Re: [GNU/consensus] [RFC][SH] User Data Manifesto

[Frank Karlitschek]

On 06.01.2013, at 13:40, Hugo Roy <address@hidden> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
> 
> Le samedi 05 janvier 2013 à 21:18 -0500, Richard Stallman a écrit :
>> That statement is not clear.  What does it mean?
>> Are you talking about that person, or his manifesto?
>> 
>> GNU consensus cannot support that manifesto in its current form,
>> because it conflicts with ideas of the GNU Project. 
> 
> To me, it is pretty clear that we welcome Frank in the discussion.
> Frank's initiative does not conflict with ideas of the GNU project, it
> is about laying down a set of rights related to users of social
> networks/"cloud" services. I do not see a conflict in that goal with the
> GNU project that aims at liberating computer users, quite the contrary.

Thank you. :-)

> Now, I also share your concern with some of the words. This is why I did
> not sign the manifesto as an individual either. I do not believe for
> instance that anything created by a person "belongs" to that person.
> Rather, it depends very much on your definitions of "belonging" and
> "owning". 

Yes. Let's make a v2.0 with improved wording. I'm not a native speaker
and not a lawyer so I'm sure there is a lot to improve.


> I guess the confusion comes from the philosophy that "people own
> themselves" which is actually another way of saying that a person is a
> free self. If you're free, you can think for yourself and do things with
> your body, so you "own" your body and you "own" things you make with
> your hands. But I do think that the formulation is too problematic,
> especially because "own" often goes hand in hand with property. And if
> we talk about ideas, then it is nonsense, even if that "idea" is
> formulated in data.

Yes.
The original motivation behind this idea was that in the "old" days everybody 
had exactly one computer with one hard-disk. Everything that I type into this 
computer is stored on the hard-disk and is considered private first. Examples 
are notes, draft emails, photos and all kind of documents. It's an conscious 
decision to share some of the stuff with others. Like publishing a blog post, 
sending a email, uploading a photo on a website and so on. This is all fine.

The challenge nowadays is that people have more than one computer. Like a work 
computer, a home notebook, a tables, a phone, a coffee machine with internet 
connection and so on. So it is convenient to people to have their stuff 
somewhere on the internet to sync it and access it from all their devices. But 
it is bad if the administrator of this internet services decides to access and 
copy and distribute the information without the permission of the user. The 
default has to be private. Just as my personal hard disk is mine and shouldn't 
be public by default. 
This is what I meant with the word "I own the data that I create until I decide 
to share it if someone."

Perhaps "own" is the wrong word here.


> I think the crucial point should not be about "owning" but really about
> privacy/publicity.

Thats a good idea.

> The act of publishing something is very important. People should not
> publish things without thinking through what that means. For instance,
> we are responsible for things we say (legally responsible, with libel
> law; or even socially responsible, with our reputation). But worse,
> people should not be forced into publishing things. I see the subsequent
> changes of Facebook's privacy policy and designs, with their
> opt-in/opt-out changes, as a tendency towards forcing people to share
> "stuff". This is wrong. Of course, that problem goes away if people have
> their own server and decide for themselves (then we only need to take
> care of the software and interface designs). 

Yes.

> But until that architecture is there and working for everybody, I
> definitely see a need for initiatives such as this manifesto: to help
> bring people to websites which adhere to safeguarding these rights. That
> can also be legally enforced in their Terms of service; so that it is
> not only a promise but also a legal contract.

Exatly.


> So I definitely think we should improve this manifesto and come up with
> a better definition of the basic rights that every user should have on
> these websites, and also a set of practical requirements that help
> safeguarding these rights.

Yes. Absolutely. I would love to improve it with the help of the people here on 
the mailinglist.

And it would be great to make this a GNU/FSF initiative 


Frank



> -- 
> Hugo Roy 
>  French Coordinator, FSFE      chat: address@hidden
>  Support the FSFE, sign up ↓    mobile: +336 08 74 13 41
>  https://www.fsfe.org/support 
>