Generated es_419 markdown file.

diff --git a/A_radical_proposal_to_keep_your_personal_data_safe.es_419.md b/A_radical_proposal_to_keep_your_personal_data_safe.es_419.md
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..6182fb4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/A_radical_proposal_to_keep_your_personal_data_safe.es_419.md
@@ -0,0 +1,114 @@
+# Una solución radical para mantener seguros sus objetos personales
+
+Por Richard Stallman, 2018-04-03
+
+La vigilancia impuesta hoy en día es peor que la impuesta en la Unión Soviética. Para empezar, hacen falta leyes para deneter tal recolección de datos.
+
+Journalists have been asking me whether the revulsion against the abuse of
+[Facebook](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/31/big-data-lie-exposed-simply-blaming-facebook-wont-fix-reclaim-private-information)
+data could be a turning point for the campaign to recover privacy. That
+could happen, if the public makes its campaign broader and deeper.
+
+Broader, meaning extending to all surveillance systems, not just
+[Facebook](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/facebook). Deeper, meaning
+to advance from regulating the use of data to regulating the accumulation of
+data. Because surveillance is so pervasive, restoring privacy is necessarily
+a big change, and requires powerful measures.
+
+The surveillance imposed on us today far exceeds that of the Soviet
+Union. For freedom and democracy’s sake, we need to eliminate most of
+it. There are so many ways to use data to hurt people that the only safe
+database is the one that was never collected. Thus, instead of the EU’s
+approach of mainly regulating how personal data may be used (in its [General
+Data Protection Regulation](https://www.eugdpr.org/)  or GDPR), I propose a
+law to stop systems from collecting personal data.
+
+The robust way to do that, the way that can’t be set aside at the whim of a
+government, is to require systems to be built so as not to collect data
+about a person. The basic principle is that a system must be designed not to
+collect certain data, if its basic function can be carried out without that
+data.
+
+Data about who travels where is particularly sensitive, because it is an
+ideal basis for repressing any chosen target. We can take the London trains
+and buses as a case for study.
+
+The Transport for London digital payment card system centrally records the
+trips any given Oyster or bank card has paid for. When a passenger feeds the
+card digitally, the system associates the card with the passenger’s
+identity. This adds up to complete surveillance.
+
+I expect the transport system can justify this practice under the GDPR’s
+rules. My proposal, by contrast, would require the system to stop tracking
+who goes where. The card’s basic function is to pay for transport. That can
+be done without centralising that data, so the transport system would have
+to stop doing so. When it accepts digital payments, it should do so through
+an anonymous payment system.
+
+Frills on the system, such as the feature of letting a passenger review the
+list of past journeys, are not part of the basic function, so they can’t
+justify incorporating any additional surveillance.
+
+These additional services could be offered separately to users who request
+them. Even better, users could use their own personal systems to privately
+track their own journeys.
+
+Black cabs demonstrate that a system for hiring cars with drivers does not
+need to identify passengers. Therefore such systems should not be allowed to
+identify passengers; they should be required to accept privacy-respecting
+cash from passengers without ever trying to identify them.
+
+However, convenient digital payment systems can also protect passengers’
+anonymity and privacy. We have already developed one: [GNU
+Taler](https://taler.net/en/). It is designed to be anonymous for the payer,
+but payees are always identified. We designed it that way so as not to
+facilitate tax dodging. All digital payment systems should be required to
+defend anonymity using this or a similar method.
+
+What about security? Such systems in areas where the public are admitted
+must be designed so they cannot track people. Video cameras should make a
+local recording that can be checked for the next few weeks if a crime
+occurs, but should not allow remote viewing without physical collection of
+the recording. Biometric systems should be designed so they only recognise
+people on a court-ordered list of suspects, to respect the privacy of the
+rest of us. An unjust state is more dangerous than terrorism, and too much
+security encourages an unjust state.
+
+The EU’s GDPR regulations are well-meaning, but do not go very far. It will
+not deliver much privacy, because its rules are too lax. They permit
+collecting any data if it is somehow useful to the system, and it is easy to
+come up with a way to make any particular data useful for something.
+
+The GDPR makes much of requiring users (in some cases) to give consent for
+the collection of their data, but that doesn’t do much good. System
+designers have become expert at manufacturing consent (to repurpose Noam
+Chomsky’s phrase). Most users consent to a site’s terms without reading
+them; a company that
+[required](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/sep/29/londoners-wi-fi-security-herod-clause)
+users to trade their first-born child got consent from plenty of users. Then
+again, when a system is crucial for modern life, like buses and trains,
+users ignore the terms because refusal of consent is too painful to
+consider.
+
+To restore privacy, we must stop surveillance before it even asks for
+consent.
+
+Finally, don’t forget the software in your own computer. If it is the
+non-free software of Apple, Google or Microsoft, it [spies on you
+regularly](https://gnu.org/malware/). That’s because it is controlled by a
+company that won’t hesitate to spy on you. Companies tend to lose their
+scruples when that is profitable. By contrast, free (libre)  software is
+[controlled by its
+users](https://gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html).
+That user community keeps the software honest.
+
+Richard Stallman is president of the Free
+[Software](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/software)  Foundation,
+which launched the development of a free/libre operating system GNU.
+
+Copyright 2018 Richard Stallman. Released under [Creative Commons
+Attribution NoDerivatives License
+4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/).  The original English
+version was published in [The
+Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/03/facebook-abusing-data-law-privacy-big-tech-surveillance)
+2018-04-03.