El académico que cree que hay que terminar con el “monopolio de Google” (y hacerlo rápido) – El Mostrador

Las grandes empresas tecnológicas como Google, Facebook y Amazon actúan prácticamente como monopolios. Así lo considera el académico Jonathan Taplin, quien advierte de los riesgos de prolongar esta situación, también para la democracia. BBC Mundo habló con él.

Fuente: El académico que cree que hay que terminar con el “monopolio de Google” (y hacerlo rápido) – El Mostrador

Tres maneras en las que Facebook usa tu información de WhatsApp – El Mostrador

Cuando la red social más popular compró la plataforma de mensajería más usada en todo el mundo dijo que no usaría los datos de los clientes WhatsApp. Pero ahora sí lo hace. Te contamos para qué necesita toda esa información.

Fuente: Tres maneras en las que Facebook usa tu información de WhatsApp – El Mostrador

Alemania demanda a WhatsApp por compartir datos de usuarios – El Mostrador

La intención de la Federación de Consumidores de Alemania es que las instancias judiciales obliguen a la empresa de mensajería a borrar los datos de usuarios que ha compartido con Facebook y que, al mismo tiempo, se abstenga de utilizar un total de ocho cláusulas controvertidas que figuran en las condiciones de uso de la aplicación.

Fuente: Alemania demanda a WhatsApp por compartir datos de usuarios – El Mostrador

In Major Privacy Victory, Top EU Court Rules Against Mass Surveillance

The European Union’s top court has severely undermined the British government’s mass surveillance powers in a new ruling that could rein in police and spy agency investigations.In a judgment handed down in Luxembourg on Wednesday, the European Court of Justice declared that the “general and indiscriminate retention” of data about people’s communications and locations was inconsistent with privacy rights. The court stated that the “highly invasive” bulk storage of private data “exceeds the limits of what is strictly necessary and cannot be considered to be justified, within a democratic society.”

Fuente: In Major Privacy Victory, Top EU Court Rules Against Mass Surveillance

Facebook cede ante las presiones de Bruselas y dejará de compartir datos con Whatsapp – El Independiente

arece que las autoridades europeas están muy cerca de ganar otra batalla contra uno de los gigantes tecnológicos estadounidenses. Apenas unas semanas después de recibir una carta de las autoridades europeas de protección de datos, Facebook ha decidido suspender la transferencia de datos personales de sus usuarios con Whatsapp.

Fuente: Facebook cede ante las presiones de Bruselas y dejará de compartir datos con Whatsapp – El Independiente

WhatsApp asked by European regulators to pause sharing user data with Facebook | Technology | The Guardian

The letters come as European nations express concern over WhatsApp’s changes and Yahoo’s mishandling of its hack and the revelations over US intelligence operations.

Fuente: WhatsApp asked by European regulators to pause sharing user data with Facebook | Technology | The Guardian

Europe’s Top Human Rights Court Will Consider Legality of Surveillance Exposed by Edward Snowden

Ten organizations – including Privacy International, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Amnesty International – are taking up the landmark case against the U.K. government in the European Court of Human Rights (pictured above). In a 115-page complaint released on Thursday, the groups allege that “blanket and indiscriminate” surveillance operations carried out by British spy agencies in collaboration with their U.S. counterparts violate privacy and freedom of expression rights.

Fuente: Europe’s Top Human Rights Court Will Consider Legality of Surveillance Exposed by Edward Snowden

Brussels to tighten grip on web services in telecoms shake-up – FT.com

Brussels will tighten its regulatory grip over online services such as WhatsApp and Skype in a radical overhaul of the EU’s rules on telecoms due out in September. According to internal documents seen by the Financial Times, so-called “over-the-top” services operated by groups such as Facebook, which runs WhatsApp, and Skype owner Microsoft would in future have to abide by “security and confidentiality provisions” demanded by the EU.

Fuente: Brussels to tighten grip on web services in telecoms shake-up – FT.com

Microsoft, en el punto de mira de la AEPD por la dudosa privacidad de Windows 10. Noticias de Tecnología

La Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) tiene a Microsoft en el punto de mira. ¿El motivo? Existe preocupación relacionada con Windows 10 y el tratamiento de los datos de los usuarios. “La AEPD está estudiando el funcionamiento de Windows 10”, explican fuentes de la agencia después de que su homólogo francés, la Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL, en sus siglas en inglés), haya exigido a Redmond en las últimas horas que debe acatar las leyes francesas de protección de datos en un plazo máximo de tres meses.

Fuente: Microsoft, en el punto de mira de la AEPD por la dudosa privacidad de Windows 10. Noticias de Tecnología

Brussels set to sign off on transatlantic data transfer rules – FT.com

The new deal, called Privacy Shield, will provide a legal means for businesses to transfer personal data online — whether payslips, pictures or healthcare data — to the US from the EU without falling foul of the bloc’s strict privacy laws.

Fuente: Brussels set to sign off on transatlantic data transfer rules – FT.com

Privacy activist launches EU-wide challenge to ‘ad blocker blockers’ — FT.com

Publishers who use “ad blocker blockers” face a range of legal challenges across the EU in the latest fight over the increasingly popular but controversial technology. .Ad blockers, which allow browsing free of pop-ups or pre-roll adverts on videos, have come under attack recently from publishers who rely on advertising to pay the bills.Publishers ranging from The New York Times to the technology magazine Wired have taken the step of introducing pop-ups asking users to switch off their ad blockers, and in some cases blocking those who refuse to do so.

Fuente: Privacy activist launches EU-wide challenge to ‘ad blocker blockers’ — FT.com

New Safe Harbor Data “Deal” May Be More Politicking Than Surveillance Reform

European privacy activists criticized a new Safe Harbor data agreement with the U.S. as a superficial political fix that fails to address NSA spying.

Fuente: New Safe Harbor Data “Deal” May Be More Politicking Than Surveillance Reform

EU agrees strict new regime on data protection – FT.com

The European Union agreed strict new rules on data protection on Tuesday, heralding a new era of major fines for companies who break privacy rules. Businesses face sanctions of up to 4 per cent of global turnover under the agreement, meaning that

Fuente: EU agrees strict new regime on data protection – FT.com

US tech groups spawn a fight between Europe’s data regulators – FT.com

US tech groups spawn a fight between Europe’s data regulators – FT.com.

High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/99eea7a2-e282-11e4-aa1d-00144feab7de.html#ixzz3Yi45ZVOI



Google, Facebook, Apple and now Twitter: the list of companies that submit to Ireland’s data protection regime is a long and growing one.

Twitter last week confirmed that any complaints about data protection from its non-US users will be dealt with by Ireland’s increasingly busy data protection agency.

But not everyone is happy. In Brussels and national capitals across the continent, critics have been grumbling that Dublin’s enforcement of European data protection rules is too weak.

The fact that the Irish Data Protection Commission is housed in Canal House, a dingy looking building on Station Road in Portalington, an hour outside Dublin, is regularly brought up as an example of the limited resources given to data protection — much to the chagrin of Dara Murphy, Ireland’s data protection minister.

“I marvel at the fact that people feel that business can’t be conducted over a grocery shop,” he says.

The Irish say they follow the same rules as everyone else and that the criticism is based less on the basis of enforcement but on the fact that companies such as Twitter and LinkedIn opted for Dublin over Paris, Berlin or Amsterdam.

Mr Murphy believes the arrival of the US technology groups in Ireland has created both jobs and jealousy. “I think if they were all based in Paris, you would not be having the debate coming from France,” he says.

Ireland has also doubled funding for the IDPC to €3.65m. It will also soon open a swankier office in Dublin — while maintaining the office above a shop — and hire two dozen more staff, taking its headcount to around 50.

Even then, however, it will still lack the resources of its peers. Despite the fact that the IDPC oversees the regulation for 29 of the 30 biggest technology businesses in Europe, its budget is eight times smaller than the UK’s regulator.

Ireland also has a more low-key approach than other DPAs. There is regular communication between the IDPC and large US technology groups, with an emphasis on collaboration rather than confrontation. This suits the web giants that have made Ireland their European home over the past decade.


Facebook admits it tracks non-users, but denies claims it breaches EU privacy law | Technology | The Guardian

Facebook admits it tracks non-users, but denies claims it breaches EU privacy law | Technology | The Guardian.

 facebook app
Facebook claims report stating it breaches EU data privacy law ‘gets it wrong’, but admits to tracking non-users. Photograph: Anatolii Babii / Alamy/Alamy

Facebook has admitted that it tracked users who do not have an account with the social network, but says that the tracking only happened because of a bug that is now being fixed.

The social network hit out at the report commissioned by the Belgian data protection authority, which found Facebook in breach of European data privacy laws, saying that the report “gets it wrong multiple times in asserting how Facebook uses information”.

“The researchers did find a bug that may have sent cookies to some people when they weren’t on Facebook. This was not our intention – a fix for this is already under way,” wrote Richard Allan, Facebook’s vice president of policy for Europe in a rebuttal.

Allan listed and responded to eight claims isolated from the report written by researchers at the Centre of Interdisciplinary Law and ICT (ICRI) and the Computer Security and Industrial Cryptography department (Cosic) at the University of Leuven, and the media, information and telecommunication department (Smit) at Vrije Universiteit Brussels.

Some of the claims listed by Facebook are not made in the report, including one that states “there’s no way to opt out of social ads”. The report clearly states that “users can opt-out from appearing in so-called Social Ads”.

“Facebook’s latest press release (entitled “Setting the record straight”) attributes statements to us that we simply did not make,” said authors of the study Brendan Van Alsenoy from the ICRI and Günes Acar from Cosic.

Data privacy: the tide is turning in Europe – but is it too little, too late? | Technology | The Guardian

Data privacy: the tide is turning in Europe – but is it too little, too late? | Technology | The Guardian.

Simultaneous legal cases suggest that the need to assert the digital rights of citizens over corporations and governments is finally being addressed

Max Schrems
Cases such as Max Schrems’ lawsuit against Facebook are asserting fundamental rights of privacy and data protection. Photograph: Max Schrems/Europe-V-Facebook.or/PA

Amazon Dash – the company’s single purpose internet-connected ordering button – may soon be blackening our skies with drones delivering loo rolls and detergent. And so, the relentless march of technology – not to mention cheap labour, unthinking consumerism and scandalous environmental devastation – goes on.

But while more convenient ordering of washing powder might have captured the headlines of late, Europe has been in the midst of a technological step change; a pivot in the world of data privacy.

Several notable events at the end of March, in Luxembourg, London and Geneva, show a glimmer of hope that those frail, beaten rights – privacy and data protection – might yet see their true worth in the digital age.

A moment, first, in defence of privacy – reports of whose death are, I hope, greatly exaggerated.

Privacy is a right for all – not just the filthy rich

Many fall into the trap of seeing privacy in an overly atomistic, individualistic, selfish way; the preserve of the filthy rich. And it is, if we see it as separable from collective freedom, or as absolute over other rights – of freedom of expression, opinion and association; freedom to protest; freedom to resist. But this is not privacy’s ask.

Privacy is about having decisional power, control, over which acts and events of our lives are disclosed and to whom, free from the prying eyes of states, corporations and neighbours. Privacy affords us the freedom to develop ourselves in the world.

The crux of the issue with digital technology is that our ability to make decisions and to control our personal information – the links and traces of our lives – is all but lost. Mostly without our knowledge, and certainly without informed consent, nation states sweep our data alleging ‘national security’ interests, whether legitimate or not. Corporations sweep our data, because they have powerful economic incentives to do so – and, with the capitalist lurch, no reason not to.

So what can be done to reclaim this systematic erosion; to reinstate rights over the long echo of our digital whispers and wanderings? In Europe, there are some rumblings of resistance. They are the rumblings of citizens, of regulators, of courts. And they are starting to find their voice.

Un informe acusa a Facebook de rastrear a los internautas ilegalmente | Tecnología | EL PAÍS

Un informe acusa a Facebook de rastrear a los internautas ilegalmente | Tecnología | EL PAÍS.

La Agencia de Privacidad Belga, integrante de una acción europea que investiga cómo trata la privacidad esta red social, asegura que el gigante de Zuckerberg rompe el marco legal europeo. La compañía afirma que el informe es “incorrecto”


Un empleado de Facebook en su sede de Menlo Park. / JEFF CHIU (AP)

El archivo se llama datr. Y funciona como un sabueso cada vez que uno, sea usuario o no, entra en una página del dominio Facebook.com. Tiene una duración de dos años y envía información a la red social sobre qué webs visita el usuario de entre las más de 13 millones que contienen un botón delike a Facebook. Da igual que el usuario lo pulse o no. Estas y otras cookies—archivo que marca a los internautas para guardar un registro de su comportamiento en Internet— son uno de los puntos en los que Facebook rompe la legalidad europea según un informe de 65 páginas encargado por la Comisión de Privacidad Belga y desvelado en exclusiva por The Guardian. “Estas cookies significan: Facebook rastrea a sus usuarios por la red incluso si no hacen uso de los plug-in sociales [por ejemplo, los botones de like que redirigen a Facebook] y aunque no estén logueados [con su perfil de Facebook activo]; y este rastreo no se limita a los usuarios de Facebook”.

Para los autores de este informe —elaborado bajo el encargo de la agencia belga por el Centro de Legalidad Interdisciplinar e ICT (ICRI), el departamento de la Universidad de Leuven y el departamento de medios, información y telecomunicación de la Universidad Vrije de Bruselas—, esta actuación de Facebook rompe la legalidad europea. En concreto, el artículo 5(3) de la directiva e-privacyaprobada en 2002 por el Parlamento Europeo en la que se prohíbe el uso decookies para los usuarios que no se suscriban a una web salvo que se trate de facilitar la “transmisión de comunicación” o para proveer de un servicio social de información que haya sido “explícitamente requerido por su suscriptor o usuario”. Según este estudio, el uso que Facebook hace de su datr. no cae en ninguna de estas excepciones.

Leave Facebook if you don't want to be snooped on, warns EU | Technology | The Guardian

Leave Facebook if you don’t want to be snooped on, warns EU | Technology | The Guardian.

European Commission admits Safe Harbour framework cannot ensure privacy of EU citizens’ data when sent to the US by American internet firms

European flags at the EC
The Safe Harbour Framework that is meant to protect the data of EU citizens when sent to the US by American technology firms including Facebook are not adequate the European Commission has admitted. Photograph: Georges Gobet/AFP/Getty Images

The European Commission has warned EU citizens that they should close their Facebook accounts if they want to keep information private from US security services, finding that current Safe Harbour legislation does not protect citizen’s data.

The comments were made by EC attorney Bernhard Schima in a case brought by privacy campaigner Maximilian Schrems, looking at whether the data of EU citizens should be considered safe if sent to the US in a post-Snowden revelation landscape.

“You might consider closing your Facebook account, if you have one,” Schima told attorney general Yves Bot in a hearing of the case at the European court of justice in Luxembourg.

When asked directly, the commission could not confirm to the court that the Safe Harbour rules provide adequate protection of EU citizens’ data as it currently stands.

The US no longer qualifies

The case, dubbed “the Facebook data privacy case”, concerns the current Safe Harbour framework, which covers the transmission of EU citizens’ data across the Atlantic to the US. Without the framework, it is against EU law to transmit private data outside of the EU. The case collects complaints lodged against Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, Microsoft-owned Skype and Yahoo.

Schrems maintains that companies operating inside the EU should not be allowed to transfer data to the US under Safe Harbour protections – which state that US data protection rules are adequate if information is passed by companies on a “self-certify” basis – because the US no longer qualifies for such a status.

The case argues that the US government’s Prism data collection programme, revealed by Edward Snowden in the NSA files, which sees EU citizens’ data held by US companies passed on to US intelligence agencies, breaches the EU’s Data Protection Directive “adequacy” standard for privacy protection, meaning that the Safe Harbour framework no longer applies.

Facebook sigue sin cumplir con la legislación europea de privacidad

Facebook sigue sin cumplir con la legislación europea de privacidad.

Un informe elaborado por la Universidad de Lovaina concluye que Facebook sigue violando la legislación europea sobre privacidad, pese a que cambió sus políticas en enero

La red social se atribuye la potestad de rastrear a sus usuarios en webs y dispositivos, usar sus fotos de perfil para propósitos comerciales y no comerciales y recopilar información

En lo que se refiere al smartphone, Facebook no ofrece ninguna manera de que no se cree un registro con la localización del usuario a través de su aplicación móvil

El Centro Interdisciplinario para las Leyes y las Tecnologías de la Información y de la comunicación, perteneciente a la Universidad de Lovaina (en Bélgica), ha publicado un informe acerca de cómo casan los términos de servicio de Facebook con la legislación europea. Y las conclusiones presentadas indican que la red social viola la normativa europea en varios aspectos.

El trabajo lo ha encargado la Comisión de Privacidad de Bélgica, que ahora debe valorar los resultados. El informe está orientado a evaluar los cambios que Facebook hizo en sus condiciones y sus políticas respecto al usuario, que entraron en vigor a partir del 30 de enero. En el texto se apunta que la actualización solo ha “expandido políticas y prácticas antiguas”, mientras que “todavía viola la ley europea de protección al consumidor”.

Cyber security rules raise fears of digital protectionism – FT.com

Cyber security rules raise fears of digital protectionism – FT.com.

March 5, 2015 1:48 pm

Computer board with chips and components©Dreamstime

Talk of protectionism once meant bemoaning barriers being erected in far-off lands for offcuts of beef or steel rods, but in Washington these days the protectionism fears have gone digital.

Mindful of the world-leading position of domestic technology companies like Google and Microsoft and eager to maintain their competitiveness in the face of new challengers, the US is increasingly pushing back against what it sees as a rising tide of protectionism aimed at the US tech sector in China, Europe and elsewhere.

In the latest example, President Barack Obama has led US complaints over new Chinese cyber security rules for the banking industry that tech companies complain would in effect shut them out of an important market.

The president said this week that he had raised American concerns over the new rules with his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping. “We have made it very clear to them that this is something they are going to have to change if they are to do business with the United States,” he told Reuters on Monday.

Senior US officials including Jack Lew, the Treasury secretary, and John Kerry, secretary of state, have also raised “serious concerns” about the regulations. “The rules are not about security. They are about protectionism and favouring Chinese companies,” said Mike Froman, the US trade representative.

Mr Froman raised the possibility that China might be violating its commitments under bilateral and multilateral trade agreements if it implemented the new rules for the banking sector as planned this month. Other US officials have said Washington is examining whether it could take China to the World Trade Organisation over them in what could become a landmark case at the trade body.

But the concerns being expressed in the US capital about digital protectionism go beyond the new Chinese rules. Mr Obama last month accused European officials of disguising protectionism behind “high-minded” security and privacy concerns. They have also become a growing part of the conversation technology executives have with political leaders when they visit the US capital.

“We’re focused on the situation around the world,” Brad Smith, Microsoft’s general counsel, said after a day of meetings with members of Congress this week. “China is an important market. Other countries are obviously important as well. There are aspects of protectionism that we have to worry about in many countries.”

In depth

Cyber warfare

Cyber security

As online threats race up national security agendas and governments look at ways of protecting their national infrastructures a cyber arms race is causing concern to the developed world

Further reading

The perceived pushback against US tech companies is partly the result of concerns triggered by the revelations of whistleblower Edward Snowden about US cyber-snooping around the world. US officials and executives, however, argue that the response in places like Europe and China now appears targeted more at keeping US businesses out of competitive markets than protecting citizens from privacy concerns.

“We also have to get the balance right between privacy and security. There are trade aspects but there are other aspects as well,” Mr Smith said.

“The short story is that these issues are of growing importance and have a broadening impact. We’re seeing more countries consider them and it is going to require a thoughtful dialogue among a number of governments to sort this out.”

US policy makers and experts are also beginning to fret about the US’s competitive advantage in the trade in all things digital.

To many, the future of globalisation is overwhelmingly digital with emails and 3D printing threatening to replace container ships, and services increasingly delivered online and across borders.

In that context, online barriers such as the “Great Firewall” of China erected to keep out content Beijing objects to, look like impediments to free trade as much as to free speech.

Before the recent controversy over China’s new rules, the US was focusing its energies on making sure that new trade agreements — such as the vast, 12-country Trans-Pacific Partnership now nearing conclusion — limit the restrictions that can be put on the flow of data across borders.

The US has also been pushing for a new agreement on services it is negotiating in Geneva with the EU and more than 20 other countries to guarantee the free flow of data across borders. China has sought to join those negotiations but has been blocked from joining by the US.

EU’s new digital commissioner calls celebrities in nude picture leak ‘stupid’ | World news | The Guardian

EU’s new digital commissioner calls celebrities in nude picture leak ‘stupid’ | World news | The Guardian.

Germany’s Günther Oettinger says stars who put naked photos of themselves online could not count on his protection



Günther Oettinger during his hearing at the European parliament
Günther Oettinger said celebrities ‘stupid enough’ to put nude photos online did not deserve protection. Photograph: /Zuma/Rex


Former EU energy commissioner Günther Oettinger, 61, is used to accusations that he is more digitally naïve than digitally native by now. But at a hearing in front of the European parliament, the EU’s next commissioner designate for digital economy and society raised some serious questions about his suitability.


During a three-hour grilling by MEPs in Brussels, Oettinger said it would not be his job to protect stars “stupid enough to take a nude photo of themselves and put it online” – seemingly unaware that the recent leak of celebrities’ nude photographs had come about as a result of a targeted hacking attack.


Oettinger said: “We can mitigate or even eliminate some risks. But like with any technology, you can’t exclude all risks.


If someone is stupid enough as a celebrity to take a nude photo of themselves and put it online, they surely can’t expect us to protect them. Stupidity is something you can only partly save people from.”


Oettinger seemed to refer to the recent leak of nude photographs showing celebrities including actress Jennifer Lawrence and singer Rihanna, which took place after hackers targeted their victims’ iClouds. Most modern smartphones automatically store backups of photographs online, often without their users’ knowledge.


Oettinger’s comments sparked criticism from a number of MEPs and the German press. “He revealed that he still hasn’t understood the real problem behind these leaked pictures,” Green MEP Jan Philipp Albrecht told the Guardian. “Serious questions need to be asked about the security of cloud systems currently in use, and asking those questions is very much part of the job remit of the next EU commissioner for digital society.”

Estudiante austríaco lidera mega demanda contra Facebook por uso de datos personales – BioBioChile

Estudiante austríaco lidera mega demanda contra Facebook por uso de datos personales – BioBioChile.



Publicado por Eduardo Woo | La Información es de Agencia AFP
El estudiante austríaco Max Schrems, en guerra desde hace tres años contra el uso de datos personales en internet, lidera la mayor demanda colectiva interpuesta en Europa contra Facebook. Un poco como el combate de David contra Goliat en la era digital.

El jurista, de 26 años, convenció a 60.000 personas para que se unieran a su demanda presentada este mes en un tribunal de Viena contra la red social, que cuenta con 1.200 millones de usuarios activos cada mes.

Demandamos a Facebook por su política de confidencialidad, su participación en el programa de espionaje Prism de los servicios secretos estadounidenses, su función ‘Graph Search’“, entre una veintena de infracciones, enumera a la AFP el joven, que terminó una tesis doctoral sobre este asunto y acaba de publicar “¡Lucha por tus datos!”, una obra militante.



Schrems, discreto y combativo, “se expone constantemente” en los medios de comunicación para poner rostro a la causa de la protección de datos personales, señala Josef Irnberger, portavoz de la Iniciativa Austríaca para la Libertad de los Ciudadanos en Internet (IfNf). “Lo respeto enormemente por ello”, añade.

“Los datos personales, el nuevo petróleo”

Max Schrems, usuario de Facebook desde 2007, cuenta habitualmente a los periodistas como surgió la idea de esta lucha. Fue durante una conferencia en Silicon Valley (Estados Unidos).

Los estadounidenses se burlaban abiertamente de los europeos” por insistir en los derechos fundamentales, recuerda. “Decían que no pasaría nada si no se respetaban” las leyes europeas sobre protección de datos personales.

A su regreso a Austria, el estudiante pidió a Facebook que le enviara una recopilación de sus datos personales y recibió un archivo con 1.222 páginas que detallaba todas sus informaciones presentes en esta red social, incluso las que creía haber suprimido.

Para los gigantes de internet, “los datos personales son el nuevo petróleo. Quieren adquirirlos, eso es todo”, subraya Schrems, quien en agosto de 2011 denunció a Facebook por primera vez por detención abusiva de datos personales en Irlanda, sede europea de esa red social.

Ahora, más de 60.000 internautas europeos pidieron unirse a la demanda colectiva que se acaba de presentar para ampliar la presentada en 2011.

El joven militante apeló a todos los usuarios de Facebook para que apoyaran su iniciativa a través de la www.fbclaim.com. A falta de medios para verificar la identidad de cada uno, el joven limitó por ahora a 25.000 el número de codemandantes, quienes reclaman a Facebook 500 euros (650 dólares) cada uno en concepto de daños y perjuicios.

El procedimiento apenas comienza. El tribunal vienés ha pedido a Facebook Ireland, la filial europea de la empresa californiana, que dé una respuesta en un plazo de cuatro semanas.

Righting the right to be forgotten | LinkedIn

Righting the right to be forgotten | LinkedIn.

The F-T just published a piece I wrote about the implementation of the right to be forgotten in Europe. Here is a draft from which the op-ed was drawn:

Last week Google formally launched a blue-ribbon committee of advisors to help it implement the European Court of Justice’s new “right to be forgotten.” Its work is cut out for it, as the search giant processes more than 70,000 requests since May to decouple a claimant’s name from possibly true but still “irrelevant” (and presumably reputation-damaging) search results. Turning theory into practice has revealed unanswered questions – and some outright flaws – in the Court’s decision, regardless of where you might stand on the right’s philosophical merits.

The first puzzle is transparency. Other types of compelled redactions, such as for alleged copyright infringement, occasion a notification to searchers that results have been altered. But a specific notice that a search on someone’s name is missing something could lead to a negative inference about the person even worse than the substance of whatever has been removed. So how to report on compelled takedowns in a way that is neither Orwellian nor self-defeating?

One idea is for Google and other affected search engines to contribute to a database of takedowns that independent academics can analyze in order to produce credible insights about how the new right is working in practice. Are public figures looking to scrub their records to avoid scrutiny, or are the requestors more often private citizens? Are the takedowns focusing on content within obscure Web-originating message boards, or on archives of government records or newspaper articles? Without a record of takedowns, there will be no way to understand how the use and impact of the right are unfolding.

The second puzzle is accountability. With Google’s European market share around 90%, name-specific content that’s delisted might as well be gone entirely – indeed, it’s Google’s power that makes the assertion of the right meaningful. But here state power is being exercised without the involvement of the state: a request is made of Google for a redaction, and Google decides how to handle it. If the request is denied, the claimant might escalate the issue to his or her local data protection authority. But if the request is agreed to, there’s no means for review. Under the Court’s decision, the public’s right to know is to be balanced against a claimant’s right to privacy – but there’s no easy way for the public to remonstrate against poor balancing.

Forget Me: the real reasons people ask Google to erase their online presences | Technology | The Guardian

Forget Me: the real reasons people ask Google to erase their online presences | Technology | The Guardian.

Irrelevant, outdated or otherwise inappropriate? A new website helps you to explain exactly how to get information about yourself removed from Google – so what are the most frequent reasons customers give?
erase history delete button

Forget everything … more than 40,000 requests for removal of online data have been made via the Forget Me website. Photograph: Felix Clay for the Guardian

Why do people exercise their “right to be forgotten” by Google? The website Forget Me, which launched last week and offers users a submission service to Google with templated forms that tick all the search engine’s legal boxes, has released a breakdown of its customer’s motivations.

Invasion of privacy accounted for 306 of the 1,106 submissions that Forget Me filed to Google as of Tuesday, with disclosure of home address the largest subcategory (66 submissions). “Negative opinions”, “redundancy” and “origin, nationality or ethnic identity” follow. Sexual orientation appears way down the list of privacy-related reasons for removing web pages, below disclosure of income and philosophical belief. Forget Me’s sample of just over 1,000 submissions represents a small percentage of the 40,000-plus requests received by Google, but is still large enough to indicate the most pressing concerns.

Ann Cavoukian and Christopher Wolf: Sorry, but there’s no online ‘right to be forgotten’

Ann Cavoukian and Christopher Wolf: Sorry, but there’s no online ‘right to be forgotten’.

Ann Cavoukian and Christopher Wolf, National Post
Wednesday, Jun. 25, 2014

Damian Dovarganes/The Associated Press files

In a week-long series, National Post contributors reflect on a recent European Court of Justice judgment requiring Internet search providers to remove links to embarrassing information. Should Canadian citizens have a ‘right to be forgotten’?

A man walks into a library. He asks to see the librarian. He tells the librarian there is a book on the shelves of the library that contains truthful, historical information about his past conduct, but he says he is a changed man now and the book is no longer relevant. He insists that any reference in the library’s card catalog and electronic indexing system associating him with the book be removed, or he will go to the authorities.

The librarian refuses, explaining that the library does not make judgments on people, but simply offers information to readers to direct them to materials from which they can make their own judgment in the so-called “marketplace of ideas.” The librarian goes on to explain that if the library had to respond to such requests, it would become a censorship body — essentially the arbiter of what information should remain accessible to the public. Moreover, if it had to respond to every such request, the burden would be enormous and there would be no easy way to determine whether a request was legitimate or not. The indexing system would become swiss cheese, with gaps and holes. And, most importantly, readers would be deprived of access to historical information that would allow them to reach their own conclusions about people and events.

The librarian gives this example: What if someone is running for office but wants to hide something from his unsavory past by blocking access to the easiest way for voters to uncover those facts? Voters would be denied relevant information, and democracy would be impaired.

The man is not convinced, and calls a government agent. The government agent threatens to fine or jail the librarian if he does not comply with the man’s request to remove the reference to the unflattering book in the library’s indexing system.

Is this a scenario out of George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four? No, this is the logical extension of a recent ruling from Europe’s highest court, which ordered Google to remove a link to truthful information about a person, because that person found the information unflattering and out of date. (The scale of online indexing would of course be dramatically more comprehensive than a library indexing system.)

Google begins removing 'right to be forgotten' search links | Technology | The Guardian

Google begins removing ‘right to be forgotten’ search links | Technology | The Guardian.

Google has had thousands of requests, but will not say how many search histories or web pages have been tweaked
google search histories

Google will not reveal how many search histories it has been asked to change, following the European court of justice ruling in the ‘right to be forgotten’ case. Photograph: Regis Duvignau/Reuters

Google has begun removing search links to content in Europe under the “right to be forgotten” ruling, which obliges it not to point to web pages with “outdated or irrelevant” information about individuals.

Searches made on Google’s services in Europe using peoples’ names includes a section at the bottom with the phrase “Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe”, and a link to a page explaining the ruling by the European court of justice (ECJ) in May 2014.

However searches made on Google.com, the US-based service, do not include the same warning, because the ECJ ruling only applies within Europe.

Google would not say how many peoples’ search histories have been tweaked, nor how many web pages have been affected. The companyrevealed in an interview with chief executive Larry Page at the end of May that it had received thousands of requests for changes to search results within days of the ECJ ruling.

¿Derecho al olvido? Cuatro razones para no precipitarse | Jan Malinowski

¿Derecho al olvido? Cuatro razones para no precipitarse | Jan Malinowski.


Jan Malinowski Headshot
Publicado: Actualizado:




La sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea en el caso Google es un punto de inflexión importante. Algunos ven en ella un triunfo del derecho a la privacidad. Otros consideran que es la mayor amenaza a la libertad de expresión que hayamos presenciado en décadas, y que amenaza la posibilidad misma de exigir responsabilidades en el interés público. O vaticinan el apocalipsis en un supuesto derecho a reescribir la historia.

Se acumulan las solicitudes para que Google elimine contenido de los resultados de búsqueda, incluso información sobre conductas censurables por parte de personas del mundo de la política. Google ha anunciado un formulario en línea para que los usuarios puedan solicitar la eliminación de contenidos. Está claro que habrá un antes y que habrá un después de la sentencia del TJUE en el caso Google. Pero no hay que exagerar las consecuencias de la sentencia. Eso es, si las cosas no se tuercen. Ahí van cuatro razones para no precipitarse.

Google search results may indicate 'right to be forgotten' censorship | Technology | The Guardian

Google search results may indicate ‘right to be forgotten’ censorship | Technology | The Guardian.

Search engine considering alert at bottom of results pages to show links have been removed after landmark EU privacy rulingl
Google search

Google may include an alert on search results pages to indicate legally requested links have been removed. Photograph: Dominic Lipinski/PA

Google is planning to flag up search results it has censored following a controversial ruling that allows European citizens the right to demand information on them be erased.

The search engine is considering placing an alert at the bottom of each page where it has removed links in the wake of the landmark “right to be forgotten” ruling last month.

The decision by Europe’s highest court allows people living in Europe to ask for links to “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant” material to be removed from search results, although it will still be available on the original web page.

Google has since been deluged with tens of thousands of requests frominternet users to take down sensitive information on them since the ruling by the European court of justice (ECJ) on 13 May.

It is understood Google is planning to flag censored search results in a similar way to how it alerts users to takedown requests over copyright infringing material. For example, a Google search for “Adele MP3” shows that it has removed a number of results from that page after receiving complaints under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Google is also planning to include information about “right to be forgotten” removals in its biannual transparency report, which reveals the number of government requests worldwide to remove material from its search results.

Google said last Monday that it had so far received 41,000 requests to take down sensitive material from people in Europe since the landmark ruling, including a politician with a murky past, a convicted paedophile and a man who had attempted to murder his family and wanted to remove links about his crime. Google chief executive Larry Page has said that nearly a third of the 41,000 requests received related to a fraud or scram, one fifth concerned serious crime, and 12% are connected to child pornography arrests.

“Derecho al Olvido”: Un rompecabezas para Google – BioBioChile

“Derecho al Olvido”: Un rompecabezas para Google – BioBioChile.


Google DoodleGoogle Doodle


Publicado por Gabriela Ulloa | La Información es de Agencia AFP


En nombre del “derecho al olvido”, impuesto por el Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea, cientos de miles de páginas deberían ser ocultadas por Google.

¿Cómo y a quién se aplicará esa regla? Los expertos en “e-reputación” auguran un gigantesco rompecabezas.

Google recibe 12.000 solicitudes de europeos que quieren borrar sus datos | Sociedad | EL PAÍS

Google recibe 12.000 solicitudes de europeos que quieren borrar sus datos | Sociedad | EL PAÍS.

Google ofrece desde el viernes un formulario para que los europeos soliciten la retirada de información sobre ellos. / FRANCOIS LENOIR (REUTERS)

Enviar a LinkedIn39
Enviar a TuentiEnviar a MenéameEnviar a Eskup


Google ha recibido en un día más de 12.000 solicitudes de usuarios europeos que quieren que el buscador de Internet borre sus datos personales no relevantes de la Red, según confirmaron fuentes de la compañía estadounidense. Cuando Google cerró el viernes sus oficinas tras el anuncio ese mismo día por parte de su consejero delegado, Larry Page, de la introducción en Europa de un formulario en línea que permite a los usuarios ejercer el “derecho al olvido” en la Red, ya tenía en sus buzones de entrada más de 12.000 peticiones. Hubo ciertos momentos a lo largo de esa jornada en los que el gigante estadounidense de Internet recibió de media unas 20 solicitudes por minuto, según las mismas fuentes.

Google ha lanzado el formulario en respuesta a una sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea (UE), que reconoció el derecho de los ciudadanos a ser “olvidados” en Internet, es decir, a poder reclamar a éste y a otros buscadores que retiren los enlaces a informaciones que les perjudican y ya no son pertinentes.

Google abre la puerta al “derecho al olvido” digital en Europa – BioBioChile

Google abre la puerta al “derecho al olvido” digital en Europa – BioBioChile.


Publicado por Gabriela Ulloa | La Información es de Agencia AFP

Google abrió a los europeos la posibilidad de pedir que sus servicios de búsqueda en Internet “olviden” la información que les concierne, acatando una decisión del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea.

La corte estimó el 13 de mayo que los particulares tenían el derecho de pedir directamente a los motores de búsqueda que se eliminaran las páginas con información personal, especialmente si era perjudicial o inexacta.

El gigante estadounidense, por mucho el motor de búsqueda en Internet más importante del mundo, publicó el jueves un formulario accesible a los europeos que les permite pedir la supresión de resultados de las búsquedas.

“El fallo judicial implica que Google tiene que encontrar un difícil equilibrio entre el derecho al olvido de un particular y el derecho a la información del público”, dijo un portavoz del grupo en una declaración enviada a la AFP.

Google creará un comité de consulta para ayudar a establecer este equilibrio en el que estarán, entre otros, Eric Schmidt, ex directivo de Google; Jimmy Wales, fundador de Wikipedia; y el profesor de ética del Instituto Oxford Internet, Luciano Floridi.

“Estoy muy complacido de integrar el comité asesor internacional de Google para evaluar los desafíos éticos y legales que presenta Internet”, dijo Floridi en una declaración escrita.

“Es una interesante iniciativa que probablemente requiera pensarlo profunda y filosóficamente”.

El formulario que se titula “Supresión de contenido de Google”, publicado en el apartado de ayuda del usuario, exige que los usuarios se identifiquen, concreten qué vínculos (links) quieren eliminar y expliquen el motivo.

Los particulares que quieran utilizar esta opción deberán enviar una copia de su documento de identidad y poner su firma electrónica en el formulario.

Las peticiones serán examinadas de manera individualizada y no se tratarán de forma automática.

BBC News – Politician and paedophile ask Google to 'be forgotten'

BBC News – Politician and paedophile ask Google to ‘be forgotten’.

A pencil erasing numbers from a page The right-to-be-forgotten ruling set a precedent for the removal of search results in Europe

Google has received fresh takedown requests after a European court ruled that an individual could force it to remove “irrelevant and outdated” search results, the BBC has learned.

An ex-politician seeking re-election has asked to have links to an article about his behaviour in office removed.

A man convicted of possessing child abuse images has requested links to pages about his conviction to be wiped.

And a doctor wants negative reviews from patients removed from the results.

Google itself has not commented on the so-called right-to-be-forgotten ruling since it described the European Court of Justice judgement as being “disappointing”.

Eric Schmidt: Europe struck wrong balance on right to be forgotten | Technology | theguardian.com

Eric Schmidt: Europe struck wrong balance on right to be forgotten | Technology | theguardian.com.

Google’s executive chairman says European court of justice ruling went too far in favour of privacy at cost of right to know

eric schmidt
Europe has struck the wrong balance around the right to be forgotten, according to Eric Schmidt. Photograph: Rebecca Naden/Reuters

A European judgment concerning personal privacy and the right to be forgotten is flawed, according to Google’s Eric Schmidt.

The executive chairman told investors at Google’s annual shareholder meeting on Wednesday that there were “many open questions” over the ruling by European Court of Justice (ECJ) that there is a “right to be forgotten”, which has serious implications for Google as it is not a media company, and so is not protected under European data protection law,.

“A simple way of understanding what happened here is that you have a collision between a right to be forgotten and a right to know. From Google’s perspective that’s a balance,” said Schmidt. “Google believes, having looked at the decision which is binding, that the balance that was struck was wrong.”


Google’s chief legal officer, David Drummond, told investors that Google was still analysing the decision and the implications for the search engine, but described it as “disappointing” and that it “went too far”.

Google has a dominant search market share in Europe claiming 93% of search ahead of Microsoft’s Bing with 2.4% and Yahoo with 1.7%, according to data from StatCounter.

The ECJ ruling will force Google to remove links to content about individuals if it receives an application from said individuals to have information about them erased from Google’s index. Google will then have to weigh up whether that information is in the public interest and whether it should remain, likely placing a significant staffing burden on the company.

The ruling has been called a “blow against free speech” in the US, but opinions in Europe are more balanced.

Edward Snowden: US government spied on human rights workers | World news | theguardian.com

Edward Snowden: US government spied on human rights workers | World news | theguardian.com.

Whistleblower tells Council of Europe NSA deliberately snooped on groups such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International




Edward Snowden speaks via video link with members of the Council of Europe, in Strasbourg.

Edward Snowden speaks via video link with members of the Council of Europe, in Strasbourg. Photograph: Vincent Kessler/Reuters


The US has spied on the staff of prominent human rights organisations, Edward Snowden has told the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, Europe’s top human rights body.

Giving evidence via a videolink from Moscow, Snowden said the National Security Agency – for which he worked as a contractor – had deliberately snooped on bodies like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

He told council members: “The NSA has specifically targeted either leaders or staff members in a number of civil and non-governmental organisations … including domestically within the borders of the United States.” Snowden did not reveal which groups the NSA had bugged.

The assembly asked Snowden if the US spied on the “highly sensitive and confidential communications” of major rights bodies such as Amnesty and Human Rights Watch, as well as on similar smaller regional and national groups. He replied: “The answer is, without question, yes. Absolutely.”

Snowden, meanwhile, dismissed NSA claims that he had swiped as many as 1.7m documents from the agency’s servers in an interview with Vanity Fair. He described the number released by investigators as “simply a scare number based on an intentionally crude metric: everything that I ever digitally interacted with in my career.”

He added: “Look at the language officials use in sworn testimony about these records: ‘could have,’ ‘may have,’ ‘potentially.’ They’re prevaricating. Every single one of those officials knows I don’t have 1.7m files, but what are they going to say? What senior official is going to go in front of Congress and say, ‘We have no idea what he has, because the NSA‘s auditing of systems holding hundreds of millions of Americans’ data is so negligent that any high-school dropout can walk out the door with it’?”

In live testimony to the Council of Europe, Snowden also gave a forensic account of how the NSA‘s powerful surveillance programs violate the EU’s privacy laws. He said programs such as XKeyscore, revealed by the Guardian last July, use sophisticated data mining techniques to screen “trillions” of private communications.

“This technology represents the most significant new threat to civil liberties in modern times,” he declared.

Privacidad: Protección de Datos sanciona a Google por vulnerar derechos del ciudadano | Tecnología | EL PAÍS

Privacidad: Protección de Datos sanciona a Google por vulnerar derechos del ciudadano | Tecnología | EL PAÍS.

La Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) ha condenado a Google por tres infracciones graves relacionadas con su política de privacidad y las condiciones de uso de sus servicios con la normativa española de protección de datos. Le sanciona con 900.000 euros en total.

La AEPD exige a la compañía para que adopte sin dilación las medidas necesarias para cumplir con las exigencias legales. Según la nota difundida, la agencia, ha constatado que Google recoge y trata ilegítimamente información personal, tanto de los usuarios autenticados (dados de alta en sus servicios) como de los no autenticados, e incluso de quienes son meros “usuarios pasivos” que no han solicitado sus servicios pero acceden a páginas que incluyen elementos gestionados por la compañía sin explicitarlo”.

La agencia señala que se ha comprobado que Google “recopila información personal a través de casi un centenar de servicios y productos que ofrece en España, sin proporcionar en muchos casos una información adecuada sobre qué datos se recogen, para qué fines se utilizan y sin obtener un consentimiento válido de sus titulares”.

Como ejemplos, la agencia señala que no se informa con claridada los usuarios de Gmail de que se realiza un filtrado del contenido del correo y de los ficheros anexos para insertar publicidad. “Cuando se informa, se utiliza una terminología imprecisa, con expresiones genéricas y poco claras que impiden a los usuarios conocer el significado real de lo que se plantea. Es demostrativo que en ocho páginas Google emplea hasta en 30 ocasiones términos como “podremos”, “podrá”, “podrán” o “es posible”. Todo ello, sumado a otras expresiones sumamente ambiguas como “mejorar la experiencia del usuario”, da lugar a una política de privacidad indeterminada y poco clara. La falta de información adecuada, particularmente sobre las finalidades específicas que justifican el tratamiento de los datos, impide que pueda considerarse que existe un consentimiento específico e informado y, en consecuencia, válido”.

EE UU presiona en la sombra para frenar la normativa de privacidad europea


La presión estadounidense empantana la norma de protección de datos europea

Un hombre consulta su ordenador sobre un fondo del código binario. / KACPER PEMPEL (REUTERS)

La Unión Europea y Estados Unidos libran una batalla incruenta por elcontrol de la privacidad. Conscientes de que el manejo de datos personales constituye la mayor fuente de riqueza y poder en estos días, autoridades y empresas estadounidenses llevan casi dos años presionando contra la regulación europea de protección de datos. El proceso, la mayor campaña de lobby que se recuerda en Bruselas, ha cobrado una nueva dimensión tras conocerse que, además de intentar persuadirlos, EE UU ha espiado a sus socios europeos. Una afrenta a la que Europa ha respondido tímidamente. EL PAÍS reconstruye las presiones secretas ejercidas y revela la capacidad de influencia sobre un dossier que, pese a considerarse prioritario, corre el riesgo de no ver la luz en esta legislatura europea.

Los colosos de la Red se alían contra la nueva ley de privacidad de la UE


Organizaciones de consumidores denuncian presiones sobre los eurodiputados

Los usuarios deberán consentir expresamente si quieren que sus datos sean utilizados para determinados fines. / claudio Álvarez

Si la nueva legislación sobre protección de datos que se está debatiendo en el Parlamento Europeo logra ver la luz, los ciudadanos de los Veintisiete sabrán en todo momento cómo se recoge su información personal en Internet y qué se hace con ella. Tendrán, además, que dar su consentimiento expreso a la cesión de sus datos a terceros. La norma —que unificaría el abanico de legislaciones de la UE— afectaría a un oceánico número de empresas. Tanto en el plano organizativo como económico, porque no solo reducirían su beneficio por la venta de datos para uso publicitario; también tendrían que reforzar su seguridad y hacer frente a multas si hay grietas en ella. Bajo el paraguas de la norma estarían todas las empresas que operen en el mercado europeo. Eso incluye a los gigantes tecnológicos, tengan o no su sede en la UE. El alcance de la nueva norma y la magnitud de los sectores implicados ha desatado una campaña de presión sin precedentes por parte de la industria, que trata de influir para descafeinar la ley.