Facebook to move from a public square into a living room. When the cure is worse than the disease

According to The Conversation, there is an upcoming shift of Facebook’s approach to its user privacy. This quote from Mark Zuckerberg clarifies the position of the company:

Over the last 15 years, Facebook and Instagram have helped people connect with friends, communities, and interests in the digital equivalent of a town square. But people increasingly also want to connect privately in the digital equivalent of the living room.

While the news has been (cautiously) saluted as an improvement of Facebook’s attitude towards the core of its business, actually the proposed cure is worse than the disease.

If, as Zuckerberg says, Facebook is going to move from a public square to a living room, this actually weakens the meaning of privacy because:

1 – it sends the message that privacy equals secrecy, while the notion of privacy is far wider,

2 – if everything is private, nothing is private. By not making
distinction between the intimate sphere and the public space, Facebook is
turning people into faceless being.

3 – Furthermore, by enhancing the “private ring” notion, people will lose the main role of a social network (in the sociological meaning of the word): challenging our individual and assumptions, become accustomed to diversity.

Race is the new black

Since people have been anesthetized to the “privacy threats” that everybody and his cousin is seeing around, now “race” is the new trend to bash profiling, surveillance and whatever else the “human rights ? warriors” pick as “enemy-of-the-day”.

This article from wired.com – that matches the same “philosophy” of this one published by Wired.it about the racism of algorithm – hints at ? a new trend to give trollers something to (keyboard) fight for: forget privacy, RACE is the buzzword-to-go to show righteous indignation!

Algorithms are bad for RACE, Artificial Intelligence is bad for RACE, face recognition is a RACE thing… computer and RACE, smartphone and RACE, videogames and RACE, RACE, RACE, ? RACE, RACE, RACE, RACE, RACE, RACE, RACE, RACE, RACE, RACE, ?RACE, ?RACE, ?RACE, ?RACE, ?RACE, ?RACE, ?RACE, ?RACE, ?RACE, ?RACE, ?RACE, ?RACE, ?RACE, ?RACE, ?RACE, ?RACE, ?RACE, ?RACE, ?RACE, ?RACE, ?RACE, ?RACE, ?RACE, ?RACE.

p.s. Sorry Monty Python.

The Austrian Data Protection Authority and the feasibility if a “quid pro quo” consent

The Austrian Data Protection Authority ruled that consent as a quid-pro-quo is a viable option as soon as an essentially similar consent-free alternative is given to the data subject.

The case was related to the way an Austrian newspaper managed cookie-based consent to access its services. The user was given the choice to access the service either without paying with a legal tender in exchange of the cookie consent or to access the site with no advertising cookies but by paying a subscription fees.

While saluted as a “good news” for online marketing, this decision is actually a cause of concern.

Continue reading “The Austrian Data Protection Authority and the feasibility if a “quid pro quo” consent”

A contribution to the analysis of the legal status of cryptocurrencies

Andrea Monti, A contribution to the analysis of the legal status of cryptocurrencies, in “Ragion pratica, Rivista semestrale” 2/2018, pp. 361-378, doi: 10.1415/91544

This paper advocates that cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin or Ethereum don’t challenge the current legal system, since they fit comfortably enough into the immaterial asset legal definition. As such, while a blockchain-based cryptocurrency can’t be considered as legal tender or electronic money, it can be exchanged on a contractual basis as it happens with every other kind of good. As per the alleged crime-supporting role of cryptocurrencies by way of the anonymity of the blockchain transactions, this article demonstrates that the anonymity granted herein is not absolute. Therefore it is not correct to claim that this technology has been built, by design, to foster illegal behaviour. This is an important finding because, in the opposite case, there would have been room to affirm the impossibility to use a cryptocurrency as part of an agreement because of its intrinsic illegal nature.
Keywords: Legal Tender; Private Money; Electronic Money; Asymmetric Encryption; Blockchain Forensic; Cryptocurrencies.