SOCIAL NETWORK

Legal experts compared to the U.S. law on the protection of personal data, internet and not only that: "Between us and Europe an unbridgeable abyss." Youth without fear? "It is not true: they know what to share and with whom"

From our correspondent RAFFAELLA MENICHINI

NEW YORK - Mark Zuckerberg says that teenagers today do not care about privacy? Well, the boss of Facebook in his recent statements in the Republic wanted to exaggerate, or otherwise manipulate to his advantage technological consciousness of a generation, a phenomenon full of nuances that social networks are shaping how her day by day. "It is not true that kids today do not care about privacy, actually they are obsessed - Professor James Grimmelmann explains to a group of European journalists arrived in New York to discuss their privacy on the Internet - The difference between the generations earlier is that their privacy is more social and relational, perhaps less concerned about government intrusion and more than those of parents and teachers. " The guys says this professor-child of Law at New York Law School, actually "make continuous assessments of what to hide and what to publish, weighing the benefits of sharing costs and loss of privacy." "They create fake profiles, fake names, fake ages and lots of little white lies to protect themselves from prying eyes. When you return from a party, now the first thing to do is go to 'untaggare' - ie remove the identification plates from all the pictures posted of who was at that party. And it is normal that you arrive an invitation to a 'no party room' or 'no mobile party: there is absolute awareness of the risks and equip you to avoid them. "

And if in Europe we seem so obsessed with the regulation of social networking comes from overseas once again a lesson in pragmatism: the concept of privacy gets thinner when you decide to have more than ten friends on social networks. What the law can and must do is provide a "framework" of rules that is as near as possible to the technical solutions available in order to combine the free choice of individuals with a catapult of potentially unstoppable as the community on the web.

The problem is not just Facebook. Many of the misunderstandings between the U.S. and Europe, said Lisa Sotto, a partner at law firm Hunton and Williams, which gives advice on privacy for major U.S. corporations, are derived from a different conception of privacy in itself: "an inalienable human right" to the Europeans - that have experienced the dark ages of dictatorship that brutally intruded into their private lives - against an attitude perhaps more "secular" in the U.S.: "Here we do not fear the use of data as you, there is no comprehensive law and respect for privacy, but many sectoral laws that are enforced effectively. " Besides, for decades the right to privacy has been synthesized with the Fourth Amendment of the definition given by a judge of the Supreme Court in the '20s, Louis Brandeis: "And 'the right to be left in peace." It is very clear if we think that the box on the "data processing" - which we find in the bottom of all our contracts and transactions as the ability to "opt-in", or as a license to active processing of information in contracts American is instead an "opt-out": you have to specifically request that their data "not" be treated. The problem simply does not arise: "American consumers are not very careful to treat their data in the negotiations, and there has never been pressure for standards of privacy protection," says Professor Edward Janger, of Brooklyn Law School. A different question on the "security" of the data, especially in the credit system: "There the risk of data loss pose a risk of significant financial losses" and the interest has stringent rules decree.

In the end, what really pays is the "brand risk": "No company bring himself to risk his reputation in front of consumers for unauthorized disclosure of data," says Under.

But privacy is emerging as a problem, and is particularly felt by the new administration, said Susan Crawford, professor of law in Michigan until 2009 and assistant to Barack Obama on technology policy and innovation: "The sectoral laws on privacy and powers of the Federal Trade Commission who is pursuing a very aggressive line of application of the laws mean that the U.S. will guarantee the protection of privacy very effective. " The key word is "reaction rate" will be awarded to companies who quickly realize they have created a "hole" of privacy, and will make good. This is especially valid for the Internet company, where most often there is a "difference between what people want to share and what the company does data," says Crawford, however, warns: "All however must be free of charge and play freely what they want. " With the exception of copyrighted material, the first amendment - freedom of expression - also governs the web. And on this ground, the harmony between the two sides of the Atlantic seems even less obvious. Take the controversial ruling of the court of Milan against Google, guilty of not recalling - until after a complaint - the video of the acts of bullying against a disabled child. "In that case I would feel to defend Google - says Grimmelmann - You can not know in real time everything that is loaded." The platform, Crawford went further, "can not be legally responsible for the content." It 'also possible, however. Grimmelmann provides that "technologically sophisticated companies like Facebook and Google will develop different platforms, more or less regulated, according to the laws of the area where they operate," putting it on a secure basis.

So where to draw the line between protecting the privacy of people and their right to expression and the "sharing"? And most importantly, how to make it legally binding? Grimmelmann, building on its past as a programmer for Microsoft, offers a modular model. First of all, require the platforms to clearer rules: Even people who consider themselves more "felt" they will never know how far down as what and how they put it on your profile will spread. It has also to be considered that the information shared in the context of social networks: a campaign of women in the fight against breast cancer was based on the publication of the color of your bra. This information, when used outside the context of Facebook such as a simple comment by an employer, would lead to harassment. The information was "designed for the social context of Facebook: what is acceptable in a context becomes a violation of privacy in another." Therefore, more information and awareness of context. Finally, a technology that limits the damage: "Facebook is socially dangerous," said Grimmelmann. "But people need tools that are sometimes even dangerous": just as in the case of any tool, the company is design it so that you avoid the unnecessary risks and publish detailed instructions for its use. For the consumer, especially when young, reserves a "training course" full of potential accidents, "In thirty years, perhaps all candidates for the White House will have a past full of things on Facebook embarrassing and compromising - concludes Grimmelmann - and then hope that there is a moratorium, and that no one considers the past on social networks that important. "