“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”
“Who will guard the guards themselves?”
– Decimus Iunius Iuvenalis –
Analysis of the current condition of the surface network (world wide web)
Progress is much faster than we think with the constant development of technologies outstripping human rights. The technological environment impacts on everyday lives (the ‘real’ world), individuals of the community in one world.
The fusion between the real world and the digital world has become inseparable.
Therefore the presence of the individual through her/his data within the digital environment is inevitable. This fusion will increase more and more, leading to an analysis and assessment of any dangers and inconsistencies compromising the integrity of individuals and the community under moral, ethical, behavioural and statutory aspects.
The medium to long-term enigma is to understand how individuals, as users and consumers, will relate and be protected from the unstoppable development of technology. Given the vastness and intangibility of cyberspace, the current rules and conditions for the protection of the individual, as user and consumer are insufficient, in fact almost non-existent in the protection of their individual and collective rights. This will necessitate analysing the present human condition and future uncertainty in relation to technology and innovation.
The current Web and Internet situation is in complete anarchy, in particular the ‘Surface Web’, which can be defined as a container, retained and managed by private individuals who organise and define their dimensions, rules, interests and use arbitrarily and independently. By forcing an individual into this dimension according to corporate patterns and interests, while excluding the user and the individual from any alternatives and/or personal choices.
Below are some of the most obvious and visible problems for users who are changing their uses in the digital world on the web.
Elements undervalued by individuals in their effectiveness are highlighted, both in the individual and collective contexts of daily use of services, which are often confused as innovations but which are in reality contradictory and behavioural manipulation, most often to the detriment of the privacy of the user.
Oligopolistic dominant position
Few digital surface service providers have many services
The dominant position of some of the most famous companies and technology/digital operators is currently rooted and disproportionate to dominating the financial market, including attitudes and beliefs, by changing the user’s behaviour.
The end result shows the complete disadvantage of users who have not realised they are “dependent” on the Company or service providers.
The conclusion is the decline in service competition, the commercial aspect of the market, and a decrease in the cognitive abilities of individuals in their capacity to reflect on what is happening.
Partnership – partnering
Situation out of control
In the present condition of the digital market operators providing networking services in partnership and partnering make trade alliances and agreements with complete autonomy and independence from the countries in which they operate; managing without any governmental control, bypassing and undermining every norm that protects the individual.
Users are never informed about the legal obligations in a clear and explicit manner, as to how their data will be handled, what kind of data is held, what will be sold to third parties, and at what price and for what purpose. This implies the management, transfer and evaluation of data of the individual as ‘matter’. A by-product regarded as an exchange good, where control by the individual is voluntarily, but unknowingly, inhibited. To date, millions of individuals are registered as users in the database, without their knowledge or consent.
The technology of network service providers is so advanced that, in addition to having personal user data, it currently acquires and holds biometric data confidential, obtaining them through self-profiling of users, or through other types of sometimes illicit instruments.
Unilateral mutations of services and contractual transformations
Contractual violations by international operators and companies
There is a progressive manipulation inherent in previously accepted user clauses that no longer all, or partially, conform to the condition that has changed over time with respect to the original contract.
Inadvertent technical change in services often frustrates the original privacy-friendly clauses that have been accepted and the contract terms are transformed into something completely different eg. an additional application/service being added.
The loyalty-enhancing technique of a brand
Personification of the medium and instrument, interpreted as the purpose
In this condition the ‘terrible trap’ in the digital domain is that, in fact, there are no two parties involved in the contractual relationship, but a subject (represented by the supplier) and the object (the individual). That is, the physical person in the state of the thing or the goods, being manipulated, modified and exchanged at will by the service provider subject to other subjects belonging to the same market environment.
The technique is based on the artificially induced ‘pathological dependence’ of the user, who becomes addicted to self-promotion through the renewed and relentless need for self-referencing, using the mechanism of visual images and photos, which in turn is transformed into a profiled product used, with no regard for the individual, as a merchandise of exchange and profit by unscrupulous companies.
Alteration of terms
Sharing as a substitute for participation
As a result, there is a confusion of terms that, as a result, lead the users to push beyond what their true public exposure limit is, to come to a real and concrete condition of self-promotion of themselves beyond the limit within which of course they would usually stop.
This is due to a continuous and unfounded conditional manipulation by the digital service managers, the compulsive sharing of everything, the subject or idea of the individual that “I have fallen into the net as a fish”, becomes uninformed by the subject.
Interpretation and Association
Meaning of similarity terms
In the digital dimension, some terms are confusing to the detriment of the personal privacy of users in relation to the right to information. This trend is gradually replacing the true nature of public awareness of facts and arguments that must and can be made known, published or indexed. Consolidated custom is meant to be in the public’s interest in replacing the public domain.
This erroneous interpretation often mystifies the user’s understanding of what is really of public interest from the rest of the information, thereby producing a false reality and inducing users to believe that everything should be made known beyond any ethical or moral boundaries, or privacy.
The public interest is actually inherent in corporations and governments, news, finance and politics, and the rest is simply a ‘news release’ that has no reason to be published, since it is not of public interest or fact.
This news escalation is only made public because, to date, there are no proper controls or standards to prevent unnecessary data and facts that are sometimes serious violations of individuals’ privacy.
Laziness and poor information produce permanent damage to our privacy
The presence of hundreds of tools like Apps on any device that invite the user to compulsive sharing is a very strong encouragement intended, by service providers, to drive the user to acquire more disinhibited conduct.
This behaviour of the user in the altered and prolonged conviction inherent in the habitual sharing, produces in the medium and long term a complete apathy over the attention to privacy. This results in a weakening of the conception of privacy and a laziness in guarding intimacy.
The condition is exacerbated by the weak, inadequate descriptions and warnings about the technical features of applications that are installed daily by users on their devices. Perhaps enticed by the gratuity of the application users are sometimes completely deceived and robbed of their very own data.
False consensus effect
The belief that you can use the data of others
The diminution of the privacy protection of both individuals and others, and therefore collective, results in forced inclusion of third parties in the use of sharing tools. There is a superficiality and ease of third-party data holders in the spread of confidential items related to unknown individuals on the web.
This results in an intrusion into the privacy of individuals who have never been asked for permission or consent to make their data universally public, in a photo or information, at a certain point, at a specific time, irreversibly interfering in other peoples’ lives.
Minors and generational fidelity
Internet and the web are a new dimensions of life, a dimensions in which minors are increasingly exposed early and that do not offer adequate security and protection.
Unlike off-line reality with its established legal and social institutions, the network has a natural refractory nature of the rules, and many users are still convinced that they can protect themselves behind a screen or not be recognized, spied, robbed, manipulated, nothing can happen to them in the security of their home.
One of the most serious issues in networking is social networking. In fact, parents’ habit of publishing children’s photos in their private contexts is widespread: from a football match, to the bath, to the ultrasound picture, when the son still has to come to the world.
Turning the spotlight on the dramatically widespread practice of reusing these images for other purposes, even the most deplorable, is therefore of the utmost importance. Compulsiveness has canceled rationality.
In addition to the aforementioned risks, however, further reflection on the practice of indiscriminately publishing child photos on the web.
In fact too much ignorance is another fundamental theme: the right to the image of the child himself.
An arbitrary use of the photos of their children can in fact constitute a violation of the rights of the child, causing a problem not only of privacy, but also of the protection of their personal legal sphere.
Are we sure our children, when they grow up, will have nothing to complain about being portrayed in a private context and the fact that those images continue to circulate on the net?
This practice is not, in all respects, respectful of the fundamental rights of the child, even when it is the same parent to do so. We should, in fact, have left behind the idea for which a parent can do anything of his own children.
Being good parents requires the awareness of having a person in charge of rights, thus avoiding parental function degrading into forms of abuse. Too often, however, the parents’ tendency to exploit their children to satisfy their own narcissism or the desire to affirm themselves socially arises. Children’s rights are worth more than some like.
This practice produces a complete profiling of all the minors in the globe with obvious, clear and unmistakable modalities.
The next step is short. The child’s autonomy in using, installing, configuring an account on the most common social networking, chat and messaging platforms, even though they do not have the age to access them.
If parents’ information and training is essential to counteract these disrespectful practices of children’s rights, they are of course not enough.
Considering the poor commitment to underestimate the health risks of new generations, the Foundation takes a firm and uncompromising position by implementing any strategy and instrument available to stop any type of abuse.
Cession of biometric-personal data
The underestimation of the intrusive capacity of technology with respect to confidential personal data
The seriousness of this is practice is exacerbated by the world’s legal systems and governments who are seemingly impotent and apathetic in the face of this real digital biometric treatment of humans, where users are considered more as commodities and exchange ‘matter’ by the large corporations and service providers rather than individuals whose rights should be protected.
“True information does good”
– Julian Assange –
The little commitment to regulating this delicate issue, and the underestimation by the community of the problems arising from the failure to implement existing laws and any new preventive rules to safeguard the future digital world, allow this anarchic self-management to provide commercial advantage for the companies such as more powerful, aggressive and unmanaged operators and in the digital / technological field.
These elements, that do not seem to be perceived as a single fact, are evaluated and studied separately from both ethical and scientific organisations such as legal and regulatory.
Companies and service providers acquire millions of customers, users and user data through the profiling mechanism. This may be complete or incomplete but still has a commercial value that allows operators and web service provider managers to use it for marketing without the knowledge of all users and individuals.
Operators of digital services over the internet and on the web are currently not subject to international controls, regulationsor international rules, bypassing constraints that should be imposed by national governments and supranational bodies. Self-management in this anarchic space, without boundaries and rules, is actually deteriorating the rights of the human community.
The solution is to be sought through the discontinuation of these practices by increasing controls, strict definitions and specific new rights in this practice, while helping users seek greater awareness.
Aspects not considered by the Responsible Organism for protecting the individual are the relationship between: Human Biometrics and Genetic Coding, Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Instrumental integration related to: data, the range, consciousness, space time, the human incognito.
WHO HAS THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE WHO I AM?
Copyright © 2017 – 2019 Reconquest Foundation | All Rights Reserved