Personal Data: Nothing to hide?
Szymielewicz, Katarzyna
Zimmermann, Jérémie
Are we building the digital environment enhancing our life, or are we guinea pigs of those who control and trade our data? From major battles won in 2012 against ACTA, SOPA and PIPA, we have a collective responsibility to project ourselves into advocating for protecting our freedoms online. Copyright, Net neutrality, data protection are among the key issues that will determine if our future societies will be more open and based on cooperation and sharing or knowledge, or will turn into authoritarian regimes based on control of our actions and communications. Social media and all kinds of companies collect a lot of data about us. Some of it is essential to deliver relevant services or is given away with informed consent to receive better service.
 In the last talk we got to know the EDIRI and European Umbrella Organization fighting for digital civil rights. And now we got to know two persons, one from France and one from Poland. Please give a warm welcome for Kasia Miliewicz. She's from Poland and a human rights lawyer, activist and co-founder of Panoptikum Foundation, which is also a member of EDIRI and also another welcome for Jeremy Zimmermann, co-founder of La Quadrate du Net from France. I hope you have a nice talk. Can you hear us? Yes? So it works. It works. Good. It's already something. Hi Kasia. Hello Jeremy. Hi everyone. So we've been introduced already. Be aware that I'm in a strange mood today. You know I'm usually supportive of freedoms online, yada yada, fundamental rights. This is usually my kind of stuff. But I don't know. I woke up this morning and I was filled with doubt. I was filled with doubts. And I came here. I see all those beautiful people using Mac computers hooked on Facebook and Twitter. And actually I was wondering, well do we really need all this data protection thing? You know because there is this very complex bit of text that is going on that is being currently negotiated in Brussels about privacy, personal data, how to get control of all this. And I don't know. I feel like a bit of the devil's advocate today. So if you caught me on Twitter for instance, don't hesitate to use the cynical hashtag or something like this. But really I was wondering do we really need data protection in this world? Because I walk the corridors in Brussels, in the European Parliament from time to time. And I see those hundreds of friendly lobbyists. They're really friendly. You know they're very neat looking and they are very careful words. They come from very respectable industries such as Google, Facebook, Yahoo, well the whole of Silicon Valley, banking industry, insurance industry. You even have lobbyists from the US government. And they all say the same. So could they really be wrong? They say that if we have more protection of our personal data, well it would be loss of jobs, loss of growth. And I mean we need jobs. We need growth, right? So do we really need this data protection? Is really what I'm wondering today. And I have a tough task of responding to these uneasy questions that Jeremy is posing. Well in fact if I were a corporate lobbyist myself, I would definitely not fight for a stronger regulation. I would think of banks, I would think of insurance companies, I would think of many companies that in the past struggled against regulations. Maybe I would ignore the fact that from the perspective of time it turned out to be quite good to have some banking regulation after all. But I wouldn't fight for that. I would invest my time on the other side. But let me explain you a little bit more about the process that the lobbyists are attacking. Maybe it will help you understand that it's not that bad as it might seem from the corporate perspective. So more than one year ago Commissioner Vivienne Redding which is the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights and that's not a coincidence that it was her proposed a draft regulation which is a new piece of European law and it's a regulation, not a directive. So it's something that will be directly binding for all 27 member states. This is something that will replace a legal landscape which is very complicated today. If I were a company I would think of it that now I have to struggle with 27 legal orders and I will have one. And that new legal order is actually not that new. It's called data protection which might sound a bit boring or geeky but it's nothing less, nothing more than respecting our fundamental right to privacy which we have in many charters which we have in our constitutions and which we had for some time in the EU. So it's not pushing that further. It's just making sure that the same law, that the same legal order that we had for last 20 years will apply in the changing world. What happened in the meantime? We had internet in the meantime. When they invented the data protection directive 20 years ago internet was something really for geeks and for scientists. Now as you might have noticed it's kind of everywhere. So the new regulation is just trying to jump to the new state of technology which I must admit from the company's perspective means probably a little bit more obligations in the world that they operate in. What is also quite interesting and I would say crucial in that change is that Commissioner Redding is trying to create regulation not only for the EU. She noticed that internet is global and that many of these companies are based in the US and until now they were not regulated in the same way. So if I was a European company I would very much welcome that new concept of creating a fair level playing field for US and European companies. So this is this kind of landscape that we are creating and the landscape where the privacy is still as central as in the constitution. Privacy, my vacay. I mean look at it. Those US corporations are unregulated and they succeed. So no regulation means success. It works. I mean look at everyone. Everyone is using Facebook, right? People are happy. Yes, yes. Everyone is using it. Bear with me one second. Everyone is using it and they seem to be happy about it. I mean you get new friends and stuff and you can play with the farm. And you can show your breakfast in the whole world. Yeah, you can show pictures of your breakfast. You can play with animals in a farm and the pigs and the stuff and it's great. So I mean people understand what's going on. We should not quit with this nanny state thing already. I mean people are grownups. They understand the technology. Those computer systems are not that complex. Everybody understand the internet. It's a series of tubes. So people know what they're doing. They just click I accept and they accept those contracts. I mean it's not complicated. Everybody understand contracts. So they perfectly know what they disclose to these companies. They perfectly know that just visiting a webpage with a like button, not clicking it, just viewing the like button, disclose to Facebook information about what page they look online. Of course they understand that. Okay, they're not stupid. Why would they need such a regulation? Let me think. Do you think that they still understand the terms of the contract if they change every week and they are longer than phone book, the old school one, that fake one? The paper one? The paper one? Yeah. I know they don't know longer newspaper but I'm kind of worried that they might not fully understand the consequences of storing all the traces they leave because it's not only storing the traces we leave consciously. It's not only storing the data that I give to Facebook or I think I give to Facebook. It's not only that no matter what privacy policy I adopt in my Facebook page, Facebook knows obviously everything but Facebook knows much more than that. Probably you know but maybe you don't know that the recent survey from many academic centers including Cambridge and MIT showed that just by collecting pieces of our traces online like the website we visited, like the website we liked, one can detect very sensitive data. For example, I don't disclose my sexual orientation but on the basis of what I click, that thing can be established by 85%. I don't disclose my racial or ethnic origin or my IQ online. I don't put it there as information yet it can be detected from the traces I leave online and all this very sensitive information about my private life, about my moods, about my habits, about my weak spots can be detected and can be and is used. Or what is it used? For commercializing and monetizing my data but that's just the first step. How they commercialize and monetize it? Very often they offer more expensive services to me and I have no choice on demanding less expensive service because I don't know that I'm being offered the more expensive service or I live in my filter bubble. I'm being offered only the information that is designed for my profile. I don't even know unless I'm a hardcore gig. As you are. Consenting, right? Consent is another thing. Now most of the American companies, also European companies, they imply consent by the mere fact that they see me on the website. Visiting the website they say, oh, you are here so you consent to terms and conditions. That's the catch 22. I never had really the choice of visiting the website with my consent for not revealing certain data and I'm not really told what data I reveal. But he's discussing this with me because it's not the contract I can negotiate. So obviously we could think of this as a fair exchange of privacy for a service but it's not fair as long as I don't know what the exchange is about and what's the real threat on the other side. And that's more or less why Reading proposed a few, let's say I will give you five major changes. So she said explicit consent should be the rule. If you consent, consent is consent nothing less than that, right? So if somebody wants your data, they really need to ask you this question and if you say no, they have to offer you the service without certain tracing being built in. Second big thing, profiling, right? Profiling will be regulated. Not profiling as such but decisions made on the basis of profiling. So for example, the price discrimination I mentioned and stuff like this will not really be possible without you being aware, without you consenting or without the law requiring that. Then information. Now, well, I cannot read that stuff. I really tried and I'm a lawyer. But now the companies will be obliged to give you information in a very concise, very easy to absorb format which is understandable for average internet user, not only for legal experts. Then new concepts like privacy by default. So wherever you go to the new service, the default settings will be protecting your privacy in a maximum level and only if you want less, you might want less. You might want to trade your privacy for your new services. No problem with that. But you do this choice, not company for you. Well, privacy by default. I can have privacy by default if I want. I mean, I'm a hacker in the original sense of the term, you know, not a criminal who breaks stuff, but somebody curious about technology who builds stuff. And so I know how to use the stuff, you know. I use encryption. Yeah? I use GPG encryption for my email. I use OTR encryption for my chat. You do that also, right? I do this because all communication should be encrypted. That's the only way to have privacy by default, to have privacy by design, to be sure that only you and the people you're speaking to will know what it's about. Okay? I use encryption as I do use free software because I know that software that you can control, rather that software that controls you is the only way to go towards a free society because I listened to Evan Moglen's talk on Republica 12. So I know this kind of stuff. Why should I care? Why should I care about data protection regulation? Maybe because not everybody wants to hide in encrypted world and go into this race of arms with corporations, with corporate surveillance, and hide behind new technologies and rely on their wisdom and their skills. Some people might actually like to use Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, Google and all these new comfortable services. They might want to regain control over the service they use and actually use the comfortable service. So that's personal choice, but not everybody wants to follow their stuff. But there is even something more. Well, you mentioned Evan Moglen. Evan said a few years back that, well, net is our neighborhood. And do you really want to live in the neighborhood where on every tree we have a surveillance camera on every bush we have a mic and we have a data miner under every place where we put our feet? According to Evan Moglen, this is the world we live in. Recently Bruce Schneier wrote a brilliant piece claiming that internet is a surveillance state. Do we like it or not? We live in a surveillance state. For you, it might be a game, a nice game that you win. But think of all the people who either don't have your skills or who might actually be in danger from other governments. Do you know that all the companies that you use, services you use, they also disclose your data to other governments today? And they are forced to do so. Even if they want to avoid it, the laws they are obliged by, they force them to reveal data of activists, of bloggers, of political activists. All this happens. So the talk about data protection, the talk about privacy is just the talk about internet freedom in the way we understand it. It's the talk about the information society we want to design for future generations. It might sound a bit overblown, but this kind of legal order is created once every 20 years. So now we talk about the design of the internet world for the next 20 years to come. Think of financial sector 20 years ago. Who thought back then that we will have a serious economic crisis caused by speculation in all the derivatives and all the new financial instruments. Today, everybody talks about data as the new currency of the world. And everybody seems to be so optimistic about abusing, speculating, creating economic value over this data. But what will come in the next 10, 20 years? So we are really talking not our egocentric business, the hacker, but about the society and about implications of this model, also for your wallet, for your, if you think about your egocentric perspective, about your money in the next 10 years to come. You know what? I think you almost get me convinced. Almost. Almost. And it's really food for thought. And I was wondering now. So just imagine for one second that I wasn't the egocentric bastardish hacker that I am. Just imagine that I wanted to regain control over my personal data about the traces of everything I do online and offline. I don't know. Consider that maybe inspired by what happened last year with ACTA, which everybody thought was impossible to defeat, but that we defeated anyway, that we beat by 478 against 39, where we beat 39 governments plus Hollywood plus Big Pharma, who is just a keyboard and a bit of lulls. So if I was one of these people interested in fighting for getting back control over personal data, trying to regulate this form of corporate surveillance that is happening every day, what could I do? I heard there was this European parliament mumbo-jumbo complicated stuff. I heard there were votes already, opinion votes that all were like, all the opinions vote were aligned with what the industry is requesting. And I heard that there is one main committee, the civil liberty committee, that will cast its vote in a few weeks. So is there something I would be able to do? If I wasn't the selfish bastard I am? Well, that's a very good question. Because in fact, ACTA was a piece of the cake compared to this one, because it's 100 pages long, it has 100 articles. It's that complicated that nobody really gets a grasp of everything. And there is not a single industry that would not be involved in fighting this regulation, because not a single industry seems to be responsible enough to think in the long term about not speculating on our data. So yes, the case is quite complicated and indeed we lost five votes already, which were opinion votes. And now the crucial vote is coming up quite quickly. It was scheduled for the end of this month in Brussels, end of May. It might be the case that they postponed it because it's so complicated that even the MEPs feel quite lost in all that dossier. So well, what we can do really, we can in the first place let them know that we know about that happening and that we care, that we actually care about something we define as privacy in a broad sense, we care about our control over our data, that we care about surveillance, that we don't want to be surveilled by companies without our awareness, without our instruments to fight back. So if we want to let them know, I do think it's quite enough to call them or email them saying we know it's going on and we know your responsibility dear representatives and we trust that you will vote in favor of our rights. That's the first step. If you are asked back for details or if you want to know details and there are details, unfortunately, it's not just yes or no, you might use the knowledge which is collected by many organizations under the umbrella of European Digital Rights. You might have heard of Privacy International, about the digital like the Zelshaft, about the bits of freedom, about Lakota Trudunet, about Panopticon Foundation, about OpenRise Group. But there are quite a few doing that job for you, collecting all the amendments, analyzing the 100 articles, giving pages, pages of comments, hundreds, hundreds of pages of comments, so they actually have the knowledge. If you want that knowledge, you can use it or you can just say dear MEPs, refer to the organization I trust and follow their advice. That's the minimum you can do. Do you think people could, I don't know, blog about it? If they blog? Do you think they could, I don't know, maybe speak about it on Facebook? Maybe speak to... Facebook knows anyway, but yeah, you can always. Maybe go and look for the members of the Civil Liberties Committee of the European Parliament on Facebook and on Twitter and talk to them and tell them, well, there is something you have to do and oh, by the way, there are elections in a few months. There are. Or things like that. And that turns out to be the best argument. So don't forget to use that one. Do you think really that we, the people, are able to take back some of this hyper-concentrated power in the hands of the few companies? And do you think this could happen? Well, I wouldn't spend the last two years on this if I didn't, but let us hear what others think. I really want to know what you think about it and do you think that you can? Tell us. Maybe it's worth trying after all. I think it is. Yeah, what do you think? Huh. Up to you. Okay, it's up to you. Yeah. I think we have a few minutes for questions or for statements of action. Postcards, there is action. Yes, we were asked about postcards. Yes, I heard of very, very cool people writing postcards about taking control of your data. And I also heard that they were right here next to the door. You can't send postcards to the parliament. So you could just get started by writing a postcard in the very next minutes, for instance. There's a question here. There's a question here and then a question there. We're going to really see it. I suppose I'm a bad guy too. I work for a social media agency. Can you speak louder? I'm a bad guy too. I'm a real bad guy. I work for a social media agency. And we use data. We research to whom we can sell stuff. And I suppose that perhaps we pay for around about all of your Facebook accounts or customers do it. Not we ourselves. They pay us too. And I ask myself, as a person, I'm very concerned with what you're saying. But as a bad guy, I ask you what's happening if we can't work anymore. Because really, I'm not interested in any of you personal. I'm just interested in some groups of you I could sell stuff to. So your Facebook account is paid. And perhaps your Twitter account or your YouTube views or anything you use online. So how do we change this? Well, I could shortly answer this one. First of all, if it was to pay for a Twitter account or to pay for Facebook accounts, I'd be very curious to see the price of it, the actual cost of it. Then people could put in the balance either to pay that cost or to repay that with some of their personal data over which they would have control. And they would decide that this much data is worth that much of a service. So this would be a form of consent. Then on the question of business, you may have the impression that advertisement is some kind of bubble. What when it bursts? So there are ways of providing personalized service that is totally compatible with everything that has been proposed by the European Commission. But more than that, what could be done is to create the conditions for the emergence of a European trust-based internet economy. Where instead of trying to compete with the US in the far-west version of just snatching all the data, you would invent something a bit more subtle where you would come to all service because you know it's in the EU. Therefore, you know we will respect you. And this has a tremendous value. And we could build value out of trust rather than out of snatching personal data. That's your question. Hi, Jeremy. It was a nice talk from both of you. Thank you. It's more a call of action to all interested in privacy online and stuff. It's about it's now three years that we saw diaspora, the first attempt to get the alternative social network. Now we got app.net as a next alternative. And yeah, since we all should do the best we can to support online privacy, I'm currently building my own project. It's called Privacy.com. I'm in the process of making a crowdfunding campaign. And I'm calling you. I'm here on Wednesday with the cam. And I want to make some short videos about the statements regarding online privacy. Yeah, that's what I wanted to say. And all the best for you, Jeremy. Maybe you're interested too. It would really cool you to have you on the video too. Thank you. Sure. We should keep on hacking society. We should keep on hacking the law. But it's also very important that we keep on hacking code. Free as free software code. Because it's the only way that we can preserve this bubble of freedom in the online environment. So please keep on hacking. Keep on hacking. Hi. My name is Ben Posh. And I am working on something that I think will solve pretty much everything that you've just mentioned. It's called stack.fm. And you should go check it out. Can you speak closer to the mic? Yeah. Okay, I'm kissing it now. I'm working on something that is going to solve what you guys are talking about. And it's called stack.fm. It's a social network. Okay. So, yeah, check it out. Keep on hacking. Absolutely. So we have statements of action. That's even better than I expected. Thank you. Thank you.
 In the last talk we got to know the EDIRI and European Umbrella Organization fighting  for digital civil rights.  And now we got to know two persons, one from France and one from Poland.  Please give a warm welcome for Kasia Miliewicz.  She's from Poland and a human rights lawyer, activist and co-founder of Panoptikum Foundation,  which is also a member of EDIRI and also another welcome for Jeremy Zimmermann, co-founder  of La Quadrate du Net from France.  I hope you have a nice talk.  Can you hear us?  Yes?  So it works.  It works.  Good.  It's already something.  Hi Kasia.  Hello Jeremy.  Hi everyone.  So we've been introduced already.  Be aware that I'm in a strange mood today.  You know I'm usually supportive of freedoms online, yada yada, fundamental rights.  This is usually my kind of stuff.  But I don't know.  I woke up this morning and I was filled with doubt.  I was filled with doubts.  And I came here.  I see all those beautiful people using Mac computers hooked on Facebook and Twitter.  And actually I was wondering, well do we really need all this data protection thing?  You know because there is this very complex bit of text that is going on that is being  currently negotiated in Brussels about privacy, personal data, how to get control of all this.  And I don't know.  I feel like a bit of the devil's advocate today.  So if you caught me on Twitter for instance, don't hesitate to use the cynical hashtag  or something like this.  But really I was wondering do we really need data protection in this world?  Because I walk the corridors in Brussels, in the European Parliament from time to time.  And I see those hundreds of friendly lobbyists.  They're really friendly.  You know they're very neat looking and they are very careful words.  They come from very respectable industries such as Google, Facebook, Yahoo, well the whole  of Silicon Valley, banking industry, insurance industry.  You even have lobbyists from the US government.  And they all say the same.  So could they really be wrong?  They say that if we have more protection of our personal data, well it would be loss of  jobs, loss of growth.  And I mean we need jobs.  We need growth, right?  So do we really need this data protection?  Is really what I'm wondering today.  And I have a tough task of responding to these uneasy questions that Jeremy is posing.  Well in fact if I were a corporate lobbyist myself, I would definitely not fight for a  stronger regulation.  I would think of banks, I would think of insurance companies, I would think of many companies  that in the past struggled against regulations.  Maybe I would ignore the fact that from the perspective of time it turned out to be quite  good to have some banking regulation after all.  But I wouldn't fight for that.  I would invest my time on the other side.  But let me explain you a little bit more about the process that the lobbyists are attacking.  Maybe it will help you understand that it's not that bad as it might seem from the corporate  perspective.  So more than one year ago Commissioner Vivienne Redding which is the Commissioner for Fundamental  Rights and that's not a coincidence that it was her proposed a draft regulation which  is a new piece of European law and it's a regulation, not a directive.  So it's something that will be directly binding for all 27 member states.  This is something that will replace a legal landscape which is very complicated today.  If I were a company I would think of it that now I have to struggle with 27 legal orders  and I will have one.  And that new legal order is actually not that new.  It's called data protection which might sound a bit boring or geeky but it's nothing less,  nothing more than respecting our fundamental right to privacy which we have in many charters  which we have in our constitutions and which we had for some time in the EU.  So it's not pushing that further.  It's just making sure that the same law, that the same legal order that we had for last  20 years will apply in the changing world.  What happened in the meantime?  We had internet in the meantime.  When they invented the data protection directive 20 years ago internet was something really  for geeks and for scientists.  Now as you might have noticed it's kind of everywhere.  So the new regulation is just trying to jump to the new state of technology which I must  admit from the company's perspective means probably a little bit more obligations in  the world that they operate in.  What is also quite interesting and I would say crucial in that change is that Commissioner  Redding is trying to create regulation not only for the EU.  She noticed that internet is global and that many of these companies are based in the US  and until now they were not regulated in the same way.  So if I was a European company I would very much welcome that new concept of creating  a fair level playing field for US and European companies.  So this is this kind of landscape that we are creating and the landscape where the privacy  is still as central as in the constitution.  Privacy, my vacay.  I mean look at it.  Those US corporations are unregulated and they succeed.  So no regulation means success.  It works.  I mean look at everyone.  Everyone is using Facebook, right?  People are happy.  Yes, yes.  Everyone is using it.  Bear with me one second.  Everyone is using it and they seem to be happy about it.  I mean you get new friends and stuff and you can play with the farm.  And you can show your breakfast in the whole world.  Yeah, you can show pictures of your breakfast.  You can play with animals in a farm and the pigs and the stuff and it's great.  So I mean people understand what's going on.  We should not quit with this nanny state thing already.  I mean people are grownups.  They understand the technology.  Those computer systems are not that complex.  Everybody understand the internet.  It's a series of tubes.  So people know what they're doing.  They just click I accept and they accept those contracts.  I mean it's not complicated.  Everybody understand contracts.  So they perfectly know what they disclose to these companies.  They perfectly know that just visiting a webpage with a like button, not clicking it, just  viewing the like button, disclose to Facebook information about what page they look online.  Of course they understand that.  Okay, they're not stupid.  Why would they need such a regulation?  Let me think.  Do you think that they still understand the terms of the contract if they change every  week and they are longer than phone book, the old school one, that fake one?  The paper one?  The paper one?  Yeah.  I know they don't know longer newspaper but I'm kind of worried that they might not fully  understand the consequences of storing all the traces they leave because it's not only  storing the traces we leave consciously.  It's not only storing the data that I give to Facebook or I think I give to Facebook.  It's not only that no matter what privacy policy I adopt in my Facebook page, Facebook  knows obviously everything but Facebook knows much more than that.  Probably you know but maybe you don't know that the recent survey from many academic  centers including Cambridge and MIT showed that just by collecting pieces of our traces  online like the website we visited, like the website we liked, one can detect very sensitive  data.  For example, I don't disclose my sexual orientation but on the basis of what I click, that thing  can be established by 85%.  I don't disclose my racial or ethnic origin or my IQ online.  I don't put it there as information yet it can be detected from the traces I leave online  and all this very sensitive information about my private life, about my moods, about my  habits, about my weak spots can be detected and can be and is used.  Or what is it used?  For commercializing and monetizing my data but that's just the first step.  How they commercialize and monetize it?  Very often they offer more expensive services to me and I have no choice on demanding less  expensive service because I don't know that I'm being offered the more expensive service  or I live in my filter bubble.  I'm being offered only the information that is designed for my profile.  I don't even know unless I'm a hardcore gig.  As you are.  Consenting, right?  Consent is another thing.  Now most of the American companies, also European companies, they imply consent by the mere fact  that they see me on the website.  Visiting the website they say, oh, you are here so you consent to terms and conditions.  That's the catch 22.  I never had really the choice of visiting the website with my consent for not revealing  certain data and I'm not really told what data I reveal.  But he's discussing this with me because it's not the contract I can negotiate.  So obviously we could think of this as a fair exchange of privacy for a service but it's  not fair as long as I don't know what the exchange is about and what's the real threat  on the other side.  And that's more or less why Reading proposed a few, let's say I will give you five major  changes.  So she said explicit consent should be the rule.  If you consent, consent is consent nothing less than that, right?  So if somebody wants your data, they really need to ask you this question and if you say  no, they have to offer you the service without certain tracing being built in.  Second big thing, profiling, right?  Profiling will be regulated.  Not profiling as such but decisions made on the basis of profiling.  So for example, the price discrimination I mentioned and stuff like this will not really  be possible without you being aware, without you consenting or without the law requiring  that.  Then information.  Now, well, I cannot read that stuff.  I really tried and I'm a lawyer.  But now the companies will be obliged to give you information in a very concise, very easy  to absorb format which is understandable for average internet user, not only for legal  experts.  Then new concepts like privacy by default.  So wherever you go to the new service, the default settings will be protecting your privacy  in a maximum level and only if you want less, you might want less.  You might want to trade your privacy for your new services.  No problem with that.  But you do this choice, not company for you.  Well, privacy by default.  I can have privacy by default if I want.  I mean, I'm a hacker in the original sense of the term, you know, not a criminal who  breaks stuff, but somebody curious about technology who builds stuff.  And so I know how to use the stuff, you know.  I use encryption.  Yeah?  I use GPG encryption for my email.  I use OTR encryption for my chat.  You do that also, right?  I do this because all communication should be encrypted.  That's the only way to have privacy by default, to have privacy by design, to be sure that  only you and the people you're speaking to will know what it's about.  Okay?  I use encryption as I do use free software because I know that software that you can  control, rather that software that controls you is the only way to go towards a free society  because I listened to Evan Moglen's talk on Republica 12.  So I know this kind of stuff.  Why should I care?  Why should I care about data protection regulation?  Maybe because not everybody wants to hide in encrypted world and go into this race of  arms with corporations, with corporate surveillance, and hide behind new technologies and rely on  their wisdom and their skills.  Some people might actually like to use Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, Google and all these new  comfortable services.  They might want to regain control over the service they use and actually use the comfortable  service.  So that's personal choice, but not everybody wants to follow their stuff.  But there is even something more.  Well, you mentioned Evan Moglen.  Evan said a few years back that, well, net is our neighborhood.  And do you really want to live in the neighborhood where on every tree we have a surveillance  camera on every bush we have a mic and we have a data miner under every place where  we put our feet?  According to Evan Moglen, this is the world we live in.  Recently Bruce Schneier wrote a brilliant piece claiming that internet is a surveillance  state.  Do we like it or not?  We live in a surveillance state.  For you, it might be a game, a nice game that you win.  But think of all the people who either don't have your skills or who might actually be  in danger from other governments.  Do you know that all the companies that you use, services you use, they also disclose  your data to other governments today?  And they are forced to do so.  Even if they want to avoid it, the laws they are obliged by, they force them to reveal  data of activists, of bloggers, of political activists.  All this happens.  So the talk about data protection, the talk about privacy is just the talk about internet  freedom in the way we understand it.  It's the talk about the information society we want to design for future generations.  It might sound a bit overblown, but this kind of legal order is created once every 20 years.  So now we talk about the design of the internet world for the next 20 years to come.  Think of financial sector 20 years ago.  Who thought back then that we will have a serious economic crisis caused by speculation  in all the derivatives and all the new financial instruments.  Today, everybody talks about data as the new currency of the world.  And everybody seems to be so optimistic about abusing, speculating, creating economic value  over this data.  But what will come in the next 10, 20 years?  So we are really talking not our egocentric business, the hacker, but about the society  and about implications of this model, also for your wallet, for your, if you think about  your egocentric perspective, about your money in the next 10 years to come.  You know what?  I think you almost get me convinced.  Almost.  Almost.  And it's really food for thought.  And I was wondering now.  So just imagine for one second that I wasn't the egocentric bastardish hacker that I am.  Just imagine that I wanted to regain control over my personal data about the traces of  everything I do online and offline.  I don't know.  Consider that maybe inspired by what happened last year with ACTA, which everybody thought  was impossible to defeat, but that we defeated anyway, that we beat by 478 against 39, where  we beat 39 governments plus Hollywood plus Big Pharma, who is just a keyboard and a bit  of lulls.  So if I was one of these people interested in fighting for getting back control over  personal data, trying to regulate this form of corporate surveillance that is happening  every day, what could I do?  I heard there was this European parliament mumbo-jumbo complicated stuff.  I heard there were votes already, opinion votes that all were like, all the opinions  vote were aligned with what the industry is requesting.  And I heard that there is one main committee, the civil liberty committee, that will cast  its vote in a few weeks.  So is there something I would be able to do?  If I wasn't the selfish bastard I am?  Well, that's a very good question.  Because in fact, ACTA was a piece of the cake compared to this one, because it's 100 pages  long, it has 100 articles.  It's that complicated that nobody really gets a grasp of everything.  And there is not a single industry that would not be involved in fighting this regulation,  because not a single industry seems to be responsible enough to think in the long term  about not speculating on our data.  So yes, the case is quite complicated and indeed we lost five votes already, which were opinion  votes.  And now the crucial vote is coming up quite quickly.  It was scheduled for the end of this month in Brussels, end of May.  It might be the case that they postponed it because it's so complicated that even the  MEPs feel quite lost in all that dossier.  So well, what we can do really, we can in the first place let them know that we know about  that happening and that we care, that we actually care about something we define as privacy  in a broad sense, we care about our control over our data, that we care about surveillance,  that we don't want to be surveilled by companies without our awareness, without our instruments  to fight back.  So if we want to let them know, I do think it's quite enough to call them or email them  saying we know it's going on and we know your responsibility dear representatives and we  trust that you will vote in favor of our rights.  That's the first step.  If you are asked back for details or if you want to know details and there are details,  unfortunately, it's not just yes or no, you might use the knowledge which is collected  by many organizations under the umbrella of European Digital Rights.  You might have heard of Privacy International, about the digital like the Zelshaft, about  the bits of freedom, about Lakota Trudunet, about Panopticon Foundation, about OpenRise  Group.  But there are quite a few doing that job for you, collecting all the amendments, analyzing  the 100 articles, giving pages, pages of comments, hundreds, hundreds of pages of comments,  so they actually have the knowledge.  If you want that knowledge, you can use it or you can just say dear MEPs, refer to the  organization I trust and follow their advice.  That's the minimum you can do.  Do you think people could, I don't know, blog about it?  If they blog?  Do you think they could, I don't know, maybe speak about it on Facebook?  Maybe speak to...  Facebook knows anyway, but yeah, you can always.  Maybe go and look for the members of the Civil Liberties Committee of the European Parliament  on Facebook and on Twitter and talk to them and tell them, well, there is something you  have to do and oh, by the way, there are elections in a few months.  There are.  Or things like that.  And that turns out to be the best argument.  So don't forget to use that one.  Do you think really that we, the people, are able to take back some of this hyper-concentrated  power in the hands of the few companies?  And do you think this could happen?  Well, I wouldn't spend the last two years on this if I didn't, but let us hear what others  think.  I really want to know what you think about it and do you think that you can?  Tell us.  Maybe it's worth trying after all.  I think it is.  Yeah, what do you think?  Huh.  Up to you.  Okay, it's up to you.  Yeah.  I think we have a few minutes for questions or for statements of action.  Postcards, there is action.  Yes, we were asked about postcards.  Yes, I heard of very, very cool people writing postcards about taking control of your data.  And I also heard that they were right here next to the door.  You can't send postcards to the parliament.  So you could just get started by writing a postcard in the very next minutes, for instance.  There's a question here.  There's a question here and then a question there.  We're going to really see it.  I suppose I'm a bad guy too.  I work for a social media agency.  Can you speak louder?  I'm a bad guy too.  I'm a real bad guy.  I work for a social media agency.  And we use data.  We research to whom we can sell stuff.  And I suppose that perhaps we pay for around about all of your Facebook accounts or customers do it.  Not we ourselves.  They pay us too.  And I ask myself, as a person, I'm very concerned with what you're saying.  But as a bad guy, I ask you what's happening if we can't work anymore.  Because really, I'm not interested in any of you personal.  I'm just interested in some groups of you I could sell stuff to.  So your Facebook account is paid.  And perhaps your Twitter account or your YouTube views or anything you use online.  So how do we change this?  Well, I could shortly answer this one.  First of all, if it was to pay for a Twitter account or to pay for Facebook accounts,  I'd be very curious to see the price of it, the actual cost of it.  Then people could put in the balance either to pay that cost or to repay that with some of their personal data  over which they would have control.  And they would decide that this much data is worth that much of a service.  So this would be a form of consent.  Then on the question of business, you may have the impression that advertisement is some kind of bubble.  What when it bursts?  So there are ways of providing personalized service that is totally compatible with everything that has been proposed by the European Commission.  But more than that, what could be done is to create the conditions for the emergence of a European trust-based internet economy.  Where instead of trying to compete with the US in the far-west version of just snatching all the data,  you would invent something a bit more subtle where you would come to all service because you know it's in the EU.  Therefore, you know we will respect you.  And this has a tremendous value.  And we could build value out of trust rather than out of snatching personal data.  That's your question.  Hi, Jeremy.  It was a nice talk from both of you. Thank you.  It's more a call of action to all interested in privacy online and stuff.  It's about it's now three years that we saw diaspora, the first attempt to get the alternative social network.  Now we got app.net as a next alternative.  And yeah, since we all should do the best we can to support online privacy,  I'm currently building my own project.  It's called Privacy.com.  I'm in the process of making a crowdfunding campaign.  And I'm calling you.  I'm here on Wednesday with the cam.  And I want to make some short videos about the statements regarding online privacy.  Yeah, that's what I wanted to say.  And all the best for you, Jeremy.  Maybe you're interested too.  It would really cool you to have you on the video too.  Thank you.  Sure.  We should keep on hacking society.  We should keep on hacking the law.  But it's also very important that we keep on hacking code.  Free as free software code.  Because it's the only way that we can preserve this bubble of freedom in the online environment.  So please keep on hacking.  Keep on hacking.  Hi.  My name is Ben Posh.  And I am working on something that I think will solve pretty much everything that you've just mentioned.  It's called stack.fm.  And you should go check it out.  Can you speak closer to the mic?  Yeah.  Okay, I'm kissing it now.  I'm working on something that is going to solve what you guys are talking about.  And it's called stack.fm.  It's a social network.  Okay.  So, yeah, check it out.  Keep on hacking.  Absolutely.  So we have statements of action.  That's even better than I expected.  Thank you.  Thank you.
re_publica_2013_-_Katarzyna_Szymielewicz__Jeremie_Zimmermann__Personal_Data__Nothing_to_hide__0Gi-MT_0_5171.png re_publica_2013_-_Katarzyna_Szymielewicz__Jeremie_Zimmermann__Personal_Data__Nothing_to_hide__0Gi-MT_5172_5495.png re_publica_2013_-_Katarzyna_Szymielewicz__Jeremie_Zimmermann__Personal_Data__Nothing_to_hide__0Gi-MT_5496_7115.png re_publica_2013_-_Katarzyna_Szymielewicz__Jeremie_Zimmermann__Personal_Data__Nothing_to_hide__0Gi-MT_7116_8447.png re_publica_2013_-_Katarzyna_Szymielewicz__Jeremie_Zimmermann__Personal_Data__Nothing_to_hide__0Gi-MT_8448_8675.png re_publica_2013_-_Katarzyna_Szymielewicz__Jeremie_Zimmermann__Personal_Data__Nothing_to_hide__0Gi-MT_8676_9335.png re_publica_2013_-_Katarzyna_Szymielewicz__Jeremie_Zimmermann__Personal_Data__Nothing_to_hide__0Gi-MT_9336_11699.png re_publica_2013_-_Katarzyna_Szymielewicz__Jeremie_Zimmermann__Personal_Data__Nothing_to_hide__0Gi-MT_11700_13283.png re_publica_2013_-_Katarzyna_Szymielewicz__Jeremie_Zimmermann__Personal_Data__Nothing_to_hide__0Gi-MT_13284_13583.png re_publica_2013_-_Katarzyna_Szymielewicz__Jeremie_Zimmermann__Personal_Data__Nothing_to_hide__0Gi-MT_13584_13643.png re_publica_2013_-_Katarzyna_Szymielewicz__Jeremie_Zimmermann__Personal_Data__Nothing_to_hide__0Gi-MT_13644_16043.png re_publica_2013_-_Katarzyna_Szymielewicz__Jeremie_Zimmermann__Personal_Data__Nothing_to_hide__0Gi-MT_16044_17483.png re_publica_2013_-_Katarzyna_Szymielewicz__Jeremie_Zimmermann__Personal_Data__Nothing_to_hide__0Gi-MT_17484_18503.png re_publica_2013_-_Katarzyna_Szymielewicz__Jeremie_Zimmermann__Personal_Data__Nothing_to_hide__0Gi-MT_18504_19715.png re_publica_2013_-_Katarzyna_Szymielewicz__Jeremie_Zimmermann__Personal_Data__Nothing_to_hide__0Gi-MT_19716_27539.png re_publica_2013_-_Katarzyna_Szymielewicz__Jeremie_Zimmermann__Personal_Data__Nothing_to_hide__0Gi-MT_27540_27899.png re_publica_2013_-_Katarzyna_Szymielewicz__Jeremie_Zimmermann__Personal_Data__Nothing_to_hide__0Gi-MT_27900_28499.png re_publica_2013_-_Katarzyna_Szymielewicz__Jeremie_Zimmermann__Personal_Data__Nothing_to_hide__0Gi-MT_28500_28583.png re_publica_2013_-_Katarzyna_Szymielewicz__Jeremie_Zimmermann__Personal_Data__Nothing_to_hide__0Gi-MT_28584_29435.png re_publica_2013_-_Katarzyna_Szymielewicz__Jeremie_Zimmermann__Personal_Data__Nothing_to_hide__0Gi-MT_29436_30767.png re_publica_2013_-_Katarzyna_Szymielewicz__Jeremie_Zimmermann__Personal_Data__Nothing_to_hide__0Gi-MT_30768_38375.png re_publica_2013_-_Katarzyna_Szymielewicz__Jeremie_Zimmermann__Personal_Data__Nothing_to_hide__0Gi-MT_38376_39403.png
In the last talk we got to know the EDIRI and European Umbrella Organization fighting for digital civil rights. And now we got to know two persons, one from France and one from Poland. Please give a warm welcome for Kasia Miliewicz. She's from Poland and a human rights lawyer, activist and co-founder of Panoptikum Foundation, which is also a member of EDIRI and also another welcome for Jeremy Zimmermann, co-founder of La Quadrate du Net from France. I hope you have a nice talk. Can you hear us? Yes? So it works. It works. Good. It's already something. Hi Kasia. Hello Jeremy. Hi everyone. So we've been introduced already. Be aware that I'm in a strange mood today. You know I'm usually supportive of freedoms online, yada yada, fundamental rights. This is usually my kind of stuff. But I don't know. I woke up this morning and I was filled with doubt. I was filled with doubts. And I came here. I see all those beautiful people using Mac computers hooked on Facebook and Twitter. And actually I was wondering, well do we really need all this data protection thing? You know because there is this very complex bit of text that is going on that is being currently negotiated in Brussels about privacy, personal data, how to get control of all this. And I don't know. I feel like a bit of the devil's advocate today. So if you caught me on Twitter for instance, don't hesitate to use the cynical hashtag or something like this. But really I was wondering do we really need data protection in this world? Because I walk the corridors in Brussels, in the European Parliament from time to time. And I see those hundreds of friendly lobbyists. They're really friendly. You know they're very neat looking and they are very careful words. They come from very respectable industries such as Google, Facebook, Yahoo, well the whole of Silicon Valley, banking industry, insurance industry. You even have lobbyists from the US government. And they all say the same. So could they really be wrong? They say that if we have more protection of our personal data, well it would be loss of jobs, loss of growth. And I mean we need jobs. We need growth, right? So do we really need this data protection? Is really what I'm wondering today. And I have a tough task of responding to these uneasy questions that Jeremy is posing. Well in fact if I were a corporate lobbyist myself, I would definitely not fight for a stronger regulation. I would think of banks, I would think of insurance companies, I would think of many companies that in the past struggled against regulations. Maybe I would ignore the fact that from the perspective of time it turned out to be quite good to have some banking regulation after all. But I wouldn't fight for that. I would invest my time on the other side. But let me explain you a little bit more about the process that the lobbyists are attacking. Maybe it will help you understand that it's not that bad as it might seem from the corporate perspective. So more than one year ago Commissioner Vivienne Redding which is the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights and that's not a coincidence that it was her proposed a draft regulation which is a new piece of European law and it's a regulation, not a directive. So it's something that will be directly binding for all 27 member states. This is something that will replace a legal landscape which is very complicated today. If I were a company I would think of it that now I have to struggle with 27 legal orders and I will have one. And that new legal order is actually not that new. It's called data protection which might sound a bit boring or geeky but it's nothing less, nothing more than respecting our fundamental right to privacy which we have in many charters which we have in our constitutions and which we had for some time in the EU. So it's not pushing that further. It's just making sure that the same law, that the same legal order that we had for last 20 years will apply in the changing world. What happened in the meantime? We had internet in the meantime. When they invented the data protection directive 20 years ago internet was something really for geeks and for scientists. Now as you might have noticed it's kind of everywhere. So the new regulation is just trying to jump to the new state of technology which I must admit from the company's perspective means probably a little bit more obligations in the world that they operate in. What is also quite interesting and I would say crucial in that change is that Commissioner Redding is trying to create regulation not only for the EU. She noticed that internet is global and that many of these companies are based in the US and until now they were not regulated in the same way. So if I was a European company I would very much welcome that new concept of creating a fair level playing field for US and European companies. So this is this kind of landscape that we are creating and the landscape where the privacy is still as central as in the constitution. Privacy, my vacay. I mean look at it. Those US corporations are unregulated and they succeed. So no regulation means success. It works. I mean look at everyone. Everyone is using Facebook, right? People are happy. Yes, yes. Everyone is using it. Bear with me one second. Everyone is using it and they seem to be happy about it. I mean you get new friends and stuff and you can play with the farm. And you can show your breakfast in the whole world. Yeah, you can show pictures of your breakfast. You can play with animals in a farm and the pigs and the stuff and it's great. So I mean people understand what's going on. We should not quit with this nanny state thing already. I mean people are grownups. They understand the technology. Those computer systems are not that complex. Everybody understand the internet. It's a series of tubes. So people know what they're doing. They just click I accept and they accept those contracts. I mean it's not complicated. Everybody understand contracts. So they perfectly know what they disclose to these companies. They perfectly know that just visiting a webpage with a like button, not clicking it, just viewing the like button, disclose to Facebook information about what page they look online. Of course they understand that. Okay, they're not stupid. Why would they need such a regulation? Let me think. Do you think that they still understand the terms of the contract if they change every week and they are longer than phone book, the old school one, that fake one? The paper one? The paper one? Yeah. I know they don't know longer newspaper but I'm kind of worried that they might not fully understand the consequences of storing all the traces they leave because it's not only storing the traces we leave consciously. It's not only storing the data that I give to Facebook or I think I give to Facebook. It's not only that no matter what privacy policy I adopt in my Facebook page, Facebook knows obviously everything but Facebook knows much more than that. Probably you know but maybe you don't know that the recent survey from many academic centers including Cambridge and MIT showed that just by collecting pieces of our traces online like the website we visited, like the website we liked, one can detect very sensitive data. For example, I don't disclose my sexual orientation but on the basis of what I click, that thing can be established by 85%. I don't disclose my racial or ethnic origin or my IQ online. I don't put it there as information yet it can be detected from the traces I leave online and all this very sensitive information about my private life, about my moods, about my habits, about my weak spots can be detected and can be and is used. Or what is it used? For commercializing and monetizing my data but that's just the first step. How they commercialize and monetize it? Very often they offer more expensive services to me and I have no choice on demanding less expensive service because I don't know that I'm being offered the more expensive service or I live in my filter bubble. I'm being offered only the information that is designed for my profile. I don't even know unless I'm a hardcore gig. As you are. Consenting, right? Consent is another thing. Now most of the American companies, also European companies, they imply consent by the mere fact that they see me on the website. Visiting the website they say, oh, you are here so you consent to terms and conditions. That's the catch 22. I never had really the choice of visiting the website with my consent for not revealing certain data and I'm not really told what data I reveal. But he's discussing this with me because it's not the contract I can negotiate. So obviously we could think of this as a fair exchange of privacy for a service but it's not fair as long as I don't know what the exchange is about and what's the real threat on the other side. And that's more or less why Reading proposed a few, let's say I will give you five major changes. So she said explicit consent should be the rule. If you consent, consent is consent nothing less than that, right? So if somebody wants your data, they really need to ask you this question and if you say no, they have to offer you the service without certain tracing being built in. Second big thing, profiling, right? Profiling will be regulated. Not profiling as such but decisions made on the basis of profiling. So for example, the price discrimination I mentioned and stuff like this will not really be possible without you being aware, without you consenting or without the law requiring that. Then information. Now, well, I cannot read that stuff. I really tried and I'm a lawyer. But now the companies will be obliged to give you information in a very concise, very easy to absorb format which is understandable for average internet user, not only for legal experts. Then new concepts like privacy by default. So wherever you go to the new service, the default settings will be protecting your privacy in a maximum level and only if you want less, you might want less. You might want to trade your privacy for your new services. No problem with that. But you do this choice, not company for you. Well, privacy by default. I can have privacy by default if I want. I mean, I'm a hacker in the original sense of the term, you know, not a criminal who breaks stuff, but somebody curious about technology who builds stuff. And so I know how to use the stuff, you know. I use encryption. Yeah? I use GPG encryption for my email. I use OTR encryption for my chat. You do that also, right? I do this because all communication should be encrypted. That's the only way to have privacy by default, to have privacy by design, to be sure that only you and the people you're speaking to will know what it's about. Okay? I use encryption as I do use free software because I know that software that you can control, rather that software that controls you is the only way to go towards a free society because I listened to Evan Moglen's talk on Republica 12. So I know this kind of stuff. Why should I care? Why should I care about data protection regulation? Maybe because not everybody wants to hide in encrypted world and go into this race of arms with corporations, with corporate surveillance, and hide behind new technologies and rely on their wisdom and their skills. Some people might actually like to use Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, Google and all these new comfortable services. They might want to regain control over the service they use and actually use the comfortable service. So that's personal choice, but not everybody wants to follow their stuff. But there is even something more. Well, you mentioned Evan Moglen. Evan said a few years back that, well, net is our neighborhood. And do you really want to live in the neighborhood where on every tree we have a surveillance camera on every bush we have a mic and we have a data miner under every place where we put our feet? According to Evan Moglen, this is the world we live in. Recently Bruce Schneier wrote a brilliant piece claiming that internet is a surveillance state. Do we like it or not? We live in a surveillance state. For you, it might be a game, a nice game that you win. But think of all the people who either don't have your skills or who might actually be in danger from other governments. Do you know that all the companies that you use, services you use, they also disclose your data to other governments today? And they are forced to do so. Even if they want to avoid it, the laws they are obliged by, they force them to reveal data of activists, of bloggers, of political activists. All this happens. So the talk about data protection, the talk about privacy is just the talk about internet freedom in the way we understand it. It's the talk about the information society we want to design for future generations. It might sound a bit overblown, but this kind of legal order is created once every 20 years. So now we talk about the design of the internet world for the next 20 years to come. Think of financial sector 20 years ago. Who thought back then that we will have a serious economic crisis caused by speculation in all the derivatives and all the new financial instruments. Today, everybody talks about data as the new currency of the world. And everybody seems to be so optimistic about abusing, speculating, creating economic value over this data. But what will come in the next 10, 20 years? So we are really talking not our egocentric business, the hacker, but about the society and about implications of this model, also for your wallet, for your, if you think about your egocentric perspective, about your money in the next 10 years to come. You know what? I think you almost get me convinced. Almost. Almost. And it's really food for thought. And I was wondering now. So just imagine for one second that I wasn't the egocentric bastardish hacker that I am. Just imagine that I wanted to regain control over my personal data about the traces of everything I do online and offline. I don't know. Consider that maybe inspired by what happened last year with ACTA, which everybody thought was impossible to defeat, but that we defeated anyway, that we beat by 478 against 39, where we beat 39 governments plus Hollywood plus Big Pharma, who is just a keyboard and a bit of lulls. So if I was one of these people interested in fighting for getting back control over personal data, trying to regulate this form of corporate surveillance that is happening every day, what could I do? I heard there was this European parliament mumbo-jumbo complicated stuff. I heard there were votes already, opinion votes that all were like, all the opinions vote were aligned with what the industry is requesting. And I heard that there is one main committee, the civil liberty committee, that will cast its vote in a few weeks. So is there something I would be able to do? If I wasn't the selfish bastard I am? Well, that's a very good question. Because in fact, ACTA was a piece of the cake compared to this one, because it's 100 pages long, it has 100 articles. It's that complicated that nobody really gets a grasp of everything. And there is not a single industry that would not be involved in fighting this regulation, because not a single industry seems to be responsible enough to think in the long term about not speculating on our data. So yes, the case is quite complicated and indeed we lost five votes already, which were opinion votes. And now the crucial vote is coming up quite quickly. It was scheduled for the end of this month in Brussels, end of May. It might be the case that they postponed it because it's so complicated that even the MEPs feel quite lost in all that dossier. So well, what we can do really, we can in the first place let them know that we know about that happening and that we care, that we actually care about something we define as privacy in a broad sense, we care about our control over our data, that we care about surveillance, that we don't want to be surveilled by companies without our awareness, without our instruments to fight back. So if we want to let them know, I do think it's quite enough to call them or email them saying we know it's going on and we know your responsibility dear representatives and we trust that you will vote in favor of our rights. That's the first step. If you are asked back for details or if you want to know details and there are details, unfortunately, it's not just yes or no, you might use the knowledge which is collected by many organizations under the umbrella of European Digital Rights. You might have heard of Privacy International, about the digital like the Zelshaft, about the bits of freedom, about Lakota Trudunet, about Panopticon Foundation, about OpenRise Group. But there are quite a few doing that job for you, collecting all the amendments, analyzing the 100 articles, giving pages, pages of comments, hundreds, hundreds of pages of comments, so they actually have the knowledge. If you want that knowledge, you can use it or you can just say dear MEPs, refer to the organization I trust and follow their advice. That's the minimum you can do. Do you think people could, I don't know, blog about it? If they blog? Do you think they could, I don't know, maybe speak about it on Facebook? Maybe speak to... Facebook knows anyway, but yeah, you can always. Maybe go and look for the members of the Civil Liberties Committee of the European Parliament on Facebook and on Twitter and talk to them and tell them, well, there is something you have to do and oh, by the way, there are elections in a few months. There are. Or things like that. And that turns out to be the best argument. So don't forget to use that one. Do you think really that we, the people, are able to take back some of this hyper-concentrated power in the hands of the few companies? And do you think this could happen? Well, I wouldn't spend the last two years on this if I didn't, but let us hear what others think. I really want to know what you think about it and do you think that you can? Tell us. Maybe it's worth trying after all. I think it is. Yeah, what do you think? Huh. Up to you. Okay, it's up to you. Yeah. I think we have a few minutes for questions or for statements of action. Postcards, there is action. Yes, we were asked about postcards. Yes, I heard of very, very cool people writing postcards about taking control of your data. And I also heard that they were right here next to the door. You can't send postcards to the parliament. So you could just get started by writing a postcard in the very next minutes, for instance. There's a question here. There's a question here and then a question there. We're going to really see it. I suppose I'm a bad guy too. I work for a social media agency. Can you speak louder? I'm a bad guy too. I'm a real bad guy. I work for a social media agency. And we use data. We research to whom we can sell stuff. And I suppose that perhaps we pay for around about all of your Facebook accounts or customers do it. Not we ourselves. They pay us too. And I ask myself, as a person, I'm very concerned with what you're saying. But as a bad guy, I ask you what's happening if we can't work anymore. Because really, I'm not interested in any of you personal. I'm just interested in some groups of you I could sell stuff to. So your Facebook account is paid. And perhaps your Twitter account or your YouTube views or anything you use online. So how do we change this? Well, I could shortly answer this one. First of all, if it was to pay for a Twitter account or to pay for Facebook accounts, I'd be very curious to see the price of it, the actual cost of it. Then people could put in the balance either to pay that cost or to repay that with some of their personal data over which they would have control. And they would decide that this much data is worth that much of a service. So this would be a form of consent. Then on the question of business, you may have the impression that advertisement is some kind of bubble. What when it bursts? So there are ways of providing personalized service that is totally compatible with everything that has been proposed by the European Commission. But more than that, what could be done is to create the conditions for the emergence of a European trust-based internet economy. Where instead of trying to compete with the US in the far-west version of just snatching all the data, you would invent something a bit more subtle where you would come to all service because you know it's in the EU. Therefore, you know we will respect you. And this has a tremendous value. And we could build value out of trust rather than out of snatching personal data. That's your question. Hi, Jeremy. It was a nice talk from both of you. Thank you. It's more a call of action to all interested in privacy online and stuff. It's about it's now three years that we saw diaspora, the first attempt to get the alternative social network. Now we got app.net as a next alternative. And yeah, since we all should do the best we can to support online privacy, I'm currently building my own project. It's called Privacy.com. I'm in the process of making a crowdfunding campaign. And I'm calling you. I'm here on Wednesday with the cam. And I want to make some short videos about the statements regarding online privacy. Yeah, that's what I wanted to say. And all the best for you, Jeremy. Maybe you're interested too. It would really cool you to have you on the video too. Thank you. Sure. We should keep on hacking society. We should keep on hacking the law. But it's also very important that we keep on hacking code. Free as free software code. Because it's the only way that we can preserve this bubble of freedom in the online environment. So please keep on hacking. Keep on hacking. Hi. My name is Ben Posh. And I am working on something that I think will solve pretty much everything that you've just mentioned. It's called stack.fm. And you should go check it out. Can you speak closer to the mic? Yeah. Okay, I'm kissing it now. I'm working on something that is going to solve what you guys are talking about. And it's called stack.fm. It's a social network. Okay. So, yeah, check it out. Keep on hacking. Absolutely. So we have statements of action. That's even better than I expected. Thank you. Thank you.
supportive of freedoms online, yada yada, privacy, personal data, how to get control of all have more protection of our personal data, well and that many of these companies are based in the with animals in a farm and the pigs and the stuff information about my private life, about my consent, consent is consent nothing less than service, the default settings will be protecting trade your privacy for your new services. No the neighborhood where on every tree we have a speculation in all the derivatives and all the regain control over my personal data about the control over our data, that we care about and we know your responsibility dear International, about the digital like the you want that knowledge, you can use it or you