Upcoming EU data law will make Europe tricky for Facebook(theregister.co.uk)
theregister.co.uk
Upcoming EU data law will make Europe tricky for Facebook
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/08/eu_new_data_protection_proposals/
8 comments
> And consumers generally should have the right to delete their data at any time, especially the data they post on the Internet themselves
I'm all for that, but where does it leave community collaborated work when one author wishes to delete their contribution totally?
i.e. wikipedia
One way around this might be to disassociate contributions form the public, to anonymise those contributions. But then... how do you stop spammers and trolls?
If a person has made a contribution under a perpetual licence, then that licence should trump. But if that were the case then everyone would just sidestep this law such that all user contributions were under a for-commercial, shared-forever licence.
Does the law win? Yes.
How would it apply to collaborative works in which data contributed is clearly identified as coming from an author who wants to delete their data? Unknown.
I'm all for that, but where does it leave community collaborated work when one author wishes to delete their contribution totally?
i.e. wikipedia
One way around this might be to disassociate contributions form the public, to anonymise those contributions. But then... how do you stop spammers and trolls?
If a person has made a contribution under a perpetual licence, then that licence should trump. But if that were the case then everyone would just sidestep this law such that all user contributions were under a for-commercial, shared-forever licence.
Does the law win? Yes.
How would it apply to collaborative works in which data contributed is clearly identified as coming from an author who wants to delete their data? Unknown.
I don't think a reasonable person would ever claim the technological equivalent of a right of rescission for data contributed to a community-collaborated document. Rather, people are taking exception to unconscionable clauses in the terms of service of Facebook, Google, etc. that effectively grant to each respective corporation a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to "use" any content posted on or in connection with each service. It's the overbreadth of the term "use" that people balk at.
I say if you post anonymously you should get no privacy protection and removal measures are to be decided by the data host. I'd be happy to go with that.
On the other hand, use your real name, and you get the privacy protections.
On the other hand, use your real name, and you get the privacy protections.
IANAL, but your Wikipedia contributions wouldn't count as personal information (unless it is explicitly about yourself). However the logging of when and which page you edited are, so those could potentially be affected.
This is about personal information not about creative works.
Besides if you contribute to Wikipedia you have to agree to a license which would obviously trump any privacy measures.
Besides if you contribute to Wikipedia you have to agree to a license which would obviously trump any privacy measures.
Not obvious.
The data protection laws in Europe are enforcement laws and provide detailed instruction on the enforcement of the treaties that make up the "European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms"... basically what is referred to as just "Human Rights".
As governments and companies in Europe keep finding, no laws trump that EU treaty.
A wikipedia licence won't cut it.
Further the 1995 data protection laws already stated that any data which could identify the person is covered. That definitely includes meta data, hence my comment about needing to disassociate the data to anonymise it. A person can request any identifying information be deleted, including pseudonyms as it's conceivable that a pseudonym used on multiple services is identifying.
Which leaves anonymous contributions to a project... then how can you continue to enforce anti-spam/troll policies when most of the existing methods rely on spotting the spammers/trolls based on signals from IP, user-agent, emails, usage... if you can identify a spammer, then you can identify a person (given access to enough data), and therefore it's identifying.
These new proposals strengthen the existing laws, which are actually already pretty good. I'm basically saying that there is an edge case here, and it could lead to problems. The law being black and white needs exceptions clarified in writing and not left to assumption.
The data protection laws in Europe are enforcement laws and provide detailed instruction on the enforcement of the treaties that make up the "European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms"... basically what is referred to as just "Human Rights".
As governments and companies in Europe keep finding, no laws trump that EU treaty.
A wikipedia licence won't cut it.
Further the 1995 data protection laws already stated that any data which could identify the person is covered. That definitely includes meta data, hence my comment about needing to disassociate the data to anonymise it. A person can request any identifying information be deleted, including pseudonyms as it's conceivable that a pseudonym used on multiple services is identifying.
Which leaves anonymous contributions to a project... then how can you continue to enforce anti-spam/troll policies when most of the existing methods rely on spotting the spammers/trolls based on signals from IP, user-agent, emails, usage... if you can identify a spammer, then you can identify a person (given access to enough data), and therefore it's identifying.
These new proposals strengthen the existing laws, which are actually already pretty good. I'm basically saying that there is an edge case here, and it could lead to problems. The law being black and white needs exceptions clarified in writing and not left to assumption.
Are you saying selling this kind of data would be less acceptable if it was indirectly inferred from chat logs rather than taken directly from the "relationship status" most people enter into Facebook?
Yes, I'm saying that inferring the information from the chat transcripts is unforeseeable to the users generating those transcripts. It's obviously foreseeable that if you change your relationship status to "engaged," you might begin to see advertisements for wedding-related stuff.
Perhaps a better situation to illustrate the point is where a girlfriend is talking with her friends that she's hoping her boyfriend will propose to her soon. That boyfriend, based on the information in the chat logs, might begin seeing advertisements for engagement rings. Those are the types of inferences that I consider unforeseeable.
Perhaps a better situation to illustrate the point is where a girlfriend is talking with her friends that she's hoping her boyfriend will propose to her soon. That boyfriend, based on the information in the chat logs, might begin seeing advertisements for engagement rings. Those are the types of inferences that I consider unforeseeable.
Wow, this is really terrible. The EU-ro-crats think that EU citizens, while using a service in the EU, should be protected by European laws. How dare they?
"We both believe that companies who direct their services to European consumers should be subject to EU data protection laws. Otherwise, they should not be able to do business on our internal market. This also applies to social networks with users in the EU."
EU law will be enforced even if the company is based in a third country and has its data centres outside the EU, the statement reaffirmed.
I'm reading this as suggesting they'll set up a firewall to block non-EU websites that don't adhere to EU data protection law. That would be a cure worse than the disease.
(But yes, the Register's tabloid-speak grates.)
EU law will be enforced even if the company is based in a third country and has its data centres outside the EU, the statement reaffirmed.
I'm reading this as suggesting they'll set up a firewall to block non-EU websites that don't adhere to EU data protection law. That would be a cure worse than the disease.
(But yes, the Register's tabloid-speak grates.)
There is no reason why a firewall would be needed to enforce that kind of laws, just as there is no need for one to enforce the stricter European privacy laws. We're not talking about rogue websites here, but about established businesses that could be fined, or sued, etc. if they din't comply, as is usually the case.
Link to original press release (http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO...)
Quick summary:-
- The existing laws date back to 1995 - They need updating - Recommendations are going to be made before Jan 2012 - EU law is needed because data travels so easily across borders - Companies wishing to deliver services to Europeans should obey EU law, or be prevented from supplying those services
-- Customers must be in charge of their data -- Customers must give explicit consent before their data is used
Quick summary:-
- The existing laws date back to 1995 - They need updating - Recommendations are going to be made before Jan 2012 - EU law is needed because data travels so easily across borders - Companies wishing to deliver services to Europeans should obey EU law, or be prevented from supplying those services
-- Customers must be in charge of their data -- Customers must give explicit consent before their data is used
If the recent ICO cookie rule is any indication on where the legislative proposals are heading then the concluding statement in the article "Expect sparks to fly when these proposals come out in January" is an understatement.
For those that are unaware the "EU Cookie Law" requires explicit user consent before setting a cookie that can be used for tracking[1]. That's a pretty high bar for sites that just want to use something like Google Analytics. Now if you consider extending out the intent of that law to all data collected from EU citizens it will make doing business in Europe via the internet much more cumbersome for those that want to do any sort of marketing.
Personally, I like the idea that the EU is forcing companies to be transparent about what information they are collecting and what purpose they are collecting for, but publicly listed policies, such as a privacy policy or terms of use, should be enough. To force users to have to read a legal statement and check a box to agree to start doing business makes that step much more difficult and I'm betting that is exactly where they are heading.
http://www.privsecblog.com/2011/07/articles/main-topics/mark...
For those that are unaware the "EU Cookie Law" requires explicit user consent before setting a cookie that can be used for tracking[1]. That's a pretty high bar for sites that just want to use something like Google Analytics. Now if you consider extending out the intent of that law to all data collected from EU citizens it will make doing business in Europe via the internet much more cumbersome for those that want to do any sort of marketing.
Personally, I like the idea that the EU is forcing companies to be transparent about what information they are collecting and what purpose they are collecting for, but publicly listed policies, such as a privacy policy or terms of use, should be enough. To force users to have to read a legal statement and check a box to agree to start doing business makes that step much more difficult and I'm betting that is exactly where they are heading.
http://www.privsecblog.com/2011/07/articles/main-topics/mark...
"To force users to have to read a legal statement and check a box to agree to start doing business makes that step much more difficult and I'm betting that is exactly where they are heading."
The cookie directive specifically excludes those client-side persistence mechanisms ("cookie-like") that are necessary to deliver the pro-offered service.
If the cookie isn't necessary for that core service (e.g. a third party tracking tool), then it requires an informed consent. Hiding it in legal wording in that case is not an option, it needs to be clear and understandable.
Note too, that the ICO cookie rule isn't limited to cookies, it covers all client-side persistence mechanisms that can be used in third party tracking and behavioural aggregation tools.
The cookie directive specifically excludes those client-side persistence mechanisms ("cookie-like") that are necessary to deliver the pro-offered service.
If the cookie isn't necessary for that core service (e.g. a third party tracking tool), then it requires an informed consent. Hiding it in legal wording in that case is not an option, it needs to be clear and understandable.
Note too, that the ICO cookie rule isn't limited to cookies, it covers all client-side persistence mechanisms that can be used in third party tracking and behavioural aggregation tools.
As always about this request for "real" deletion of data, I wonder of what kind of people there are more of:
Those that are concerned that the data they deleted isn't really deleted?
Or those that learn that they can't get their data back which they just now accidentally deleted?
I'm a techie. I'm part of the first group. But daily I have to deal with the second group. Telling them that, no, you deleted the data, so now it's gone, would break their heart.
And. No. I can't have backups of that data because having a backup would be the same as not really deleting it. Think of retroactively altering the backups of the days where the data still existed shudder.
This is pure theory anyways as there is a huge difficulty in reliably deleting data once it's replicated all over different machines.
By the way: I wonder how this request for immediate deletion flies with the more and more strict data retention laws that the EU is issuing. You know: Either you store the data for the state (and thus don't delete it), or you delete it, at which point it's gone.
Those that are concerned that the data they deleted isn't really deleted?
Or those that learn that they can't get their data back which they just now accidentally deleted?
I'm a techie. I'm part of the first group. But daily I have to deal with the second group. Telling them that, no, you deleted the data, so now it's gone, would break their heart.
And. No. I can't have backups of that data because having a backup would be the same as not really deleting it. Think of retroactively altering the backups of the days where the data still existed shudder.
This is pure theory anyways as there is a huge difficulty in reliably deleting data once it's replicated all over different machines.
By the way: I wonder how this request for immediate deletion flies with the more and more strict data retention laws that the EU is issuing. You know: Either you store the data for the state (and thus don't delete it), or you delete it, at which point it's gone.
Who actually requests their data back from Facebook if they deleted it? And why would that be Facebook's responsibility if you deleted it? At the very least it should give you the option to permanently delete it, too.
I think if normal people would really know that Facebook keeps their data even after they deleted it, they would get pretty freaked out about it, too.
I think if normal people would really know that Facebook keeps their data even after they deleted it, they would get pretty freaked out about it, too.
I know a few people who turn their Facebook profile on and off. (Depending on how mentally stable and well they feel at the time.)
So long as Facebook offers two options and makes it really clear - [this is our normal 'hide your profile'][This will really delete everything. No, really, are you sure?]
So long as Facebook offers two options and makes it really clear - [this is our normal 'hide your profile'][This will really delete everything. No, really, are you sure?]
The two option solution is probably a good idea (perhaps naming it something like "destroy" because "delete" no longer has those kinds of connotation for many).
However, I would suggest penalising people genuinely concerned about their privacy and completely leaving out the option of permanent deletion, only because some people aren't responsible enough to to be trusted with that decision, is not really acceptable.
However, I would suggest penalising people genuinely concerned about their privacy and completely leaving out the option of permanent deletion, only because some people aren't responsible enough to to be trusted with that decision, is not really acceptable.
I think it just requires a different state of mind from people who develop software and services. At school, data protection was drummed into us from the beginning and it stuck with me all those years later.
It's just one of those issues you have to think about before building something - trying to avoid storing sensitive material wherever possible. This goes against modern trends where the retention of as much data as possible is favoured.
I think the problem we see here, is a lot of start-ups and individuals are starting to think about it too far down the line. Whereas big, established companies have been dealing with this for decades, with departments dedicated to compliance - a bit like how everyone is building websites for accessibility to comply with disability laws.
It's just one of those issues you have to think about before building something - trying to avoid storing sensitive material wherever possible. This goes against modern trends where the retention of as much data as possible is favoured.
I think the problem we see here, is a lot of start-ups and individuals are starting to think about it too far down the line. Whereas big, established companies have been dealing with this for decades, with departments dedicated to compliance - a bit like how everyone is building websites for accessibility to comply with disability laws.
> And. No. I can't have backups of that data because having
> a backup would be the same as not really deleting it.
> Think of retroactively altering the backups of the days
> where the data still existed shudder.
Facebook famously stores all its data forever, though that data isn't available to users.
This isn't true. If a company keeps data on you, then you may request a copy of that data. It's illegal, under existing EU data law for them to store data (regardless if the 'delete flag' is set) and not tell you.
Facebook does and has given users copies of the 'deleted data' when people have made requests under this law. In fact learning that, on Facebook, "when you press delete, it doesn't really delete it", was a big deal and potentially in breech of Data Protection law. (cf. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/oct/20/facebook-fi... )
This isn't true. If a company keeps data on you, then you may request a copy of that data. It's illegal, under existing EU data law for them to store data (regardless if the 'delete flag' is set) and not tell you.
Facebook does and has given users copies of the 'deleted data' when people have made requests under this law. In fact learning that, on Facebook, "when you press delete, it doesn't really delete it", was a big deal and potentially in breech of Data Protection law. (cf. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/oct/20/facebook-fi... )
It is true for some users. Like many others, I have requested my data as suggested here-
http://europe-v-facebook.org/
And, like many others, they told me they couldn't handle my request on time, it may contain intellectual property, whatever- I haven't received my data. Unless they've really found a legit loophole by calling my data their IP, they are violating existing EU law right now.
http://europe-v-facebook.org/
And, like many others, they told me they couldn't handle my request on time, it may contain intellectual property, whatever- I haven't received my data. Unless they've really found a legit loophole by calling my data their IP, they are violating existing EU law right now.
Well if they can't abide by the law, then they are breaking the law. Make a complaint to the Irish Data Protection Commisioner: http://dataprotection.ie/
We do all realise they already ignore data laws in the UK (for instance) by not disposing of old data? Why should they make any better effort for this new EU law if it happens?
Maybe if it gets enough publicity... but even then I have low hopes.
Maybe if it gets enough publicity... but even then I have low hopes.
The question rather should be, why is nothing being done about those breaches in the UK. Passing legislation to firewall non-compliant sites shouldn't be difficult... unless it leads to outrage from the populace I suppose.
But not for G+, right?
I hope that this language portends a paradigm shift where users are no longer kept in the dark concerning the inferences made by analyzing and correlating data that they, and others, submit. By incorporating language that protects users from unauthorized "use" of their data, I hope that this Directive will encourage industry self-regulation to the extent that unforeseeable inferences become a relic of the Internet's "wild west" days.
By unforeseeable inferences, I'm specifically referring to situations where a company like Amazon might tacitly suggest to your girlfriend to open a wedding gift registry. Its algorithm might to do this based on information gleaned from chat transcripts it licensed from Facebook. While certain laws might protect the actual transcripts from being transmitted to Amazon, nothing to my knowledge prevents Facebook from unforeseeably inferring that you intend to get married, based on complex natural language processing algorithms that it most certainly already employs. The EU's proposed Directive would, I hope, protect people from just that.
[1]: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO...