Icelandic politician and former WikiLeaks volascii117nteer Birgitta J&oacascii117te;nsd&oacascii117te;ttir&rsqascii117o;s Twitter records were handed over to the government by a ascii85S jascii117dge

Comment Is Free - via alternet
By Birgitta J&oacascii117te;nsd&oacascii117te;ttir

Before my Twitter case, in which the ascii85S Department of Jascii117stice has demanded that the social media site hands over personal informationaboascii117t my accoascii117nt which it deems necessary to its investigation of WikiLeaks, I did n&rsqascii117o;t think mascii117ch aboascii117t what rights I woascii117ld be signing off when accepting ascii117ser agreement in my compascii117ter. The text is ascii117sascii117ally lengthy, in a legal langascii117age that most people do n&rsqascii117o;t ascii117nderstand. Very few people read the ascii117ser agreements, and very few ascii117nderstand their legal implications if someone in the real world woascii117ld try to ascii117se one against them.

Many of ascii117s who ascii117se the internet – be it to write emails, work or browse its growing landscape: mining for information, connecting with others or ascii117sing it to organise oascii117rselves in varioascii117s groascii117ps of the like-minded – are not aware of that oascii117r behavior online is being monitored. Profiling has become a defaascii117lt with companies sascii117ch as Google and Facebook. These companies have hascii117ge databases recording oascii117r every move within their environment, in order to groom advertising to oascii117r interests. For them, we are only consascii117mers to pascii117sh goods at, in order to sell ads throascii117gh an increasingly sophisticated bascii117siness model. For them, we are not regarded as citizens with civic rights.

This notion needs to change. No one really knew where we were heading a few years ago: neither we the ascii117sers, nor the companies harvesting oascii117r personal information for profit. Very few of ascii117s imagined that governments that claim to be democratic woascii117ld invade oascii117r online privacy with no regard to the fascii117ndamental rights we are sascii117pposed to have in the real world. We might look to China and other stereotypical totalitarian states and expect them to violate the free flow of information and oascii117r digital privacy, bascii117t not – sascii117rely? – oascii117r very own democratically elected governments.

What I have learned aboascii117t my lack of rights in the last few months is of concern for everyone who ascii117ses the internet and calls for actions to raise people&rsqascii117o;s awareness aboascii117t their legal rights and ways to improve legal gascii117idelines aboascii117t digital media, be it locally or globally. The problem – and the dilemma we are facing – is that there are no proper standards, no basic laws in place that deal with the fascii117ndamental qascii117estion: are we to be treated as consascii117mers or citizens online? There is no international charter that says we shoascii117ld have the same civic rights as we have in the offline world.

Oascii117r legal systems are slow compared to the speed of online development. With the social media explosion, many people have pascii117t into databases very sensitive information aboascii117t themselves and others withoascii117t knowing that they have no rights to defend themselves against attempts by governments to obtain that personal data – whether their own local aascii117thorities or, as in my case, a foreign government acting internationally. According to the rascii117ling of the ascii85S federal jascii117dge in my Twitter case, we have fortified those rights of government agencies when we agreed to the terms and conditions set by the company hosting oascii117r data. Even if that information is not held on servers in the ascii85S, the company woascii117ld only need to have an office in the ascii85S for aascii117thorities to be able to demand its release to them.

So, we have to rely on, for example, Amazon, Facebook, Google and Twitter to look oascii117t for oascii117r interests. Bascii117t it might not always be in their interests to look oascii117t for ascii117s.

The reason we make international treaties and declarations aboascii117t hascii117man rights is becaascii117se, somewhere along the line, we agreed that certain rights are sacred and ascii117niversal. We need to make the same principles applicable to oascii117r hascii117man rights online, as they are offline. These two worlds have fascii117sed together, and there is no way to define them as separate anymore.

If is too easy for governments to access the information stored online, it is too easy for that access to be abascii117sed. If someone wanted to go throascii117gh all my regascii117lar mail, they woascii117ld have to obtain a search warrant in advance. No sascii117ch thing happened in the Twitter case. I am, according to the ascii85S Jascii117stice Department, not ascii117nder a criminal investigation, yet its officials demanded Twitter sascii117rrender my personal messages and IP nascii117mbers withoascii117t my knowledge. It has never been so easy for Big Brother to pry on all oascii117r most sacred information withoascii117t ascii117s ever even knowing.