Internet: it’s time to be afraid!

Wirtualna Polska: Internet: it’s time to be afraid. You have decided to scare us?

Wojciech Orlinsky: I scare that seems to me to negative events: threats to our privacy, free speech, free access to information, free choice. Contrary to appearances, the Internet, giving us some mechanisms that we have many takes. I’m trying to, for example, to scare readers that it was time to fear for his job, as I am afraid for my. They have the advantage that they know who I am and I do not know who they are, but I’m still trying. Nowadays it is very difficult to find a branch, which would not affect in any way the Internet. And if he touches something, it is almost always a negative effect.

– Are there any examples?

– Without a doubt, it is better to work in a bookstore than a stock company Amazon, in the traditional newspaper than on the website. Whoever my reader – the taxi driver, the owner of a shoe store or restaurant – sooner or later it flamed on any Groupon or Foursquare, and it there are any unforeseen problems. I scare even threats to democracy, which turned Conquer the Internet Corporation. Democracy has never stood before such a challenge has never been such powerful companies. Many of these threats. Of course, there are new opportunities, I realize how many beautiful things you can do with the Internet: at least study at Harvard, even transfer money without going to the bank. I also use it, but really worth a moment to stop and think, we both lose.

– How is it possible that we have lost access to the information?

– Almost everyone who starts their communication with the Internet, at some point makes such a discovery: “Wow, the internet is full of people who think just like me.” He believes that since almost everyone thinks in a similar way, so it looks very wise. But why then the Sejm and the media think otherwise? Perhaps this is some kind of conspiracy, just does not reach them what is known and obvious to all Internet users. The thing is that no two people who see the Internet equally. In facebook we see what is advantageous to us to show what beneficial display advertisements. Same with Google. No two people whom he will show the same results. And, of course, if we inscribe the phrase “Smolensk catastrophe,” we will have the results that will reflect our personal picture of the Smolensk disaster.

– What surprises await us in facebook?

– The main threat associated with each of these companies (Facebook, Twitter, Google, YouTube), that they have become uncontested. Not everyone today can afford to miss on facebook. Up to a certain point, you could say that it is a free choice of the people, but when a certain firm acquires monopoly status as Facebook among social services or in terms of Google search, the selection disappears, there is no alternative.

All social networks are trying not to let us go, complicate this procedure. Even if you want to go to a rival network, it will not be so easy. Completely abandon the services Google, especially if you have a mobile phone system Android, all unrealistic. At the same time, all these companies use their dominant position. I’m scared I do not like that from the internet, which was full of competing search engines, social networking services with video or images, we hit the Internet where everything is happening under the guise of a single firm, which holds in its paws more than 90 percent of the market.

– The system is specially designed so that it was difficult to us to protect your personal information?

– In practice, even people who are professionally engaged in social networks often make mistakes. Control actions is becoming increasingly difficult because Facebook is constantly reduces the quality of their services. Not so long ago there was barring the fact that we have noted in the photographs strangers, now it is gone. Had the opportunity to block messages from unknown, it too was gone. Terms – getting worse, and the user interface is designed so that a person in the end, made a mistake. These companies earn not giving us quality services, and advertising. And each of our puncture preserving privacy, for example, when a picture is designed to groom diverges around the world, causes movement. Can show more advertising to promote a campaign, etc. So that firms monopolies – is, in fact, enemies of users and their interests, as we for them – goods. This is very dangerous, because they do not care about our interests and the interests of advertisers.

– And they collect information about us. The head of Google Eric Schmidt (Eric Schmidt) said that “if we want to hide some action from others, these actions should not be done.”

– Internet companies pretend that they are terribly outraged. They even wrote a joint letter to President Barack Obama, expressing his surprise that the government is spying on citizens. It all started with the fact that the business model of Google, Facebook, Twitter based primarily on gathering information about users. This enormous resources, which include not only information about what we write on the Internet (this is the least important), but also what the Internet network or what brand of equipment we use.

Those who have created a profile on facebook itself, must have been surprised that as a welcome they received a list of people they know. The list is very accurate. And even digital enthusiasts could ask, “How do they know that?” Meanwhile, those who are often on the Internet, leaving behind a trail of information. Of course, the data they need to show us the most suitable advertising, which in itself is not so dangerous. But the next logical step would be an appeal to this information security services. If there are deposits of information about every citizen: his partner, about what time they meet, talk about what that person buys, which reads books, listens to what music, etc., it’s hard not to use it.

– How did we get to this point?

– It started with the fact that the dominant model of Internet business has become the principle of free exchange for covert surveillance. We thoughtlessly agreed to this, throwing himself on the free stuff and forgetting about the famous principle of life: “Free is only cheese in a mousetrap.” And of course we got into this trap.

– Were you surprised when Edward Snowden told what scale acquired electronic surveillance, which led U.S. intelligence?

– In my book, I quote Robert McChesney (Robert McChesney), who writes in his study of Digital Disconnec that Snowden unveiled, but it does so on the basis of indirect evidence, and Snowden presented evidence. While we did not have the facts, it was possible to hide anymore. But, of course, an absolute surprise, this news was not.

– On the Internet there are limits to freedom of speech?

– Because of the great importance for democracy have media every democratic state always develops the relevant laws relating to traditional and electronic media. There are rules that make, for example, write a refutation, determine what should be responsible for these or other transgressions. Different democracies approach this differently, but the regulation in this area has always been. Meanwhile, the Internet has several dominant players who do not have any obligations. The Internet does not exist, for example, analog duty to refute false information. In fact, on false facts just earned money: link with trumped-up news gathering many “clicks” because the mass of the people goes to her to write “what nonsense.” And everyone will see advertising, so that the company that owns the portal, is interested in publishing such nonsense. This is very bad.

I think we should note that it is also the media, and so some regulation is needed, because soon, such as a TV in the former value will cease to exist. In our apartments on the same cable and comes increasingly internet, and cable television: it means that some of these ones and zeros we call TV and somehow adjustable, and the second – the internet, where do what you want. This is an unhealthy situation.

– In no regulation no facebook?

– The people who run Facebook, rush yourself to extremes and can not decide in this regard. They do not know what moderation rules they operate. As example is a movie in which a man in a mask woman cuts off his head. This video has become a hit. A few months earlier, the social giant suffered public criticism for deleting photos of a woman who is breastfeeding. Now deployed combat hate speech. I’m watching this action without much enthusiasm. I did not advocate, for example, anti-Semites, but I’m afraid I do not like that the boundaries of freedom of expression will determine the digital equivalent of the crowd with torches, which rushed to lynch nationalists.

– If you meet the appropriate group of people, they can close any page, even if it does not violate the rules of the service?

– Because facebook unpredictable and opaque, in general, do not understand how it works is unknown, it can arrange group. The key decision that too absurd takes secret tribunal. Leaks say that these people are doing from the Third World, who receive for their work very little and watching part of discussions with automatic translators. So they are not able to understand texts that render praise.

– If our laws have the desired standards, why we did not opt for domestic and foreign services, where there is this protection?

– We’re just a very long time did not realize this fact. I think it was a mistake of our government, it could not clearly explain everything. Of course, there are very strict laws regarding the protection of privacy in the European Union, there is a special directive. But in the U.S. our definition of privacy do not understand. It was stupid from the beginning: the state orders to report on cigarettes that smoking causes cancer, but no one warns that the entrance to facebook faces espionage against you.

– From your book you can see that for every job that creates the Amazon, there are four or five jobs that it destroys. Internet robs us

– The first thing a person opens the Internet: “Everyone thinks the way I am.” And the second: “Wow, how can I save. I go to the store and see the goods, and then buy it on the Internet is 20% cheaper, because the company that sells it, do not need to be store. Brilliant! “As a result we are losing jobs because exerted by 20%, in which someone saved. This two-stage: “Oh, how can I save” and “Oh, I lost my job.”

– We have entered a phase where nothing can be done?

– I am a pessimist by nature. If I see something in the hope that in the new European initiatives on regulation. The very possibility that the EU will impose heavy fines electronic corporation, returns the correct proportions. While these corporations about anything do not worry. And even if they get caught stealing data, they do not bear the responsibility for it, or pay a fraction of a percent of its multi-billion dollar revenues. When the EU can fine them billions, maybe they will think it is.