How To Change Your Facebook Settings To Opt Out of Platform API Sharing | Electronic Frontier Foundation

How To Change Your Facebook Settings To Opt Out of Platform API Sharing | Electronic Frontier Foundation: "Tech companies can and should do more to protect users, including giving users far more control over what data is collected and how that data is used. That starts with meaningful transparency and allowing truly independent researchers—with no bottom line or corporate interest—access to work with, black-box test, and audit their systems. Finally, users need to be able to leave when a platform isn’t serving them — and take their data with them when they do.

Of course, you could choose to leave Facebook entirely, but for many that is not a viable solution.

For now, if you'd like keep your data from going through Facebook's API, you can take control of your privacy settings. Keep in mind that this disables ALL platform apps (like Farmville, Twitter, or Instagram) and you will not be able to log into other sites using your Facebook login." 'via Blog this'

Terms of Use: Fed up with Facebook data slurping? Firefox has a cunning plan

Fed up with Facebook data slurping? Firefox has a cunning plan • The Register: "In a blog post, Nick Nguyen, Mozilla's VP of Firefox Product, says, "As a user of the internet, you deserve a voice and should be able to use the internet on your own terms."

It's an ironic choice of words since it's common to browse the internet under someone else's terms – the terms of service asserted by internet sites that disavow user privacy.

Veteran observers of this space may recall Facebook openly abandoned any pretense of privacy in 2011 when it replaced its Privacy Policy with a Data Use Policy." 'via Blog this'

CYBER #CensorshipMachine - How will the decision be taken? - EDRi

#CensorshipMachine - How will the decision be taken? - EDRi: "In the European Parliament, instead of voting for amendments tabled by Parliamentarians, there are closed-door “shadows meetings”, without minutes, that seek to merge amendments to reach a broader consensus. Exceptionally, the draft compromises are being made available, albeit unofficially, by Parliamentarians in the copyright discussions. Once these “compromise amendments” receive enough support, they are finalised and, in the Committee vote, they are then voted first, meaning that it is almost impossible for them not to be adopted. The Committee then votes to give itself a mandate to negotiate directly with the Council in the so-called “trilogue” process.

This vote is expected on 23-24 April 2018." 'via Blog this'

UK investigators search London office of firm at center of Facebook data storm

UK investigators search London office of firm at center of Facebook data storm: "Elizabeth Denham, head of the ICO, sought the warrant after a whistleblower said Cambridge Analytica had gathered private information of 50 million Facebook users to support Donald Trump’s 2016 U.S. presidential campaign.

Britain is investigating whether Facebook, the world’s largest social media network, did enough to protect data." 'via Blog this'

You Should Really Look At Your Facebook Third-Party App Settings Right Now

You Should Really Look At Your Facebook Third-Party App Settings Right Now: "Go to Facebook’s App Settings page.

Strangely, you won’t find Facebook’s third-party app permissions in privacy settings. You’ll need to go to the App Settings page. Alternatively, on the desktop interface, click the downward arrow in the top-right corner and select Settings. Then select Apps from the menu. On the apps page, you’ll see all the apps where you’ve logged into Facebook.

On mobile, tap the menu bar (bottom-right for iOS, top-right for Android), and select Settings > Account Settings > Apps > Logged in with Facebook." 'via Blog this'

CYBER Facebook, fake news and 100m people voting for Mexico's new President

Google Translate: "After being criticized for its role in the 2016 US elections, Facebook is taking steps to avoid what it calls false news during Mexico's 2018 presidential campaign.

On Tuesday, the social media giant posted full-page ads in prominent Mexican newspapers, including El Financiero, under the heading "Tips to detect false news." The company logo appears in the upper left corner.

After the election of President Donald Trump, Facebook's top executive, Mark Zuckerberg , had to respond to critics who said that certain viral stories on the network, such as a false report that said the Pope had endorsed Trump, could have influenced the elections.

The company based in Menlo Park, California, has worked with First Draft, a nonprofit journalism coalition, to give advice to detect misinformation.

In the newspaper's announcements on Tuesday, the company lists 10 tips, such as "Doubt the titles", "Investigate the source" and "Look carefully at the URL". At the bottom of the page, a sign says, in Spanish, "Together, we can limit the spread of false news." 'via Blog this'

CYBER Cambridge Analytica and the Dangers of Facebook Data-Harvesting - The Atlantic

Cambridge Analytica and the Dangers of Facebook Data-Harvesting - The Atlantic: "Academic researchers began publishing warnings that third-party Facebook apps represented a major possible source of privacy leakage in the early 2010s. Some noted that the privacy risks inherent in sharing data with apps were not at all clear to users. One group termed our new reality “interdependent privacy,” because your Facebook friends, in part, determine your own level of privacy.

 For as long as apps have existed, they have asked for a lot of data and people have been prone to give it to them. Back in 2010, Penn State researchers systematically recorded what data the top 1,800 apps on Facebook were asking for. They presented their results in 2011 with the paper “Third-Party Apps on Facebook: Privacy and the Illusion of Control.” The table below shows that 148 apps were asking for permission to access friends’ information." 'via Blog this'

Research Seminars Tuesdays 1-2pm G16 10 April onwards

The InfoLaw Group seminar series - all welcome! 
Freeman G16:

10 April: Professor Chris Marsden "Platform Law: Towards Regulation by OffData"

17 April: Dr Judith Townend, Sussex Law, "The state and future of media and information litigation in the English High Court" and Dr Nico Zingales, Sussex Law, "Antitrust and algorithmic nudging"

1 May: Dr Duncan Campbell, Visiting Fellow Sussex: "Social media: Disinformation and deception, and its propagation" 

8 May: Prof Dean Wilson (Sussex Sociology), "Predictive Policing: A New Approach to Police Management"

17 May 3pm: Annual Information Law Seminar Prof. Daithi McSithigh, "Medium Law and its Discontents" 

Privacy and Surveillance: Aadhaar and the Indian Supreme Court

"The packaging of the Aadhaar project as a welfare-enhancing project was the sugar-coating on what is essentially turning into a surveillance and data-mining tool. A centralised database creates entrepreneurial data analytics possibilities which clash in a fundamental way with civil liberties. Centralised and inter-linked databases lead to profiling and self-censorship, which endangers our freedom. This clash lies at the heart of the Aadhaar debate." 'via Blog this'

Electronic Commerce Directive (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2018

The Electronic Commerce Directive (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2018: "The Electronic Commerce Directive (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2018" 'via Blog this'

Privacy: ARTICLE29 Newsroom - Working Party archives 1997-2016

ARTICLE29 Newsroom - Article 29 Working Party archives from 1997 to November 2016 - all available documents - European Commission: "The European Commission is in the process of creating a new, unified web presence and this will replace the DG JUSTICE website. All previous and archived content of the Article 29 Working Party can be consulted via the the archived website.

The link will bring you to the archived content site. For guidelines, opinions and working documents click on Opinions and recommendations. Please make sure you click on the last date in 2017 in order to be able to see all archived documents" 'via Blog this'

Privacy surveillance: Court of Appeal rules Government regime IS unlawful | Liberty

Court of Appeal rules Government surveillance regime IS unlawful | Liberty: "The Government is breaking the law by collecting the nation's internet activity and phone records and letting public bodies grant themselves access to these personal details with no suspicion of serious crime and no independent sign-off – meaning significant parts of its latest Snoopers’ Charter are effectively unlawful.

Judges at the Court of Appeal have today backed a challenge by MP Tom Watson, represented by Liberty, to the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act (DRIPA) – a previous law covering state surveillance.

DRIPA expired at the end of 2016 – but the Government replicated and vastly expanded the same powers in the Investigatory Powers Act, which started to come into force in 2017.

Liberty is challenging this latest law in a major separate case, to be heard in the High Court later this year.

In anticipation of this ruling, the Government has already conceded that the Investigatory Powers Act will need to change.

But its half-baked plans do not even fully comply with past court rulings requiring mandatory safeguards – and they continue to allow public bodies to indiscriminately retain and access personal data, including records of internet use, location tracking using mobile phones and records of who we communicate with and when." 'via Blog this'

Liability: France to Take Action v. Google, Apple for Commercial Practices - Bloomberg

France to Take Action v. Google, Apple for Commercial Practices - Bloomberg: "Le Maire’s office said an investigation by the ministry’s fraud office determined that between 2015 and 2017 there were “significant imbalances” in the relationship between the two companies and developers who sold via their application stores. The findings of a similar probe into Amazon.com Inc. last year are being reviewed by a tribunal, his office said. Le Parisien reported last December that the Finance Ministry is seeking to fine Amazon 10 million euros ($12.4 billion).

France has had a complicated relationship with Internet giants, on the one hand courting them to set up operations in the country and on the other hand leading efforts at the European Union level to force them to pay more taxes in the countries where they operate, rather than in low-tax countries such as Ireland and Luxembourg where they’ve based their European subsidiaries." 'via Blog this'

Tim Berners-Lee: We need a 'legal or regulatory framework' to save the Web from dominant tech platforms | VentureBeat

Tim Berners-Lee: We need a 'legal or regulatory framework' to save the Web from dominant tech platforms | VentureBeat: "Today’s powerful digital economy calls for strong standards that balance the interests of both companies and online citizens. This means thinking about how we align the incentives of the tech sector with those of users and society at large, and consulting a diverse cross-section of society in the process.

 Two myths currently limit our collective imagination: the myth that advertising is the only possible business model for online companies, and the myth that it’s too late to change the way platforms operate. On both points, we need to be a little more creative.

 While the problems facing the Web are complex and large, I think we should see them as bugs: problems with existing code and software systems that have been created by people — and can be fixed by people. Create a new set of incentives and changes in the code will follow. We can design a Web that creates a constructive and supportive environment." 'via Blog this'

European Commission - Tackling disinformation online: Expert Group advocates for more transparency among online platforms

European Commission - PRESS RELEASES - Press release - Tackling disinformation online: Expert Group advocates for more transparency among online platforms: "The report from the High-Level Expert Group focusses specifically on problems associated with disinformation online rather than fake news. The experts deliberately avoided the term 'fake news', saying it is inadequate to capture the complex problems of disinformation that also involves content which blends fabricated information with facts.

The report defines disinformation as false, inaccurate, or misleading information designed, presented and promoted for profit or to intentionally cause public harm. This can threaten democratic processes, values and can specifically target a variety of sectors, such as health, science, education and finance.

The report underlines the need to involve all relevant parties in any possible action, recommending first and foremost a self-regulatory approach.

 The group recommends to promote media literacy to counter disinformation; develop tools for empowering users and journalists to tackle disinformation; safeguard the diversity and sustainability of the European news media; continuing research on the impact of disinformation in Europe.

It also advocates for a Code of Principles that online platforms and social networks should commit to. Among the 10 key principles outlined in the report, online platforms should, for instance, ensure transparency by explaining how algorithms select the news put forward. In cooperation with European news outlets, they are also encouraged to take effective measures to improve the visibility of reliable, trustworthy news and facilitate users' access to it.

These measures are particularly important ahead of electoral periods.

Finally, the Group recommends to establish a multi-stakeholder coalition to ensure that the agreed measures are implemented, monitored and regularly reviewed." 'via Blog this'

Jurisdiction: Whatever happens in US v. Microsoft, three themes will persist - SCOTUSblog

Symposium: Whatever happens in US v. Microsoft, three themes will persist - SCOTUSblog: " United States v. Microsoft Corp. presents a fairly straightforward matter of statutory interpretation.

The statute in question — the Stored Communications Act — is silent about its territorial reach, which raises at least two questions: (1) Is it an extraterritorial application of the statute to issue a U.S. warrant in Washington state for data that Microsoft holds in Ireland, and (2) does the statute apply extraterritorially?

Because the statutory issues are covered at length by other posts in this symposium and in the briefing before the Supreme Court, I thought I would say a few words about what is not in the briefing.

 Much like Apple’s dispute with the FBI, this case has attracted interest from around the globe. It is seen as a test both of U.S. government efforts to access foreign data — the first time our highest court has considered that issue — and of one nation’s efforts to exert control over a hugely powerful internet company. " 'via Blog this'

CYBER Self-regulation and ‘hate speech’ on social media platforms - ARTICLE 19

Self-regulation and ‘hate speech’ on social media platforms - ARTICLE 19: "A number of recent legislative initiatives on ‘hate speech’, including most prominently the 2017 German NetzDG law on social media, make reference to some form of self-regulation in relation to social media. Voluntary mechanisms between digital companies and various public bodies addressing ‘hate speech’ and other issues, such as the EU Code of Conduct on hate speech, also make reference to self-regulatory models. However, ARTICLE 19’s analysis shows that these fail to comply with international human rights law. They rely on vague and overbroad terms to identify unlawful content, they delegate censorship responsibilities to social media companies with no real consideration of the lawfulness of content, and they fail to provide due process guarantees.

ARTICLE 19 therefore proposes exploring a new model of effective self-regulation for social media. This model could include a dedicated “social media council” – inspired by the effective self-regulation models created to promote journalistic ethics and high standards in print media. We believe that effective self-regulation could offer an appropriate framework  to address current problems with content moderation by social media companies, including ‘hate speech’, providing it also meets certain conditions of independence, openness to civil society participation, accountability and effectiveness. Such a model could also allow for the adoption of tailored remedies, without the threat of heavy legal sanctions.

 ARTICLE 19 is aware that the realisation of this model may raise certain practical challenges and problems. " 'via Blog this'

CYBER UK.gov cooks up code of conduct to enforce a smidge of security on Internet of S**t kit • The Register

UK.gov cooks up code of conduct to enforce a smidge of security on Internet of S**t kit • The Register: "The Register has asked the Department for Culture, Media and Sport whether any future financial penalties will be imposed if manufacturers are not compliant with the code, and if it intends to introduce regulation. We have not received a response.

Pen Test Partners' Ken Munro said the plans will change nothing. " 'via Blog this'

PRIVACY: How GDPR could weaken, not strengthen, the duopoly - Digiday

How GDPR could weaken, not strengthen, the duopoly - Digiday: "Popular opinion has been that the direct relationship Facebook and Google have with consumers will make it easy for them to obtain consent, and as such they will ultimately be at an advantage. But as the deadline for the General Data Protection Regulation‘s enforcement edges closer and the ePrivacy Regulation continues to loom, a different line of thinking is emerging: that Google and Facebook are also in for a thrashing, in the short term at least.

Last week, Facebook’s way of processing personal data was spotlighted for potentially being illegal under the GDPR.

A recent study by Charles III University of Madrid found that 73 percent of Facebook’s European users were targeted by marketers based on personal characteristics, which will be illegal under the GDPR, the Financial Times reported last week.

 In truth, any claims of what’s illegal or not under the GDPR, can only be a matter of guess work until the law kicks in. But the article has spotlighted an argument that hasn’t yet had much air time: that Google and Facebook may indeed suffer, along with everyone else." 'via Blog this'

EU’s new copyright law will effectively create censorship machines

EU’s new copyright law will effectively create censorship machines: "According to Pirate Party MEP Julia Reda, Voss appears to have “learned nothing from the year-long debate,” and describes the move as a “green light for censorship machines.” That phrase “censorship machines” will anger (gaslight?) those in favor of stronger copyright controls, but it’s no exaggeration.

The six countries — Belgium, the Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, and the Netherlands — that sought advice from the Council’s Legal Service last July, asked specifically if  “the standalone measure/obligation as currently proposed under Article 13 [would] be compatible with the Charter of Human Rights” and queried “are the proposed measures justified and proportionate?” Well if you have to ask…

Under Voss’ revised Article 13, websites and apps that allow users to upload content must acquire copyright licenses for EVERYTHING, something that is in practice impossible. If they cannot, those platforms must filter all user-uploaded content." 'via Blog this'

CYBER General monitoring of communications to block “undesirable” content - EDRi

General monitoring of communications to block “undesirable” content - EDRi: "Unfortunately, companies keep trying to sell snake oil tools to governments, such as a tool which, it is claimed, “can detect 94% of Isis propaganda with a 99.99% success rate in tests” – and politicians keep buying such impossible claims.

 Now the European Commission is proposing that precisely those tools are to be used by information society service providers to detect copyright-protected materials and “prevent” them from being made available on their sites.

Article 13 of the proposed Copyright Directive, effectively requires all information society service providers to use such tools (while disingenuously only “suggesting” this as an example of possible tools).

The truth is that for complex, context-dependent assessments, including in relation to copyright, such tools do not work, which means they are fundamentally unsuited for the claimed purpose" 'via Blog this'

CYBER Blockchain – Considering the Regulatory Horizon: Oxford

Blockchain – Considering the Regulatory Horizon | Oxford Law Faculty: "Blockchain is often referred to as a type of distributed ledger technology (DLT) that provided the foundation for bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies when they first emerged. A simple way to conceptualise blockchain, however, is as a permanent ledger which records transactions. However rather than one ledger, there are multiple copies of the ledger in the network called nodes. If a new block of data is to be added to the blockchain, a majority of the nodes within the network, each of which possesses copies of the existing blockchain must verify the proposed transaction.

A key feature of this multiple node structure is that it enables unknown counterparties to trade with each other securely and uses a cryptographic key to authenticate participants. An attractive attribute of blockchain technology is that it solves the 'double spend' problem, enabling counterparties to transact with each other as it removes each party’s need to 'trust' the other. They can trust the authenticity of the ledger. Blockchain companies are also investigating how different types of data can be stored on a blockchain e.g. patient health records, property registers, voting information.

Consequently, the benefits of blockchain technology have been touted as improving services and performance across a range of industries. For example, the Government Chief Scientist, Sir Mark Walport, released a report in January on how blockchain could transform the delivery of public services and boost productivity." 'via Blog this'

Data Retention: I can’t believe it’s not lawful, can you? A response to Anthony Speaight QC | Paul Bernal's Blog

Guest post: Data Retention: I can’t believe it’s not lawful, can you? A response to Anthony Speaight QC | Paul Bernal's Blog: "Speaight starts off by referring to the recent Court of Appeal (CoA) judgment in  Tom Watson and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 70 and how the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has created problems and uncertainties with regards to data retention.

As David Allen Green would say, ‘Well…’ Well, just to be clear, the position of the CJEU on blanket indiscriminate data retention is crystal clear.

It . Is . Unlawful .

It just happens that the CoA took the position of sticking their fingers in their ears and pretending that the CJEU’s ruling doesn’t apply to UK law, because its somehow (it’s not) different." 'via Blog this'

CYBER Copyright reform: The Bulgarian Presidency strikes back - EDRi

Copyright reform: The Bulgarian Presidency strikes back - EDRi: "The Bulgarian Presidency of the Council of the European Union, on the other hand, is more straightforward. It proposes to target online platforms that would have to comply with the new obligations by regrouping them under a new notion of “online content sharing service” (OCSS). These would be defined as companies whose profits rely on the organisation and presentation of user-uploaded content that is copyright protected. These OCSS would then be liable under Article 13.



Alternatively, the Bulgarian Presidency proposes to create new liability rules only for “service providers that communicate to the public”.

In practice, OCSS would benefit from this “targeted limitation of liability” if and only if they do not “take effective measures to prevent the availability on its services of these unauthorised works” or if they do not “act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the specific unauthorised work [and] prevent its future availability”. Upload filtering, in other words" 'via Blog this'

EDiMA's reaction to the EC Recommendation on Tackling Illegal Content Online - EDiMA

EDiMA's reaction to the EC Recommendation on Tackling Illegal Content Online - EDiMA: "EDiMA* is dismayed by the European Commission’s decision not to engage in crucial dialogues and fact-finding discussions with stakeholders before issuing the Recommendation on Tackling Illegal Content Online today, and regrets that it is a missed opportunity for valuable evidence-based policy making.

EDiMA acknowledges the importance of these issues but feels the need to highlight the fact that the industry has been rising to the challenge.

Overall success in tackling terrorism both online and offline is dependent on partnership and collaboration, and our sector has shown leadership in this regard through the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism and wishes to highlight that valuable collaboration is underway via the Hash Sharing Database.

Our sector accepts the urgency but needs to balance the responsibility to protect users while upholding fundamental rights – a one-hour turn-around time in such cases could harm the effectiveness of service providers’ take-down systems rather than help." 'via Blog this'