Before I took off to Greece (two weeks of internet absence – yay!!!) I participated in a net politics convent of the Austrian civil society organized by the World-Information Institute, Vienna (participants from activist groups, research institutes, arts & culture, technology experts, engaged citizens; supported by servus.at). The primary aim of the gathering was to formulate claims in the context of net neutrality, data protection and privacy rights, open data and open knowledge and, finally, copyright. The claims are directed to Austrian politics. The time is right now since all parties have started campaigning for the elections in fall. Net political issues should be part of their strategy! And there is much to discuss as the vivid debates at the convent have shown! It was not easy, but we finally came up with three straight claims per issue that are summarized below (in German). For more in-depth information on and discussion of these claims go to the convent’s website. If you wanna support our claims, please sign the petition here and share it widely – via Facebook, Twitter or old-fashioned email and word of mouth!
Netzneutralität
- Gleiches Internet für alle!
- Das Netz muss öffentlicher Raum sein!
- Keine Überholspur für Großkonzerne!
Datenschutz und Recht auf Privatsphäre
- Privacy by Design!
- Durchsetzungsfähige Behörde für Informationsfreiheit und Datenschutz!
- Entbündelung von Datenmonopolen!
Offene Daten und Offenes Wissen
- Transparenzgesetz und Öffnung der Datenbestände des öffentlichen Sektors!
- Freier Zugang zu wissenschaftlicher Forschung und Produktionen aus öffentlichen Mitteln!
- Freie Verfügbarkeit von Lehr- und Lern-Unterlagen öffentlicher Einrichtungen!
UrheberInnenrecht
- Ausweitung der freien Werknutzung (z.B. Remix) bei entsprechender Vergütung!
- Stärkung der Position der AutorInnen durch UrheberInnenvertragsrecht!
- Kürzere Schutzdauer, mit Verlängerungsmöglichkeit durch UrheberInnen!
Just out of interest: what was the thinking around “Privacy by design”?
well, the basic idea was to inscribe privacy in technology; e.g. default settings should protect privacy rather than revealing as much data as possible – this may sound a little naive since it’s all corporations offering services like facebook, twitter, google etc. and they hence follow their own goal of profit-making with user profiling instead of following the goal of protecting user data, but politics should still pressure these companies with privacy rights and data protection law – esp. now that the European data protection regulation is negotiated.. what do you think about privacy by design?
Thank you, Astrid. I am interested in the use of “design” in policy contexts. The word seems to have become quite popular recently (although it has been around in privacy discourses for ages), and I wonder why that is. One reason might be that it is so unspecific that it can simply take you anywhere while sounding reasonably “cool”. Another might be that it conveniently suggests that there is a technological fix — and that if only you get the model right, everything will be good. Of course, this comes with the added advantage of being able to defer accountability elsewhere: to “designers”, to “the system”, to the “just-not-quite-right-ness” of the design. It is interesting to think this through especially with regard to the “default settings” example you mention.
yeah, I totally agree, the technological fix is problematic. but if we take ideas from social construction of technology seriously and believe in value-laden design then we could still try to create “better” technologies, right? the only problem I see is that these technologies – as every technology – serve certain purposes and data gathering is at the heart of their business model.. so why should they change their default settings if it goes against their primary aim of money-making? we’re still using their services for free, right? so would we be willing to pay for non-commercial technology for example? and how can politics even pressure companies like facebook, twitter & co; based in the US and acting globally (and hence escaping local law pretty well)?