Difference between revisions of "The Great Hack workshop wiki"

From Wikibase Personal data
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(9 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== Item ==
 
{{Q|1096}}
 
 
 
== Practicalities ==
 
== Practicalities ==
 
* Day 1 4.45pm-5.45pm
 
* Day 1 4.45pm-5.45pm
 +
* {{Q|1096}}
  
 
= Introduction =
 
= Introduction =
== Lessons from "The Great Hack" ==
+
== Some examples ==
 +
=== Lessons from "The Great Hack" ===
 
* David Carroll's actions have helped go beyond the usual (lack of) data protection enforcement.  
 
* David Carroll's actions have helped go beyond the usual (lack of) data protection enforcement.  
* Authorities sometimes need complaints and evidence.  
+
* Authorities often need complaints and evidence, their investigative and injunctive powers augment then.  
* You can be an inspiration.
+
* Anyone can change things by pushing their rights through.  
* Journalists dropped the ball  
+
* Journalists dropped the ball on David Carroll's case.
 
* Time for action.
 
* Time for action.
  
== Youtubers' Union ==
+
=== Youtubers' Union ===
 +
 
 +
* Youtubers are affected by algorithms demonetizing their content, based on unclear criteria.
 +
* In the [https://fairtube.info/en/ FairTube campaign], they are demanding better working conditions, mostly through transparency.
 +
* They are exercising these demands collectively in an alliance with IG Metall (one of Europe's largest labor unions), with a [https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/evjnew/google-agrees-to-meet-with-youtubers-union-right-before-deadline threat of going individual(!) through the GDPR].
 +
 
 +
By now they got out of their ultimatum to Youtube some formal sitdown encounter.
 +
 
 +
=== Uber drivers ===
 +
* Uber drivers have a lot of concerns about the algorithm ruling them.
 +
* When they make demands to Uber, they get some data, but there is always consideration for privacy of passengers.
  
 
== Transparency surface ==
 
== Transparency surface ==
* concept
+
* Black hat hackers use the so-called "attack surface" of a system to figure out its weaknesses, for their own profit.
* examples (recent complaint)
+
* White hats do the same, but for the collective benefit.
* rights associated to it
+
 
* expansion
+
We need the same dynamic for platforms. White hats, journalists, etc need more "attack surface". Actually, they need a "transparency surface", i.e. a way to expose information that serve democracy. But platforms often paint these as attack surfaces themselves.
 +
 
 +
For instance:
 +
* ads transparency projects for Pro Publica or WhoTargetsMe.
 +
[[File:Facebook Settings.jpg|thumb]]
 +
 
 +
[[File:Your Facebook Information.jpg|thumb]]
 +
 
 +
 
 +
[[File:Advertisers with your information.jpg|thumb]]
 +
 
 +
[[File:Advertisers.jpg|thumb]]
 +
 
 +
[[File:Brokers.jpg|thumb]]
  
 
== Plan ==
 
== Plan ==

Latest revision as of 14:16, 23 September 2019

Practicalities

Introduction

Some examples

Lessons from "The Great Hack"

  • David Carroll's actions have helped go beyond the usual (lack of) data protection enforcement.
  • Authorities often need complaints and evidence, their investigative and injunctive powers augment then.
  • Anyone can change things by pushing their rights through.
  • Journalists dropped the ball on David Carroll's case.
  • Time for action.

Youtubers' Union

  • Youtubers are affected by algorithms demonetizing their content, based on unclear criteria.
  • In the FairTube campaign, they are demanding better working conditions, mostly through transparency.
  • They are exercising these demands collectively in an alliance with IG Metall (one of Europe's largest labor unions), with a threat of going individual(!) through the GDPR.

By now they got out of their ultimatum to Youtube some formal sitdown encounter.

Uber drivers

  • Uber drivers have a lot of concerns about the algorithm ruling them.
  • When they make demands to Uber, they get some data, but there is always consideration for privacy of passengers.

Transparency surface

  • Black hat hackers use the so-called "attack surface" of a system to figure out its weaknesses, for their own profit.
  • White hats do the same, but for the collective benefit.

We need the same dynamic for platforms. White hats, journalists, etc need more "attack surface". Actually, they need a "transparency surface", i.e. a way to expose information that serve democracy. But platforms often paint these as attack surfaces themselves.

For instance:

  • ads transparency projects for Pro Publica or WhoTargetsMe.
Facebook Settings.jpg
Your Facebook Information.jpg


Advertisers with your information.jpg
Advertisers.jpg
Brokers.jpg

Plan

  • Right of access: why it exists
  • Overall strategy: think, request/demand, argue, amplify, pressure; rinse and repeat


Use case

  • Lumascape
  • Facebook

Next steps