The contortions US media outlets go through, to be able to ignore the inescapable conclusion that adtech isn’t GDPR compatible (adverts are though). After the bluntness of the LA Times and others switching their site off for EU visitors. Aside from the NYT berating me that I have an adblocker when ads are their lifeblood (which must be why they outsource it). Now comes the NPR with a novel twist: they provide a plain text version of their content. It seems to be an interpretation of the GDPR element that you can’t deny basic service to those that refuse permission to collect personal data. Basic service apparently means no CSS files. Although it’s a slightly silly choice, I do appreciate being able to read the articles. It’s not much different from how material is presented in my feed reader, after all. They provide the text version of the site for all, on a separate subdomain, which seems a rendering of their rss feed: text.npr.org
This is a very interesting article to read. A small French adtech company Vectaury has been ordered to stop using and delete the personal data of tens of millions of Europeans, as it cannot show proper consent as required under the GDPR. Of interest here is that Vectaury tried to show consent using a branche wide template by IAB. A French judge has ruled this is not enough. This is an early sign that as Doc Searls says GDPR is able to, though at the speed of legal proceedings, put a stake through the heart of ad-tech. Provided enforcement goes forward.
A month after the verdict, Vectaury’s website still proudly claims that they’re GDPR compliant because they use the concept of a ‘consent management provider’. Yet that is exactly what has now been ruled as not enough to show actual consent.
This Twitter thread by NYT’s Robin Berjon about the case is also interesting.
When I need to fill out webforms I regularly fill in nonsense or rants in fields that are not needed for what the form is for. This then ends up in databases, and sometimes comes back to me in surprising ways.
Such as yesterday, when I received this letter. I had to fill in my address some time ago while buying a book (it was a VAT invoice), but also a range of mandatory fields that were completely unnecessary, and some running afoul of the GDPR. Hence this letter addressed to the ‘read the GDPR, this form sucks‘ department of my company 😀
Some links I thought worth reading the past few days
- Peter Rukavina pointed me to this excellent posting on voting, in the context of violence as a state monopoly and how that vote contributes to violence. It’s this type of long form blogging that I often find so valuable as it shows you the detailed reasoning of the author. Where on FB or Twitter would you find such argumentation, and how would it ever surface in a algorithmic timeline? Added Edward Hasbrouck to my feedreader : The Practical Nomad blog: To vote, or not to vote?
- This quote is very interesting. Earlier in the conversation Stephen Downes mentions “networks are grown, not constructed”. (true for communities too). Tanya Dorey adds how from a perspective of indigenous or other marginalised groups ‘facts’ my be different, and that arriving a truth therefore is a process: “For me, “truth growing” needs to involve systems, opportunities, communities, networks, etc. that cause critical engagement with ideas, beliefs and ways of thinking that are foreign, perhaps even contrary to our own. And not just on the content level, but embedded within the fabric of the system et al itself.“: A conversation during EL30.mooc.ca on truth, data, networks and graphs.
- This article has a ‘but’ title, but actually is a ‘yes, and’. Saying ethics isn’t enough because we also need “A society-wide debate on values and on how we want to live in the digital age” is saying the same thing. The real money quote though is “political parties should be able to review technology through the lens of their specific world-views and formulate political positions accordingly. A party that has no position on how their values relate to digital technology or the environment cannot be expected to develop any useful agenda for the challenges we are facing in the 21st century.” : Gartner calls Digital Ethics a strategic trend for 2019 – but ethics are not enough
- A Dutch essay on post-truth. Says it’s not the end of truth that’s at issue but rather that everyone claims it for themselves. Pits Foucault’s parrhesia, speaking truth to power against the populists : Waarheidsspreken in tijden van ‘post-truth’: Foucault, ‘parrèsia’ en populisme
- When talking about networked agency and specifically resilience, increasingly addressing infrastructure dependencies gets important. When you run decentralised tools so that your instance is still useful when others are down, then all of a sudden your ISP and energy supplier are a potential risk too: disaster.radio | a disaster-resilient communications network powered by the sun
- On the amplification of hate speech. It’s not about the speech to me, but about the amplification and the societal acceptability that signals, and illusion of being mainstream it creates: Opinion | I Thought the Web Would Stop Hate, Not Spread It
- One of the essential elements of the EU GDPR is that it applies to anyone having data about EU citizens. As such it can set a de facto standard globally. As with environmental standards market players will tend to use one standard, not multiple for their products, and so the most stringent one is top of the list. It’s an element in how data is of geopolitical importance these days. This link is an example how GDPR is being adopted in South-Africa : Four essential pillars of GDPR compliance
- A great story how open source tools played a key role in dealing with the Sierra Leone Ebola crisis a few years ago: How Open Source Software Helped End Ebola – iDT Labs – Medium
- This seems like a platform of groups working towards their own networked agency, solving issues for their own context and then pushing them into the network: GIG – we are what we create together
- An article on the limits on current AI, and the elusiveness of meaning: Opinion | Artificial Intelligence Hits the Barrier of Meaning
Some links I thought worth reading the past few days
- A brief overview of how the GDPR and EU PSI-Directive interplay : The PSI directive and GDPR – European Data Portal
- Some discussion on how blockchain and GDPR go together. Says it’s not about the tech but about use case implementation. That emphasises my position that GDPR is a quality assurance tool, not a gate with a sign ‘forbidden’ : EU Blockchain Forum says blockchain, GDPR compatible – Ledger Insights
- A statement like “Therefore, our primary focus is to get millions of Q members registered” makes this initiative sound very spammy and pyramid like, banking like they do on FOMO. Having everyone wait for whatever they plan until they have millions of users is an odd way of getting those users. Why not have something of value now, so that it brings users in? Anyway I have an account, and you are invited. More info on: Initiative Q
- An old posting, although still worth reading (about the need for your own webspace if only to tinker) mostly bookmarked because of the still very useful video of Amber Case outlining the reasoning behind the IndieWeb (independent web): The IndieWeb, Revolution, and Other Reasons You Should Learn to Code
- In terms of privacy it really is not a good idea to use smart home devices that have a centralised web service / data store behind them: Smart Home Surveillance: Governments Tell Google’s Nest To Hand Over Data 300 Times
Does the New York Times see the irony? This article talks about how US Congress should look much less at the privacy terms of big tech, and more at the actual business practices.
Yet it calls upon me to disable my ad blocker. The ad blocker that blocks 28 ads in a single article, all served by a Google advertisement tracker. One which one of my browsers flags as working the same way as cross site scripting attacks work.
If as you say adverts are at the core of your business model, making journalism possible, why do you outsource it?
I’m ok with advertising New York Times, but not with adtech. There’s a marked difference between the two. It’s adtech, not advertising, that does the things you write about, like “how companies can use our data to invisibly shunt us in directions” that don’t benefit us. And adtech is the reason that, as you the say, the “problem is unfettered data exploitation and its potential deleterious consequences.” I’m ok with a newspaper running their own ads. I’m not ok with the New York Times behaving like a Trojan horse, pretending to be a newspaper but actually being a vehicle for, your own words, the “surveillance economy”.
Until then my ad blocker stays.
My browser blocking 28 ads (see the address bar) on a single article, all from 1 Google ad tracker.
Some links I thought worth reading the past few days
- On how blockchain attempts to create fake scarcity in the digital realm. And why banks etc therefore are all over it: On scarcity and the blockchain by Jaap-Henk Hoepman
- Doc Searl’s has consistently good blogposts about the adtech business, and how it is detrimental to publishers and citizens alike. In this blogpost he sees hope for publishing. His lists on adverts and ad tech I think should be on all our minds: Is this a turning point for publishing?
- Doc Searl’s wrote this one in 2017: How to plug the publishing revenue drain – The Graph – Medium
- In my information routines offline figures prominently, but it usually doesn’t in my tools. There is a movement to put offline front and center as design principle it turns out: Designing Offline-First Web Apps
- Hoodie is a backendless tool for building webapps, with a offline first starting point: hood.ie intro
- A Berlin based company putting offline first as foremost design principle: Neighbourhoodie – Offline First
- And then there are Service Workers, about which Jeremy Keith has just published a book: Going Offline
- Haven’t tested it yet, but this type of glue we need much more of, to reduce the cost of leaving silos, and to allow people to walk several walled gardens at the same time as a precursor to that: Granary
Some links I thought worth reading the past few days
- Initial circumstances mostly trump intrinsic capabilities. Basically the evolutionary space available. Delayed gratification is based on affluence at the outset, not indicative of doing better in future: Why Rich Kids Are So Good at the Marshmallow Test
- Can’t afford it, society without social contract, techno-determinism, salvationism, denial. Five kinds of stooopid: Umair Haque on The Age of the Imbecility and how not to join it
- “Embrace and Extend” usually means “embrace and smother” in the context of organisations like Microsoft, and I expect lots of devs to head for the exit, though some see it in a positive light: Microsoft buying GitHub
- Allow proper citing of blogs, added to the ‘someday’ project list: Joi Ito adds a citation widget to his blog
- An analysis of the proliferation of Internet of Things Manifestos: A CHI 2018 paper, Calling for a Revolution
- This isn’t about open data, despite the original title, but controlled sharing in defined ecosystems: In Japan, Mitsubishi Estate and Fujitsu put blockchain in the service of shared data
- If you can answer this letter, you can likely handle anything GDPR related: So You Received the Nightmare GDPR Letter
- Why Doc Searls is probably right about GDPR popping the adtech industry, and why consent in the ePrivacy Directive is to be interpreted as GDPR style consent: Personal Data Processing for Behavioural Targeting needs unambiguous consent
- Networked agency is not about enabling individuals but people in their meaningful social context. So yes, open tools need to have the networked effect built in : To bring people to the open web it needs to be the best version of the web.
To celebrate the launch of the GDPR last week Friday, Jaap-Henk Hoekman released his ‘little blue book’ (pdf)’ on Privacy Design Strategies (with a CC-BY-NC license). Hoekman is an associate professor with the Digital Security group of the ICS department at the Radboud University.
Data protection by design (together with a ‘state of the art’ requirement) forms the forward looking part of the GDPR where the minimum requirements are always evolving. The GDPR is designed to have a rising floor that way.
The little blue book has an easy to understand outline, which cuts up doing privacy by design into 8 strategies, each accompanied by a number of tactics, that can all be used in parallel.
Those 8 strategies (shown in the image above) are divided into 2 groups, data oriented strategies and process oriented strategies.
Data oriented strategies:
Minimise (tactics: Select, Exclude, Strip, Destroy)
Separate (tactics: Isolate, Distribute)
Abstract (tactics: Summarise, Group, Perturb)
Hide (tactics: Restrict, Obfuscate, Dissociate, Mix)
Process oriented strategies:
Inform (tactics: Supply, Explain, Notify)
Control (tactics: Consent, Choose, Update, Retract)
Enforce (tactics: Create, Maintain, Uphold)
Demonstrate (tactics: Record, Audit, Report)
All come with examples and the final chapters provide suggestions how to apply them in an organisation.
The Washington Post now has a premium ‘EU’ option, suggesting you pay more for them to comply with the GDPR.
Reading what the offer entails of course shows something different.
The basic offer is the price you pay to read their site, but you must give consent for them to track you and to serve targeted ads.
The premium offer is the price you pay to have an completely ad-free, and thus tracking free, version of the WP. Akin to what various other outlets and e.g. many mobile apps do too.
This of course has little to do with GDPR compliance. For the free and basic subscription they still need to be compliant with the GDPR but you enter into a contract that includes your consent to get to that compliance. They will still need to explain to you what they collect and what they do with it for instance. And they do, e.g. listing all their partners they exchange visitor data with.
The premium version gives you an ad-free WP so the issue of GDPR compliance doesn’t even come up (except of course for things like commenting which is easy to handle). Which is an admission of two things:
- They don’t see any justification for how their ads work other than getting consent from a reader. And they see no hassle-free way to provide informed consent options, or granular controls to readers, that doesn’t impact the way ad-tech works, without running afoul of the rule that consent cannot be tied to core services (like visiting their website).
- They value tracking you at $30 per year.
Of course their free service is still forced consent, and thus runs afoul of the GDPR, as you cannot see their website at all without it.
Yet, just to peruse an occasional article, e.g. following a link, that forced consent is nothing your browser can’t handle with a blocker or two, and VPN if you want. After all your browser is your castle.
Some links I thought worth reading the past few days
- World Bank data on the status of the global sustainable development goals, by the WB data team (whom I know due to my work for the WB’s open data efforts): The 2018 Atlas of Sustainable Development Goals: an all-new visual guide to data and development
- It’s not a problem, it’s a challenge, to stick to enlightenment ideals in developing AI. Privacy and using big data aren’t opposites. Let’s not confuse purposes and outcomes, and explore hidden assumptions. EU style AI efforts are merely hard in a different way than the surveillance capitalism variety in the US and the data driven authoritarianism variety in China : AI Has a Big Privacy Problem And Europe’s New Data Protection Law Is About to Expose It
- Quick overview of how EU is positioning in the AI space. Ethics a key component, and various funding initiatives underway: Key points from the EU Artificial Intelligence strategy
- My Swiss colleague André Golliez talks sense in this radio interview on the meaning of GDPR also to Switzerland (in Swiss-German): GDPR a Paradigm Shift for Data Protection
- An oldie, 2016, from Doc Searls, but still relevant. Your browser is your castle: The Castle Doctrine
- Data and the machine learning it enables is of geopolitical importance: The Chinese 2018-2020 Action Plan for AI
- Doc Searls, who expects GDPR to kill microtargeting as a business model, celebrates May 25th as ‘Privmas’ and writes about the : Frequently Unasked Questions (FUQ) for the GDPR
- Another old article (from 2013), but still a relevant thought, how to connect things up while staying personally in control: The Internet of My Things
Today I was at a session at the Ministry for Interior Affairs in The Hague on the GDPR, organised by the center of expertise on open government.
It made me realise how I actually approach the GDPR, and how I see all the overblown reactions to it, like sending all of us a heap of mail to re-request consent where none’s needed, or taking your website or personal blog even offline. I find I approach the GDPR like I approach a quality assurance (QA) system.
One key change with the GDPR is that organisations can now be audited concerning their preventive data protection measures, which of course already mimics QA. (Next to that the GDPR is mostly an incremental change to the previous law, except for the people described by your data having articulated rights that apply globally, and having a new set of teeth in the form of substantial penalties.)
The session today had three brief presentations.
In one a student showed some results from his thesis research on the implementation of the GDPR, in which he had spoken with a lot of data protection officers or DPO’s. These are mandatory roles for all public sector bodies, and also mandatory for some specific types of data processing companies. One of the surprising outcomes is that some of these DPO’s saw themselves, and were seen as, ‘outposts’ of the data protection authority, in other words seen as enforcers or even potentially as moles. This is not conducive to a DPO fulfilling the part of its role in raising awareness of and sensitivity to data protection issues. This strongly reminded me of when 20 years ago I was involved in creating a QA system from scratch for my then employer. Some of my colleagues saw the role of the quality assurance manager as policing their work. It took effort to show how we were not building a straightjacket around them that kept them within strict boundaries, but providing a solid skeleton to grow on, and move faster. Where audits are not hunts for breaches of compliance but a way to make emergent changes in the way people worked visible, and incorporate professionally justified ones in that skeleton.
In another presentation a civil servant of the Ministry involved in creating a register of all person related data being processed. What stood out most for me was the (rightly) pragmatic approach they took with describing current practices and data collections inside the organisation. This is a key element of QA as well. You work from descriptions of what happens, and not at what ’should’ happen or ‘ideally’ happens. QA is a practice rooted in pragmatism, where once that practice is described and agreed it will be audited.
Of course in the case of the Ministry it helps that they only have tasks mandated by law, and therefore the grounds for processing are clear by default, and if not the data should not be collected. This reduces the range of potential grey areas. Similarly for security measures, they already need to adhere to national security guidelines (called the national baseline information security), which likewise helps with avoiding new measures, proves compliance for them, and provides an auditable security requirement to go with it. This no doubt helped them to be able to take that pragmatic approach. Pragmatism is at the core of QA as well, it takes its cues from what is really happening in the organisation, what the professionals are really doing.
A third one dealt with open standards for both processes and technologies by the national Forum for Standardisation. Since 2008 a growing list of currently some 40 or so standards is mandatory for Dutch public sector bodies. In this list of standards you find a range of elements that are ready made to help with GDPR compliance. In terms of support for the rights of those described by the data, such as the right to export and portability for instance, or in terms of preventive technological security measures, and ‘by design’ data protection measures. Some of these are ISO norms themselves, or, as the mentioned national baseline information security, a compliant derivative of such ISO norms.
These elements, the ‘police’ vs ‘counsel’ perspective on the rol of a DPO, the pragmatism that needs to underpin actions, and the building blocks readily to be found elsewhere in your own practice already based on QA principles, made me realise and better articulate how I’ve been viewing the GDPR all along. As a quality assurance system for data protection.
With a quality assurance system you can still famously produce concrete swimming vests, but it will be at least done consistently. Likewise with GDPR you will still be able to do all kinds of things with data. Big Data and developing machine learning systems are hard but hopefully worthwile to do. With GDPR it will just be hard in a slightly different way, but it will also be helped by establishing some baselines and testing core assumptions. While making your purposes and ways of working available for scrutiny. Introducing QA upon its introduction does not change the way an organisation works, unless it really doesn’t have its house in order. Likewise the GDPR won’t change your organisation much if you have your house in order either.
From the QA perspective on GDPR, it is perfectly clear why it has a moving baseline (through its ‘by design’ and ‘state of the art’ requirements). From the QA perspective on GDPR it is perfectly clear what the connection is to how Europe is positioning itself geopolitically in the race concerning AI. The policing perspective after all only leads to a luddite stance concerning AI, which is not what the EU is doing, far from it. From that it is clear how the legislator intends the thrust of GDPR. As QA really.
When the GDPR comes to an internet connected fridge near you….
Today is the day that enforcement of the GDPR, the new European data protection regulation starts. A novel part of the GDPR is that the rights of the individual described by the data follows the data. So if a US company collects my data, they are subject to the GDPR.
Compliance with the GDPR is pretty common sense, and not all that far from the data protection regulations that went before. You need to know which data you collect, have a proper reason why you collect it, have determined how long you keep data, and have protections in place to mitigate the risks of data exposure. On top of that you need to be able to demonstrate those points, and people described by your data have rights (to see what you know about them, to correct things or have data deleted, to export their data).
Compliance can be complicated if you don’t have your house fully in order, and need to do a lot of corrective steps to figure out what data you have, why you have it, whether it should be deleted and whether your protection measures are adequate enough.
That is why when the law entered into force on May 4th 2016, 2 years ago, a transition period was created in which no enforcement would take place. Those 2 years gave companies ample time to reach compliance, if they already weren’t.
The GDPR sets a de facto global norm and standard, as EU citizens data always falls under the GDPR, regardless where the data is located. US companies therefore need to comply as well when they have data about European people.
Today at the start of GDPR enforcement it turns out many US press outlets have not put the transition period to good use, although they have reported on the GDPR. They now block European IP addresses, while they ‘look at options’ to be available again to EU audiences.
From the east coast
to the west coast
In both cases the problem likely is how to deal with the 15 or so trackers those sites have that collect visitor data.
The LA Times for instance have previously reported on the GDPR, so they knew it existed.
A few days ago they asked their readers “Is your company ready?”, and last month they asked if the GDPR will help US citizens with their own privacy.
The LA Times own answers to that at the moment are “No” and “Not if you’re reading our newspaper”.
Some links I thought worth reading the past few days
- CTO Francesca Bria says “We are reversing the smart city paradigm”, creating “a new social pact — a new deal on data”: Fighting back against surveillance capitalism in Barcelona (leading the ‘fearless cities’ network)
- I had to miss it at the time itself, but enjoyed watching it afterwards, part of my braintrust Bryan Alexander hosts a Future Trends Forum with Cory Doctorow on Walkaway: Talking education and technology, the Walkaway perspective.
- The first example I’ve come across that looks at using blockchain for a local exchange and trading system (LETS), a local currency. Not sure why fiat currency related fears like ‘managing supply and demand’ of coins are mentioned, when you tie creation to a transaction like they describe: Hullcoin: can blockchain unlock the hidden value in Hull’s economy?
- Dealing with asymmetries in power over transmission, gatekeeping, scoring: Nibbling away at The New Octopus
- Last month XML-RPC was 20 years old. I should not be surprised Dave Winer helped create it. Twenty years on my webhoster blocks it to prevent brute force attacks on my blog: Dave Winer looks back on 4 years of XML-RPC in 2002.
- Trolling Trump with the US Constitution: Twitter blocking violates First Amendment
- Once more a way how geo data is part of privacy discussions: Open Street Map preparing for GDPR