Skip to main content

Home/ QN2019/ Group items tagged protection

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Aurialie Jublin

Souhaite-t-on créer une société à trois vitesses, constituée de salariés, d'i... - 0 views

cnnumerique.fr/ibune_travailleurs_plateformes

plateforme responsabilité indépendant dialogue social

shared by Aurialie Jublin on 29 Apr 19 - No Cached
  • Plutôt que de créer un cadre juridique plus clair et plus juste pour ces travailleurs – qui ont, pour la plupart, le statut de micro-entrepreneurs –, cette idée avance sans le dire vers la reconnaissance du statut d’indépendant. Statut qui, rappelons-le, profite en premier lieu aux plateformes, en ce qu’il les libère des charges et obligations (cotisations sociales et autres) liées au travail salarié.
  • En effet, le principe de l’adoption d’une charte inscrit la relation qui lie les travailleurs à leur(s) plate(s)-forme(s) en droit commercial, et non en droit du travail. Cela aurait pour effet de laisser les plateformes décider seules des conditions de travail et de rémunération, ainsi que de la protection sociale de ces travailleurs.
  • Les chartes prévues, unilatérales, ne contiennent pas de socle minimum de protection. Souhaite-t-on, aujourd’hui en France, déléguer à des entreprises britanniques (Deliveroo) ou américaines (Uber) le soin de déterminer de quelle protection sociale doivent bénéficier des travailleurs français ? Souhaite-t-on créer une société à trois vitesses, constituée de salariés, d’indépendants et de travailleurs au statut hybride, dont les conditions sont ensuite décidées par les juges au cas par cas, aboutissant de facto à la création d’un nouveau précariat ?
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • De ces consultations, nécessaires à l’élaboration de politiques publiques adaptées aux enjeux du XXIe siècle, il ressort jusqu'à présent que : Le statut des travailleurs des plateformes n’étant pas clarifié, il fait peser sur ces derniers les inconvénients du modèle salarié et du modèle indépendant, d’un côté l’absence de protection sociale et de l’autre l’absence de pouvoir de négociation sur le prix des prestations. La question de la protection sociale de ces travailleurs, de leur couverture en cas d’accidents du travail ou de maladies, doit impérativement être éclaircie, et ce par les pouvoirs publics. De nombreux acteurs préfèrent l’instauration, plutôt que des chartes, d’un véritable dialogue social et l’amélioration de la transparence des plateformes sur les conditions de travail de ces travailleurs.
  • Le Conseil national du numérique rappelle également que les jurisprudences française, espagnole et britannique sont en faveur d’une requalification des travailleurs en salariés et donc d’une protection accrue de ces derniers. Loin d’être à la pointe de l’Europe, et à rebours des décisions de justice, la LOM ferait prendre un retard certain à la France et constitue une fausse réponse à un vrai problème.
  • Pire, elle dissimule les autres pistes susceptibles d’améliorer la situation des travailleurs des plateformes, par exemple une amélioration substantielle du statut d’indépendant. Nous souhaitons que les travailleurs des plateformes soient garantis de la même protection des droits que les autres catégories sociales dans notre pays afin que les plateformes ne puissent s’affranchir des règles de protection sociale existantes.
  • Aurialie Jublin on 29 Apr 19
     
    "Le Conseil national du numérique (CNNum) s'oppose à la mise en place des chartes unilatérales de responsabilité sociale des plateformes prévues par la loi d'orientation des mobilités (LOM) et appelle plutôt à l'instauration d'un véritable dialogue social sur les nouvelles formes de travail issues de l'économie numérique."
Aurialie Jublin

Livre blanc PrivacyTech (pdf) - Une nouvelle gouvernance pour les données du ... - 0 views

www.privacytech.fr/livre-blanc-privacytech.pdf

pdf données personnelles gouvernance rgpd standard

shared by Aurialie Jublin on 17 Apr 19 - No Cached
  • Aurialie Jublin on 17 Apr 19
     
    Une économie digitale performante et éthique nécessite une libre circulation des données personnelles sous le contrôle des individus. Le RGPD (Règlement Général sur la Protection des Données), lancé le 25 mai 2018, est un pas en avant majeur vers une nouvelle économie centrée sur l'individu grâce : au nouveau droit à la portabilité (Article 20) qui encourage la circulation des données, à une série de mesures et principes visant à augmenter la protection des individus comme le consentement spécifique et informé et le privacy by design. Le RGPD s'inscrit dans la stratégie de Marché Unique du Digital (Digital Single Market) de l'Union Européenne et a pour but de créer les conditions pour une économie sans barrières qui bénéficierait autant aux individus et aux entreprises qu'à la société dans son ensemble. Presque un an après le lancement du RGPD, nous observons un paysage prometteur d'organisations qui commencent à s'adapter au nouveau règlement, autant en Europe que dans le reste du monde. Mais il reste encore beaucoup à faire, particulièrement en ce qui concerne la mise en œuvre du contrôle des données par l'individu et de la portabilité. La tâche est éminemment complexe et requiert une coordination internationale, multisectorielle et multi-expertises. Pour réussir nous avons définitivement besoin d'une nouvelle approche ambitieuse qui pourrait partir de l'Europe pour s'étendre à l'international. Dans un tel contexte, nous proposons d'engager un échange constructif entre tous les acteurs de la donnée personnelle (entreprises, administrations, académies, associations) qui voudraient joindre leurs efforts au sein d'une nouvelle forme d'organisation dont le but serait de construire, harmoniser et proposer des standards technologiques, terminologies et bonnes pratiques pour la circulation et la protection des données personnelles, ainsi qu'une gouvernance adaptée. Les grandes pro
Aurialie Jublin

Bastien Sibille : une alternative à l'ubérisation des services est possible - 0 views

www.socialter.fr/...tion_des_services_est_possible

uberisation plateforme coopérative droit indépendant

shared by Aurialie Jublin on 22 Aug 19 - No Cached
  • Ici, le statut d’entrepreneur salarié associé (ESA) réunis dans des coopératives d’emploi et d’activité (CAE) est une vraie solution. Mobicoop réfléchit activement au déploiement d’une CAE dédiée aux métiers de la mobilité. Celle-ci permettrait par exemple aux travailleurs des plateformes de mobilité (Uber, Deliveroo etc.) de garder le statut d’indépendant auquel ils sont attachés tout en bénéficiant de mécanismes de protection sociale et de représentation collective.
  • Les collectivités territoriales, en entrant dans leur gouvernance, peuvent les lier durablement aux territoires. Le problème n’est donc pas tant technique ou juridique que celui de la volonté des acteurs politiques et économiques à s’asseoir à une table commune pour construire les mécanismes collaboratifs d’un XXIème siècle... non ubérisé ! 
  • Il faut ensuite que les utilisateurs et les travailleurs des plateformes puissent être associés aux grandes décisions des plateformes auxquelles ils sont liés, de façon à avoir leur mot à dire sur les évolutions de celles-ci, qu’elles soient technique ou économique. Cela peut se faire si la plateforme adopte des statuts coopératifs qui permettent aux utilisateurs et aux travailleurs de devenir membres coopérateurs.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • Il faut d’abord introduire une forme de justice économique entre les plateformes et leurs utilisateurs. La richesse créée sur les plateformes est, pour l’essentiel, produite par les utilisateurs finaux : ce sont les chauffeurs, les conducteurs, les livreurs qui rendent le service. Il serait normal que les bénéfices réalisés par les plateformes leurs reviennent au moins en partie. Cela peut se faire en associant systématiquement les utilisateurs au capital (que ce soit des sociétés de capitaux ou des coopératives) des plateformes de façon à se voir distribuer des dividendes quand les plateformes font des bénéfices.
  • Il est également urgent de donner un statut et une protection aux travailleurs des plateformes. La situation des conducteurs d’Uber ou des livreurs de Deliveroo est la parfaite illustration des risques qui pèsent sur les travailleurs de plateformes. Leur relation avec la plateforme est un contrat de droit privé et non un contrat de travail : ils ne sont pas salariés mais prestataires. Dès lors, ils ne bénéficient pas des protections liées au droit du travail ; ils ne bénéficient que de façon très incomplète de la protection sociale ; ils ne bénéficient pas instances de représentation collective.
  • Aurialie Jublin on 22 Aug 19
     
    "Bastien Sibille, président de la plateforme de covoiturage Mobicoop, alerte sur l'exploitation des utilisateurs de la plupart des plateformes comme Uber ou Deliveroo, et leur propose un modèle de fonctionnement plus soucieux de la justice, de la démocratie et de la protection des travailleurs. Tribune."
Aurialie Jublin

Dialogue sociale et protection sociale dans l'économie des plateformes : enje... - 0 views

www.ires.fr/...tion-sociale-novembre-2017.pdf

pdf dialogue social protection sécurité plateforme

shared by Aurialie Jublin on 24 Aug 18 - No Cached
  • Aurialie Jublin on 24 Aug 18
     
    Réflexion sur la protection sociale et les plateformes collaboratives
Aurialie Jublin

An Apology for the Internet - From the People Who Built It - 1 views

nymag.com/...m-the-people-who-built-it.html

shared by Aurialie Jublin on 27 Aug 18 - No Cached
  • There have always been outsiders who criticized the tech industry — even if their concerns have been drowned out by the oohs and aahs of consumers, investors, and journalists. But today, the most dire warnings are coming from the heart of Silicon Valley itself. The man who oversaw the creation of the original iPhone believes the device he helped build is too addictive. The inventor of the World Wide Web fears his creation is being “weaponized.” Even Sean Parker, Facebook’s first president, has blasted social media as a dangerous form of psychological manipulation. “God only knows what it’s doing to our children’s brains,” he lamented recently.
  • To keep the internet free — while becoming richer, faster, than anyone in history — the technological elite needed something to attract billions of users to the ads they were selling. And that something, it turns out, was outrage. As Jaron Lanier, a pioneer in virtual reality, points out, anger is the emotion most effective at driving “engagement” — which also makes it, in a market for attention, the most profitable one. By creating a self-perpetuating loop of shock and recrimination, social media further polarized what had already seemed, during the Obama years, an impossibly and irredeemably polarized country.
  • The Architects (In order of appearance.) Jaron Lanier, virtual-reality pioneer. Founded first company to sell VR goggles; worked at Atari and Microsoft. Antonio García Martínez, ad-tech entrepreneur. Helped create Facebook’s ad machine. Ellen Pao, former CEO of Reddit. Filed major gender-discrimination lawsuit against VC firm Kleiner Perkins. Can Duruk, programmer and tech writer. Served as project lead at Uber. Kate Losse, Facebook employee No. 51. Served as Mark Zuckerberg’s speechwriter. Tristan Harris, product designer. Wrote internal Google presentation about addictive and unethical design. Rich “Lowtax” Kyanka, entrepreneur who founded influential message board Something Awful. Ethan Zuckerman, MIT media scholar. Invented the pop-up ad. Dan McComas, former product chief at Reddit. Founded community-based platform Imzy. Sandy Parakilas, product manager at Uber. Ran privacy compliance for Facebook apps. Guillaume Chaslot, AI researcher. Helped develop YouTube’s algorithmic recommendation system. Roger McNamee, VC investor. Introduced Mark Zuckerberg to Sheryl Sandberg. Richard Stallman, MIT programmer. Created legendary software GNU and Emacs.
  • ...45 more annotations...
  • How It Went Wrong, in 15 Steps Step 1 Start With Hippie Good Intentions …
  • I think two things are at the root of the present crisis. One was the idealistic view of the internet — the idea that this is the great place to share information and connect with like-minded people. The second part was the people who started these companies were very homogeneous. You had one set of experiences, one set of views, that drove all of the platforms on the internet. So the combination of this belief that the internet was a bright, positive place and the very similar people who all shared that view ended up creating platforms that were designed and oriented around free speech.
  • Step 2 … Then mix in capitalism on steroids. To transform the world, you first need to take it over. The planetary scale and power envisioned by Silicon Valley’s early hippies turned out to be as well suited for making money as they were for saving the world.
  • Step 3 The arrival of Wall Streeters didn’t help … Just as Facebook became the first overnight social-media success, the stock market crashed, sending money-minded investors westward toward the tech industry. Before long, a handful of companies had created a virtual monopoly on digital life.
  • Ethan Zuckerman: Over the last decade, the social-media platforms have been working to make the web almost irrelevant. Facebook would, in many ways, prefer that we didn’t have the internet. They’d prefer that we had Facebook.
  • Step 4 … And we paid a high price for keeping it free. To avoid charging for the internet — while becoming fabulously rich at the same time — Silicon Valley turned to digital advertising. But to sell ads that target individual users, you need to grow a big audience — and use advancing technology to gather reams of personal data that will enable you to reach them efficiently.
  • Harris: If you’re YouTube, you want people to register as many accounts as possible, uploading as many videos as possible, driving as many views to those videos as possible, so you can generate lots of activity that you can sell to advertisers. So whether or not the users are real human beings or Russian bots, whether or not the videos are real or conspiracy theories or disturbing content aimed at kids, you don’t really care. You’re just trying to drive engagement to the stuff and maximize all that activity. So everything stems from this engagement-based business model that incentivizes the most mindless things that harm the fabric of society.
  • Step 5 Everything was designed to be really, really addictive. The social-media giants became “attention merchants,” bent on hooking users no mater the consequences. “Engagement” was the euphemism for the metric, but in practice it evolved into an unprecedented machine for behavior modification.
  • Harris: That blue Facebook icon on your home screen is really good at creating unconscious habits that people have a hard time extinguishing. People don’t see the way that their minds are being manipulated by addiction. Facebook has become the largest civilization-scale mind-control machine that the world has ever seen.
  • Step 6 At first, it worked — almost too well. None of the companies hid their plans or lied about how their money was made. But as users became deeply enmeshed in the increasingly addictive web of surveillance, the leading digital platforms became wildly popular.
  • Pao: There’s this idea that, “Yes, they can use this information to manipulate other people, but I’m not gonna fall for that, so I’m protected from being manipulated.” Slowly, over time, you become addicted to the interactions, so it’s hard to opt out. And they just keep taking more and more of your time and pushing more and more fake news. It becomes easy just to go about your life and assume that things are being taken care of.
  • McNamee: If you go back to the early days of propaganda theory, Edward Bernays had a hypothesis that to implant an idea and make it universally acceptable, you needed to have the same message appearing in every medium all the time for a really long period of time. The notion was it could only be done by a government. Then Facebook came along, and it had this ability to personalize for every single user. Instead of being a broadcast model, it was now 2.2 billion individualized channels. It was the most effective product ever created to revolve around human emotions.
  • Step 7 No one from Silicon Valley was held accountable … No one in the government — or, for that matter, in the tech industry’s user base — seemed interested in bringing such a wealthy, dynamic sector to heel.
  • Step 8 … Even as social networks became dangerous and toxic. With companies scaling at unprecedented rates, user security took a backseat to growth and engagement. Resources went to selling ads, not protecting users from abuse.
  • Lanier: Every time there’s some movement like Black Lives Matter or #MeToo, you have this initial period where people feel like they’re on this magic-carpet ride. Social media is letting them reach people and organize faster than ever before. They’re thinking, Wow, Facebook and Twitter are these wonderful tools of democracy. But it turns out that the same data that creates a positive, constructive process like the Arab Spring can be used to irritate other groups. So every time you have a Black Lives Matter, social media responds by empowering neo-Nazis and racists in a way that hasn’t been seen in generations. The original good intention winds up empowering its opposite.
  • Chaslot: As an engineer at Google, I would see something weird and propose a solution to management. But just noticing the problem was hurting the business model. So they would say, “Okay, but is it really a problem?” They trust the structure. For instance, I saw this conspiracy theory that was spreading. It’s really large — I think the algorithm may have gone crazy. But I was told, “Don’t worry — we have the best people working on it. It should be fine.” Then they conclude that people are just stupid. They don’t want to believe that the problem might be due to the algorithm.
  • Parakilas: One time a developer who had access to Facebook’s data was accused of creating profiles of people without their consent, including children. But when we heard about it, we had no way of proving whether it had actually happened, because we had no visibility into the data once it left Facebook’s servers. So Facebook had policies against things like this, but it gave us no ability to see what developers were actually doing.
  • McComas: Ultimately the problem Reddit has is the same as Twitter: By focusing on growth and growth only, and ignoring the problems, they amassed a large set of cultural norms on their platforms that stem from harassment or abuse or bad behavior. They have worked themselves into a position where they’re completely defensive and they can just never catch up on the problem. I don’t see any way it’s going to improve. The best they can do is figure out how to hide the bad behavior from the average user.
  • Step 9 … And even as they invaded our privacy. The more features Facebook and other platforms added, the more data users willingly, if unwittingly, released to them and the data brokers who power digital advertising.
  • Richard Stallman: What is data privacy? That means that if a company collects data about you, it should somehow protect that data. But I don’t think that’s the issue. The problem is that these companies are collecting data about you, period. We shouldn’t let them do that. The data that is collected will be abused. That’s not an absolute certainty, but it’s a practical extreme likelihood, which is enough to make collection a problem.
  • Losse: I’m not surprised at what’s going on now with Cambridge Analytica and the scandal over the election. For long time, the accepted idea at Facebook was: Giving developers as much data as possible to make these products is good. But to think that, you also have to not think about the data implications for users. That’s just not your priority.
  • Step 10 Then came 2016. The election of Donald Trump and the triumph of Brexit, two campaigns powered in large part by social media, demonstrated to tech insiders that connecting the world — at least via an advertising-surveillance scheme — doesn’t necessarily lead to that hippie utopia.
  • Chaslot: I realized personally that things were going wrong in 2011, when I was working at Google. I was working on this YouTube recommendation algorithm, and I realized that the algorithm was always giving you the same type of content. For instance, if I give you a video of a cat and you watch it, the algorithm thinks, Oh, he must really like cats. That creates these feeder bubbles where people just see one type of information. But when I notified my managers at Google and proposed a solution that would give a user more control so he could get out of the feeder bubble, they realized that this type of algorithm would not be very beneficial for watch time. They didn’t want to push that, because the entire business model is based on watch time.
  • Step 11 Employees are starting to revolt. Tech-industry executives aren’t likely to bite the hand that feeds them. But maybe their employees — the ones who signed up for the mission as much as the money — can rise up and make a change.
  • Harris: There’s a massive demoralizing wave that is hitting Silicon Valley. It’s getting very hard for companies to attract and retain the best engineers and talent when they realize that the automated system they’ve built is causing havoc everywhere around the world. So if Facebook loses a big chunk of its workforce because people don’t want to be part of that perverse system anymore, that is a very powerful and very immediate lever to force them to change.
  • Duruk: I was at Uber when all the madness was happening there, and it did affect recruiting and hiring. I don’t think these companies are going to go down because they can’t attract the right talent. But there’s going to be a measurable impact. It has become less of a moral positive now — you go to Facebook to write some code and then you go home. They’re becoming just another company.
  • Step 12 To fix it, we’ll need a new business model … If the problem is in the way the Valley makes money, it’s going to have to make money a different way. Maybe by trying something radical and new — like charging users for goods and services.
  • Parakilas: They’re going to have to change their business model quite dramatically. They say they want to make time well spent the focus of their product, but they have no incentive to do that, nor have they created a metric by which they would measure that. But if Facebook charged a subscription instead of relying on advertising, then people would use it less and Facebook would still make money. It would be equally profitable and more beneficial to society. In fact, if you charged users a few dollars a month, you would equal the revenue Facebook gets from advertising. It’s not inconceivable that a large percentage of their user base would be willing to pay a few dollars a month.
  • Step 13 … And some tough regulation. Mark Zuckerberg testifying before Congress on April 10. Photo: Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images While we’re at it, where has the government been in all this? 
  • Stallman: We need a law. Fuck them — there’s no reason we should let them exist if the price is knowing everything about us. Let them disappear. They’re not important — our human rights are important. No company is so important that its existence justifies setting up a police state. And a police state is what we’re heading toward.
  • Duruk: The biggest existential problem for them would be regulation. Because it’s clear that nothing else will stop these companies from using their size and their technology to just keep growing. Without regulation, we’ll basically just be complaining constantly, and not much will change.
  • McNamee: Three things. First, there needs to be a law against bots and trolls impersonating other people. I’m not saying no bots. I’m just saying bots have to be really clearly marked. Second, there have to be strict age limits to protect children. And third, there has to be genuine liability for platforms when their algorithms fail. If Google can’t block the obviously phony story that the kids in Parkland were actors, they need to be held accountable.
  • Stallman: We need a law that requires every system to be designed in a way that achieves its basic goal with the least possible collection of data. Let’s say you want to ride in a car and pay for the ride. That doesn’t fundamentally require knowing who you are. So services which do that must be required by law to give you the option of paying cash, or using some other anonymous-payment system, without being identified. They should also have ways you can call for a ride without identifying yourself, without having to use a cell phone. Companies that won’t go along with this — well, they’re welcome to go out of business. Good riddance.
  • Step 14 Maybe nothing will change. The scariest possibility is that nothing can be done — that the behemoths of the new internet are too rich, too powerful, and too addictive for anyone to fix.
  • García: Look, I mean, advertising sucks, sure. But as the ad tech guys say, “We’re the people who pay for the internet.” It’s hard to imagine a different business model other than advertising for any consumer internet app that depends on network effects.
  • Step 15 … Unless, at the very least, some new people are in charge. If Silicon Valley’s problems are a result of bad decision-making, it might be time to look for better decision-makers. One place to start would be outside the homogeneous group currently in power.
  • Pao: I’ve urged Facebook to bring in people who are not part of a homogeneous majority to their executive team, to every product team, to every strategy discussion. The people who are there now clearly don’t understand the impact of their platforms and the nature of the problem. You need people who are living the problem to clarify the extent of it and help solve it.
  • Things That Ruined the Internet
  • Cookies (1994) The original surveillance tool of the internet. Developed by programmer Lou Montulli to eliminate the need for repeated log-ins, cookies also enabled third parties like Google to track users across the web. The risk of abuse was low, Montulli thought, because only a “large, publicly visible company” would have the capacity to make use of such data. The result: digital ads that follow you wherever you go online.
  • The Farmville vulnerability (2007)   When Facebook opened up its social network to third-party developers, enabling them to build apps that users could share with their friends, it inadvertently opened the door a bit too wide. By tapping into user accounts, developers could download a wealth of personal data — which is exactly what a political-consulting firm called Cambridge Analytica did to 87 million Americans.
  • Algorithmic sorting (2006) It’s how the internet serves up what it thinks you want — automated calculations based on dozens of hidden metrics. Facebook’s News Feed uses it every time you hit refresh, and so does YouTube. It’s highly addictive — and it keeps users walled off in their own personalized loops. “When social media is designed primarily for engagement,” tweets Guillaume Chaslot, the engineer who designed YouTube’s algorithm, “it is not surprising that it hurts democracy and free speech.”
  • The “like” button (2009) Initially known as the “awesome” button, the icon was designed to unleash a wave of positivity online. But its addictive properties became so troubling that one of its creators, Leah Pearlman, has since renounced it. “Do you know that episode of Black Mirror where everyone is obsessed with likes?” she told Vice last year. “I suddenly felt terrified of becoming those people — as well as thinking I’d created that environment for everyone else.”
  • Pull-to-refresh (2009) Developed by software developer Loren Brichter for an iPhone app, the simple gesture — scrolling downward at the top of a feed to fetch more data — has become an endless, involuntary tic. “Pull-to-refresh is addictive,” Brichter told The Guardian last year. “I regret the downsides.”
  • Pop-up ads (1996) While working at an early blogging platform, Ethan Zuckerman came up with the now-ubiquitous tool for separating ads from content that advertisers might find objectionable. “I really did not mean to break the internet,” he told the podcast Reply All. “I really did not mean to bring this horrible thing into people’s lives. I really am extremely sorry about this.”
  • The Silicon Valley dream was born of the counterculture. A generation of computer programmers and designers flocked to the Bay Area’s tech scene in the 1970s and ’80s, embracing new technology as a tool to transform the world for good.
  • Cécile Christodoulou on 27 Aug 18
     
    Internet en 15 étapes, de sa construction à aujourd'hui, regards et regrets de ceux qui l'ont construit... [...] "Things That Ruined the Internet" les cookies 1994 / la faille Farmville 2007 / le tri algorithmique 2006 / le "like" 2009 / le "pull to refresh" 2009 / les "pop-up ads" 1996 [...]
Aurialie Jublin

It's Time to Break Up Facebook - The New York Times - 0 views

www.nytimes.com/...ughes-facebook-zuckerberg.html

facebook fake news attention

shared by Aurialie Jublin on 09 May 19 - No Cached
  • Mark’s influence is staggering, far beyond that of anyone else in the private sector or in government. He controls three core communications platforms — Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp — that billions of people use every day. Facebook’s board works more like an advisory committee than an overseer, because Mark controls around 60 percent of voting shares. Mark alone can decide how to configure Facebook’s algorithms to determine what people see in their News Feeds, what privacy settings they can use and even which messages get delivered. He sets the rules for how to distinguish violent and incendiary speech from the merely offensive, and he can choose to shut down a competitor by acquiring, blocking or copying it.
  • Mark is a good, kind person. But I’m angry that his focus on growth led him to sacrifice security and civility for clicks. I’m disappointed in myself and the early Facebook team for not thinking more about how the News Feed algorithm could change our culture, influence elections and empower nationalist leaders. And I’m worried that Mark has surrounded himself with a team that reinforces his beliefs instead of challenging them.
  • We are a nation with a tradition of reining in monopolies, no matter how well intentioned the leaders of these companies may be. Mark’s power is unprecedented and un-American.It is time to break up Facebook.
  • ...26 more annotations...
  • We already have the tools we need to check the domination of Facebook. We just seem to have forgotten about them.America was built on the idea that power should not be concentrated in any one person, because we are all fallible. That’s why the founders created a system of checks and balances. They didn’t need to foresee the rise of Facebook to understand the threat that gargantuan companies would pose to democracy. Jefferson and Madison were voracious readers of Adam Smith, who believed that monopolies prevent the competition that spurs innovation and leads to economic growth.
  • The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 outlawed monopolies. More legislation followed in the 20th century, creating legal and regulatory structures to promote competition and hold the biggest companies accountable. The Department of Justice broke up monopolies like Standard Oil and AT&T.
  • For many people today, it’s hard to imagine government doing much of anything right, let alone breaking up a company like Facebook. This isn’t by coincidence. Starting in the 1970s, a small but dedicated group of economists, lawyers and policymakers sowed the seeds of our cynicism. Over the next 40 years, they financed a network of think tanks, journals, social clubs, academic centers and media outlets to teach an emerging generation that private interests should take precedence over public ones. Their gospel was simple: “Free” markets are dynamic and productive, while government is bureaucratic and ineffective. By the mid-1980s, they had largely managed to relegate energetic antitrust enforcement to the history books.
  • It was this drive to compete that led Mark to acquire, over the years, dozens of other companies, including Instagram and WhatsApp in 2012 and 2014. There was nothing unethical or suspicious, in my view, in these moves.
  • Over a decade later, Facebook has earned the prize of domination. It is worth half a trillion dollars and commands, by my estimate, more than 80 percent of the world’s social networking revenue. It is a powerful monopoly, eclipsing all of its rivals and erasing competition from the social networking category. This explains why, even during the annus horribilis of 2018, Facebook’s earnings per share increased by an astounding 40 percent compared with the year before. (I liquidated my Facebook shares in 2012, and I don’t invest directly in any social media companies.)
  • Facebook’s dominance is not an accident of history. The company’s strategy was to beat every competitor in plain view, and regulators and the government tacitly — and at times explicitly — approved. In one of the government’s few attempts to rein in the company, the F.T.C. in 2011 issued a consent decree that Facebook not share any private information beyond what users already agreed to. Facebook largely ignored the decree. Last month, the day after the company predicted in an earnings call that it would need to pay up to $5 billion as a penalty for its negligence — a slap on the wrist — Facebook’s shares surged 7 percent, adding $30 billion to its value, six times the size of the fine.
  • As markets become more concentrated, the number of new start-up businesses declines. This holds true in other high-tech areas dominated by single companies, like search (controlled by Google) and e-commerce (taken over by Amazon). Meanwhile, there has been plenty of innovation in areas where there is no monopolistic domination, such as in workplace productivity (Slack, Trello, Asana), urban transportation (Lyft, Uber, Lime, Bird) and cryptocurrency exchanges (Ripple, Coinbase, Circle).
  • Facebook’s business model is built on capturing as much of our attention as possible to encourage people to create and share more information about who they are and who they want to be. We pay for Facebook with our data and our attention, and by either measure it doesn’t come cheap.
  • The most problematic aspect of Facebook’s power is Mark’s unilateral control over speech. There is no precedent for his ability to monitor, organize and even censor the conversations of two billion people.Facebook engineers write algorithms that select which users’ comments or experiences end up displayed in the News Feeds of friends and family. These rules are proprietary and so complex that many Facebook employees themselves don’t understand them.
  • Facebook has responded to many of the criticisms of how it manages speech by hiring thousands of contractors to enforce the rules that Mark and senior executives develop. After a few weeks of training, these contractors decide which videos count as hate speech or free speech, which images are erotic and which are simply artistic, and which live streams are too violent to be broadcast. (The Verge reported that some of these moderators, working through a vendor in Arizona, were paid $28,800 a year, got limited breaks and faced significant mental health risks.)
  • As if Facebook’s opaque algorithms weren’t enough, last year we learned that Facebook executives had permanently deleted their own messages from the platform, erasing them from the inboxes of recipients; the justification was corporate security concerns. When I look at my years of Facebook messages with Mark now, it’s just a long stream of my own light-blue comments, clearly written in response to words he had once sent me. (Facebook now offers this as a feature to all users.)
  • Mark used to insist that Facebook was just a “social utility,” a neutral platform for people to communicate what they wished. Now he recognizes that Facebook is both a platform and a publisher and that it is inevitably making decisions about values. The company’s own lawyers have argued in court that Facebook is a publisher and thus entitled to First Amendment protection.
  • Mark knows that this is too much power and is pursuing a twofold strategy to mitigate it. He is pivoting Facebook’s focus toward encouraging more private, encrypted messaging that Facebook’s employees can’t see, let alone control. Second, he is hoping for friendly oversight from regulators and other industry executives.
  • In an op-ed essay in The Washington Post in March, he wrote, “Lawmakers often tell me we have too much power over speech, and I agree.” And he went even further than before, calling for more government regulation — not just on speech, but also on privacy and interoperability, the ability of consumers to seamlessly leave one network and transfer their profiles, friend connections, photos and other data to another.
  • Facebook isn’t afraid of a few more rules. It’s afraid of an antitrust case and of the kind of accountability that real government oversight would bring.
  • Mark may never have a boss, but he needs to have some check on his power. The American government needs to do two things: break up Facebook’s monopoly and regulate the company to make it more accountable to the American people.First, Facebook should be separated into multiple companies. The F.T.C., in conjunction with the Justice Department, should enforce antitrust laws by undoing the Instagram and WhatsApp acquisitions and banning future acquisitions for several years. The F.T.C. should have blocked these mergers, but it’s not too late to act. There is precedent for correcting bad decisions — as recently as 2009, Whole Foods settled antitrust complaints by selling off the Wild Oats brand and stores that it had bought a few years earlier.
  • Still others worry that the breakup of Facebook or other American tech companies could be a national security problem. Because advancements in artificial intelligence require immense amounts of data and computing power, only large companies like Facebook, Google and Amazon can afford these investments, they say. If American companies become smaller, the Chinese will outpace us.While serious, these concerns do not justify inaction. Even after a breakup, Facebook would be a hugely profitable business with billions to invest in new technologies — and a more competitive market would only encourage those investments. If the Chinese did pull ahead, our government could invest in research and development and pursue tactical trade policy, just as it is doing today to hold China’s 5G technology at bay.
  • The cost of breaking up Facebook would be next to zero for the government, and lots of people stand to gain economically. A ban on short-term acquisitions would ensure that competitors, and the investors who take a bet on them, would have the space to flourish. Digital advertisers would suddenly have multiple companies vying for their dollars.
  • But the biggest winners would be the American people. Imagine a competitive market in which they could choose among one network that offered higher privacy standards, another that cost a fee to join but had little advertising and another that would allow users to customize and tweak their feeds as they saw fit. No one knows exactly what Facebook’s competitors would offer to differentiate themselves. That’s exactly the point.
  • Just breaking up Facebook is not enough. We need a new agency, empowered by Congress to regulate tech companies. Its first mandate should be to protect privacy.The Europeans have made headway on privacy with the General Data Protection Regulation, a law that guarantees users a minimal level of protection. A landmark privacy bill in the United States should specify exactly what control Americans have over their digital information, require clearer disclosure to users and provide enough flexibility to the agency to exercise effective oversight over time. The agency should also be charged with guaranteeing basic interoperability across platforms.
  • Finally, the agency should create guidelines for acceptable speech on social media. This idea may seem un-American — we would never stand for a government agency censoring speech. But we already have limits on yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, child pornography, speech intended to provoke violence and false statements to manipulate stock prices. We will have to create similar standards that tech companies can use. These standards should of course be subject to the review of the courts, just as any other limits on speech are. But there is no constitutional right to harass others or live-stream violence.
  • These are difficult challenges. I worry that government regulators will not be able to keep up with the pace of digital innovation. I worry that more competition in social networking might lead to a conservative Facebook and a liberal one, or that newer social networks might be less secure if government regulation is weak. But sticking with the status quo would be worse: If we don’t have public servants shaping these policies, corporations will.
  • Similarly, the Justice Department’s 1970s suit accusing IBM of illegally maintaining its monopoly on personal computer sales ended in a stalemate. But along the way, IBM changed many of its behaviors. It stopped bundling its hardware and software, chose an extremely open design for the operating system in its personal computers and did not exercise undue control over its suppliers. Professor Wu has written that this “policeman at the elbow” led IBM to steer clear “of anything close to anticompetitive conduct, for fear of adding to the case against it.”
  • Finally, an aggressive case against Facebook would persuade other behemoths like Google and Amazon to think twice about stifling competition in their own sectors, out of fear that they could be next. If the government were to use this moment to resurrect an effective competition standard that takes a broader view of the full cost of “free” products, it could affect a whole host of industries.
  • I take responsibility for not sounding the alarm earlier. Don Graham, a former Facebook board member, has accused those who criticize the company now as having “all the courage of the last man leaping on the pile at a football game.” The financial rewards I reaped from working at Facebook radically changed the trajectory of my life, and even after I cashed out, I watched in awe as the company grew. It took the 2016 election fallout and Cambridge Analytica to awaken me to the dangers of Facebook’s monopoly. But anyone suggesting that Facebook is akin to a pinned football player misrepresents its resilience and power.
  • This movement of public servants, scholars and activists deserves our support. Mark Zuckerberg cannot fix Facebook, but our government can.
  • Aurialie Jublin on 09 May 19
     
    "Since then, Mark's personal reputation and the reputation of Facebook have taken a nose-dive. The company's mistakes - the sloppy privacy practices that dropped tens of millions of users' data into a political consulting firm's lap; the slow response to Russian agents, violent rhetoric and fake news; and the unbounded drive to capture ever more of our time and attention - dominate the headlines. It's been 15 years since I co-founded Facebook at Harvard, and I haven't worked at the company in a decade. But I feel a sense of anger and responsibility."
Aurialie Jublin

'C'est de la surveillance': Tim Cook vient de démolir Facebook devant les gen... - 0 views

www.businessinsider.fr/les-conference-vie-privee-2018

surveillance données personnelles gafa

shared by Aurialie Jublin on 24 Oct 18 - No Cached
  • "Il ne faut pas édulcorer les conséquences: c'est de la surveillance." Fort de cette attaque en règle, Tim Cook a salué les efforts politiques menés en Europe avec la mise en application du RGPD (Règlement général sur la protection des données) cette année et les questions posées par le régulateur aux géants de la tech. 
  • Il a aussi affirmé que "chez Apple, nous soutenons pleinement une loi fédérale exhaustive sur la vie privée aux Etats-Unis" et dit considérer le droit à la vie privée comme un "droit humain fondamental". Tim Cook a défendu quatre principes sur lesquels il repose: 1) le droit de minimiser les données personnelles — limitant le droit des entreprises à collecter ces données; 2) le droit à la transparence — pour qu'un internaute sache ce qui est collecté sur lui et à quelles fins; 3) un droit d'accès — pour que les utilisateurs puissent accéder, modifier ou supprimer leurs données; 4) le droit à la sécurité, fondement de la confiance. 
  • En revanche, il ne s'est pas exprimé à Bruxelles sur la question de la fiscalité des acteurs du numérique, alors que le ministre français de l'économie Bruno Le Maire s'efforce de rallier ses pairs européens à un consensus sur l'épineuse question et que la Commissaire européenne à la concurrence Margrethe Vestager a sanctionné Apple pour ses acrobaties fiscales avec l'Irlande en 2016. 
  • Aurialie Jublin on 24 Oct 18
     
    "Convié à s'exprimer lors de la Conférence internationale des commissaires à la protection des données et de la vie privée à Bruxelles, ce mercredi 24 octobre 2018, Tim Cook a fait l'apologie d'Apple en dénonçant avec vigueur les travers dont se rend coupable un autre géant de la tech de la Silicon Valley selon lui - Facebook, sans jamais le nommer. "
Aurialie Jublin

À ceux qui ne voient aucun problème à travailler avec Facebook ou Google - No... - 0 views

nothing2hide.org/...i-avec-facebook-ni-avec-google

facebook google gafa données personnelles

shared by Aurialie Jublin on 21 Mar 19 - No Cached
  • La Free Software Foundation (FSF) est la principale organisation de défense du logiciel libre. La Software Freedom Conservancy « est une organisation à but non lucratif qui promeut, améliore, développe et défend les projets libres et open source (FLOSS) ». Ce mois-ci, la Software Freedom Conservancy organise la première conférence internationale Copyleft sponsorisée par Google, Microsoft et la FSF. En fait, Google est une telle force pour le bien dans le monde qu’elle est autorisée à sponsoriser une conférence Copyleft alors même que ces licences sont bannies au sein de la compagnie. Si même la FSF n’a aucun problème avec le fait d’avoir son logo juste à côté de celui de Google et Microsoft, qui suis-je pour critiquer ces sociétés ?
  • Mozilla n’a aucun problème avec Google, elle s’associe souvent avec eux et utilise même Google Analytics. Si une fondation aussi honnête et éthique qui a tellement à cœur de protéger notre vie privée n’a aucun problème avec le fait d’avoir Google comme moteur de recherche principal ou de recevoir des millions de dollars de leur part, qui suis-je pour critiquer Google sur la vie privée ?
  • Le CEO d’APPLE, Tim Cook, a personnellement approuvé cet engagement pour la vie privée et c’est pourquoi Apple a intégré Google comme moteur de recherche par défaut dans leur navigateur, c’est aussi pourquoi ils ne crachent pas non plus sur les 12 milliards de dollars de revenus que cet accord leur apporte. Parce que Google est tout comme Apple et a construit ses produits pour protéger notre vie privée. Pour quelle autre raison Apple autoriserait leur présence sur ses smartphones et mettrait en danger notre vie privée ? Si Tim Cook est content d’avoir Google dans son iPhone alors il doit certainement y avoir quelque chose qui ne tourne pas rond chez moi.
  • ...6 more annotations...
  • Si Apple est un exemple trop commercial pour vous, alors il y a GNOME, un projet porté par l’organisation à but non lucratif Fondation Gnome. Ils développent un environnement graphique ergonomique et populaire pour systèmes Unix Linux. GNOME ne voit aucun problème avec Google. En fait, Google siège à leur conseil d’administration et les application sur GNOME offrent un support de première classe aux applications Google.
  • Si Gmail était mauvais pour la vie privée, si par exemple, Google lisait tous vos messages et les utilisait pour créer un profil marketing (je sais, voilà que je recommence avec mes théories du complot à la noix) alors la fondation GNOME n’en ferait certainement pas la promotion dans ses logiciels. Si ils étaient obligés de supporter Gmail juste parce que c’est un service populaire mais détestaient le faire, ils afficheraient un message d’avertissement pour vous protéger. Quelque chose comme « Lorsque vous utilisez Gmail, Google Inc. utilise le contenu de vos messages pour vous profiler. Ne continuez que si vous en comprenez les dangers ». Mais ils ne le font pas. Au contraire, ils le mettent en premier et rendent sa configuration aussi simple que possible donc utiliser Gmail ne doit pas poser de problèmes.
  • Quand j’ai ajouté le support de Fastmail dans Geary, mes changements on été refusés. Si FastMail était un fournisseur de messageries éthique, je suis certain que ça n’aurait pas été le cas. Je ne doute pas que l’équipe aurait promu un service de messagerie éthique plutôt qu’un service non éthique qui lit les messages des gens et les profile. Désormais je m’inquiète et je me demande ce que les gens de GNOME connaissent de FastMail que moi je ne connais pas. Qu’est-ce donc que les gens sournois de Fastmail sont en train de nous préparer ?
  • La Nordic Privacy Arena est un événement annuel réunissant des délégués généraux de la protection des données et des professionnels de la vie privée. Lors de l’édition de cette année, Facebook a fait une présentation et les organisateurs m’ont demandé  d’être gentil avec Facebook et Google, de garder mes remarques pour ma propre présentation et de ne pas embarrasser l’orateur avec des questions après sa présentation comme j’avais pu le faire lors de la session de Mozilla.  
  • Par ailleurs, la présentation Facebook était assurée par Nicolas de Bouville, qui officiait précédemment à la CNIL, une organisation connue pour ses fabuleux pantouflages. Donc, si Nicolas a choisi de travailler pour Facebook après son passage à la CNIL, Facebook ne peut pas être si mauvais.
  • À la lumière de ces soutiens massifs au capitalisme de surveillance de la part d’organisations respectueuses, qui disent œuvrer à la protection de nos droits humains, de notre vie privée et de la démocratie, j’en suis venu à la conclusion que je devais être le seul à être dans l’erreur.   Si Google, Facebook, etc., n’étaient qu’à moitié aussi nuisibles que ce pour quoi je les fais passer, ces organisations ne passeraient pas d’accords avec eux, elles ne les soutiendraient pas non plus.
  • Aurialie Jublin on 21 Mar 19
     
    "De nombreuses organisations de défense des libertés numériques, essentiellement anglo-saxonnes (Access, FSF, Mozilla, GNOME, etc.), sont financées par Google ou Facebook. Ces deux sociétés vivent pourtant de l'exploitation des données personnelles de leurs utilisateurs, au mépris de leurs vies privées et de leurs libertés. Ce ne sont des acteurs sains ni pour Internet ni pour la démocratie. Aral Balkan, activiste et développeur, pointe dans son billet au titre ironique les contradictions et l'hypocrisie de ces organisations. Ce billet traduit en grande partie ce que nous pensons chez Nothing2Hide (quitte à frôler l'asphyxie financière). Nous en publions une traduction française ici."
Aurialie Jublin

Aux Etats-Unis, Uber verse 20 millions de dollars à des chauffeurs qui contes... - 0 views

www.frenchweb.fr/...350759

uber uberisation contrat indépendant statut

shared by Aurialie Jublin on 31 Mar 19 - No Cached
  • Le texte ne vient en revanche pas trancher le conflit sur le fond, à savoir si Uber doit des rattrapages de rémunération aux chauffeurs et si les travailleurs affiliés à une plateforme sont des travailleurs indépendants ou doivent être considérés légalement comme des employés avec salaire et protection sociale afférents. L’accord prévoit aussi qu’Uber cesse notamment de désactiver le compte des chauffeurs les moins actifs ou crée une procédure d’appel pour les chauffeurs suspendus du service, selon le texte consulté mardi par l’AFP.
  • Sous l’impulsion de son successeur, Dara Khosrowshahi, le groupe s’attache à redorer son image et assainir ses finances dans le but de s’introduire en Bourse très prochainement. Plusieurs cas de travailleurs affiliés à une plateforme demandant leur reconnaissance comme salariés, se sont faits jour dans plusieurs pays, notamment en France. En novembre, la Cour de cassation a reconnu le lien de subordination entre la société de livraison de repas Take Eat Easy et l’un de ses coursiers à vélo, rebattant les cartes concernant la définition du salariat et le recours des plateformes de services à des indépendants. En janvier, la cour d’appel de Paris a estimé que le lien qui unissait un ancien chauffeur indépendant à Uber était bien un contrat de travail, une première concernant le géant américain en France. Ce dernier a depuis formé un pourvoi en cassation
  • Aurialie Jublin on 31 Mar 19
     
    "Uber a accepté de payer 20 millions de dollars pour solder des poursuites lancées par des chauffeurs qui contestaient leur statut de sous-traitant les privant de salaire minimum et de protection sociale. Cet accord, déposé au tribunal lundi soir, couvre quelque 13 600 chauffeurs Uber ayant transporté des passagers entre août 2013 (date initiale des poursuites) et le 28 février 2019 dans les Etats du Massachusetts (est) et de Californie (ouest), où se trouve le siège de la plateforme. Avec cet accord, qui doit encore formellement être entériné par un juge et ne vaut pas aveu de culpabilité de la part d'Uber, les plaignants s'engagent à abandonner les poursuites. "
Aurialie Jublin

Mark Zuckerberg : "Quatre idées pour réguler Internet" - JDD - 0 views

www.lejdd.fr/...-pour-reguler-internet-3883274

données personnelles gafa facebook plateforme régulation rgpd

shared by Aurialie Jublin on 31 Mar 19 - No Cached
  • Une idée pourrait être de confier à des organismes tiers le soin de définir des standards sur la diffusion des contenus violents et haineux, et d'évaluer les entreprises sur la base de ces standards. La régulation pourrait établir une base de référence de ce qui est interdit, et exiger des entreprises qu'elles mettent en place des moyens pour réduire au maximum les contenus violents et haineux.
  • Mais décider de ce qui relève de la publicité politique n’est pas toujours évident. Nos systèmes seraient plus performants si la régulation établissait des standards communs pour vérifier l’identité des acteurs politiques.
  • 3. Troisièmement, pour être efficace, la protection de la vie privée et des données personnelles nécessite un cadre harmonisé à l'échelle mondiale. Partout dans le monde, les gens réclament une réglementation complète en matière de protection de la vie privée en accord avec le RGPD (Règlement Européen de Protection des Données), et je suis d'accord. Je pense qu'il serait bon pour Internet que davantage de pays adoptent une réglementation telle que le RGPD comme cadre commun.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • 4. Enfin, la réglementation devrait garantir le principe de la portabilité des données. Si vous partagez des données avec un service, vous devriez pouvoir les transférer facilement et de manière sécurisée vers un autre service. Cela donne aux gens le choix et permet aux développeurs d'innover et d'être plus compétitifs.
  • Aurialie Jublin on 31 Mar 19
     
    "TRIBUNE - Mark Zuckerberg, le PDG de Facebook, publie dans Le Journal du Dimanche, une longue tribune dans laquelle il dévoile quatre idées pour réguler Internet. Il indique notamment que les gouvernements doivent jouer un rôle plus important dans cette régulation. "
Aurialie Jublin

Facebook while black: Users call it getting 'Zucked,' say talking about racism is censo... - 0 views

amp.usatoday.com/2859593002

facebook liberté

shared by Aurialie Jublin on 26 Apr 19 - No Cached
  • Black activists say hate speech policies and content moderation systems formulated by a company built by and dominated by white men fail the very people Facebook claims it's trying to protect. Not only are the voices of marginalized groups disproportionately stifled, Facebook rarely takes action on repeated reports of racial slurs, violent threats and harassment campaigns targeting black users, they say.
  • For Wysinger, an activist whose podcast The C-Dubb Show frequently explores anti-black racism, the troubling episode recalled the nation's dark history of lynching, when charges of sexual violence against a white woman were used to justify mob murders of black men. "White men are so fragile," she fired off, sharing William's post with her friends, "and the mere presence of a black person challenges every single thing in them." It took just 15 minutes for Facebook to delete her post for violating its community standards for hate speech. And she was warned if she posted it again, she'd be banned for 72 hours.
  • So to avoid being flagged, they use digital slang such as "wypipo," emojis or hashtags to elude Facebook's computer algorithms and content moderators. They operate under aliases and maintain back-up accounts to avoid losing content and access to their community. And they've developed a buddy system to alert friends and followers when a fellow black activist has been sent to Facebook jail, sharing the news of the suspension and the posts that put them there.
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • They call it getting "Zucked" and black activists say these bans have serious repercussions, not just cutting people off from their friends and family for hours, days or weeks at a time, but often from the Facebook pages they operate for their small businesses and nonprofits.
  • A couple of weeks ago, Black Lives Matter organizer Tanya Faison had one of her posts removed as hate speech. "Dear white people," she wrote in the post, "it is not my job to educate you or to donate my emotional labor to make sure you are informed. If you take advantage of that time and labor, you will definitely get the elbow when I see you." After being alerted by USA TODAY, Facebook apologized to Faison and reversed its decision.
  • "Black people are punished on Facebook for speaking directly to the racism we have experienced," says Seattle black anti-racism consultant and conceptual artist Natasha Marin.
  • There are just too many sensitive decisions for Facebook to make them all on its own, Zuckerberg said last month. A string of violent attacks, including a mass shooting at two mosques in New Zealand, recently forced Facebook to reckon with the scourge of white nationalist content on its platform. "Lawmakers often tell me we have too much power over speech," Zuckerberg wrote, "and frankly I agree."  In late 2017 and early 2018, Facebook explored whether certain groups should be afforded more protection than others. For now, the company has decided to maintain its policy of protecting all racial and ethnic groups equally, even if they do not face oppression or marginalization, says Neil Potts, public policy director at Facebook. Applying more "nuanced" rules to the daily tidal wave of content rushing through Facebook and its other apps would be very challenging, he says.
  • Aurialie Jublin on 26 Apr 19
     
    "STORY HIGHLIGHTS Black activists say hate speech policies and content moderation stifle marginalized groups. Mark Zuckerberg says lawmakers tell him Facebook has too much power over speech. "Frankly I agree." Civil rights groups say Facebook has not cut down on hate speech against African Americans. "
Aurialie Jublin

Mozilla Foundation - Open letter to Facebook - 0 views

foundation.mozilla.org/...eu-misinformation

facebook mozilla émotion

shared by Aurialie Jublin on 21 Feb 19 - No Cached
  • We are writing you today as a group of technologists, human rights defenders, academics, journalists and Facebook users who are deeply concerned about the validity of Facebook’s promises to protect European users from targeted disinformation campaigns during the European Parliamentary elections. You have promised European lawmakers and users that you will increase the transparency of political advertising on the platform to prevent abuse during the elections. But in the very same breath, you took measures to block access to transparency tools that let your users see how they are being targeted.
  • In the company’s recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, Mark Zuckerberg wrote that the most important principles around data are transparency, choice and control. By restricting access to advertising transparency tools available to Facebook users, you are undermining transparency, eliminating the choice of your users to install tools that help them analyse political ads, and wielding control over good faith researchers who try to review data on the platform. Your alternative to these third party tools provides simple keyword search functionality and does not provide the level of data access necessary for meaningful transparency.
  • Specifically, we ask that you implement the following measures by 1 April 2019 to give developers sufficient lead time to create transparency tools in advance of the elections:Roll out a functional, open Ad Archive API that enables advanced research and development of tools that analyse political ads served to Facebook users in the EU.Ensure that all political advertisements are clearly distinguished from other content and are accompanied by key targeting criteria such as sponsor identity and amount spent on the platform in all EU countries.Cease harassment of good faith researchers who are building tools to provide greater transparency into the advertising on your platform.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • UPDATE 13 February: In response to our campaign, Facebook announced that it would open up its Ad Archive API next month
  • Aurialie Jublin on 21 Feb 19
     
    "Political actors use disinformation campaigns that prey on our emotions and values to manipulate our behaviour. We have a right to know who is paying to influence our vote, and Facebook is responsible for making sure that happens on their platform. They have made many promises to European lawmakers and users to make political ads more transparent, but so far we've seen little action. So we decided to pen an open letter telling them to implement what they've promised in enough time to protect users during the European elections."
Aurialie Jublin

Opinion | There May Soon Be Three Internets. America's Won't Necessarily Be the Best. -... - 0 views

www.nytimes.com/...oogle-china-balkanization.html

internet

shared by Aurialie Jublin on 17 Oct 18 - No Cached
  • The received wisdom was once that a unified, unbounded web promoted democracy through the free flow of information. Things don’t seem quite so simple anymore. China’s tight control of the internet within its borders continues to tamp down talk of democracy, and an increasingly sophisticated system of digital surveillance plays a major role in human rights abuses, such as the persecution of the Uighurs. We’ve also seen the dark side to connecting people to one another — as illustrated by how misinformation on social media played a significant role in the violence in Myanmar.
  • There’s a world of difference between the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation, known commonly as G.D.P.R., and China’s technologically enforced censorship regime, often dubbed “the Great Firewall.” But all three spheres — Europe, America and China — are generating sets of rules, regulations and norms that are beginning to rub up against one another.
  • The information superhighway cracks apart more easily when so much of it depends on privately owned infrastructure. An error at Amazon Web Services created losses of service across the web in 2017; a storm disrupting a data center in Northern Virginia created similar failures in 2012. These were unintentional blackouts; the corporate custodians of the internet have it within their power to do far more. Of course, nobody wants to turn off the internet completely — that wouldn’t make anyone money. But when a single company with huge market share chooses to comply with a law — or more worryingly, a mere suggestion from the authorities — a large chunk of the internet ends up falling in line.
  • ...7 more annotations...
  • But eight years later, Google is working on a search engine for China known as Dragonfly. Its launch will be conditional on the approval of Chinese officials and will therefore comply with stringent censorship requirements. An internal memo written by one of the engineers on the project described surveillance capabilities built into the engine — namely by requiring users to log in and then tracking their browsing histories. This data will be accessible by an unnamed Chinese partner, presumably the government.
  • Google says all features are speculative and no decision has been made on whether to launch Dragonfly, but a leaked transcript of a meeting inside Google later acquired by The Intercept, a news site, contradicts that line. In the transcript, Google’s head of search, Ben Gomes, is quoted as saying that it hoped to launch within six to nine months, although the unstable American-China relationship makes it difficult to predict when or even whether the Chinese government will give the go-ahead.
  • Internet censorship and surveillance were once hallmarks of oppressive governments — with Egypt, Iran and China being prime examples. It’s since become clear that secretive digital surveillance isn’t just the domain of anti-democratic forces. The Snowden revelations in 2013 knocked the United States off its high horse, and may have pushed the technology industry into an increasingly agnostic outlook on human rights.
  • If the future of the internet is a tripartite cold war, Silicon Valley wants to be making money in all three of those worlds.
  • Yet even the best possible version of the disaggregated web has serious — though still uncertain — implications for a global future: What sorts of ideas and speech will become bounded by borders? What will an increasingly disconnected world do to the spread of innovation and to scientific progress? What will consumer protections around privacy and security look like as the internets diverge? And would the partitioning of the internet precipitate a slowing, or even a reversal, of globalization?
  • What these types of sky-is-falling articles keep getting wrong is the idea that the World Wide Web is the same as the Internet. It’s not. Web sites and the browsers that access them are an application that uses the Internet for transport.The Internet transports far more than just web traffic, but the most crucial one for companies is probably VPN: Companies connect to one another using site-to-site VPNs. Their employees can work from anywhere with remote user VPN. Disconnect the EU from the US, and you’ve removed the cheapest way for companies to connect their networks together.These regulatory worlds will get along somehow. Perhaps someone will write a web app that recognizes where a user is from, and apply appropriate policy to their session. Perhaps that web app will become wildly popular and be deployed on every website everywhere. I don’t know how it will work, but I do know the Internet will not become fragmented.
  • The internet was never meant to be a walled garden. Remember America Online began as a walled garden until the World Wide Web came along and “tore down that wall.” So, Europe can have its Europe Wide Web and China can have its China Wide Web, but we will always be the World Wide Web – truly open and free. The “one internet led by the United States” will remain the world’s “go to” information super highway just as the greenback has remained the world’s reserve currency for decades.
  • Aurialie Jublin on 17 Oct 18
     
    "In September, Eric Schmidt, the former Google chief executive and Alphabet chairman, said that in the next 10 to 15 years, the internet would most likely be split in two - one internet led by China and one internet led by the United States. Mr. Schmidt, speaking at a private event hosted by a venture capital firm, did not seem to seriously entertain the possibility that the internet would remain global. He's correct to rule out that possibility - if anything, the flaw in Mr. Schmidt's thinking is that he too quickly dismisses the European internet that is coalescing around the European Union's ever-heightening regulation of technology platforms. All signs point to a future with three internets."
Aurialie Jublin

Lionel Maurel : «On doit pouvoir quitter Facebook sans perdre les liens qu'on... - 0 views

www.liberation.fr/...-liens-qu-on-y-a-crees_1695042

données personnelles

shared by Aurialie Jublin on 30 Nov 18 - No Cached
  • Aurialie Jublin on 30 Nov 18
     
    Pour le juriste Lionel Maurel, l'approche individualiste de la protection des données personnelles ne permet pas d'appréhender la dimension sociale qu'exploitent les grandes plateformes du Net. Il appelle à la mise en place d'un droit à la migration collective.
Aurialie Jublin

J'ai testé pour vous : 8 jours de data detox challenge - 0 views

usbeketrica.com/...-jours-de-data-detox-challenge

data detox données personnelles

shared by Aurialie Jublin on 10 Jul 18 - No Cached
  • « Pour adopter un lifestyle data équilibré, il est crucial de diversifier les services que vous utilisez ». Comme tout régime qui se respecte, le Data Détox Challenge rappelle l’importance diversifier les familles d’aliments. Cinq moteurs de recherche et navigateurs par jour ? Ca va être dur.
  • Mais comment m’alléger en data sans perdre mes courbes d’audience sur chaque plateforme ? Les défauts du Par défaut. Je commence par changer mon profil publicitaire sur Facebook : non, on ne pourra plus me cibler selon mon genre. J’enfile dans la foulée ma panoplie d’agent de propreté des temps modernes, et j’efface les tags sur mes photos et celles de mes amis. Désormais nous circulerons incognito, ou presque.
  • Dans une détox, chaque jour est un challenge : aujourd’hui la chasse au trackers est ouverte. Comme de vilains sucres, ils se nichent partout de manière invisible. Chasser les pixels espions de Facebook et Twitter (cachés dans les boutons Like et Share de très nombreuses pages) n’est pas si simple. Puisqu’il est impossible de les faire disparaître, c’est à nous de nous éclipser. J’active le mode privé par défaut dans mon navigateur, je bloque les trackers et je vérifie la sécurité de mes connexions avec l’aide de mes nouveaux compléments de navigateur préférés : Privacy Badger, Panopticlick et HTTPS Everywhere. Mon nouveau menu favori ? Pomme + Maj + N (pour la navigation privée).
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • Le challenge invite à télécharger l’application Architecture of radio, qui cartographie les ondes électromagnétiques émises par les antennes relais de téléphonie mobile, les routeurs Wi-Fi, les satellites et les rend visibles, le tout en temps réel. Ici pas de login pour l’utiliser, mais la CB comme passage obligé. La vidéo démo m’a convaincue et je m'acquitte des 2,49 € pour assouvir ma curiosité. Cette fois au moins, je ne paierai pas avec mes data.
  • Je me plie au calcul de mon Indice de Masse Informationnelle. L’équation est facile : pour connaître son exposition à la collecte de données, il suffit de compter ses applications.
  • Tout à coup je me demande quelle utilisation fait Data Selfie de mes données. C’est le métier qui rentre ! Je vérifie : le code est accessible de manière transparente sur GitHub, et les créateurs précisent bien que les données ne sont pas stockés ni utilisées ailleurs que dans Data Selfie.
  • l'extension gratuite open source Adnauseam qui noie l'activité de l'utilisateur en cliquant sur des pubs aléatoires en arrière plan.
  • Aurialie Jublin on 10 Jul 18
     
    "Scandale Cambridge Analytica, Règlement Général sur la Protection des Données (RGPD)... La mode est à la diète des datas. Chacun y va de son petit écrémage électronique, de sa politique anti-cookie et tout le monde ne jure plus que par son indice de masse d'info personnelle. Sortez de la boulimie et relevez comme Millie Servant, en charge de la communication numérique pour Cap Digital & Futur.e.s Festival, le seul défi slim qui vaille : le Data Detox Challenge. Un parcours « détox » proposé sur 8 jours par la fondation Mozilla et le Tactical Technology Collective. "
Aurialie Jublin

Charter for Building a Data Commons for a Free, Fair and Sustainable Future | CommonsBlog - 0 views

commons.blog/...ee-fair-and-sustainable-future

charte data communs données

shared by Aurialie Jublin on 17 Jul 18 - No Cached
  • 1. **Reflect on your intentions together** Discuss the core of your project again and again. Everybody involved should always feel in resonance with the direction in which it’s heading.
  • 2. **Make your community thrive** For the project to be successful, a reliable community is more important than anything else. Care for those who might support you when you need them most.
  • 3. **Separate commons and commerce** Mapping for the commons is different from producing services or products to compete on the map-market.
  • ...9 more annotations...
  • 4. **Design for interoperability** Think of your map as a node in a network of many maps. Talk with other contributors to the Data Commons to find out if you can use the same data model, licence and approach to mapping.
  • 5. **Care for a living vocabulary** Vocabularies as entry points to complex social worlds are always incomplete. Learn from other mappers‘ vocabularies. Make sure your vocabulary can be adjusted. Make it explicit and publish it openly, so that others can learn from it too.
  • 6. **Document transparently** Sharing your working process, learnings and failures allow others to replicate, join and contribute. Don’t leave documentation for after. Do it often and make it understandable. Use technologies designed for open cooperation.
  • 7. **Crowdsource what you can** Sustain your project whenever possible with money, time, knowledge, storing space, hardware or monitoring from your community or public support. Stay independent!
  • 8. **Use FLOSS tools** It gives you the freedom to further develop your own project and software according to your needs. And it enables you to contribute to the development of these tools.
  • 9. **Build upon the open web platform** Open web standards ensure your map, its data and associated applications cannot be enclosed and are prepared for later remixing and integration with other sources.
  • 10. **Own your data** In the short run, it seems to be a nightmare to refrain from importing or copying what you are not legally entitled to. In the long run, it is the only way to prevent you from being sued or your data being enclosed. Ban Google.
  • 11. **Protect your data** To own your data is important, but not enough. Make sure nobody dumps your data back into the world of marketization and enclosures. Use appropriate licenses to protect your collective work!
  • 12. **Archive your project** When it doesn’t work anymore for you, others still might want to build on it in the future.
  • Aurialie Jublin on 17 Jul 18
     
    "Nations-States rely on constitutions. Common(er)s find common ground through a Charter. If you are part of the co-creation of a powerful Data Commons - through mapping, coding, data modelling or other activities - this is for you. It is an fundamental building-block for online and offline cooperation. The following is version 0.6 of what has been called in previously: Charter for Building a Data Commons of Alternative Economies or Mapping for the Commons Manifesto. We, the participants of the Intermapping meeting (March 2017 in Florence), hope to hereby publish a version that provides orientation to the countless mapping processes for a free, fair and sustainable world. We invite you to work together on the practical issues: how to implement the principles outlined in the Charter (see below)? Let's federate our efforts to make the Commons thrive!"
Aurialie Jublin

"I Was Devastated": Tim Berners-Lee, the Man Who Created the World Wide Web, Has Some R... - 2 views

www.vanityfair.com/...orld-wide-web-has-some-regrets

web

shared by Aurialie Jublin on 09 Jul 18 - No Cached
  • Initially, Berners-Lee’s innovation was intended to help scientists share data across a then obscure platform called the Internet, a version of which the U.S. government had been using since the 1960s. But owing to his decision to release the source code for free—to make the Web an open and democratic platform for all—his brainchild quickly took on a life of its own.
  • He also envisioned that his invention could, in the wrong hands, become a destroyer of worlds, as Robert Oppenheimer once infamously observed of his own creation. His prophecy came to life, most recently, when revelations emerged that Russian hackers interfered with the 2016 presidential election, or when Facebook admitted it exposed data on more than 80 million users to a political research firm, Cambridge Analytica, which worked for Donald Trump’s campaign. This episode was the latest in an increasingly chilling narrative. In 2012, Facebook conducted secret psychological experiments on nearly 700,000 users. Both Google and Amazon have filed patent applications for devices designed to listen for mood shifts and emotions in the human voice.
  • This agony, however, has had a profound effect on Berners-Lee. He is now embarking on a third act—determined to fight back through both his celebrity status and, notably, his skill as a coder. In particular, Berners-Lee has, for some time, been working on a new platform, Solid, to reclaim the Web from corporations and return it to its democratic roots.
  • ...10 more annotations...
  • What made the Web powerful, and ultimately dominant, however, would also one day prove to be its greatest vulnerability: Berners-Lee gave it away for free; anyone with a computer and an Internet connection could not only access it but also build off it. Berners-Lee understood that the Web needed to be unfettered by patents, fees, royalties, or any other controls in order to thrive. This way, millions of innovators could design their own products to take advantage of it.
  • “Tim and Vint made the system so that there could be many players that didn’t have an advantage over each other.” Berners-Lee, too, remembers the quixotism of the era. “The spirit there was very decentralized. The individual was incredibly empowered. It was all based on there being no central authority that you had to go to to ask permission,” he said. “That feeling of individual control, that empowerment, is something we’ve lost.”
  • The power of the Web wasn’t taken or stolen. We, collectively, by the billions, gave it away with every signed user agreement and intimate moment shared with technology. Facebook, Google, and Amazon now monopolize almost everything that happens online, from what we buy to the news we read to who we like. Along with a handful of powerful government agencies, they are able to monitor, manipulate, and spy in once unimaginable ways.
  • The idea is simple: re-decentralize the Web. Working with a small team of developers, he spends most of his time now on Solid, a platform designed to give individuals, rather than corporations, control of their own data. “There are people working in the lab trying to imagine how the Web could be different. How society on the Web could look different. What could happen if we give people privacy and we give people control of their data,” Berners-Lee told me. “We are building a whole eco-system.”
  • For now, the Solid technology is still new and not ready for the masses. But the vision, if it works, could radically change the existing power dynamics of the Web. The system aims to give users a platform by which they can control access to the data and content they generate on the Web. This way, users can choose how that data gets used rather than, say, Facebook and Google doing with it as they please. Solid’s code and technology is open to all—anyone with access to the Internet can come into its chat room and start coding.
  • It’s still the early days for Solid, but Berners-Lee is moving fast. Those who work closely with him say he has thrown himself into the project with the same vigor and determination he employed upon the Web’s inception. Popular sentiment also appears to facilitate his time frame. In India, a group of activists successfully blocked Facebook from implementing a new service that would have effectively controlled access to the Web for huge swaths of the country’s population. In Germany, one young coder built a decentralized version of Twitter called Mastodon. In France, another group created Peertube as a decentralized alternative to YouTube.
  • Berners-Lee is not the leader of this revolution—by definition, the decentralized Web shouldn’t have one—but he is a powerful weapon in the fight. And he fully recognizes that re-decentralizing the Web is going to be a lot harder than inventing it was in the first place.
  • But laws written now don’t anticipate future technologies. Nor do lawmakers—many badgered by corporate lobbyists—always choose to protect individual rights. In December, lobbyists for telecom companies pushed the Federal Communications Commission to roll back net-neutrality rules, which protect equal access to the Internet. In January, the U.S. Senate voted to advance a bill that would allow the National Security Agency to continue its mass online-surveillance program. Google’s lobbyists are now working to modify rules on how companies can gather and store biometric data, such as fingerprints, iris scans, and facial-recognition images.
  • It’s hard to believe that anyone—even Zuckerberg—wants the 1984 version. He didn’t found Facebook to manipulate elections; Jack Dorsey and the other Twitter founders didn’t intend to give Donald Trump a digital bullhorn. And this is what makes Berners-Lee believe that this battle over our digital future can be won.
  • When asked what ordinary people can do, Berners-Lee replied, “You don’t have to have any coding skills. You just have to have a heart to decide enough is enough. Get out your Magic Marker and your signboard and your broomstick. And go out on the streets.” In other words, it’s time to rise against the machines.
  • Cécile Christodoulou on 09 Jul 18
     
    "We demonstrated that the Web had failed instead of served humanity, as it was supposed to have done, and failed in many places," he told me. The increasing centralization of the Web, he says, has "ended up producing-with no deliberate action of the people who designed the platform-a large-scale emergent phenomenon which is anti-human." "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." Tim Berners-Lee
  • Aurialie Jublin on 10 Jul 18
     
    "Berners-Lee has seen his creation debased by everything from fake news to mass surveillance. But he's got a plan to fix it."
Aurialie Jublin

Le Défenseur des droits appelle le Gouvernement à respecter les droits des us... - 0 views

www.defenseurdesdroits.fr/...specter-les-droits-des-usagers

dématérialisation capacity capacitation

shared by Aurialie Jublin on 21 Sep 18 - No Cached
  • Aurialie Jublin on 21 Sep 18
     
    "Or la responsabilité de l'État est de ne pas dématérialiser un service sans mettre à disposition une alternative papier ou humaine faute de quoi l'usager perd toute possibilité d'échanger avec l'administration lorsqu'un bug informatique se produit ou lorsqu'un dossier est perdu. Nombreux sont les usagers qui ont perdu leur permis et donc leur emploi. Le Défenseur des droits recommande notamment que les services préfectoraux et les centres d'expertise et de ressources des titres (CERT) cessent d'orienter les usagers vers des prestataires privés pour la réalisation de leurs démarches et recommande à l'État de faire en sorte que le site de l'ANTS apparaisse avant les sites privés dans les résultats des moteurs de recherche afin que l'usager ne soit pas amené à payer, par erreur, des prestations qui sont gratuites. Prenant en considération les objectifs du gouvernement de dématérialiser l'ensemble des démarches administratives d'ici 2022, le Défenseur des droits recommande également d'introduire dans la loi une clause de protection des usagers, prévoyant l'obligation d'offrir une voie alternative au service numérique lors de la dématérialisation d'un service public ou d'une procédure administrative. En effet, l'enjeu est celui du maintien de la cohésion sociale : une dématérialisation trop rapide des services publics entraîne des risques d'exclusion et une augmentation du non-recours aux droits, mettant en péril l'égalité de toutes et tous devant le service public qui constitue un principe fondamental de la République. "
Aurialie Jublin

[Oxamyne] Projet de "CDI communautaire" - HackMD - 0 views

pad.lamyne.org/cdi_communautaire

projet cdi commun communauté expérimentation contrat

shared by Aurialie Jublin on 26 Apr 19 - No Cached
  • Aurialie Jublin on 26 Apr 19
     
    "Ce document décrit la recherche-action initiée & portée par la MYNE / OxaMYNE autour du "CDI communautaire". Cette recherche-action s'inscrit dans un contexte plus large (notamment en Europe) de renouvellement des formes de protection sociale par la pratique des communs."
Aurialie Jublin

Une Charte mondiale contre l'uberisation du travail - Pôle emploi - Emploi Pa... - 0 views

www.emploiparlonsnet.pole-emploi.org/...contre-luberisation-du-travail

emploi travail charte uberisation

shared by Aurialie Jublin on 21 Feb 19 - No Cached
  • L’élaboration d’un système de gouvernance internationale qui établisse un socle de droits et protections et impose aux plateformes (et à leurs clients) de les respecter devient donc un enjeu essentiel pour l’OIT qui estime qu’aucune régulation ne pourra se faire en dehors d’instances internationales.
  • Elle propose, entre autres, un droit universel à l’apprentissage tout au long de la vie, une protection sociale universelle de la naissance à la vieillesse, une garantie universelle permettant à tous les travailleurs, quels que soient leur régime contractuel ou leur statut professionnel, de jouir des droits fondamentaux des travailleurs et d’un « salaire assurant des conditions d’existence convenables », etc. Le programme est non seulement très ambitieux mais il est entièrement axé autour de l’idée que l’action majeure est celle de la gestion de la technologie et de sa mise au service d’un travail décent et durable. Et cela passe par une approche dans laquelle l’intelligence artificielle reste sous contrôle humain et implique que « les décisions finales touchant le travail soient prises par des êtres humains ».
  • Aurialie Jublin on 21 Feb 19
     
    "Pour son centenaire, l'OIT (Organisation Internationale du Travail) veut faire adopter un programme d'actions mondial pour réguler les évolutions du travail et garantir des droits à tous les travailleurs. Les actions proposées sont extrêmement ambitieuses et seront discutées en juin."
1 - 20 of 36 Next ›
Showing 20▼ items per page