From: Petter Reinholdtsen Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2020 15:19:19 +0000 (+0200) Subject: Generated es_419 markdown file. X-Git-Url: https://pere.pagekite.me/gitweb/text-rms-personal-data-safe.git/commitdiff_plain/6b1bd88cf0fe0375e6e724498b032580f0be8d7d 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 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.