Facebook is engaging in the same type of mass surveillance that the US National Security Agency NSA is doing - its spying on people all around the world, just via different means. There are three main reasons why Facebook is nominated for this year's Big Brother Awards:

1. Facebook has access to a wide range of personal data; for example it accesses your phone number and gives out your name out to strangers.The social network started taking mobile numbers from other, less direct, sources (like WhatsApp) or from you phone to add them to profiles and use them as public identifiers for individuals.


2. Facebook tracks your movements across the web. It doesn't matter if you are logged in or not. Every time you see a “like” button on a website, your internet browser is talking to Facebook. It tells the social network what pages you are visiting and what kind of browser you’re using in order to target advertising at you.


3. Last but not least, the devil is in the default: Facebook supposes you have nothing against your data being sold, and automatically opts you in. You are expected to navigate Facebook’s complex web of settings (which include “Privacy”, “Apps”, “Ads”, “Followers”, etc.) in search of possible opt-outs.

What can Facebook do with all this information?
Facebook has gained the power to control directly who you are, the social network can "engineer the public" without the users' knowledge. For years, Facebook has been carrying out experiments, for example to influence the mood of its users, or to manipulate their voting behaviour.

On May 29, 2016, the data retention law 2.0. was voted. It is applicable since July 28, 2016.

Since that date, providers and telecom companies are again obliged to retain all our communications data - phone, email, social media, surfing trail ... - and release them to the courts or national security, when asked to do so. Again, because a similar law was annulled by the Belgian Constitutional Court in June 2015.

You have been warned. Uncontrolled communication via the modern media is no longer possible. Each communication is kept for at least twelve months. This is a historically unprecedented invasion of the privacy of all of us.

The 'new' law on data retention again ignores the fundamental criticisms that the Belgian Constitutional Court, herein joined by six constitutional courts of EU Member States and by the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, said. They all argued that the mass-scale collection of all the communications data of all citizens is totally disproportionate to the objective to be pursued, namely serious crime and terrorism. "This vague sense to be monitored can have a decisive influence on the exercise by European citizens of their freedom of expression and information," says Luxembourg.

The data retention version 2.0. maintains fully the principle that the data of all citizens are kept. Because: "It is not possible to change the law to respond to the Courts criticisms." The courts have said that preserving data of all citizens is disproportionate, and that to maintain a distinction had to be made in according to the categories of persons and the use of detention. This is 'technically' not possible, says the government. So they just ignore this essential criticism of the Courts, and they attract not only potential criminals or terrorists, but everyone along. The presumption of innocence is so at risk.

We nominate the data retention 2.0. for the Big Brother Awards for three reasons:

1. It is a historic demolition of the privacy of all citizens because retain any modern communication creates a lasting feeling to be constantly under State control, which encumbers the freedom of expression and information;


2. the law ignores the basic criticism of the Constitutional Courts and the European Court of Justice;


3. the law undermines the presumption of innocence.

We also call to challenge this new law at the Constitutional Court and to support the process by a broad social protest movement "Not with my privacy, not with my communication."

Old people and criminals. Those are the only ones who cling stubbornly to cash. That is if you believe the advocates of the cashless society. Because that would offer nothing but benefits. Less crime, no undeclared work, no more costs for printing, transporting and securing notes and coins. What a brave new world that would be.

But they are wrong, because each of those arguments can easily be refuted. Moreover, they conceal that the abolition of cash takes a big bite out of our privacy. The disappearance of cash payment means that every financial transaction leaves trails of everything you do. Those who gain access to these data, can map our whole lives, into the most intimate details. Banks, businesses and governments would be only too happy to have all this personal information.

Another problem: safety and reliability. Crime does not disappear, but would shift to online fraud and cybercrime. Electronic payment systems can also crash and paralyze the payment traffic. And then there’s also the vulnerable groups in society and the social consequences of cashless payment, where you have much less control over what you’re spending.

Cash and thus anonymous payments are a basic right and must stay a choice for everyone. Otherwise we lose not only notes and coins, but especially our freedom, our privacy and the ability to live unobserved.

The plan to tighten the judicial secrecy and its ill effects on press and public

For the Big Brother Awards of this year the VVJ (Vlaamse Vereniging van Journalisten – Flemish Association of Journalists) nominates the plan to supervise the judicial secrecy more severely. By tightening this secrecy politicians – among who minister of Justice Koen Geens – want to prevent information on current criminal investigations to get into the hands of journalists – and thus spread to the general public.

No doubt this would seriously hamper the public right on information, including information about the ins and outs at the Department of Justice itself. Yet the European Court of Human Rights repeatedly decided that press and public should be able to take note of (at least important) criminal investigations. Justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done. It cannot be the intention that press and public only find out about a committed crime once the case comes to court.

Nevertheless the threat is real. Among politicians, magistrates, police officers and lawyers there are many who are in favour of the intended tightening. First victims will be the (court) journalists. Moreover, the way the plan intends to deal with ‘leaks’ would imply a serious infraction of the journalistic confidentiality of sources.

The Flemish Ligue for Human Rights uses this data only for this event.

The anti-terrorist measures
The measures against terrorism approved by the government in response to the increasing threat of terror since the attacks in Paris and Brussels continue to capture the imagination.

Tinder, Pokemon Go, ...
Increasingly more people are joining online media. Not only our computers or laptops are becoming “smart”, but our mobile phones are too. Online maps, GPS and location systems, regional and national papers and magazines, streaming news, games or geotags in photos,… have become so self-evident, that we simply carry them around in our purse or pocket. However, it is less obvious how these apps work and which data they need to function correctly. This may explain the growing number of debates around apps and how they violate privacy.

Windows 10
De manier waarop Microsoft omgaat met de privacy van Windows 10 gebruikers die het OS hebben gekocht of gekozen hebben voor de gratis update doet de wenkbrauwen fronsen. De installatie van Windows 10 laat sommige vrij ingrijpende opties standaard ingeschakeld, tenzij men ervoor kiest om die aan te passen en weet wat te doen met al die instellingen. Het probleem is de onzekerheid over welke gegevens wordt verzameld, en het feit dat de gebruiker geen controle of inspraak heeft in het proces.

Sharenting
Heeft u ooit wel eens, blozend van ouderlijke trots, een kiekje gepost op Facebook van uw kleuter begeleid door een onschuldige tekst: "Onzen Jeroen (toen hij nog last had van bedwateren)." Als u denkt dat dit geen kwalijke gevolgen heeft voor “Onzen Jeroen”(die nu beroepsmilitair is), Think again! We kennen ze allemaal: de "sharents". Misschien bent u er zélf wel één: een "sharende parent". Hier stelt zich het probleem: geen sharents zonder hun kinderen wiens privacy en veiligheid, bewust of onbewust, te grabbel worden gegooid op het internet.

Uzelf
We worden online steeds vrijgeviger en mondiger. Het gemak en de snelheid van sociale media verleidt ons ertoe informatie over onszelf en de ander veelvuldig te delen. De anonimiteit en afstandelijkheid van het medium maakt anderzijds van “naming and shaming” een relatief risicoloze bezigheid. Iedereen journalist? Iedereen flik? Iedereen crimineel? Of iedereen Big Brother?

ANPR
De automatische nummerplaatherkenningscamera raakt stilaan ingeburgerd in het Belgisch straatbeeld. Sinds de eerste invoering ervan in 2013, is het gebruik ervan gestaag toegenomen. Elk stad- of gemeentebestuur tast inmiddels diep in de geldbuidel om hun grondgebied uit te rusten met het slimme camerasysteem. De Privacycommissie drong destijds wel aan op een wetswijziging om het toen “onwettig” gebruik van de mobiele ANPR-toepassingen juridisch te omkaderen. Deze aanpassing van de Camerawet is inmiddels doorgevoerd. Desondanks blijven de ANPR-camera’s omstreden om privacy-redenen. Een van de voornaamste bezwaren blijft dat het bewaren van ANPR gegevens het mogelijk maakt personen te identificeren en informatie over hun verplaatsingen en dagelijkse leven in kaart te brengen. Ook personen die geen wetsovertreding hebben begaan. En de ANPR camera’s kennen vandaag een steeds groter toepassingsgebied, gaande van terrorismebestrijding tot belastingfraude. Dergelijk "one-size-fits-all" systeem wordt vaak als "onevenredig" bestempeld. Dit hebben de recente wettelijke ingrepen niet kunnen verhelpen.

Presentation: Annabelle Van Nieuwenhuyse

19.00 h: Doors open
19.30 h: Welcome (plenary in TOPzaal)
20.00 h: Debates:

The Belgian retention law 2.0
By: Progress Lawyers Network
Moderator: Raf Jespers, PLN
Speakers:
Maurits Martijn - De Correspondent
Bart Preneel - Professor KUL

See all, hear all, say nothing about criminal investigations
By: Flemish Association of Journalists
Moderator: Philip Heymans, court reporter VRT
Speakers:
Tom Van Wynsberge - Cabinet Justice
Pol Deltour - VVJ

Facebook 007
By: EDRi
Moderator: Joe McNamee executive director EDRi
Spreakers:
Stephen Deadman - Facebook
Matthias Matthiesen - IAB
Brendan Van Alsenoy - Privacy Commission, DPA Belgium
Estelle Massé - AccessNow
Dr. Frederik Borgesius - University Amsterdam

No cash, no privacy
By: Datapanik
Moderator: Wim Vandenbussche, Datapanik
Speakers:
Vincent Böhre - Privacy First
Tom Boedts - Febelfin

21:00 uur: Presentation Awards (plenary in TOPzaal)
Introduction by Simon Davies, founder of Big Brother Awards and Privacy International
Presentation of the public award
Presentation of the jury award
Peroration by Maurits Martijn, De Correspondent and co-author of 'Je hebt wél iets te verbergen'