Tag: Data Protection

Categories
Mediawatch Values

Getting selfies right

DogSelfie_akkuzaIn an article entitled “Sharing explicit selfies without consent may be made illegal“, the Times reports that Social Dialogue Minister Helena Dalli has reacted to the current furore on selfies. Minister Dalli is quoted as saying that “the sharing of explicit material without a person’s consent is a clear breach of data protection”.

It is important to be clear about two aspects here. First of all “selfie” has snapped its way into the dictionary and has a very specific meaning. A “selfie” as the name implies (btw… it’s a “stessu” in Maltese – and that’s semi-official) is a snapshot taken of oneself by oneself. The crucial element in all this is the “self” – it is not a selfie if the person pressing the button of the camera is not the same as the person depicted in the picture. Why is that important? Well, simple really, it stops being a selfie if someone other than the person who took it (and is depicted in it) publishes it. It may sound like pedantic playing with words but in actual fact the point is that you don’t need consent to publish a selfie because technically the only person who publishes a selfie is the same person who took it.

When someone other than the selfie-taker publishes what was originally a selfie then what they are doing is publishing a photo – this falls under a wider category and not necessarily a selfie – of someone else. Who cares? The law might. You see if you are in possession of lewd photos of another person and publish them without his or her consent then chances are high (let’s say close to 100%) that what you are doing is illegal on a number of counts. It is ALREADY illegal.

Which brings me to the second point. I am sure that Minister Dalli’s intention is legitimate and I am also convinced that there might be lacunae that may need to be filled insofar as the Data Protection Commissioner is concerned. There is definitely a need for an educational campaign with regards to the use of private date and publishing thereof. Magistrate Depasquale was reported in the Independent to have referred to the fact that anyone uploading images of oneself that will be available publicly is exposing himself to “fair comment”.

“Magistrate Francesco Depasquale said in his judgement, the accusations were with regard to posts and photos which were openly accessible online. While it is a person’s right to make photos and material public, they should be conscious that this can be subject to people’s comments and ridicule.”

That is a positive development in the sense that our jurisprudence goes on record to remind the citizen the dos and donts at law. Back to selfies though. What the law does not need is complication. It must also be kept simple – Occam’s razor and all. There is already sufficient protection against other people uploading pictures of yourself without consent. It would be crazy to include/add a trend-driven definition such as “selfie” into the equation: it just does not add any value.

Categories
Internet Rights Values

World day against Cyber Censorship

The 12th of March is the World day against cyber censorship. The tools of the digital age have thrown back the frontiers of darkness and ignorance that have previously been used to keep whole populations in check. Reporters Without Borders and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) are two organisations that are active in the ongoing battle for freedom of information particularly in the battle against the use and abuse of laws to silence or block the digital (cyber) modes of expression. The Arab Spring and the continuous struggle in China both prove that digital activism can be effective especially in countries where the freedom of expression is a luxury. You may be familiar, for example, with the work of Yoani Sanchez – the Cuban dissident blogger who has become a symbol of freedom of expression in a country that was obsessed with control of information.

It is not just the standard totalitarian regimes who have trouble with information. Even the healthiest of democracies might suffer bouts of allergic intolerance to the independent minded expression of ideas. Again, a combination of ignorance that is nurtured by the establishment and abuse of freedoms based on a misunderstanding of their value  would contribute to the fouling of an atmosphere of open expression and intellectual engagement.

On a more local level the recent events on the day of silence might be misconstrued as a formal attempt to gag the new participants in the social discourse. That would be mistaken. The rule of silence (or reflection) might be an archaic rule but is a law of the land just the same. It is not a blanket censorship that exists eternally but a particular moment of silence imposed with what might be a misguided motivation but is a rational motivation just the same. Whether or not the day of silence can still serve its purpose in the digital age of facebook and twitter (or whether it should be extended to such means) is not really a matter of censorship with political ends but really a obvious example of a law that needs updating to take into consideration the modern circumstances. This is all the more necessary in the absence of objective interpretations that could per se have sufficed to fill such a lacuna.

A dangerous situation is created when rules such as the rule of reflection are abused of by parts of the political establishment in order to make whatever political capital they might deem fit. Such a danger is aggravated if members of the executive forces (whose duty it is to protect and serve) and members of the fourth estate (journalists whose duty would be to objectively investigate) become witting or unwitting co-conspirators in such an abuse of the legal provisions.

On this World Day Against Cyber Censorship J’accuse would like to reiterate a fundamental disagreement with the current laws affecting expression during election campaigns in Malta. This includes the rules appertaining to silence on the day before and on the day of elections, the rules covering the “balancing of opinions” on public broadcasting, the rules regulating the funding of political party campaigns and the lack of rules (or lack of application thereof) covering the blatant abuse and violation of digital rights with regards to the collection and reuse of personal digital data.

Happy World Day Against Cyber Censorship.

Blog… and be damned!

 

(illustration is an adaptation of the Reporters Without Frontiers cover to their report on Cyber Censorship)

Categories
Campaign 2013

Digital Lies

Only yesterday Austin Gatt and two of his sidekicks were busy presenting a White Paper that was almost being hailed as a quantum leap in the state of digital rights on the island. Essentially Gatt, IT Claudio and Arriva Delia were promoting a suggested new constitutional provision that would enshrine the digital rights of every Maltese citizen – the digital right amendment. Kudos to all this sci-fi and all that but J’accuse’s feet remain firmly entrenched in the “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” approach to legislation and we will not be easily impressed by the special effects of a proposed provision.

Not too far from the realm of digital rights is the issue of data and its protection. We do not need new rights to be enacted for that – we already have a snazzy Data Protection Act. The basic principles of this act are quite easy to grasp. Consider first of all that data is any information related to an identified or identifiable person. You then have the principle that in order to gather “data” that is yours or that identifies you, the potential gatherer (or “controller”) requires your permission. Once he has obtained that permission he can only use it for a specific purpose and for that purpose only.

Why am I saying all this? Well. Here’s the thing. I decided that it is high time I should log onto mychoice.pn and subscribe to updates so that I would be able to analyse what everyone else seems to be receiving. I proceeded to the lovely page and was asked to register. I gave the page my real name and my real surname as well as my email address (there’s always the spam folder). I did not wish to give the PN a remote chance of having my mobile number so I input what I believed to be a credible but phoney mobile number. No probs there.

Then came the ID Card business. I figured that if I subtract one from the progressive number allocated to me when I was registered I would come up with a credible ID card – not mine but credible enough… so if for example my ID was 500075 – the 5000th registered kid in 1975 then all I had to do was input 499975 and hey presto mychoice.pn would let me in.

Let me in my digital rights arse! Imagine my surprise when the validation system on mychoice.pn told informed me that the ID card number input does not match the name or surname provided. Wow. Let’s see what happened there. Essentially the ID number was checked against a database that mychoice.pn OBVIOUSLY has and the validation process checks whether the ID card corresponds to the right name and surname. Lovely. I was never asked by the site whether I acquiesced to the use of my ID number and name (the only box to be ticked is the one were you accept to recieve PBO’s updates). So mychoice.pn is in possession of a database (little need to guess that they are using the electoral register) that contains MY INFORMATION and are actively using it for data processing WITHOUT MY CONSENT. Without your consent either.

So what? I hear you say. Don’t we all know that political parties regularly use the electoral register in their day to day meddling. Sure. But they are definitely going out on a limb here and stretching the rubbish exception that they planted in the Data Protection Act to an incredible extreme. In any case, whether or not they manage to find some loophole to the Data Protection Act in this case what does this really say about the ever so grand initiative of DIGITAL RIGHTS and the white paper?

You’re right. Digital rights? They don’t give a rat’s arse. So much for all the high falutin’ consultation process.