always identified. We designed it that way so as not
>> to facilitate tax dodging. All digital payment systems should be required to
>> defend anonymity using this or a similar method.
>>
>> What about security? Such systems in areas where the public are admitted
>> must be designed so they cannot track people. Video cameras should make a
>> local recording that can be checked for the next few weeks if a crime
>> occurs, but should not allow remote viewing without physical collection of
>> the recording. Biometric systems should be designed so they only recognise
>> people on a court-ordered list of suspects, to respect the privacy of the
>> rest of us. An unjust state is more dangerous than terrorism, and too much
>> security encourages an unjust state.
>>
>> The EU’s GDPR regulations are well-meaning, but do not go very far. It
>> will not deliver much privacy, because its rules are too lax. They permit
>> collecting any data if it is somehow useful to the system, and it is easy to
>> come up with a way to make any particular data useful for something.
>>
>> The GDPR makes much of requiring users (in some cases) to give consent for
>> the collection of their data, but that doesn’t do much good. System
>> designers have become expert at manufacturing consent (to repurpose Noam
>> Chomsky’s phrase). Most users consent to a site’s terms without reading
>> them; a company that required
>> <https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/sep/29/londoners-wi-fi-security-herod-clause>
>> users to trade their first-born child got consent from plenty of users. Then
>> again, when a system is crucial for modern life, like buses and trains,
>> users ignore the terms because refusal of consent is too painful to
>> consider.
>>
>> To restore privacy, we must stop surveillance before it even asks for
>> consent.
>>
>> Finally, don’t forget the software in your own computer. If it is the
>> non-free software of Apple, Google or Microsoft, it spies on you regularly
>> <https://gnu.org/malware/>. That’s because it is controlled by a company
>> that won’t hesitate to spy on you. Companies tend to lose their scruples
>> when that is profitable. By contrast, free (libre) software is controlled by
>> its users
>> <https://gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html>. That
>> user community keeps the software honest.
>>
>> • Richard Stallman is president of the Free Software
>> <https://www.theguardian.com/technology/software> Foundation, which launched
>> the development of a free/libre operating system GNU
>>
>> /Copyright 2018 Richard Stallman. Released under Creative Commons
>> NoDerivatives License 4.0/
>>
>> /-----------------------------------
>> /
>>
>> Artigo original:
>>
>>
>> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/03/facebook-abusing-data-law-privacy-big-tech-surveillance?CMP=share_btn_link
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ansol-geral mailing list
>> Ansol-geral  listas.ansol.org
>> http://listas.ansol.org/mailman/listinfo/ansol-geral
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ansol-geral mailing list
> Ansol-geral  listas.ansol.org
> http://listas.ansol.org/mailman/listinfo/ansol-geral
>