• You overgeneralize by assuming that civil law framework determines attitudes about data transparency. Norway is a civil law country in which everyone's tax return is public information, for example. French attitudes are, as always, French, and are assumed by the French to be universally applicable to everyone except Englishmen and barbarian Americans.

[[LINK][LINK TEXT]]

So if you wanted "Megan's Laws" to hyperlink to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan's_Law you would use the above syntax with:

LINK = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan's_Law 
LINK TEXT = Megan's Law

So in the end, it would look like this:

[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan's_Law][Megan's Law]]

I hope that is helpful. I will try to return to provide substantive comments at a later time.

-- BrianS - 03 Dec 2009

• Much as I yield to nobody in my belief that Facebook's a problem, this seems to me an evidently trumped-up issue. No one gains legal rights by being dead, so this whole "right to oblivion" stuff is obvious nonsense. But people don't lose legal rights in this particular situation by being dead either: the executor or other legal representative has all the powers the decedent had to shut down the Facebook account or do whatever else is desired. When Bradley raised this you treated it as a solution for rich people, but that's untrue: next of kin wind up the matters of their dead relatives among the poor of the world, too. Arguing about the default rule for those whose executors or other representatives have taken no action is

  foolish

  the matter is evidently committed to their prudence and discretion. You don't have to instruct your executor specifically to cancel your magazine subscriptions. The technicalities are what they are: there's all sorts of complexity about the frequent flyer miles of the dead, too, and we don't need international treaties or in fact any transnational institutions to deal with that, either.

• You consider it shocking when a French minister talks total political bullshit and nobody bothers to scrape and bow? Hostile, doubtless English-speaking, bribery is the only possible reason, of course.

• From the revision point of view, I think you need to go back to basics. Either you can convince a skeptical editor that there's really a problem here, or you can't.

Hello Bradley,

Thank you for your comment. I think law has this extraordinary power to protect everyone, no matter the economic financial situation of the citizens. Specifically, the will provision would not be even thought by some people, only informed ones would probably consider this option. Not only imformed, but also ‘well-off’ persons could resort to it. The 300 million of ‘clients’ seems to me a deceptive figure. Internet and facebook have probably reached the most remote and poorest places, I think of cyber-cafes in African countries for example. Not sure those users could consider legal services. Beyond the economic parameter, the cultural one is also pregnant with the difficulty to formalize such provisions when customs in a given country place a huge stress on heritage and does not even recognize a right to privacy. Also, a probable perverse effect to consider generalizing such a process is to offer facebook and other social networks an affirmative defense based on the absence of such a provision in a person’s will. Apart from making the discussion about such a provision legally mandatory when drafting a will, the risk is to allow, implicitly, facebook and other social tools to keep confidential information, consented through silence, ie an absent provision.

Thus I do think a general and universal right to oblivion is a better alternative in terms of efficiency.

-- KamelB - 28 Dec 2009

Hello Juvaria,

Thank you also for your comment. As you know the word limit prevents to discuss both issues in a torough manner, but I think your point is worth developing. Contrary to Google, Facebook offers all the features of a modern burial place. While the latter offers only information on a person, facebook gives the opportunity to remember one’s memory. I would have never imagined such a thing before seeing all the messages left on my friend’s wall, and it gives the extraordinary convenience for a person to drop a thought at any time of the day anywhere in the world. Virtual life started to scary me, to be honest, and the reasons why I decided to deactivate my account was mainly because I was somewhat lost between all these new landmarks internet offers. Coming back to the discussion, the distinction between Facebook and Google gets irrelevant when dealing with a right to oblivion. This right would recognize a person’s virtual identity to be elapsed, be on a social network or a search engine. To what extent ? For how long ? From when ? Even our politicians still ignore it, and the network lobbies seem to be active in delaying the debate. But maybe all together, if interested, could determine the shape of this right.

-- KamelB - 28 Dec 2009

Hi Kamel, I enjoyed reading your piece, and it reminded me of the general conversation we had in class regarding social networking sites commodifying relationships. Although commodifying death is unfortunately nothing new, sites like facebook achieve that process more simply and subtly, which I think you touch upon when you refer to facebook as a "modern burial place." I was also curious whether your focus is mainly on information available on social networking sites like facebook, since you briefly discuss information found through Google as well.

-- JuvariaKhan - 10 Dec 2009

Kamel - After reading this piece, I was reminded of this TIME article. It discusses Facebook's and Myspace's policies regarding deceased users, and also discusses services that individuals can use to protect their legacy, such as Legacy Locker? . You appear to focusing more on legal remedies, which is very interesting, but it also might be useful to discuss possible non-legal remedies for this problem. For example, do you think this is an issue that could be dealt with through provisions in a will?

-- BradleyMullins - 06 Dec 2009

HABEAS DATA: PRESSING FOR A RIGHT TO OBLIVION

I. Web information: Eternal data?

II. Legally solving this tension between the right to information and the respect to privacy

III. Habeas data: A relevant concept to apply to the web?

IV. Global answers for a wolrdwide issue

Hi Brian, Thank you very much for the tip!!

-- KamelB - 05 Dec 2009

<--/commentPlugin-->

Kamel,

Since you suggested comments from the class, I added this comment box to your page. You can delete it if you like of course, just find the text that says %COMMENT% and delete it. It will be near the bottom of the page in edit mode. I also modified the hyperlinks since they previously all linked to http://.../. All I did was copy the text of the link that you included in your essay into the hyperlink code. Here's how it works so you can do it too (I'm copying from Justin's explanation of this elsewhere). A link should be coded in edit view like this:

[[LINK][LINK TEXT]]

So if you wanted "Megan's Laws" to hyperlink to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan's_Law you would use the above syntax with:

LINK = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan's_Law 
LINK TEXT = Megan's Law

So in the end, it would look like this:

[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan's_Law][Megan's Law]]

I hope that is helpful. I will try to return to provide substantive comments at a later time.

-- BrianS - 03 Dec 2009

<--/commentPlugin-->

Immortality… and eternal data?

Legally solving this tension between the right to information and the respect to privacy

Habeas data: A relevant concept to apply to the web?

The necessity to be global

Reclaiming privacy from search engines

Search engines sell you're privacy

Search engines play a big part in the way people use the internet. More often then not a search engine is the intermediar for accessing information on the web. The effectiveness of search engines make them a very useful utility for most internet users. However, the way that most search engines operate, imposes a big threat to the privacy of the person using it. The underlying problem is that the business model of a search engine like google is in a direct conflict of interest with the privacy of it’s users. Google’s ability facilitate targeted advertising (and thereby increasing it’s revenue) competes directly with the methods by which a user can achieve anonymity and preserve whatever little is left of their online privacy

Nothing to hide?

The strange thing is that most people have a rather indifferent attitude towards this phenonomen. What could be so bad about someone knowing what you search for on the internet? You’ve got nothing to hide right? The weakness in this argument is well illustrated in the essay ‘I’ve got nothing to hide’ by D. J. Solove, associate professor at George Washington University Law School. One of the problems with this argument is that the underlying presumption is that privacy is about hiding things. This is a far to narrow view, which does not take into account that privacy is more about a personal, social value. That the right to privacy is recognizes the sovereignty of the individual. Another issue that is overlooked is that the privacy you give up online is not just the information you disclose, but also the information you deliberately do not disclose. Because of the scale that data about individuals is collected, the data that you do not disclose can be inferred by simply putting you’re data in a pool with millions of other subjects.

Why is this problematic?

Search engines make detailed profiles about their users which contains anything from their tastes in consumer goods to their sexual orientation and medical issues. The main purpose of this data collection is to sell it for commercial purposes to parties who conduct targeted advertisements. Just the fact that you’re personal information is sold for commercial purposes is a bad thing. Even more worrying though is thinking about these detailed profiles falling in the wrong (or worse) hands. One needs only to look at history to see the devastating consequences that this could have. In my hometown of Amsterdam, Netherlands a disproportionate number of Jews were deported to the concentration camps precisely because there was a very detailed data collection about the inhabitants of the city at that time.

An attempt at regulation by the E.U.

So admitting that we have a problem is the first step, but what needs to be done about it? In the E.U., where there is in general a deeper tradition of privacy protection then in the US, legislators have seemed to recognize the issue and have adopted a directive concerning online data protection. The directive (95/46/EC) is an effort to regulate the data collection by search engines. It sets out a number of policy rules, such as that search engines must delete or irreversibly anonymise personal data once they no longer serve the specified and legitimate purpose. They must justify the retention and longentivity of cookies deployed at all time. The consent of the user must be sought and the user must be able to access, inspect or correct their personal data. While this directive is a reasonable effort to stop the uncontrollable data-mining practice of search engines it is not very adequate. To make search engines ‘irreversibly’ anonymise personal data after they no longer serve their ‘specified and legitimate’ purpose, has proven not to be very effective.

Re-identification

Several studies have shown that de-identified information can be re-identified very accurately in almost every case. A persons search inquiries might contain their own name, neighbourhood, neighbourhood etc, making it fairly easy to link them to a specific, identifiable user. Clearly the anonymization of the IP address does not at all solve the problem. Another thing that the directive wants to achieve is to give the users of the search engines the right to access, inspect and correct the private data that has been collected. I agree that this type of transparency would contribute to better online privacy. If users are aware of what data is being collected they can make more conscious decisions about the way they use search engines.

What should users do?

In absence of adequate regulation users of search engines should look for alternatives to the search engine with the ‘data collecting and selling’ business model. The technology to do encrypted searches on encrypted data is already available, such as PIR (private information retrieval). What needs to be achieved is a mainstream, potent alternative from google and the other commercial search engines. Free (as in freedom) software might be the best way to make such an alternative. We need search engines who do not depend on advertisement for their revenue. The thing that needs to happen then is the public getting more aware of the dreadful situation they are in and turning away from products from google and other companies that pose a threat to privacy. Unfortunately, the data that has already been collected about us is out there and the use of it will depend on commercial companies like google, who’s very existence depend on misusing it.

Activities of advocacy network run counter to the established theory of Westphalian sovereignty, where state authorities are considered to have supreme, independent authority over their territory. Much international network activity presumes the contrary - that it is both legitimate and necessary for states or nonstate actors to be concerned about the treatment of inhabitants of another state. (Keck & Sikkink, 36) Advocacy networks are therefore significant transnationally and domestically. By building links among actors in civil societies, states, and international organizations, they multiply the channels of access to the international system. They blur the boundaries between a state's relations with its own nationals and the recourse both citizens and states have to the international system, helping to transform the practice of national sovereignty. (Keck & Sikkink, 2)

At the core of the activities of advocacy networks is is information exchange. What is novel in these networks is the ability of nontraditional international actors to mobilize information strategically to help create new issues and categories and to persuade, pressure, and gain leverage over much more powerful organizations and governments. (Keck & Sikkink, 2) Information binds network members together and is essential for network effectiveness. Traditionally, this information exchange Many information exchanges are informal - telephone calls, e-mail and fax communications, and the circulation of newsletters, pamphlets and bulletins. They provide information that would not otherwise be available, from sources that might not otherwise be heard, and they must make this information comprehensible and useful to activisits and publics who may be geographically and/or socially distant. (Keck & Sikkink, 18)

The internet has emerged as an invaluable resource in

Transnational advocacy networks appear most likely to emerge around those issues where (1) channels between domestic groups and their governments are blocked or hampered or where such channels are ineffective for resolving a conflict, setting into motion the "boomerang" pattern of influence characteristic of these networks; (2) activists or "political entrepreneurs" believe that networking will further their missions and campaigns, and actively promote networks; (3) conferences and other forms of international contact create arenas for forming and strengthening networks. (Keck & Sikkink, 12)

Transnational advocacy networks seek influence in many of the same ways that other political groups or social movements do. Since they are not powerful in a traditional sense of the word, they must use the power of their information, ideas, and strategies to alter the information and value contexts within which states makes policies. The bulk of what networks do might be terms persuasion or socialization, but neither process is devoid of conflict. Persuasion and socialization often involve not just reasoning with opponents, but also bringing pressure, arm-twisting, encouraging sanctions, and shaming. (Keck & Sikkink, 16)

The ideas that networks bring to the international arena impinge on sovereignty in several ways. First, the underlying logics of the "boomerang" effect and of networks - which imply that a domestic group should rech out to international allies to bring pressure on its government to change its domestic practices - undermine absolute claims to sovereingty. Secoond, by producing information that contradicts information provided by states, networks imply that states sometimes lie. (Keck & Sikkink, 36)

Network members actively seek ways to bring issues to the public agenda by framing them in innovative ways and by seeking hospitable venues. Sometimes they create issues by framing old problems in new ways; occasionally they help transform other actors' understanding of their identities and their interests.

Tactics that networks use in their efforts at persuasion, socialization, and pressure includes (1) information politics, or the ability to quickly and credibly generate politically usable information and move it to where

Information binds network members together and is essential for network effectiveness. Many information exchanges are informal - telephone calls, e-mail and fax communications, and the circulation of newsletters, pamphlets and bulletins. They provide information that would not otherwise be available, from sources that might not otherwise be heard, and they must make this information comprehensible and useful to activisits and publics who may be geographically and/or socially distant. (Keck & Sikkink, 18)

Networks strive to uncover and investigate problems, and alert the press and policymakers. To be credible, the information produced by networks must be reliable and well documented. To gain attention, the information must be timely and dramatic. Sometimes these multiple goals of information politics conflict, but both credibility and drama seem to be essential components of a strategy aimed at persuading publics and policymakers to change their minds. (Keck & Sikkink, 19)

Along with the Kosovo Roma Refugee Foundation, the Roma Information Foundation, and the Society for Threatened Peoples (Germany and UK), Ms. Post continues to work for the approximately 550 Roma Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) in Kosovo who were forced for over 9 years to live on lead contaminated toxic land. Two actions have been filed with the United Nations itself since Kosovo has been governed these nine years by the UN Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) who is the responsible party. Actions have also been filed with the ombudsmans office and the local Human Rights Advisory Board (HRAP). Badly needed medical treatment for the affected children finally began on 30 August 2006 after an international letter writing campaign by Global Response. Food aid which was part of the medical treatment was then stopped in July 2007 and the medical treatment itself in October 2007. Thus UNMIK has made known its complete disregard for the health and welfare of the IDPs under its responsibility. Hearings on the situation were held in Brussels, London and Dublin in November 2008. An admissibility decision was made by HRAP on 5 June 2009 and can be found on this web site at "Research and other tidbits". An international advocacy group has a web page at www.toxicwastekills.com and you can go there and see what you can do to help these most forgotten victims. (http://www.delapointe.net/diannepost/current.php)

In March 2009, ten years after the war and the NATO intervention in Kosovo, 160 Roma refugee families, including 200 children under ten years old, are still living in two displaced persons' camps built for them by the United Nations on the most toxic waste tip in Europe.

Despite promises that they would be moved from their "temporary" accommodation on waste tailings at the Trepca mine complex within 45 days, they have been left there to survive in poverty and a poisoned environment for the last ten years. The children have some of the highest measured levels of lead, arsenic, & cadmium in their blood ever recorded. They show symptoms of severe neurological and physiological damage.

There are 112 families living in Osterode Camp and 48 families in Cesmin Lug/ Çesmin Llug. (Another 38 families in a third contaminated camp, Leposavic/ Leposaviq, are also affected.)

The camps are located in North Mitrovicë/Mitrovica, a city divided between Albanians on one side and Serbs on the other. These children and their families, members of the second largest ethnic minority in Kosovo, are trapped in a polluted no-man's-land of ethnic conflict.

Despite warnings from international human rights organisations and agencies including the World Health Organisation and the International Committee of the Red Cross the United Nations Mission in Kosovo has failed to take any effective steps to protect the lives of these desperately vulnerable children.

THESE CHILDREN HAVE BEEN BETRAYED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY. THE KOSOVO MEDICAL EMERGENCY GROUP AND SOCIETY FOR THREATENED PEOPLES DEMAND THEIR IMMEDIATE EVACUATION AND APPROPRIATE EMERGENCY MEDICAL TREATMENT. (http://www.toxicwastekills.com/)

The blog's very architecture solves one part of the problem [of the isolation of political discourse that has become extreme]. People post when they want to post and and people read when they want to read. Technologies that enable asynchronous communication, such as e-mail, increase the opportunity for communication. Blogs allow for public discourse without the public ever needing to gather in a public place. But beyond architecture, blogs also have solved the problem of norms. There's no norm in blog space not to talk about politics. (Lessig, 43)

Commercial pressures don't exist with blogs as with other ventures. Televisions and newspapers are commercial entities. They must work to keep attention. If they lose readers, they lose revenue. But bloggers don't have a similar constraint. They can obsess, they can focus, they can get serious. If a particular blogger writes a particularly interesting story, more and more people link to that story. And as the number of links to a particular story increases, it rises in the ranks of stories. people read what is popular; what is popular has been selected by a very democratic process of peer-generated rankings. (Lessig, 43)

Blog space gives amateurs a way to enter the debate - "amateur" not in the sense of inexperienced, meaning not paid by anyone to give their reports. It allows for a much broader range of input into a story.... Blogs are communicating directly with our constituency, and the middle man is out of it, with all the benefits and costs that might entail. (Lessig, 44)

You don't have to work for somebody who controls, for a gatekeeper. But it affects democracy in another way as well. As more and more citizens express what they think, and defend it in writing, that will change the way people understand public issues. It is easy to be wrong and misguided in your head. It is harder when the product of your mind can be criticized by others. (Lessig, 45)