NDP MPs call for Digital Bill of Rights in response to Facebook data breach

17 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
NDP MPs call for Digital Bill of Rights in response to Facebook data breach

Once again, the campaign-progressive but govern-regressive Liberals caught sitting on their collective butts.

NDP MPs call for Digital Bill of Rights in response to Facebook data breach

  • NDP ethics critic Charlie Angus has long advocated for greater digital privacy rights.

https://www.straight.com/life/1054136/ndp-mps-call-digital-bill-rights-r...

Rev Pesky

I'm certainly in favour. How did the NDP suggest they were going to enforce such a regulation?

NorthReport

Why doesn't the voice of gloom and doom about anything progressive ask them?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Well, even if (say) Facebook is outside Canadian jurisdiction, and cannot be compelled to comply with new Canadian cyberprivacy laws, the government could certainly require Canadian ISPs who wish to operate in Canada and use local infrastructure to BLOCK Facebook.

There's a campaign promise to get behind:  "If elected, we'll BLOCK Facebook for you.  You're welcome!"

Rev Pesky

From Mr. Magoo:

There's a campaign promise to get behind:  "If elected, we'll BLOCK Facebook for you.  You're welcome!"

Undoubtedly that would have a great appeal to the millenial voter. Of course some of the oldsters might be a little upset, but what do they know?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Like the always popular bike helmet laws and seatbelt laws, it would be for our own good.

voice of the damned

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Like the always popular bike helmet laws and seatbelt laws, it would be for our own good.

Well, I don't know if your characterization of those laws is meant to be sarcastic, but the seat-belt laws and helmet-laws are, I would say, fairly popular, or at least, totally non-controversial. Even in Alberta, the last-ditch holdout on seatbelts(I think), I don't think many people complain about them anymore.

Overall, though, I would agree that promising to block Facebook would be a MAJOR non-starter for any political party. To say that only non-millenials like it is to skirt over just how much a part of its users lives it really is. I've never done Facebook myself, and probably never will, but I don't get the impression that, for its users, having it blocked would be like having your favorite cute-cat website blocked; more like having your e-mail account blocked, or your cell-phone turned off.

I don't know everything about how all this political opinion-mining worked, but I'm wondering how different it is from the old days, when you would naively enter your name in a contest to win a Hawaiian getaway at the truck-and-trailer show, and then six months later, you're getting phone calls from pollsters asking "What do you think about the fact that the federal MP for Burnaby has recently announced that he is a homosexual?"  

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Even in Alberta, the last-ditch holdout on seatbelts(I think), I don't think many people complain about them anymore.

Well, I wasn't so much thinking of organized resistance to them so much as people just flouting them.

Quote:
having it blocked would be like having your favorite cute-cat website blocked; more like having your e-mail account blocked, or your cell-phone turned off.

I'd split the difference and say more like having your favourite porn site blocked.  Sure, you might have liked it, but it's harmful and bad so it has to go. 

e-mail replaced paper mail, and cell-phones replaced land lines.  Facebook replaced actually talking to people in the same room.

voice of the damned

Well, I wasn't so much thinking of organized resistance to them so much as people just flouting them.

Really? I only ride in cars in Canada a few times a year, but my impression is that the overwhelming majority of people use seatbelts. Same in Korea, as far as the front seat goes, not sure about the back.

I'd split the difference and say more like having your favourite porn site blocked.  Sure, you might have liked it, but it's harmful and bad so it has to go.

I'm not sure what your point is here. You're criticizing the mentality of the people who might want to ban Facebook(ie. they are like the busybodies who wanted to ban porn)? They probably are like that, but my comparison with e-mail and cell-phones was meant to illustrate the effect of a ban on users(who are also voters). I think a lot of peoples' lives would be tossed into serious tumult if an outright ban on Facebook were implemented, and it would be a surefire vote-loser for anyone who proposed the idea.  

e-mail replaced paper mail, and cell-phones replaced land lines.  Facebook replaced actually talking to people in the same room.

Is this meant as criticism? 'Cuz you could say the same thing about Web 1.0 forums like babble, ie. they allow you to talk to people outside of your immediate physical space. Personally, I prefer the old-school sites, partly because, from what I've seen, they allow for greater depth of discussion than what you get on Facebook, and also because, based on what I've been told by Facebook users themselves, privacy does seem to be a major issue there. But I recognize that there are a LOT of people who don't follow me on that.   

 

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I'm not sure what your point is here. You're criticizing the mentality of the people who might want to ban Facebook(ie. they are like the busybodies who wanted to ban porn)? They probably are like that, but my comparison with e-mail and cell-phones was meant to illustrate the effect of a ban on users(who are also voters). I think a lot of peoples' lives would be tossed into serious tumult if an outright ban on Facebook were implemented, and it would be a surefire vote-loser for anyone who proposed the idea.  

Let me start by agreeing it would be a vote loser.

The "porn site" analogy was only to counter the "cute kitten" site analogy, that I think misses the point that people really really like facebook.  Of course it's not a cute kitten site.  But if it's harmful (like a porn site) or bad (like a porn site!) then why shouldn't we expect people to endure a brief withdrawal period, in the interest of the greater good?

Of course I'm still being facetious. 

Quote:
Cuz you could say the same thing about Web 1.0 forums like babble, ie. they allow you to talk to people outside of your immediate physical space.

And my actions -- namely, participating here for the last how many years? -- show I see the merits in it.  But I'm just not down with the idea that FB is some kind of necessity.  I know people like it -- like porn, hence the analogy -- but for some reason people think it's a necessary part of normal life in 2018 now.  2/3 of the world does fine without it even now, and 3/3 of the world did fine without it 20 years ago. 

I'm just suggesting that anyone who thinks FB is evil can go ahead and stop using FB, the way a person might stop sniffing airplane glue.  And any government that things FB is evil can go ahead and ban it like a "pirate" radio station, and let those chips fall where they may.

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

I'd split the difference and say more like having your favourite porn site blocked.  Sure, you might have liked it, but it's harmful and bad so it has to go. 

 

Oh Mr Magoo. You put me in an uncomfortable situation by defending porn sites. They are not harmful at all to adults and if watching any and every sex act ever filmed floats your boat,I'm not standing in your way.

In fact according to some sexologists,watching porn and masturbation is part of a healthy sex life. It's a bit of a bad analogy. Drunk driving,not wearing a seatbelt,firing off ash cans in your hand...these are all harmful and bad and must go. Wanking off isn't.

And if the NDP (providing them making a gov't,something that isn't happening anytime soon) were to block ISP's from logging on to Facebook is a terrible idea that would go over like a lead balloon.

Rev Pesky

Further up thread I mentioned that while millenials would be okay with blocking FB, some oldsters wouldn't. After reading a further couple of comments I should clarify that I was joking.

In fact I had this discussion with an friend the other day, and it was suggested to me that if their organization didn't use FB, they wouldn't be able to connect with younger people at all. Sad as that is (to me) I understand that it is true.

I guess I would be willing to accept FB if it was possible for a user to delete all the data collected about them when they chose to leave FB. The problem isn't just that it hoovers up data, but that deleting that data from the system is difficult, if not impossible. That should change. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

The seven key elements of a digital policy to protect Canadians

  1. Protect the privacy of social media users.
  2. Change anti-trust and competition laws, especially to curb the duopoly of Facebook and Google.
  3. Start taxing data/platform companies and make them levy sales taxes on their transactions.
  4. Explore ways to make these high-tech giants pay users for the use of their information.
  5. Make Netflix play by the same rules as other broadcasters. Have the CRTC regulate it.
  6. Get guarantees against fake news, on pain of huge fines.
  7. Control hate, as does Germany.

There's more discussion at the link; I just listed the seven elements.  I'm not sure they're so much a "digital bill of rights" as just "some ideas that could raise money and take big scary companies down a notch or two".

I'd love to know, though, how we're supposed to "fix" the "duopoly" of Facebook and Google.  Perhaps we can tell Canadians that if their SIN ends in an odd number, they can continue to use FB and Google, but if it ends in an even number they must switch to Diaspora and Duck Duck Go.  As I've already suggested, the popularity of those two sites has everything to do with the fact that they have the most users (i.e. people's friends and such) or the most search records, respectively.  We literally don't WANT either of them to stop growing, or their value to us diminishes.

#4 is also kind of funny.  babble may not be a "tech giant", but if, on principle, people should be monetarily rewarded for providing the content for a site, then I'm going to ask babble to please make my cheque out to "cash".  Surely if posting that "I'm feeling verklempt" on FB is worth a penny, so is this post, right?

Quote:
I guess I would be willing to accept FB if it was possible for a user to delete all the data collected about them when they chose to leave FB. The problem isn't just that it hoovers up data, but that deleting that data from the system is difficult, if not impossible. That should change.

Well, I'm one of those people who doesn't believe that if you flounce from babble, you have some specific right to have every contribution you've ever made here deleted.

There is, of course, one super-easy way to control what data FB has about you...

 

 

Rev Pesky

From Mr. Magoo:

There is, of course, one super-easy way to control what data FB has about you...

That may not necessarily be true. Much of the data that FB collects is contact made with people who are not on Facebook. How is one to know whether FB has some of your data, when you're not a member, and don't have access to the normal channels of determining how much of your life they have?

A new report from Ars Technica found that Facebook has been collecting call and text data from Android phone users for years.

​As to Babble; personally I would make a differentiation between those who use the data for commercial purposes and those who don't. That may not be workable, but is a consideration, in my opinion.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Personally I thought a lot of this was already covered under existing human rights legislation. If people are doing these terrible discriminatory things why isn't anyone *gasp* using the Charter to stop them?

That data would only include the fact that someone on FB called me.

If someone writes a letter to the editor of their local newspaper and says "I sent Mr. Magoo a letter explaining my concerns", I guess everyone knows that that person and I shared a correspondence, whether I like that or not.

Quote:
As to Babble; personally I would make a differentiation between those who use the data for commercial purposes and those who don't. That may not be workable, but is a consideration, in my opinion.

Are you referring to this:

Quote:
babble may not be a "tech giant", but if, on principle, people should be monetarily rewarded for providing the content for a site, then I'm going to ask babble to please make my cheque out to "cash".  Surely if posting that "I'm feeling verklempt" on FB is worth a penny, so is this post, right?

Either my participation here makes rabble/babble financially viable, or rabble/babble is hosting this site out of the goodness of their heart.

I'm not really expecting money for this post, or any of my thousands of others.  My point was I don't know why any FB user should expect a share of the loot for posting three emojis, either.  I'm not using babble for rabble's benefit.  FB users aren't using FB for FB's benefit.  It's, at best, a pleasant symbiosis.

 

voice of the damned

7. Control hate, as does Germany.

The idea that hate and offensive material is hard to define is a cop-out. Under pressure, Facebook and others are suddenly discovering that they can indeed draw lines, and are promising to do so.

Yeah, Facebook, being a private company, has the right to define "hate" as they see fit, and ban it from their site. They also have the right to define nudity as they see fit, and ban it from their site. And they've decided that their defintion of "nudity" includes photos of women breastfeeding,

So I don't know if the fact that Facebook has a quick and easy way of defining what's Evil should be taken as an an automatic indication that the Canadian governmnet should do the same thing.

Get guarantees against fake news, on pain of huge fines.

Haven't we recnetly been told that the campaign against "fake news" has led to vital left-wing websites like Counterpunch and WSWS being subject to discriminatory rankings on Google? But I guess we can trust the Toronto Star isn't advocating the contination of those particular policies(though what other kinds of "guarantees" they have in mind, I don't know).

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Haven't we recnetly been told that the campaign against "fake news" has led to vital left-wing websites like Counterpunch and WSWS being subject to discriminatory rankings on Google?

+1

And let's not forget Craig Paul Roberts.  No k00K left behind!!!!!!!