Jeg er blevet mere glad for den kommende GDPR, der i høj grad kommer til at ændre måden virksomheder behandler persondata på. Ja, det er kanoner og gråspurve, men det er tydeligt at de store virksomheder ikke har været i stand til at regulere sig selv.
Denne opsummering fra Cory Doctorow forklarer det:
What’s more, the looming spectre of the EU General Data Protection Regulation, with its mandate for plain language agreements that users have to understand, is calling into question whether it’s possible to even have a business that can only exist if users agree to terms that put the US tax-code to shame.
That is to say, businesses are being told that they are obliged to obtain detailed, informed consent to every single term in their contracts before they can start interacting with their users. The businesses say that undertaking such a process could take hours and that no one would ever use their services if a precondition for their usage is to actually understand what they’re giving away.
To which the EU answers: exactly.
Selvom der jo naturligvis er en risiko for at f.eks. Facebook slipper nemmere om ved det, takket være “cookie-effekten”. Eller, som formuleret af Moxie Marlinspike:
[Europe’s GDPR] helps Facebook because they can refuse service if you don’t consent, and for many people, Facebook is the internet.
Samtidig arbejder man i EU på en reform af de ophavsretlige regler og her mister jeg jævnligt modet. Kortvarigt så det ud som om, ledet af det tyske parlamentsmedlem Julia Reda, parlamentet havde set lyset. Men, igen opsummeret af Doctorow, så slog kommissionen til:
Under the new rules, anyone who allows the public to post material will have to maintain vast databases of copyrighted works claimed by rightsholders, and any public communications that matches anything in these databases has to be blocked. These databases have been tried on much more modest scales — Youtube’s Content ID is a prominent example — and they’re a mess. Because rightsholders are free to upload anything and claim ownership of it, Content ID is a font of garbagey, sloppy, fraudulent copyright abuse: five different companies claim to own the rights to white noise; Samsung claims to own any drawing of its phones; Nintendo claims it owns gamers’ animated mashups; Sony claims it owns stock footage it stole from a filmmaker whose work it had censored; the biggest music companies in the world all claim to own the rights to “Silent Night”, a rogues’ gallery of sleazy copyfraudsters claim to own NASA’s spacecraft landing footage — all in all, these systems benefit the large and the unethical at the cost of small and nimble.
That’s just for starters.
And then there’s the matter of banning Creative Commons licenses.
In order to bail out the largest newspapers in the EU, the Commission is proposing a Link Tax — a fee that search engines and sites like Boing Boing will have to pay just for the right to link to news stories on the web. This idea has been tried before in Spain and Germany and the newspapers who’d called for it quickly admitted it wasn’t working and stopped using it.
But the new, worse-than-ever Link Tax contains a new wrinkle: rightsholders will not be able to waive the right to be compensated under the Link Tax. That means that European creators — who’ve released hundreds of millions of works under Creative Commons licenses that allow for free sharing without fee or permission — will no longer be able to choose the terms of a Creative Commons license; the inalienable, unwaivable right to collect rent any time someone links to your creations will invalidate the core clause in these licenses.
Det er jo rent vanvid for os borgere.