[ANSOL-geral] A radical proposal to keep your personal data safe
| Richard Stallman
Quinta-Feira, 5 de Abril de 2018 - 15:30:23 WEST
Não concordo nada que a regulamentação europeia tente fazer um casamento
de interesses. Acho que é claramente favorável às pessoas e limitadora
do que quem quer recolher e processar dados pode fazer, como, quando e
até se o pode fazer. Esse é um dos pontos em que não concordo com a
opinião do Stallman.
Às 16:26 de 05-04-2018, André Esteves escreveu:
> 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
> 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?
> 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>:
>> 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:
>> ), também a proposta do RMS embora positiva é insuficiente.
>> Não acredito que a solução passe apenas por regular uma das coisas.
>> 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
>>> 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 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
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> To restore privacy, we must stop surveillance before it even asks for
>>> 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:
>>> Ansol-geral mailing list
>>> Ansol-geral listas.ansol.org
>> Ansol-geral mailing list
>> Ansol-geral listas.ansol.org
Mais informações acerca da lista Ansol-geral