Does the existence of Facebook really merit a rewrite of data law?
EU digital enlightenment types mesmerised by Zuck
Comment The British government is keen for more public data and private transactions with taxpayers to be pushed online at precisely the same time as the Home Secretary demands more powers for security services to effectively snoop on communications traffic with the help of telcos and social networks.
Add to that the fact that spooks are constantly trying to interrupt encrypted sites that - they argue - are used by organised criminals and terrorists.
Then factor in the European Commission's vice president Viviane Reding's efforts to convince the EU parliament to pass a new data protection law because she and many others believe that the one written in 1995 is out of date.
Reding has repeatedly reminded audiences of computer academics and internet players, whom she has lobbied hard with her draft DP bill, that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg was only 11 when the previous legislation came into being.
Viviane Reding continues to lobby for rewrite of Euro data protection law
Indeed, that justification for overhauling the law was bandied around again by the Brussels' justice commissioner earlier this week when she was speaking at the inaugural Digital Enlightenment Forum in Luxembourg.
Google, she added, was in 1995 still three years away from being incorporated and its young execs were still working in a garage office in California.
Reding's views were met, in the main, with a positive response from the gathered crowd, many of whom expressed a sense of the digital world moving too fast.
This shifting sands attitude was pervasive at the event in which many experts on the topic of data protection and online identity were in agreement that legislation needs to happen, and that it needs to happen quickly.
The word "enlightenment" was somewhat cringingly used to help explain that sense of urgency. Some considered that we are in fact living through a kind of Enlightenment 2.0 - with the engine behind that apparent radical change in thinking being the internet and how society operates on it.
Facebook's dominant social data farm has seemingly proved to be the trigger for many of these thinkers.
Google - a startup born in the late 90s that became the world's biggest ad broker with billions of dollars of revenue - never got the sort of attention in Luxembourg this week that was lavished on data hoarder-extraordinaire, Facebook, with its modest sales garnered from an ad business model that still looks amateurish compared with that of Google's.
And many experts in the field of identity couldn't help but look on in awe at Zuck's vast 900-million-people-strong siloed estate.
Some contended that a new "social contract" was required that would put the user in charge of accountability when it comes to what data is stored online.
It's precisely the kind of contract that the UK's Cabinet Office is mulling over as part of its proposals to farm out the handling of taxpayers' online identities to the private sector.
A move which, as the Reg has previously reported, would eventually require primary legislation and regulations implemented in the same way that banks are scrutinised.
Some of the proposals the Cabinet Office has put forward were aired at the forum - that included holding up the principles of user control, transparency, governance, certification and, among other things, portability.
Portability is of course a concept that Facebook does not approve of. It has long held on to its users' data and declined to let the likes of Google tap into that information. The recently floated company does allow its users to take chunks of their data with them if they choose to leave the social network, but that data does not easily flow into competing websites.
What was fascinating at this conference was the fixation, not with Google or even Microsoft - a company behind, for example, the previous UK government's online "gateway" system for taxpayers to access services online - but with that of upstart Facebook.
Zuck continues to dig deep for ad revs
Perhaps that's not unreasonable given how many people are sharing their lives on Facebook. Zuckerberg has previously floated the smug notion that his userbase could be considered the world's third largest country.
Indeed, it has done what others including Google have failed to do - amass fine-grained, near real-time data that ought to be an advertiser's dream come true.
One speaker at the event naively likened today's social networks to US analogue television broadcasters of the 1950s and 1960s because TV audiences back then understood the commercial contract involved. Of course, that relationship was arguably much more benign than the interplay of Facebook with our lives today.
But making Facebook a major catalyst for an overhaul of European data protection law that many might hope will be expected to stand up to the tests of time better than the one written in 1995 could yet prove to be a huge, short-sighted error. ®
Problem with legislation...
Is they always implement it arse-backwards.
I have no problem with legislation that genuinely protects users/consumers. But when it comes to applying for a bank account - if you don't tick the box allowing them to share your data with any credit agencies they feel like (meaning you have to find out and contact all of them in the event of a problem- and the bias is against you, not for you) - you don't get a bank account. The same with most site cookies - don't want cookies - oh well the site won't work without.
The legislation needs to be stronger than just "get permission". The legislation needs to force service providers to actually offer some kind of a basic service - or useful alternative - if you reject data sharing.
Why is it...
The first thing I thought of with that piccy of Mr. Zuck was that damned frog that I'd spent years obliterating from my memory....
Facebook has been around since 2004,
It's probably here to stay for a while yet.
Broadly, up to now, the law provides that you give personal data only to companies that you choose to allow to use it, and they can use it in any reasonable way in doing business with you, plus any way that you have agreed to. Tip: don't agree to let them give it to other people, even for free phone minutes. Do that once and you're damned forever. It's also presumed that your data will only be held where European law applies.
Facebook is located outside the EU and it uses data in very wide ways that many of its users don't think about until things go wrong, so there is a need for legislators to create and impose rules for use of personal data to protect citizens from amoral private interests. They might be just able to limit the power of government itself to spy on you, also, but don't count on it.