Facebook's personal information disclosure incident quickly became the focus of global attention, and the complexity and multi-faceted nature of the event itself provided rich materials for the parties to analyze and interpret it from different angles. The author is not too embarrassed, taking this event as an opportunity to form two immature thoughts on personal information protection related issues.
1. Existing information protection rules have little effect on “mosquito” infringers
Christopher Wylie, a former employee of Cambridge AnalyTIca, broke out that his employer violated the rules to collect nearly 50 million (according to Facebook's latest estimates, the number of affected users may reach 87 million) Facebook users' personal information and use it for US President Trump Since the election consultation service, both traditional media and new media have reported on the incident and characterized it as a scandal, which has greatly reduced Facebook's public image.
The event has evolved to this point, and to a certain extent, Facebook has paid a heavy price for its negligence. We also have reason to believe that in order to regain the trust of users and the favor of the market, Facebook will take targeted measures to improve the protection of personal information. At present, these measures have been partially implemented, such as simplifying user privacy authorization setting options, tightening third-party APPs to obtain user personal information rights, modifying user agreements, and privacy policies.
However, our attention to this incident should not be taken as a result of Facebook’s “reformation”. In fact, compared with Facebook's ruin, the author believes that the user group as a direct victim shows a near-disabled state in the process of personal information disclosure, which deserves our attention. After all, in real life, a large number of violations of personal information are carried out by small, well-known small businesses or actors, and for these “mosquito”-type infringers, those regulations that are effective for giant companies like Facebook. "Cannons", such as public opinion supervision and market feedback, often have little effect and are subject to law enforcement costs. It is difficult for the regulatory authorities to comprehensively crack down on these illegal acts.
2. Let users be at the core of personal information protection
In this case, the user's self-reliance will become a more important force to prevent personal information leakage. Only by effectively strengthening the self-reliance ability of the user on the protection of personal information, and enabling it to form a joint force with public opinion supervision, administrative supervision, and market feedback, can fundamentally curb the infringement of personal information.
However, because personal information has its own low-density characteristics, it is likely that ordinary people will pursue the tort liability of the perpetrator through litigation. This is also an inevitable choice in judicial practice. The reason for the civil action brought by the infringement of personal information. In fact, when the perpetrator of the infringement is referred to as the "mosquito" type of subject, the defendant itself may be difficult.
In view of this, the author believes that in addition to continuing to strengthen the protection of personal information at the institutional level, it is more important to improve the ability of users to protect their personal information at the technical level so that they can effectively exercise the various systems Rights and direct counterattacks of violations. In this regard, it is believed that as the market's demand for personal information protection continues to increase, third-party service providers will make a difference.
In the case of an electronic terminal only, if the user can use the third-party personal information protection software to effectively monitor the service provider's personal information authorization request, or to evaluate the rationality of the information authorization requirement, then at least those uninformed personal information Leakage can be effectively suppressed. In fact, this kind of business model has long been a precedent in the market. The rapid spread of anti-virus software has a typical effect on the containment of computer virus transmission.
All in all, in the protection of personal information, the information subject should always be at the core position. Only by fully empowering the user can it be truly the master of personal information and gain a game position that is basically equal to the information collector. In fact, for the collection and use of personal information, the user's ability to control personal information can also enable the use of personal information resources on the basis of more realistic user authorization, so that there is no need to worry about rigid privacy policies. Become a short board in its compliant wooden barrels.
3. How to choose between privacy and convenience? User autonomy is the key
Shortly after the Facebook personal information disclosure scandal, Mr. Li Yanhong’s article was succinct by the media that “Chinese people are more willing to exchange privacy and convenience”, and once again touched people’s sensitive nerves on personal privacy issues.
After the emotional reconciliation, when we look back at the relationship between privacy (the privacy should be understood in a broad sense, including personal information) and convenience, we can find that in real life, there is indeed a reality between the two. A relationship of “changing the difference”, because in many cases, people’s most direct experience of convenience is that individual needs are effectively met, and to do this, it is undoubtedly impossible to fully understand the demand side. Prerequisites for lack of.
In the sci-fi movie "Her", the artificial intelligence system OS1 can give meticulous care to the user's life, and even emotionally communicate with the "deep soul" because it is already for the user. A comprehensive system analysis was performed on all information generated prior to and during use of the system. In fact, people feel that their loved ones and friends are more intimate than strangers in their lives.
▲ screenshot of the science fiction movie "Her" (Her).
The crux of the matter is whether people have sufficient freedom of choice when making such a “convenient exchange of privacy” option. After all, when people face different types of services and different service providers, the trade-off between privacy and convenience is likely to be completely different, willing to exchange, and the extent and willingness to be willing. Such exchanges are carried out within the scope, and there is room for individualized needs.
Of course, from the perspective of service providers, it is not realistic to give meaningful responses to the individual needs of all subjects. However, the current situation is that service providers often offer users a package of "exchange" solutions. The option to face is just “take it or leave it”. In the absence of an effective alternative service in the market, this option cannot even be called an option.
4. Replace the package agreement with the personal information authorization option
In my opinion, a relatively healthy and balanced solution is:
First, replace the package with a diversified personal information authorization option and set these options in an "opt-in" manner to ensure that the user makes meaningful choices. Admittedly, this type of setup will make the service process more complicated, but in the face of the two values of privacy and convenience, what service providers can make alternative choices instead of users? What's more, the security of personal information is clearly at a higher value level than the convenience of services.
Second, the scope, reasons and uses of personal information authorization should be clearly communicated to the user. At present, more and more service providers have obtained the user's consent before obtaining the user's personal information, and informed the information content to be obtained. This is worthy of recognition. The problem is that most service providers do not explicitly inform users of the specific reasons and use of this information in the process, and the lack of such information not only makes it necessary for service providers to collect personal information. Whether or not to follow the legal due and necessary principles raises doubts, and it is also a serious violation of the consumer's right to know. Imagine if a website can clearly inform users that it will “personally adjust” the price of the product according to its personal information. Then, can the “big data killing” situation be detected at least earlier?
Third, users should be provided with convenient modification and exit paths. The same user is likely to make different judgments about the trade-off between privacy and convenience at different times. Therefore, in order to ensure that the service provider's use of user privacy can be synchronized with the latter's true will, the service provider should set a more convenient authorization adjustment mechanism and account cancellation mechanism for the user. In this respect, most service providers are currently not ideal. Although most of the online service providers have set up such a mechanism, they are often hidden deep and the program is complicated. Most offline service providers do not set this at all. Item mechanism.
In a nutshell, the phenomenon of “convenient exchange of privacy” is ubiquitous in real life, even in the commercial world, it is also a neutral value choice, unless it is included in this exchange. Forced, deceived, and concealed by the user.
Pet Anti Blue Light Film,Blue Light Screen Protector,Anti Blue Light Screen Protector,High Quality Laptop Screen Protector
