If you’re a @criteo user (you probably are!) residing anywhere in the world you are entitled to exercise your personal data rights under the GDPR. criteo.com/privacy/your-r…
For the curious nerds, everyone gets data rights because Criteo is based in France. I had rights to my Cambridge Analytica data because it was processed in UK. But you have to reside in the EU to get extra territorial data rights for data that is not processed there.
Nick Clegg is very very worried about the splinternet (data localization) but he does a fine job of arguing it’s nearly arrived. Meanwhile, he’s not urging US and India to simply and urgently adopt GDPR adequacy in light of Schrems II. He’s slow rolling instead. Gotta ask why.
For the newbie nerds, GDPR adequacy means EU approves data protections with other zones to sustain open data trade. Schrems II is the court’s momentous strikedown of the second special data treaty between US and EU to enable this adequacy. Very messy now.
If there was global GDPR adequacy then you wouldn’t need to worry about where you or your data lives in any given context. You would simply have equal data rights as a fundamental human right. You would enjoy general data protection.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Feel like GPDR could have used an upper limit of open investigations before algorithmic disgorgement automatically kicks in. Lost count of the open probes into Facebook Ireland a while ago. A failsafe for this colossus scenario.
Why the Facebook contact uploader vulnerability and subsequent hackbreachleak matters. Phone numbers are the ideal attack surface to force multiply other vulnerabilities. Facebook exposed non-public information and needs to answer for it.
As I learned from today’s Spaces call:
—FB’s contact sync was vulnerable to a malicious attacker who could enumerate phone numbers to harvest FB IDs. This revealed non-public information
—attacker then scraped accounts by FB ID
—API limits woefully inadequate/trivial to cheat
—botnets would enable easy circumvention of throttling of lookups per user per session
—Facebook silently changing user prefs made it confounding to know how your phone number was used; default settings put risks on users
—expect probe of who knew what when as FB deflects & spins
Wow. @ashk4n reveals that his 2FA phone number which was different from the phone number he associated to his account was leaked in the contact sync vulnerability. Private information was most certainly breached. Facebook must be pushed on its subterfuge, when it knew what when.
Wow. @intdc explains how Facebook silently changing its confusing privacy settings set the stage for this catastrophic leak by making it too difficult to realize the difference between the visibility of your phone number vs. lookup by phone number. Cambridge Analytica déjà vu.
You can now check @haveibeenpwned to see if your Facebook account data is among the half-billion leaked and circulating. You know that breach that Facebook insists has no responsibility for because it’s an “old” breach. haveibeenpwned.com
FWIW I deactivated my Facebook in 2018 so it was protected from the breach. The only safe account is an inert or deleted account.
CAVEAT: @haveibeenpwned only checks if your email is in leaked data. Most of the Facebook records are uniquely identifiable by phone number, not emails. So unless someone else builds a phone query tool or Facebook notifies folks… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Proactively managing one’s own health data strikes me as an act of personal interest and liberty. Likewise, private interests are at liberty to impose requirements upon customers as terms and conditions of service. The problem is we don’t enjoy fundamental #DataRights in the USA.
In other words, we might find a digital vaccine record more acceptable if all data collecting entities were legally bound to disclose our data, its processing, sharing, and provide unobstructed revocation of consent. Exists in the EU. Not in the USA. #DataRights
So until the USA establishes fundamental #DataRights similar to the EU, CA, VA, etc., paper vaccine records could minimize digital monetization at least, and help maintain the minimal protections afforded by HIPAA. Without any safeguards tho, concerns of eventual abuse are real.