By Angelina Vlachou*

In 2018, all of us use the Internet quite extensively; through this extensive use a large quantity of digital data which concerns us is gathered. This data stem from profile creation in social media, from our e-mail address, from websites, which a person might use for his/her business, etc.

When the person these data concern dies, these data fall under the notion of “digital heritage”. The discussion on digital heritage is huge.

In this initial stage, it must be noted that both national and EU legal provisions on the protection of personal data -including the recent General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Preamble 27- concern personal data of natural living persons.

In particular, GDPR leaves in the discretion of Member States to decide whether they will extend protection to deceased persons or not. There are countries, which have already provided for such protection, i.e. Denmark.

Thus, arises the legal (and real) issue of the possibility to offer protection or not, but also the legal handling of the large volume of digital data, which constitute the digital heritage of a deceased person.

The most well-known social media platforms have already faced the necessity to solve this issue. More specifically, they have faced the question of what is going to happen to their users’ accounts, who are not alive anymore.

There are two possibilities hitherto, which slightly differ depending on the terms and conditions of each company. On the one hand, there is the possibility to totally erase the account; this possibility is usually given only to close relatives of the deceased person and it is often needed to submit an electronic form and to present some documentary evidence.

On the other hand, platforms like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, also offer the possibility to change an account to a memorialized account. In this option, the deceased user’s profile is preserved, while some sensitive personal data, such as address and contact information, are removed. Additionally, Facebook in particular deactivates the connection information for these accounts. As a result, if someone wishes to log in an account to have access to the deceased person’s data, he/she will face the message “We cannot share the connection information for a memorialized account. Connecting to a third person’s account violates our policy in any case”.

After all these, someone can easily wonder what happens to the large volume of digital data of a deceased person, which have been gathered for years, and more particularly in the case in which his closest persons wish to get access to them, as in the case of his material and intellectual property. The Federal Court of Karlsruhe, Germany, had to answer this question on 12 July 2012. This decision has no impact on the Greek legal order, but it constitutes one of the first judicial approaches of the impugned issue.

The dispute between the parents of a 15-year old deceased girl and Facebook was brought before the Court, which had to decide on the final instance. The dispute initiated from the fact that after the death of their daughter, the parents, who knew her password – since they were the ones who had created the account under the condition that they would also have access to it- wished to read her conversations on messenger, to see if she committed suicide or not. The account had been amended to a memorialized account – unknown by who- and thus, they could not do so. Therefore, the dispute went into courts.

In the first instance, the family was vindicated. The court of first instance accepted that the legal heirs of a deceased person inherit his/her digital data alongside with the rest of his/her property. This ruling was overturned in the court of second instance, which claimed that lifting the prohibition to access to the digital data of the deceased girl would constitute an excessive interference with the right to confidentiality of communications of the users, who are alive, and were communicating with the girl.

Finally, the Federal Court lined up with the court of first instance, adjudicating that there is no justification for handling the digital data of a deceased person in a different way than the rest of his property, which passes to his/her legal heirs.

The Court decided that the underage girl had concluded a contract of use with Facebook which -due to her death- passes to her parents-heirs. Therefore, her digital data were provided to the parents and the digital heritage was assimilated to the “analogue”. In other words, it was decided that the girl’s account on the social media is one of the property elements which passed to her relatives.

Nonetheless, this decision is only the beginning of the discussion and the legal “landscape” remains vague.

On the one hand, the assimilation of digital heritage to analogue appears to be convincing, particularly if we think that after death there is no prohibition on access to the written communications of a person. On the other hand, the particularity of digital data cannot be dismissed, since in the contemporary age, where technology progresses at a great rate, passing a large volume of digital files to persons other than the initial recipient, puts many rights (i.e. the right to confidentiality of communications, right to protection of personal data, right to privacy) of a vast number of persons under excessive risk. The number of persons under threat is much bigger than the number of persons concerned by some “traditional” communication.

These persons are, of course, the alive “followers-friends” of the deceased. While there is a lack of clear legal provision (in national and european level), it is deemed problematic to request from the judge to decide on permitting the transfer of digital data or not in each case. It is not an exaggeration to fear that decisions with a fundamentally different result will be issued, since these platforms have users all around the globe, in States with absolutely different legislations and legal systems.

The only way seems to be the uniform -as much as this is possible- regulation of the impugned situation, as is always suggested for the problems which arise in the digital age. The only thing that is for sure, is that the conversation has just begun.

*Angelina Vlachou is a lawyer. She holds a Master in Public Law and Political Science from the Aristoteleio University of Thessaloniki. She is a PhD candidate in the Law School of Aristoteleio University.

Konstantinos Kakavoulis of Homo Digitalis, represented the organization in the United National Human Rights Council 39th session (Geneva, 10-28 September 2018).

In a joint statement with the International Organization for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (EAFORD) and Geneva International Centre for Justice (GICJ), Homo Digitalis spoke under the General Debate on Item 2 on the right to privacy in the digital age.

By Ioannis Ntokos*

The natural and mental characteristics from which we all consist of describe not only our appearance, but also our character, our temperament, our behaviour, as well as the way in which we react to persons and certain situations. Therefore, a person can be described as insightful, athletic, or consistent to his/her obligations depending on what others observe for them.

Our digital self

With the expansion of the Internet and the contemporary technological achievements, these characterizations are not confined in the traditional social environment (such as a school or the family environment of a person).

They also come in the Internet, which, through the use of means such as smartphones, facilitates the collection of a person’s data, which give him a corresponding characterization. Thus, profile creation goes beyond the real world and comes in the electronic environments we all use, influencing our lives in ways we may not understand.

The most common examples

An example of this “invisible” influence is the purchase of plane tickets online. E-shops which sell such tickets create the user’s profile, which consists from the computer brand used for the purchase, among others. The use of an expensive computer (such as Apple) is automatically recorded and the user is charged higher for the ticket; the reason for this is that since he/she owns an expensive computer, he/she can pay a more expensive ticket.

Profile creation in the digital world occurs usually in the following way: an electronic device, through appropriate software and connection to the Internet, collects personal data of its user (with, but sometimes without, his/her consent), which are stored in various means and archived depending on their content.

Youtube recommendations are a classic example. These recommendations are based on the user’s views and his/her behaviour generally in the Internet. Youtube automatically records every video that the user watches and creates the corresponding profile. For instance, Ioannis has watched 70% videos with dogs and 30% videos on football. Depending on the user’s profile, the service promotes to him/her content corresponding to his/her profile. For instance, it would promote more videos with dogs and less football videos to Ioannis.

The one side of the moon

Creation of such profiles can have positive, but also negative consequences, when used to classify someone depending on his/her characteristics (such as discretion, reliability, vitality or his/her music preferences). One of the benefits of this technique is that the created profile can be used to provide him/her with products and services, which really match him. Additionally, the profile makes the use of the platforms and services, which employ it, easier; the user has an electronic identity, which helps him to browse easier on the Internet and to get served based on it. This happens with e-shops, such as Amazon, in which the user receives notifications from the system for products, which are deemed to match his/her profile. In other words, the user is identified based on the information of his profile.

The other side of the moon

However, the creation of profiles by a person might also entail risks. A person’s profile is as accurate as the data taken into account for its creation, as well as the efficiency of the algorithm used. Inaccurate data and inefficient algorithms will create a profile which does not match reality.

The consequences

The consequences of all the above might be very significant for a person. An imprecise profile can lead to the provision and forwarding of unwanted services, products or content; it can also play an important role in the decision-making regarding the person. It is worth thinking of the consequences of the denial of a bank institution to provide a loan, for which a person has applied, based on imprecise data constituting the applicant’s profile. These imprecise data was used to process this application by electronic means.

Of course, the creation of a profile and the potential automated decision-making, does not automatically equate to discriminatory treatment by the profile creator. The discrimination will be equivalent to the precision of the created profile through the collection and processing of a person’s data. This precision is not guaranteed; as we will see in a future article, the correct and accurate processing of personal data, as well as the creation of a pertinent profile by electronic computer systems, are as strong as the impartiality and integrity of the algorithms used.

To sum up, we observe that the main threats arising from such practices are two; firstly, the potential decision-making for the person involved and secondly, the potential inaccuracy of a profile because of a) collection of non-relevant data or b) use of biased algorithms and calculating methods. In any case, the cognizance of the existence and the nature of such practices constitute a first line of defense against their negative consequences.

If the topic of the article interests you, you can learn more information by a reading an academic paper here.

* Ioannis Ntokos holds an LL.M. in Law & Technology. He is based in the Netherlands and works in the protection of personal data and is a defender of it, as well as a defender of digital right in general.

By Alexandra Giannopoulou* and Aimilia Givropoulou

Managing intellectual property on the Internet constitutes one of the most controversial legislative issues in the European Union. In recent years, it has become obvious that the creation of a digital single market requires the creation of a legislative framework, which harmonizes the rules implemented in the Member States.

The first attempt for such a harmonization took place in 2001 with the adoption of the Directive of the European Union for the harmonization of certain aspects of the right of the creator and related rights in the information society. However, this Directive failed in achieving its objective.

From 2001 onwards, technology is rapidly evolving and the lack of contemporary regulations was obvious and necessary. For this reason, with her proposal and report, which was voted in the European Parliament, the Member of the European Parliament Julia Reda, asked the legislators to revise the anachronistic rules of the Directive and proceed with the necessary reformations.

The proposal of the European Commission of 2016 does not only fail in harmonizing the legislations of the Member States, incorporating the requisite reformations, but also provides for more rules, which are threatening the structure and function of the Internet as we know it today, as well as the fundamental right to freedom of expression.

The controversial articles of the Proposal for the Directive

The controversial articles of the text in question are articles 11 and 13. The first one introduces a new exclusive right of the publishers of the Press; the second one creates the obligation of platforms, which store and give access to content, to issue licences for publishing this content by users or prohibit it from being accessible through the introduction of automated filtering algorithms, which will track copyright violations.

There is broad scientific unanimity in the criticism of the controversial articles. Article 11 suggests the introduction of a neighbouring right for the publishers of the Press and can create exclusive rights, even in short excerpts or news titles. Reusing these excerpts will thus require explicit permission by the publisher.

Despite its promising advantages, Article 11 will impede significantly the free flow of information, which is vital to a democratic society. At the same time, the catastrophic consequences of Article 13 for freedom of expression and the ambiguity in the way automated content filters apply justify the citizens’ concern regarding the requirements of the Article.

The legislative procedure and Wednesday’s vote

According to the ordinary legislative procedure in the European Union, subsequently to the proposal by the Commission, the Parliament and the Council of Europe deliberate and after the first reading can suggest amendments to the Commission’s proposal.

In the Parliament, the committee responsible is the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI), which, after having received the opinions of other committees (LIBE, IMCO, ITRE, CULT), finalized and presented its proposal last July; the proposal was rejected by the European Parliament plenary, with a majority of 318 Members of the European Parliament voting against it. As a result, JURI’s proposal could not proceed according to the ordinary procedure in the tripartite meetings between the three legislative organs.

The proposal came back on the table of negotiations of JURI and it was also opened to all Members of the European Parliament, who can submit their own suggestions for the text. The plenary will meet on Wednesday 12 September in Strasbourg to vote the final text, which will constitute the proposal with which the Parliament will join the tripartite meetings. The proposals which will be voted on Wednesday are more than 200.

Actions – How can you influence Wednesday’s vote

Since the Proposal for the Directive was published by the Commission in 2016 until today, many civil society actors, academics and pioneers in the new technologies sector have expressed their objection both to the Commission’s text and the text, which was finally rejected by the plenary in July.

Among the civil society actors is the Non-Governmental Organization European Digital Rights, which focuses on digital rights in Europe, and the European Consumer Organization, BEUC. Additionally, Internet pioneers, such as the creator of the World Wide Web Tim Berners-Lee and the co-founder of Wikipedia Jimmy Wales, as well as organs, like the Special Rapporteur for the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of expression David Kaye, have noted the negative consequences that the initial text of the Commission and the subsequent text by JURI, will have on the structure and function of the Internet.

In Greece, the non-governmental organization EELLAK, is also alert and informs regularly through its website on the latest news.

As already mentioned, the exercise of pressure from the citizens to the distinguished Members of the Parliament did not go unnoticed before July’s vote. With the upcoming elections for the Members of the European Parliament being only 8 months away, the activation of citizens is necessary and useful. Homo Digitalis sent its message to the Greek Members of the European Parliament and many citizens contacted our representatives in the Parliament.

The #SaveYourInternet movement focusing on the erasure of Article 13, offers all the required information and tools to make communication with the Members of the European Parliament easier. The outcome of Wednesday’s vote is still unclear. Participation of the people is important and necessary, since it can influence the final result and raise the legislator’s awareness.

To follow further the news you can follow our posts and the information by shadowy rapporteur Julia Reda. On Twitter, the discussions continue with the hashtags #SaveYourInternet and #FixCopyright.

* Alexandra Giannopoulou holds a PhD in Law from the University of Paris II Panthéon Assas and a lawyer. She works as a researcher in Blockchain and Society Policy Lab, in the Institute for Information Law (IViR) of the University of Amsterdam. She is an associate researcher in Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG) in Berlin and in the Institute for Communication Sciences (CNRS-ISCC) in Paris.

* Aimilia Givropoulou is a lawyer holding an LL.M. in the Law of the Internet. She works as Legal Adviser in digital policy issues in the Greens/EFA group in the European Parliament. In the past, she has worked with the Non-Governmental Organization European Digital Rights.

Processing of personal data by the police and other law enforcement authorities

By Lefteris Chelioudakis

General Regulation 2016/679 for the processing of personal data (GDPR) has monopolised interest recently. You may have already read articles by Homo Digitalis on GDPR or have read articles on newspapers, websites, etc.

But what do you know about GDPR’s younger sister, Directive 2016/680? Probably nothing.

EU Directive 2016/680 regulates a very important part of the processing of personal data, which must concern every citizen of a democratic country. The Directive concerns the processing of data by the national law enforcement authorities for the prevention, investigation, tracking or prosecution of crimes or the implementation of criminal sanctions.

Which are these authorities? Greek Police, the Hellenic Coast Guard and the Special Secretary of the Economic Crime Prosecution Authority, which is part of the Ministry of Economics, are some of them. Furthermore, Directive 2016/680 also applies on the activities of the national judiciary.

Regarding the judiciary, the acts and procedures of processing of personal data, which are included in court decisions or archives of criminal procedures, may be further elaborated by every EU Member States through its national legislation on criminal procedure (i.e. the Criminal Procedure Code in Greece).

The same national rules should regulate the implementation of the right to get informed, the right to access, the right to correction, the right to erasure and the right to limit the processing of personal data in the context of a criminal investigation and criminal procedure in the national courts.

Additionally, to safeguard the impartiality of the judiciary, the national monitoring authorities (such as the Authority for the Protection of Personal Data in Greece) do not have jurisdiction upon the processing of personal data when the courts act under their judicial power.

Furthermore, the EU Member States may provide that the national monitoring authorities do not have jurisdiction upon the processing of personal data by other judicial authorities, which act in their judicial power, such as the prosecuting authorities.

It must be noted though that the proper implementation of the Directive 2016/680 by courts and other judicial authorities should always be subject to impartial inspection, according to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights Article 8, paragraph 3.

So, why is Directive 2016/680 important?

The first reason is that it replaces a very poor legislative framework, Decision 2008/977/ΔΕΥ, which unfortunately has a very limited scope – the transboundary exchange of data between law enforcement authorities of the EU Member States- and did not strike a fair balance between the necessities of law enforcement authorities in the context of their investigations and the rights of the persons involved in these investigations. As a result, the legal values on processing of personal data, were not respected and the rights of the data subjects were significantly weakened.

The second reason is that it constitutes the first step for the residents of the EU area to enjoy an equal level of protection when their personal data are processed by the police and the other law enforcement authorities. For the first time, a legal act regulates in a uniform fashion in the EU the way that the police officer in your neighborhood, the border guards, etc. may process your personal data. Therefore, when incorporated in the Greek legal order, the provisions of Directive 2016/680 must clearly regulate the way in which you will be able to exercise your rights before the police or the other law enforcement authorities.

It is for sure that in relation to the GDPR, your rights and the legal values regarding the processing of your personal data are significantly weaker.

However, there are provisions in which Directive 2016/680 is stricter than the GDPR. For instance, the recordings (Article 25) constitute one of these provisions. Thanks to them, when a police officer searches or shares information on you, your identity, the reason for his act and the precise date and time on which this act occurred must be recorded. Thus, these recorded files may subsequently be used to verify the legality of the processing, as well as the protection of objectivity and the safety of personal data in the context of criminal proceedings. Recordings constitute an extra obligation, which adds to the one of simple filing of the acts of processing (Directive 2016/680, Article 24 and GDPR Article 30).

Caution! Directive 2016/680 does not concern the processing of your personal data by intelligence services of the EU Member States, such as the National Intelligence Service in Greece. This happens because Directive 2016/680 is part of the EU legislation and EU law does not include issues of national security in its scope; these remain on the exclusive legislative discretion of each Member State. In this case, national law must be harmonized with the Council of Europe law and more particularly the European Convention on Human Rights kai the Convention on the protection of natural persons from automated processing of their personal data (“Convention 108”), which includes national intelligence services in its scope.

Directive 2016/680 must be transposed by all Member States in their national legal orders; this transposition is very important for the interpretation of its provision in the national level.

Although Member States should have adopted and published the necessary national legal reforms to comply with this Directive until 6 May 2018, until the day when this article was published, Greece had not adopted any law on the issue. Only Czech Republic, Ireland, Croatia, France, Italy, Austria, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Germany, Lithuania, Sweden, United Kingdom and Slovakia have done so until today.

Homo Digitalis watches closely the procedure regarding the draft law for the Protection of Personal Data to comply with EU Regulation 2016/679 and incorporate EU Directive 2016/680. Thus, when the procedure is completed and the final provisions are voted, Homo Digitalis will inform you on your rights and the obligations of the law enforcement authorities.

What has happened until now?

On the 5th of July, a big win for the freedom of online expression and information was achieved.

Specifically, 318 MEPs (members of the European Parliament) voted against the proposed directive for copyrights in the Digital Market. Therefore, the directive was rejected.

At this point, we would like to remind you that the changes that the directive would cause on copyrights could considerably limit the freedom of expression and information on the Internet.

Those changes had the potential to even change the shape of the Internet as we know it.

What will happen now?

The total of 751 members of the European Parliament will now have the possibility to examine in detail the copyrights reform and submit amendments until the 5th of September.

Subsequently, the initial Proposal alongside with the new recommendations will be introduced in the European Parliament plenary on 12 September for a vote.

What can we do?

The majority of the Greek Parliament Members rejected the proposed directive at the 5th of July.

Thanks to the emails they received and the pressure by Greek voters and other Greek institutions –Homo Digitalis among them– they were informed and sensitized for the protection of the freedom of expression.

We can do the same now! By using the very simple tool that is offered here we can send mass messages to the Greek Parliament Members in order to put pressure on them to propose amendments for the proposed directive in favor of the protection of the freedom of online expression and information.

Let’s not forget that the European elections are not far off (23 and 26 May 2019). The more messages the Parliament Members receive, the more attention they will show for the retention of the Internet as we know it.

Send your message now. It will only take a minute but its impact can literally last for years!

Watch also the very interesting video of the campaign #SaveYourInternet.

The report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on the right to privacy in the digital age was published. The report will be presented in the 39th session of the UN Human Rights Council, which will take place in Geneva from 10 to 28 September 2018.

Homo Digitalis, responding to the open call of the High Commissioner, contributed in the drafting of the report by submitting its report.

In Chapter One of this report, Homo Digitalis focuses on encryption and anonymity as elements which reinforce human rights protection, including freedom of expression and freedom of opinion. In Chapter Two, Homo Digitalis evaluates the legislative framework on metadata of electronic communications in Greece. Finally, in the last Chapter of the report, Homo Digitalis puts forward its recommendations for the promotion and protection of the rights analysed in the two main Chapters.

The report of the UN High Commissioner is available here.

The report of Homo Digitalis has been published in the UN High Commissioner’s official website and is available here.

It must be noted that reports from Greece have also been submitted by the Ministry of Justice, the Home Office and the Ministry of Digital Policy, Telecommunications and Media.

We are in the first days of August; a month which is linked to summer leisure. You might already be on vacation or might be expecting to do so soon. You might have just returned and be enjoying the calmness of August in the city; you might have not had the chance to go on holiday.

In any case, August is a month of relaxation, of enjoyment of peaceful moments with our family and happy moments with friends. It is a month when our free time tends to be more than during any other month in the year. This free time can be used for entertainment.

Homo Digitalis does not have time to rest and relax, since an organization which focuses on the protection of human rights must be alert all year long and preserve the values, to which it is dedicated to. You will learn more on our activity in the coming days.

Notably, our experience has taught us that due to summer relaxation, this time of the year is used on purpose by the governments to act or adopt important legislation. Therefore, August is one more working month.

However, the human body needs moments of relaxation in order for it to be strong and human brain needs moments of creative thought, without being limited by everyday stress and pressure.

Thus, Homo Digitalis would like to suggest that you use the moments of leisure this August to start understanding more on the human rights issues arising from the use of the Internet and new technologies.

Let us proceed to proposals related to literature, cinema, comics and video games, so that young and old can receive important stimulus through entertainment. The following suggestions are indicative and do not illustrate the whole artwork. Moreover, Homo Digitalis neither has any economic interest from these suggestions nor has personal relations with any copyright owner.

Video games

Data dealer (2013): This game was created by activists and has as a main goal to illustrate through parody and humour the dangerous world we live in. The player becomes a data dealer, who trades them with every kind of recipients. In this way, the game transmits a message regarding the monitoring of a contemporary Internet user and its impact on the user’s choices and life. The game is available here.

VPRO & Studio Moniker, “Clickclickclick.click” (2016): This game is just one simple website. With the particularity that this website describes thoroughly the monitoring you are subject to every time you use the Internet. The place on which your cursor is moving, the time for which you remained inactive, the number of the websites you have visited in the past and your data, are communicated to you through a web voice (open your speakers). An experiment directed to raising your awareness. You can try it here.

Joint Research Centre (JCR) – European Commission, “Cyber Chronix” (2018): This game was created by the European Commission and its aim is to familiarize the public with the provisions of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). It is available in English, French and Italian. It tells a story, taking place light years away from the Earth. There, the heroes are trying to reach an event. Their path is full of obstacles related to the protection of personal data, which the player has to surpass. The game is available here.

Literature

Aldous Huxley, “Brave New World” (1932): One of the most beloved books and one of the most well-known in this list. The book describes a future society, where human feelings have disappeared. Human beings are classified in categories from the moment of their birth, which occurs in an artificial way. The creators of this world implant to every human certain ideas depending on the social class he/she belongs to, while humans who demonstrate some kind of consciousness are drugged. Truth is lost in an ocean of fake news, human are mundane existences and enjoyment rules the brain.

George Orwell, “1984” (1949): A classic book. If you have not read it, you should do so this summer. The book describes the story of a hero, living in a country with an authoritarian regime. All the citizens are under constant surveillance under very pressing conditions. Unlimited rule, subjugation and deprivation of information prevail, while privacy is non existent.

Ira Levin, “This Perfect Day” (1970): This story takes place in an apparently ideal globalized society, the most fundamental characteristic of which is uniformity. All nations of the planet have merged in one, while otherness in not acceptable. The population is drugged in order to remain obedient, while a central computer has been programmed to keep under its control any human action.

Neal Stephenson, “Cryptonomicon” (1999): This book includes an impressive number of technical information. It is divided in two stories, taking place on a different point in time. The first story concerns cryptographers during World War II, who decrypt and transmit fake news. The second one occurs in the 1990s; a team of experts in encryption, telecommunications and computer systems tries to create an anonymous network for transactions of digital currency and circulation of information.

Dave Eggers, “The Cyrcle” (2013): This book’s heroine is the young May, who is employed by the Cyrcle, the most powerful Internet company worldwide. The Cyrcle uses its own platform through which, its users exchange money, complete their banking transactions and socialize. The Cyrcle constantly develops new technologies, among which a camera which everyone can carry with him and record everything live. Soon, transparency becomes the most important value and the solution to every problem, while privacy is left aside.

David Shafer, “Whiskey Tango Foxtrot” (2014): This book describes events from the lives of three different persons. They have nothing in common, until the moment they are called to join other activists to fight against an anti-democratic team of people, who serve great interests and strive for the privatization of all information.

Yuval Noah Harari, “Homo Deus: A brief History of Tomorrow” (2016): The author examines the form of the world and the human of the future, based on personal conclusions, but also common assumptions and lessons learned through history, philosophy, sociology and many other scientific fields.

Comics

Brian K. Vaughan, Marcos Martin, Muntsa Vicente, “The Private Eye” (2013-2015): What can someone say for these comics series? Exceptional creators, who have been linked with famous comics creations (Ex Machina, Saga, Daredevil, Amazing Spider-man) transfer the reader in an extremely particular future society. There, because of the fact that in the past the personal data of all people had leaked, thus shuttering the notion of privacy, the Internet is not used anymore, people come out of their houses only in carnival costumes, while the media play the role of police.

Brian K. Vaughan, Steve Skroce, Matt Hollingsworth, “We Stand on Guard” (2015-2016): This comic talks about the adventures of a group of Canadian citizens in 2112. This group is trying to protect their society from the US, which is a tremendously advanced State in terms of technology.

EDRi, “Digital Defenders vs Data Intruders” (2016): EDRi constitutes an umbrella under which all NGOs, which focus on the protection of digital rights in Europe and globally, are united. In the context of raising children’s awareness, it published the comic “Digital Defenders vs Data Intruders”. In the comic the Digital Defenders will show you some tricks and will share some advice to protect yourself on the Internet and will teach you “Web self-defense” to fight the Data Intruders.

Rick Remender, Sean Murphy, Matt Hollingsworth, “Tokyo Ghost” (2015-2017): This story takes place in Los Angeles in the year 2089. There, people live in a society, which drives them to addiction to technology and entertainment. Internet access has a significant impact, since every activity is monitored by hackers.

Cinema and TV series

Francis Ford Coppola, “The Conversation” (1974): The hero specializes in surveillance missions. A past incident though haunts every new task he assumes. This will also happen when a businessman asks him to watch two of his employees.

Peter Weir, “The Truman Show” (1998): Truman is the main hero; his life is being transmitted 24 hours per day worldwide, without him being aware of this fact. He lives in an artificial town, inhabited by actors, and fears to travel outside its boundaries and discover the real world.

Stephen Spielberg, “Minority Report” (2002): Based on the book by Philip K. Dick under the same title (1956), the movie describes technological evolution in year 2054, when murders are predicted before they are committed and the “perpetrators” get arrested before they commit a crime. What will happen when the director of this project will become the target of his own program?

Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck, “Das Leben der Anderen” (The Lives of Others, 2006): The movie tells the story of a man, who is a spy in Eastern Berlin 1984. There, the Stasi spies watch the citizens. The hero will adopt a different approach towards a writer, whom he is assigned to watch.

Charlie Brooker, “Black Mirror” (2011-today): This series consists of self-contained episodes, which describe stories occuring in the not so distant future, where new technologies have gained unpredictable growth.

Sam Esmail, “Mr. Robot” (2015-today): The series describes Elliot’s life, who is a computer programmer and hacker. His everyday life changes unexpectedly when he becomes member to a team of hackers led by Mr. Robot. The goal of the team is to destroy the giant corporation E-Corp.

Alex Garland, “Ex machina” (2015): The movie describes an innovative experiment; a programmer will have to spend a few days isolated with his boss, a successful inventor and businessman, in the latter’s villa. A robot with Artificial Intelligence, the latest invention of the talented inventor, seems to be the object of the experiment.

This brings us to the end of the suggested artwork. We really hope that you invest some of your time in one of them and take some stimulus from it. Please remember, though, that human rights challenges arising from new technologies, are not fictionary, but real.

Therefore, we call you to devote some time to our website as well. Here you can find content with which we pose concerns and inform the public on our activities, as well as the ongoing situation.

Take a look at our articles, written by our members and partners, the latest news, concerning current affairs and our activity, as well as the jurisprudence concerning digital rights.

You can always contact us to express your concerns and learn more on Homo Digitalis. Please keep in mind that our team is open to new members, who are interested in the protection of human rights in the contemporary digital era.

The European Union has to face its choices

By Stefanos Vitoratos

All of us who are somehow concerned with technology, have undoubtedly faced the term “Blockchain” recently. Permitting the distribution of information, but not its copying, blockchain has started to support the backbone of a new form of revolution of information.

Although we got acquainted with blockchain mostly through Bitcoin, it is applicable beyond cryptocurrency.

Energy networks, the health sector, the banking sector, supply chains, transports, education, industry and the public sector are only some of the sectors, on which the application of blockchain is becoming examined on a pilot basis.

Blockchain redefines the role of faith in transactions and in this way it makes intermediaries less necessary.

What is the view of the European Union? Will it become part of this chain? Let us start from the beginning.

What does Blockchain mean?

This technology is based on the notion of the simultaneous creation and sharing of information. This logic is that of a digital file; let us think of something like a ledger. Every user records a transaction and then another one, thus slowly creating a record block. Every new record block is daisy-chained with the previous one, thus creating a blockchain.

Processing this model is by default decentralized, since every user who confirms the previous records and adds a new one, acts from his own computer, while the chain is common to all participants, since all of them save a copy for processing.

The faith of the transactors is based on an algorithmic relation-confirmation, rather than the traditional protection offered by a third person, which is theoretically trustworthy, such as a bank. Therefore, to put it briefly, blockchain is a cryptographically secured transaction file, which functions without a centralized authority interfering.

The difference to what we already know is that blockchain’s database is not saved centrally. The files kept are public and data are always verifiable because of the uninterrupted chain of records, hosted by millions of computers at the same time. Therefore, no block of the chain can be destroyed or amended, since such an action would require the use of tremendous computer power, capable of beating the whole network of the connected users.

Public access to blockchain safeguards transparency in transactions and diffusion of information. In the same context, the need for intermediaries, who augment the costs, disappears, since all the information related to the transaction are encrypted in the blockchain.

Evolution of the blockchain technology market in $, Source: Statista

Blockchain and human rights

As already mentioned, blockchain as we got to know it through cryptocurrency, as well as the rationale of this technology can enhance human rights protection. Think of a world where each information is public and constantly verified. Imagine how transparency could be endorsed if, for instance, the pharmaceutical supplies of hospitals, were stored in blockchain.

It is indicative that some first attempts have initiated. The UN World Food Programme (WFP), in order to alleviate the refugee crisis, in 2017 provided more than 10,000 Syrian refugees a sum in cryptocurrency, which they could use only to buy food.

The reason why blockchain was selected as a means for sharing was that the refugees, being displaced, neither had access to bank accounts nor had the opportunity to open an account rapidly in the new country where they were installed. Thus, an electronic purse was opened for everyone and the money was deposited there.

Therefore, not only did they have access to their account from anywhere in the world, but also money was saved; money which would have been paid to bank commissions for wire transfers.

Where does the EU stand?

The European Union made a step towards claiming the role of the world leader in the fourth Industrial Revolution -as it is called- through adopting a resolution for blockchain technology on May 16, 2018.

The Committee for Industry, Power and Technology of the European Parliament voted for the resolution (with 52 votes in favour, 1 against), in an initiative by the Greek Member of the European Parliament, Eva Kaili. This was the first time that an institutional organ, such as the European Parliament, discussed the potential form of a regulatory framework for the new decentralized technologies, such as blockchain.

The aim is that the relationship, which is being cultivated through this resolution, becomes the vehicle for cooperation of the Member States. In particular, the exchange of experience and expertise in technical and regulatory fields will prepare the planning of european applications of the blockchain technology in favour of the public and private sector, which will ultimately be in favour of the European citizens.

The question is how can blockchain technology comply with the GDPR, which was adopted to protect the data of the users from central entities. What is not properly answered is what happens with decentralized technology.

As mentioned above, transactions in blockchain are unchangeable. Neither can the transactions change, nor can the data be deleted, since this will “break the chain” in a way, rendering the whole blockchain non functional. At the time, the GDPR prohibits the potential storing of personal data in data chain.

Making a brief flashback, the GDPR was proposed for the first time by the European Commission in 2012 and focused mainly on cloud computing and social media.

More specifically, the GDPR, in its Article 17 introduces the “right to be forgotten”, meaning the right of persons to request the erasure of their data, thus requiring that there will be central servers which will be able to “erase” this data.

The Regulation was drafted without taking into account the blockchain technology, which was not commonly known -even as a word. Therefore, there arises an important question on whether blockchain technology can function properly, without violating the EU legislation, since a fundamental -and at the same time revolutionary- element of blockchain is that data cannot be deleted. In the way that the GDPR has been drafted, it seems that we cannot store personal data directly in the blockchain, since in the words of the GDPR these data “will not be erasable”.

At this point it must be noted that we refer to public chains, not private ones, such as the ones that a company can use for internal reasons; the latter can be created from scratch with a provision of limited/locked access by the public.

Looking into the future

When the European policy makers were discussing and finalizing the GDPR, the blockchain was not in the radar of most people.

What is obvious is that in the future we will need a flexible governance framework, which will permit us to understand the advantages of data and technology.

Governments should cooperate with society, academics and the private sector for policy to conform with such a dynamic procedure, as technology.

With the new initiatives it seems that the legislator understands that blockchain technology is able to create a system structure, in which existing business models could go forward and design a new value chain.

Through the resolution, new roads of regulatory and legal certainty for investing vehicles based on blockchain are opened, confronting serious cases of fraud and unreliability.

The very promising blockchain technology is expected to create a radically innovative ambience for the neuralgic industries and the operational structure of the public sector, while also changing our lives as consumers and citizens in general.Undoubtedly, it seems like a very complex technology. But, let us keep in mind that it constitutes the most feasible, from a technical perspective, attempt for liberation and democratization of the global economic transactions. We expect the developments and wait to see how will the EU comply with its choices.