5G

疫情之下:各国寻找城市“解围”之路

解除疫情封锁措施涉及两大问题:如何分阶段、渐进地重开部分工作、教育、文化和娱乐场所;需要何种“检测和追踪”机制来发现和遏制新的疫情。

在英国和欧洲大部分地区享受复活节的灿烂阳光之际,几乎无人能参加传统的庆祝活动。为了减少新型冠状病毒肺炎(COVID-19,即2019冠状病毒病)的传播,多数国家已禁止旅行和社交聚会,很多人迫切期待解除封锁,这些封锁措施不仅限制个人生活,还破坏企业和全球经济。

包括奥地利、丹麦和挪威在内的一些欧洲国家宣布,已制定初步计划,将在本月晚些时候放松最严格的封锁措施,例如允许一些商店恢复营业和学校复课。但受疫情影响最严重的国家(意大利、西班牙、法国和英国)的政府不愿公开谈论封锁退出策略。它们不希望在死亡数字仍在上升之际分散人们对遵守封锁措施的关注。

正如英国财政大臣里希•苏纳克(Rishi Sunak)上周所宣称的那样:“目前的首要任务是阻止新冠病毒的传播,到达疫情高峰的另一边。”

但在幕后,全球各国的部长级官员和卫生官员都已开始讨论接下来的事情。围绕退出策略的辩论关注两个主题:如何分阶段、渐进地重新开放部分工作、教育、文化和娱乐场所;一旦最初的疫情浪潮消退,需要何种“检测和追踪”机制来发现和遏制新的疫情。

在欧洲,有迹象表明,绝大多数公众遵守严格的社交疏离措施(遵守度超过很多专家的预期),这导致疫情传播大幅下滑。

关键数据是“传染数”R,它衡量受感染个体传染的新病例的平均数量。如果R大于1,表明疫情会扩散;如果小于1,表明疫情会减弱。对于新冠疫情而言,如果不采取任何措施,多数地区的R在2.5到3之间。

英国抗击新冠疫情的一位权威科学家表示,最新证据显示,现在R大幅降至0.6左右,这将迅速抑制疫情。

然而,由于从感染到出现严重症状之间有时滞,死亡人数仍在迅速增长。

英国首席科学顾问帕特里克•瓦兰斯(Patrick Vallance)上周四表示,有明显迹象表明,新增确诊病例数量正趋于平稳。但他补充称:“我预测未来两周,死亡人数将继续增长。”

苏纳克和他手下的官员不得不快速拿出创新举措,将封锁造成的痛苦降至最低。但他们也明白,封锁持续的时间越长,破产的公司就越多。因此,大臣们正努力思考如何以及何时解除限制,即使是在尚未建立完善的检测和追踪机制的情况下。

一位大臣表示,重点是基于“人口、行业和地域”的3个潜在退出通道。一种选择可能是让年轻人先解禁,可能从学校复课开始,然后是让年轻人复工,这些人被感染后不太可能发展为重症。

一些人被华威大学(Warwick university)安德鲁•奥斯瓦尔德(Andrew Oswald)和纳塔武•鲍德塔威(Nattavudh Powdthavee)的一篇论文所吸引,这篇论文建议取消对20岁到30岁、不和父母一起住的人的限制,这可能会解放420万人。一位官员开玩笑说,“青年优先”政策可能意味着“你甚至会规定在酒吧喝酒的最高年龄”。

英国商务大臣阿洛克•夏尔马(Alok Sharma)上周提出了更为宽容的社交疏离规则指引,暗示了哪些行业可能成为经济复苏的先锋。他要求建筑、制造、物流、基本零售、废物管理和户外行业实施政府的建议,保持2米距离,不过这些行业也得到了如果做不到时如何继续复工的建议。

大臣们对英国分地区重新开放的想法不怎么感兴趣。大曼彻斯特市市长安迪•伯纳姆(Andy Burnham)表示,封锁只有在“全国统一”的情况下才能奏效。在接受BBC《新闻之夜》(Newsnight)采访时他补充道:“如果英国其他地方出现人们回到酒吧的景象,那这里就不可能持续封锁下去。”

尽管代表英国经济利益的大臣们强调首要任务是拯救生命,但他们开始就新冠病毒造成的更广泛损害展开讨论。

英国财相一直在提问,长时间封锁和深度衰退会对公众长期健康产生什么影响,尤其是对较贫困群体的心理健康和福祉的影响。伦敦财政研究所(Institute for Fiscal Studies)上周的一份报告加强了他的疑问。

上周在内阁会议上提出的这一观点的潜台词是:可以呼吁解除封锁,而不只是依靠冷冰冰的经济论据。一位政府官员表示:“你必须全面考虑健康方面的情况。”

等到最初的病例激增期过去,英国及其他各国在最终放松封锁的同时,将会有一个密集“检测和追踪”机制,以发现并消灭病毒的新爆发。许多国家的政府正在仔细研究韩国的经验,韩国建立了一个广泛的检测系统来监测新的感染病例。

如果英国能够在4月底前实现每天进行10万次检测的目标,并在未来几个月进一步提高检测能力,则有可能对社区中报告有新冠肺炎症状的人员进行检测。理论上,如果他们确诊的话,这一步之后是跟踪、检测和隔离与他们有过接触史的人。

这种接触者追踪还涉及直接询问病人,在英国报告出现第一批病例时就开始了,但很快就停止了,因为英国极其有限的检测能力已无法应对这次大流行。

伦敦帝国理工学院(Imperial College London)传染病动力学教授史蒂文•赖利(Steven Riley)表示:“有证据显示,那些能够进行极高水平检测的国家有更多选择,可以允许人们有更大社会流动性。一些真正创新的解决方案将发挥作用。基于一项手机应用的接触者追踪正受到考虑。”

然而,在公民遇到新冠病毒检测呈阳性的人后,能够追踪并通知他们的应用程序对西方民主国家造成了巨大的现实和政策挑战——从确保开放的操作标准到维护数据安全。

例如,在中国,这些健康应用程序在大多数地方并不是强制的,但如果人们无法在一款病毒追踪应用上显示自己的状态,就可能被禁止工作、禁止乘坐公共交通工具、甚至无法去公园。这种病毒追踪应用能够显示人们过去两周的行踪。

隐私保护倡导者的目标是发现潜在的隐私侵犯。Consumer Choice Center驻布鲁塞尔分析师比尔•沃茨(Bill Wirtz)说:“如果追踪个人行踪被提上日程,那么即使在危机时期,也不太可能符合现有隐私法。”

许多科学家认为,结束封锁的关键在于大规模进行能够发现新冠病毒感染的检测。诺贝尔奖得主、经济学家保罗•罗默(Paul Romer)概述了一项在美国进行大规模检测的计划,他认为,这项计划将使美国经济的大部分领域得以重新开放。

然而,这要求每人每14天检测一次,即全国每天检测2200万次。这对实验室、化学制剂、卫生工作人员和数据分析师而言是一项艰巨的任务,即使这些测试在宪法上是可以接受的。在英国,流行病学家朱利安•皮托(Julian Peto)也提出了类似的建议——每人每周检测一次,全国每天检测1000万次。

大规模抗体检测——可以显示出人们此前是否感染过新冠病毒,以及是否仍有一定免疫力——的前景更为诱人,因为这种测试只需要偶尔进行,而且有可能在药店买到。

但首先,它们必须确实可行。专业实验室正在进行研究,以确定人群样本中的抗体水平,但还没有人开发出一种足以在家里广泛使用的可靠抗体试剂盒。经英国政府评估的试剂盒的失败率为30%至50%。

最终,抗体检测可以为人们提供“免疫护照”,证明他们不会被感染,赖利教授表示,“但首先要做一些非常重要的科学研究”。仍然需要回答的关键问题是,不同的抗体水平与对感染的抵抗力有何关系,以及任何免疫保护可能持续多久。

摆脱新冠危机的长期途径需要安全有效的治疗方法和疫苗。目前有数十种药物正在进行临床试验,以确定它们是否对新冠患者有所帮助。一些药物可能会展现出疗效,但如果有任何一种被证明是神药,连药物学家都会感到震惊。即使拥有巨大的资源和监管方面的配合意愿,开发新药和疫苗也需要一年多的时间。

同时,各国政府仍然不知道新冠病毒可能如何出现第二波爆发,也不真正了解人群中能建立多少免疫。

正如帝国理工学院流行病学家、英国政府顾问尼尔•弗格森(Neil Ferguson)教授上周五告诉英国广播公司广播四台(BBC Radio 4)的那样,研究出一项退出策略“是科学界和政府在清醒的每一分钟里考虑的首要话题和重中之重。”

译者/何黎

Originally published here.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Coronavirus: after the lockdown

Governments are beginning to discuss ways to reopen economies but massive investments and difficult choices lie ahead

As the UK and most of Europe enjoys glorious Easter sunshine, few people can take part in traditional festivities. With travel and social gatherings banned in most countries to reduce the transmission of coronavirus, many look forward desperately to emerging from a lockdown that is not only curtailing personal lives but also destroying businesses and the global economy.

Some European countries, including Austria, Denmark and Norway, have announced tentative plans to relax the most stringent measures later this month, for example by allowing some shops and schools to reopen. But governments in the nations hit hardest by Covid-19 — Italy, Spain, France and the UK — are reluctant to talk openly about exit strategies. They do not want to distract people from observing lockdowns while death tolls are still rising.

As Rishi Sunak, UK chancellor, declared this week: “The priority right now is to stop the spread of the virus and get us to the other side of the peak.” 

Behind closed doors, however, ministers and health officials everywhere are beginning to discuss what happens next. The debates about exit strategies focus on two themes: how to manage a staged and gradual reopening of some places of work, education, culture and entertainment; and what sort of “test and trace” regime would be needed to detect and suppress new virus outbreaks once the initial wave has subsided. 

Across Europe there are signs that observance of stringent social distancing measures by the vast majority of the public — better compliance than many experts had expected — has led to a big decline in viral transmission. The key figure is the “reproduction number” R measuring the average number of new cases generated by an infected individual. If R is above 1, an outbreak spreads; if it is below 1, it contracts. For Covid-19, R was between 2.5 and 3 in most places before any measures were introduced. 

According to a leading scientist in the UK’s fight against the disease, the latest evidence shows a steep fall in the R rate to around 0.6 now, which would quickly suppress the pandemic. However, deaths are still rising fast because of the delay between infection and when serious symptoms develop.  Patrick Vallance, UK chief scientist, said on Thursday there were clear signs of new cases levelling off. But he added: “I would expect the deaths to keep going up for two weeks.”  UK health secretary Matt Hancock.

Mr Sunak and his officials have had to innovate at speed to minimise hardship during the lockdown. But they also know that more companies will go bankrupt the longer the lockdown continues. As a result, ministers are thinking hard about how and when to lift restrictions, even if there is no perfect testing and tracing regime available. One minister says the focus was on three potential exit routes based on “populations, sectors and geography”. One option might be to let the young lead the way, perhaps starting by reopening schools, followed by a return to work for younger people who are less likely to become seriously ill if infected. Some are attracted to a Warwick university paper by Andrew Oswald and Nattavudh Powdthavee, suggesting removing restrictions on 20-30-year-olds who do not live with their parents, which could release 4.2m people. One official jokes that a “youth first” policy might mean “you could even have a maximum age for drinking in pubs”. 

Alok Sharma, business secretary, this week gave an indication of the kind of sectors that could be in the vanguard of an economic reawakening, when he offered more permissive guidance on social distancing rules. He told construction, manufacturing, logistics, essential retail, waste management and outdoor industries to apply the government’s advice to stay 2m apart but they were offered advice on how to stay open if that were not possible.  Ministers are less attracted to the idea of Britain reopening along geographical lines. Andy Burnham, mayor of Greater Manchester, says the lockdown can only work if it is “the same thing for the whole of the country.” Speaking to BBC Newsnight, he added: “It would be impossible to sustain here if there were images of people going back to pubs in other parts of the country.”

Although ministers representing the country’s economic interests stress that the priority is to save lives, they are starting to open up a debate about the wider damage caused by coronavirus.  The chancellor has been raising questions, reinforced this week by a report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, about the longer-term health consequences of an extended lockdown and a deep recession, particularly on mental health and the wellbeing of poorer communities.  The subtext of this argument, raised at cabinet this week, is that it is possible to call for an easing of the lockdown without simply relying on cold economic arguments. “You have to look at the health picture in the round,” says one government official. 

The eventual easing of the lockdown in Britain and elsewhere will be accompanied by an intensive “test and trace” regime to detect and stamp out new outbreaks of the virus, once the initial surge has passed. Many governments are closely studying the experience in South Korea, which set up an extensive testing system to monitor new infections. If the UK can achieve its target of carrying out 100,000 tests a day by the end of April and ramp up capacity further over the following months, it will be possible to test individuals in the community who report Covid-19 symptoms.

In theory, this would then be followed by the tracing, testing and isolating of people who have been in contact with them if they are infected.  This type of contact tracing, which involves questioning patients directly, took place when the first UK cases were reported but soon stopped when the pandemic swamped the country’s extremely limited testing capacity.

“Evidence suggests that countries that are able to do very high levels of testing have many more options to allow people greater social mobility,” says Steven Riley, professor of infectious disease dynamics at Imperial College London. “Some really innovative solutions will play a part. Contact tracing based on a mobile phone app is being looked at.” 

However, apps designed to track and inform citizens when they meet people who have tested positive for coronavirus pose formidable practical and policy challenges for western democracies, from ensuring open operating standards to maintaining data security.  In China, for instance, these health apps are not mandatory in most places, but individuals can find themselves barred from work, public transport or even the public park if they cannot show their status on a virus-tracking app, which shows their movements in the previous fortnight. Privacy advocates aim to spot potential transgressions. “If tracking of individual movement is on the table, then that is unlikely to be in line with existing privacy laws, even in a crisis,” says Bill Wirtz, a Brussels-based analyst at the Consumer Choice Center. 

For many scientists, the key to ending the lockdowns is mass testing for Covid-19 infection, which detects the presence of the virus. Paul Romer, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, has outlined a plan for mass testing in the US that he believes would allow for much of the economy to reopen. However, this requires each person being tested every 14 days — or 22m tests a day — a mammoth undertaking in terms of labs, chemicals, health workers and data analysis, even if such tests are constitutionally acceptable.

In the UK, the epidemiologist Julian Peto has made a similar proposal — weekly tests, running to 10m a day. Large-scale antibody testing, to show whether individuals have been infected in the past and still have some immunity, is a more tantalising prospect because they would only need to be conducted occasionally and could potentially be bought at a pharmacy. But first they need to actually work. Specialised labs are carrying out studies to determine antibody levels in samples of the population but no one has yet developed an antibody kit reliable enough for widespread use in homes. Kits evaluated by the UK government have failure rates of 30 to 50 per cent.  Eventually antibody tests could give individuals “immunity passports” to show that they are safe from infection, Prof Riley says, “but there’s some very important science to do first”. The key questions that have still to be answered are how different antibody levels relate to resistance to infection and how long any immune protection is likely to last. 

Longer-term routes out of the coronavirus crisis require safe and effective treatments and vaccines. Dozens of existing drugs are in clinical trials to find out whether they help Covid-19 patients. Some may show efficacy but pharmacologists would be astonished if any turn out to be a magic bullet. Developing new drugs and vaccines will take more than a year, even with huge resources and regulatory goodwill.  Meanwhile governments still have a lack of knowledge about how the virus might return in a second wave and no real sense of how much immunity might build up in the population.  As Professor Neil Ferguson, the Imperial College epidemiologist and UK government adviser, told BBC Radio 4 on Friday, working out an exit strategy “is the number one topic and priority every waking minute, both in the scientific community and in government.” 

Originally published here.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Keine Angst vor 5G

Panikmache über angebliche Gefahren der 5G-Technologie kommt aus verschiedenen Ecken. Das sollte dem Fortschritt nicht im Wege stehen.

Jede Technologie bringt ein gewisses Maß an Skepsis mit sich. Ob es nun um die Entdeckung der Elektrizität, die Erfindung des Zuges oder die Ankunft der Mikrowelle als Ergänzung unserer Küchenausstattung geht: Kritische Stimmen werfen wichtige Sicherheitsfragen auf. Das 5G-Netz (steht für „Fünfte-Generation-Netzwerk”) bildet dabei keine Ausnahme. Irgendwann muss man jedoch die wissenschaftlichen Ergebnisse akzeptieren.

Wenn Sie nach „5G” und „Gesundheit” suchen, finden Sie mehrere Artikel, die Ihnen keine genauen Antworten auf die gesundheitlichen Auswirkungen des Netzwerks geben, aber verschiedene fatalistische Szenarien ausmalen. Hier sind einige Beispiele:

Dubiose Webseiten wie „QI-Technologies”, die ihren Namen nach eigener Angaben aus der „chinesischen Medizin” beziehen, veröffentlichen noch dubiosere Artikel zum Thema 5G. Hier heißt es: „Wenn Ihr Kind hier und jetzt von einer ‚Suppe‘ hochfrequenter elektromagnetischer Strahlung bombardiert wird, könnten sich die Langzeitschäden dieser Strahlenbelastung erst in etwa 20 bis 30 Jahren äußern – wenn es bereits zu spät ist, gegenzusteuern.”

„Die bestehenden Grenzwerte machen Gesundheitsschäden unmöglich.“

Was sollte man also über 5G-Strahlung wissen? Die Art der Strahlung, die bei der drahtlosen Kommunikation verwendet wird, liegt im Funkwellenbereich. Diese Wellen tragen viel weniger Energie als ionisierende Strahlung, als Röntgenstrahlen und kosmische Strahlung, die chemische Bindungen in der DNA aufbrechen und zu Krebs führen können.

In den Vereinigten Staaten regelt die Federal Communications Commission (FCC) die elektromagnetischen Wellenfrequenzen, die als Nichtionisierende Strahlung bekannt sind. Darunter fallen Radio- und Mikrowellen, die im regulierten Bereich für den Menschen ungefährlich sind.

Der einzige bekannte biologische Effekt, der durch Funkfrequenzen entsteht, ist Erwärmung: Ihre Körpertemperatur kann steigen. Die bestehenden Grenzwerte der FCC sind jedoch so bemessen, dass das Risiko einer Überhitzung vermieden werden kann, und dass im Bereich unter dieser – nach den geltenden Vorschriften nicht möglichen – Erwärmung keine biologischen Folgen drohen. Einfach ausgedrückt: Die bestehenden Grenzwerte machen Gesundheitsschäden unmöglich.

Gegner der 5G-Technologie argumentieren, dass die hohen Frequenzen der Technologie neue Telefone und Mobilfunktürme zu einer außerordentlichen Gefahr werden lassen. Die Wahrheit ist genau das Gegenteil, wie Wissenschaftler erklären. Je höher die Radiofrequenz, desto weniger dringt sie in die menschliche Haut ein und reduziert die Belastung der inneren Organe des Körpers, einschließlich des Gehirns.

„5G zu verhindern wäre für den Fortschritt verheerend.“

5G zu verhindern wäre für den Fortschritt verheerend. Das Netzwerk bietet größeres Datenvolumen, geringe Latenzzeit, schnellere Datenübertragung, mehr Energieeffizienz (leert Handybatterien nicht so schnell), und bessere Verbindungen auch dort, wo normalerweise kein Netz verfügbar ist.

Was nützen also die Mythen gegen 5G? Auf der einen Seite haben wir die allgemeine und regelmäßige Skepsis von fortschrittsfeindlichen Umweltschützern und unternehmensfeindlichen Verschwörungstheoretikern. Die Einwände solcher Menschen können grundsätzlich nicht durch wissenschaftliche Beweise widerlegt werden.

Auf der anderen Seite sehen wir Skepsis in der Bevölkerung, die von verschiedenen Medien, darunter Russia Today, organisiert wird. Für die Vereinigten Staaten berichtet die New York Times, dass RT America soziale Netzwerke mit Anti-5G-Meldungen überflutet. Die Idee sei angeblich, den Fortschritt in den USA aufzuhalten – zugunsten Russlands. Ein einfacher Zusammenhang besteht darin, dass Fehlinformationen oft konkurrierenden  Unternehmen zum Vorteil gereichen.

„Falschmeldungen über 5G helfen Autobauern, die auf WLAN setzen, und Staaten, die die USA und Europa technologisch überholen wollen.“

Das haben wir in der Diskussion über die Automobilanbindung deutlich gesehen. Dabei geht es um die Kommunikation von Fahrzeugen untereinander und mit der Infrastruktur. 5G gegen WLAN: Die Hersteller führten den Lobbykampf in Brüssel, um die Europäische Union zu überzeugen, die eine oder die andere der beiden Technologien zu unterstützen, anstatt einfach neutral zu bleiben. BMW und die Deutsche Telekom hatten intensiv für 5G geworben, es setzten sich am Ende allerdings Unternehmen wie Volkswagen und Renault durch. Im Juli veröffentlichte die deutsche Bundesregierung dann ihre Stellungnahme. Sie bereitet sich darauf vor, den Einsatz der Wi-Fi-Technologie für den Anschluss vernetzter Autos zu unterstützen, da die 5G-Technologie noch nicht ausgereift genug sei, um Ergebnisse zu liefern. In einem von der Bundesregierung produziertem Dokument, das Politico vorliegt, heißt es: „Die Industrie muss sich auf Technologien konzentrieren, die kurzreichende, Wi-Fi-basierte Signale nutzen“. Einige Automobilhersteller schlugen sich daraufhin auf die Seite der Bundesregierung, während andere der Ansicht waren, dass Berlin stattdessen die 5G-Technologie unterstützen sollte.

Für WLAN sind Infrastruktur-Investitionen beim Straßenbau allerdings ebenfalls notwendig, während 5G-Technologie vom Roll-out des gesamten Netzes profitieren kann und keine weiteren Kosten produzieren würde. Ob nun 5G oder WLAN bei Autos (oder anderen verbundenen Produkten) in der Effizienz besondere Unterschiede aufweisen, sollten die Verbraucher beurteilen, nicht der Staat.

Der Kampf zwischen Lobbyisten wird in Brüssel, Berlin, Paris usw. geführt und nutzt traditionelle Kommunikationsmedien: Unternehmen und Staaten scheinen sich in den Kampf  Neu gegen Alt einzumischen, anstelle Verbraucher als faire Richter entscheiden zu lassen. Falschmeldungen über 5G helfen Autobauern, die auf WLAN setzen, und Staaten, die die USA und Europa technologisch überholen wollen. Deshalb ist es notwendig, eine überprüfbare Faktenbasis zu schaffen, um auf gleichem Wissensstand zu diskutieren. Bei 5G wird diese Debatte entscheidend für die technologische Zukunft Europas sein.


Article originally posted here.

How Estonia’s cybersecurity strategy can help the EU cope with China

Fred Roeder, a German health economist and the managing director of the Consumer Choice Center, proposes Estonia to lead the European Union to a coherent cybersecurity strategy in order to protect consumers and businesses not only from cyberattacks from Russia but also from potentially much larger attacks and espionage from China.

Within the past twelve years, Estonia has emerged as a leading nation in the field of cyber defence and security. The cyberattacks of 2007 made Tallinn much earlier aware of the massive threat of online attacks compared with its larger NATO allies.

Especially under EU commissioner, Andrus Ansip (nominated by Estonia, Ansip was the European Commissioner for Digital Economy and Society from 2014 until July 2019 – editor), Estonia has been a driving force behind the European Commission’s new cybersecurity agenda. Estonia now needs to lead the European Union to a coherent cybersecurity strategy in order to protect consumers and businesses not only from cyberattacks from Russia but also from potentially much larger attacks and espionage from China.

China’s backdoors

The adoption of Internet of Things solutions and the highly anticipated rollout of very fast 5G networks will make consumers’ privacy even more vulnerable. The recent events in Hong Kong and the Chinese Communist Party’s reluctance to keep its commitments towards the rule of law are reasons why we must heed caution.

Some governments and manufacturers tend to be mostly concerned about competitiveness through low prices, which is important for consumers. However, we also care about privacy and data security. Therefore, a smart policy response is needed that would incentivise market players to give enough weight to consumer data security in Europe, all the while achieving that goal without undue market distortions and limiting of consumer choice.

n more than just one instance, the Chinese leadership has put legal or extra-legal pressure on private firms to include so-called backdoors in their software or devices, which may be exploited either by government agents alone or with a manufacturer’s help. As a response to threats like this, countries like Australia and the US went so far as to ban the Chinese network equipment manufacturer, Huawei, from its 5G networks.

Pressure on non-European suppliers to adopt the security-by-design approach

While some governments see bans as the best way to protect national security and consumer privacy, we know there is no single silver bullet solution for safeguarding privacy and data security. A mix of solutions is needed, and this mix will likely change over time.

Healthy competition between legal jurisdictions and between private enterprises is the best mechanism for the discovery of the right tools. But those working on cybersecurity solutions should also consider consumer interests. Keeping new regulation technology-neutral, and thus not deciding by law which technological solution is best, allows an agile framework for consumer privacy.

A Huawei phone (the image is illustrative/Pexels).

The EU’s current legal rules, like the General Data Protection Regulation, for example, do not provide sufficient clarity regarding liability of network operators for privacy violations made possible by hardware vulnerabilities. Thus, a clear standard of supply chain security must be defined.

Emphasising liability rules for using or reselling software or devices with vulnerabilities would give those rules more teeth and thus incentivise telecommunications operators and others to think about their customers’ privacy during their procurement decisions. This should, in turn, put pressure on non-European suppliers to adopt the security-by-design approach and to take pains to show that they have done so.

Smart regulation needed to prevent autocratic governments from spying on us

In solving the problem of unclear and ineffective legal rules on data security, we must take into account that technical standards should be as technology neutral as possible. Manufacturers from countries that are under scrutiny – such as China – might want to provide purely open-source technology in order to rebuild trust in their products.

Instead, the rules should be focused on outcomes and be as general as possible while still providing sufficient guidance. These standards should be possible to identify and adopt not just by the biggest market players who can easily devote significant resources to regulatory compliance. A certification scheme must be thorough in order to minimise the risk of any backdoors or other critical vulnerabilities.

5G 3.5 GHz cell site of Vodafone in Karlsruhe, Germany (the image is illustrative/courtesy of Tomas Freres/Wikimedia Commons).

The debate around 5G reminds us how vulnerable consumers are in a technologically and politically complex world and that cyber threats originate usually in autocratic countries.

Therefore, smart regulation is needed in order to protect consumers from data breaches and to prevent autocratic governments from spying on us. By continuing the legacy of commissioner Ansip’s leadership and strengthening the liability of network operators for technological vulnerabilities, both consumer choice and privacy can be ensured. Blunt instruments like total bans based on country of origin or regulators picking the technological champions should be seen as measures of the last resort.

Originally published here.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org.

5G et santé : le lobbying à travers les fake news

Veiller à la sécurité de tous, c’est bien… mais empêcher le progrès en se basant sur de fausses informations, cela nuit à tout le monde.

Chaque technologie engendre un certain degré de scepticisme. Que ce soit la découverte de l’électricité, l’invention du train, ou l’arrivée du micro-ondes dans notre équipement de cuisine, des voix critiques posent des questions importantes sur la sécurité.

Le réseau 5G n’y fait pas exception. Cependant, à un certain moment, il faut accepter les résultats scientifiques.

En tapant « 5G » et « santé » sur les moteurs de recherches, vous trouverez plusieurs articles qui ne pourront pas vous donner des réponses exactes sur les implications de santé du réseau, mais qui vous suggèrent plusieurs scénarios fatalistes.

En voici quelques exemples :

Déploiement de la 5G : les risques pour la santé sous-estimés ?

5G, risques pour la santé… et la météo

L’arrivée du 5G comporte d’importants risques pour la santé

La menace que la 5G pose à la santé humaine

Et si la 5G était nocive pour la santé?

UE : La course vers la 5G risque de laisser de côté le principe de précaution au détriment de la santé

Réseau 5G : la course au haut débit au détriment de notre santé ?

Téléphonie mobile : les vrais dangers de la 5G

Que faut-il savoir sur le rayonnement de type 5G ?

Le type de rayonnement impliqué dans les communications sans fil se situe dans la gamme des ondes radio, et ces ondes transportent beaucoup moins d’énergie que les rayonnements ionisants, comme les rayons X et les rayons cosmiques, qui peuvent briser les liaisons chimiques dans l’ADN et mener au cancer.

Aux Etats-Unis, la Commission fédérale des communications (FCC) réglemente le nombre d’ondes qu’on peut émettre. Le seul effet biologique connu qui existe concernant les radiofréquences est l’échauffement : la température de votre corps peut augmenter dans ces conditions.

En revanche, les limites existantes sont de telle nature qu’elles permettent d’éviter ce risque d’échauffement. Si l’on respecte les limites fixées par les réglementations actuelles, il n’y a aucune conséquence biologique.

Il faut également ajouter que les fréquences 5G sont différentes de ce qui est supposé dans les médias.

Les opposants à la technologie 5G affirment que les hautes fréquences de la technologie rendront les nouveaux téléphones et les tours de téléphonie cellulaire extraordinairement dangereux.

La vérité est exactement le contraire, comme l’expliquent les scientifiques. Plus la fréquence radio est élevée, moins elle pénètre la peau humaine, ce qui réduit l’exposition des organes internes du corps, y compris le cerveau.

A quoi bon les mythes contre la 5G, alors ?

D’un côté, nous avons le scepticisme général et régulier des écologistes anti-progrès et des conspirationnistes anti-corporatistes. Une telle opposition ne pourra jamais être réfutée au moyen de preuves scientifiques.

D’un autre côté, nous assistons au scepticisme de la population générale, organisé par des médiums différents, dont le site Russia Today (RT). Aux Etats-Unis, le New York Times explique que RT America inonde les réseaux sociaux de messages anti-5G. L’idée serait d’arrêter les progrès des Etats-Unis, au profit de la Russie.

Bien plus simplement, les désinformations sont souvent au profit de certaines entreprises en concurrence.

Nous l’avons bien vu dans la discussion sur la connectivité des automobiles – 5G contre wi-fi : les constructeurs faisaient assaut de lobbying à Bruxelles pour convaincre l’Union européenne de soutenir l’une ou l’autre.

En juillet, le gouvernement allemand a ainsi publié sa position sur la question de ces technologies futures. Il se prépare à soutenir l’utilisation de la technologie wi-fi pour relier les voitures connectées, arguant que la technologie 5G n’est pas encore assez mature pour livrer des résultats.

Le document publié par le gouvernement allemand affirme que « l’industrie doit se concentrer sur la technologie qui utilise des signaux à courte portée, à base de wi-fi ».

En réponse, certains constructeurs automobiles se sont prononcés en faveur de la position prise par le gouvernement allemand tandis que d’autres ont estimé que Berlin devrait plutôt soutenir la technologie 5G.

La bataille du lobbying se livre à travers des organes de communication classiques. A ce niveau, il faut tout d’abord établir une base de faits vérifiables, afin de discuter sur une base de connaissances égales.

Dans le cas de la 5G, ce débat sera crucial pour le futur technologique de l’Europe.


Publié à l’origine ici.

Public security must be a priority in Europe’s 5G rollout

A national assessment of the risks associated with the next generation of communications infrastructure is the first step toward an EU-wide cyber-security strategy.

The European Commission’s incoming president, Ursula von Der Leyen, will have a series of politically delicate hurdles to contend with in the field of cyber security when she assumes office on 1 November 2019.

Not least is the domain of 5G communications, where the EU has come under increased pressure from its American counterparts to adopt a hostile position against next-generation technologies emanating from Asia-based companies.

Following a Commission recommendation for a common EU approach to the security of 5G networks, member states have recently submitted national risk assessments that provide an overview of their most pressing concerns in the future development of 5G infrastructure. These will feed into the next phase, an EU-wide risk assessment to be completed by 1 October 2019, which the Commission says will be the first step toward implementing a real cyber-security strategy across the EU.

Is this so important for ordinary users and consumers? It’s not so long ago that we heard the news about vendors from illiberal countries being involved in scandals such as the backdoors in Vodafone Italia’s fibre network provided by Huawei. As we move to a society where connected devices are part of daily life, from smart lights to smart home locks to connected cars, the privacy and security of the network will be central to everyday life.

According to research by analysts Berg Insight, there were a total of 22.5 million smart homes in Europe at the end of 2017. This number is predicted to grow to 84 million homes by the end of 2022, representing a market penetration of 35 per cent. Add to this an estimated 45 million smart homes in the United States at the end of 2017.

Consumers want to be able to rely on their network provider to keep what happens inside their smart buildings private and stored securely. For this reason, security must be a defining feature of the standards and norms that govern the global ICT supply chain, as well as the individual pieces of software and hardware that businesses and consumers depend on. Inaction risks undermining the ability of businesses and individuals to exercise meaningful choice in critical 5G and other ICT products and services.

Some of the EU’s largest member states, including Germany and Italy, have used the auctions of spectrum licenses as a cash cow for their national budgets instead of seeing newly utilised frequencies as a gamechanger for consumer connectivity. This has led to the undesired consequence that many operators are cash-strapped and tend to go for cheaper and less trustworthy infrastructure providers. The result is a toxic reliance on very few suppliers, some of whom are accused of operating with questionable motives.

If the next Commission wants to successfully secure the digital ecosystem, it has to coordinate technical standards for interoperability, such as the more trustworthy open-source solutions, and promote an environment based on transparency and trust to make sure national governments will implement liability rules for operators and resellers of software and devices that expose consumers to the risk of malicious and illegal interference. This is the only way to protect consumers, promote innovation and foster safe digital lives for consumers.

Luca Bertoletti is senior European affairs manager at consumer advocacy group the Consumer Choice Center.

Article originally published here.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at 
consumerchoicecenter.org

Note to the new EU Commission: Consumer privacy is key

Brussels, BE – The incoming Commission President, Ursula von Der Leyen, will have a series of politically delicate hurdles to contend with in the field of cybersecurity. Here is why certification schemes are needed for that goal.

Not least in the domain of 5G, where the EU has come under increased pressure from American counterparts set to adopt a hostile position against next-generation technologies emanating from the far east.

Europe-wide, following a Commission recommendation for a common EU approach to the security of 5G networks, member states have recently submitted national risk assessments – providing an overview of their most pressing concerns in the future development of 5G infrastructure. These assessments will feed into the next phase, an EU-wide risk assessment to be completed by October 1st.

As part of the European cybersecurity strategy, certification schemes should be implemented on both services and networks.

Luca Bertoletti, Senior European Affairs Manager at the Consumer Choice Center responds: “We welcomed the implementation of the cybersecurity certification schemes but we hope the new commission will keep high standards.

“In our paper written by Mikołaj Barczentewicz, a research associate at the Oxford Centre for Technology & Global Affairs, we recommend using liability rules for operators and resellers of software and devices that expose consumers to the risk of malicious and illegal interference. Personal liability of company directors and executives should be also considered.

“We look forward to starting a productive discussion with the new commission on how to make consumers’ digital life, in the 5G era, more secure and private,” said Bertoletti.


The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org.

Originally published here


Competition is essential to create a secure and innovative supply chain for 5G

Open markets and free trade have increased consumers’ prosperity in Europe and across the world. The impact of the technological advances that contributed to a massive connectivity and freedom of consumers would not have been possible without the existence of a global set of standards that promote competition and choice in the global market for information and communication technologies (ICT). The flipside of this bespoke connectivity can be seen in growing fear about massive data leaks and authoritarian governments targeting cyber-attacks at liberal democracies. News of all mobile data being rerouted from Europe through some Chinese nodes isn’t happening in a Black Mirror episode but is the frightening reality these days.

For decades telecommunications and internet-enabled businesses have relied on openness to operate complex networks and preserve the integrity of the information transmitted. Their efficiency and the ease with which consumers access these services depends on seamless interoperability across key technology vendors and the technical standards that underpin the network components that they build.

However, modern political realities have revealed the caveats of this globalized and interconnected system. As former German Foreign Minister and Vice Chancellor Joschka Fischer wrote, “technology andsoftware exports are no longer just a matter of business; they are about power.” This is particularly evident in the telecommunications sector. National governments’ desire to field next generation 5G networks is being tempered by their growing concern over the security pitfalls created by the overreliance and dominance of untrustworthy vendors in the supply chain for 5G technology. The importance of a secure 5G is evident as governments across the European Union are currently undertaking comprehensive assessments of their exposure and risk to security vulnerabilities in the supply chain.  

While potential threats to national security are serious, pursuing a strategy of brinkmanship risks elevating geopolitical concerns at the expense of an opportunity to enact comprehensive standards for 5G. National governments and industry must reinforce their commitments to the principles that gave  consumers a thriving global technology sector in the first place: open markets and choice for ICT products and services. Safeguarding consumer privacy and security requires a coordinated framework to facilitate vendor diversity. Additionally, liberal democracies need to ensure that no single vendor from an autocratic or illiberal country of origin can monopolize their respective ICT market for 5G or legacy 4G and LTE networks.  

Security must be a defining feature of the standards and norms that govern the global ICT supply chain as well as the individual pieces of software and hardware that businesses and consumers depend on. Inaction risks the ability of businesses and consumers to exercise meaningful choice in critical 5G and other ICT products and services. Some of the EU’s largest member states, such as Germany and Italy, have used the auctions of spectrum licenses as a cash cow for their national budgets instead of seeing newly utilized frequencies as a gamechanger for consumers’ connectivity. This has led to the undesired consequence that many operators are cash-strapped and tend to go for the cheapest rather than the most trustworthy infrastructure provider. This has led us to a path dependency of toxic reliance on very few suppliers with questionable motives.

With coordinated technical standards for interoperability, such as the more trustworthy open source solutions, comes greater trust and transparency. As advancements in technology transform all matter of global exchange these principles must be reinforced and expanded to better protect consumers, promote innovation and foster a safe and secure digital ecosystem.

Fred Roeder, Managing Director of the Consumer Choice Center, and Luca Bertoletti, European Affairs Manager of the Consumer Choice Center

Originally published here

Deimantė Rimkutė. ES – pasaulio duomenų policininkė?

Lisabonos sutartimi visuotinai patvirtinta Europos Sąjungos Pagrindinių teisių chartija įtvirtino naują žmogaus teisę. Tai teisė į duomenų apsaugą. Tuomet dar niekas nežinojo, kokią įtaką globaliam pasauliui ji turės.

Nuo gero administravimo principo sudedamosios iki žmogaus teisės

Pirmasis Europos Sąjungos teisės aktas, reglamentuojantis duomenų apsaugą, patvirtintas 1995 m.. Tiesa, šioje direktyvoje duomenų apsauga pirmiausiai siejosi su gero administravimo principais. Laikui bėgant duomenų apsaugos traktavimas keitėsi ir jos svarbumas augo. 2009 m. Europos Sąjunga aštuntame Chartijos straipsnyje įtvirtindama teisę į duomenų apsaugą kaip žmogaus teisę tapo pasauline pioniere. Joks kitas tarptautinis teisės aktas, o tarp jų ir Tarptautinė pilietinių ir politinių teisių konvencija, jos prieš tai nenumatė.

Šis veiksmas akademiniame pasaulyje kėlė intriguojančias diskusijas. Dažniausiai duomenų apsauga buvo pateikiama kaip kitų teisių sudedamoji. Vokietijos konstitucinis teismas ją siejo su orumu, Prancūzijos su laisve. Ji taip pat buvo susijusi su daugeliu kitų: teise į privatumą, teise reikšti savo įsitikinimus, išpažinti religiją, saviraiškos laisve, teisingu teismu. Kilo klausimų, kas duomenų apsaugą pateisina kaip savarankišką žmogaus teisę? Matyt, kad grėsmė. Teisė tampa žmogaus teise, kai ji siejasi su tam tikromis svarbiomis vertybėmis, o šių apsaugai kyla pavojus.

Kaip teigia mokslininkas Yvonne McDermott, skaidrumas, nediskriminacija, individo autonomija, privatumas – yra vertybės, kurias šiandien, skaitmenizacijos amžiuje, užtikrinti vis sunkiau. Kai ankstesnių pramonės revoliucijų įkvėpimo šaltinis buvo i) mechanizacija, ii) elektra ir degalai, iii) atominė energija, ketvirtoji pramonės revoliucija pasižymi naujosiomis technologijomis, o tarp jų ir vis didėjančia duomenų svarba.

Ir nors visiškai užkirsti kelią laisvam duomenų tekėjimui – ne tik naivu, bet ir netikslinga, tačiau stengtis užtikrinti duomenų apsaugą bei apsaugoti Europos Sąjungos piliečius – svarbu ir pozityvu.
Šį tikslą tiek Europai, tiek visam likusiam laisvam pasauliui iškėlė Europos politikai. Na, o Chartijoje numatyta duomenų apsaugos kaip žmogaus teisės užuomina buvo realizuota Bendrajame duomenų apsaugos reglamente. Būtent šis veiksmas prie ES pavadinimo prilipino ,,duomenų policininko“ etiketę.

Jau paminėtos vertybės bei jų apsaugojimas šiuo metu realizuojamas Europos Sąjungos valstybės narėse. Privatumo idėja turi skirtingas interpretacijas, vieni ją gali sieti su mažesniais privatumo lūkesčiais, kiti su platesniu jų spektru, akivaizdu, kad vienais atvejais duomenų rinkimas pateisinamas, tačiau kitais – jis smerktinas ir proporcingai nereikalingas.

Žmogaus autonomija susijusi su savo paties galimybe duomenis kontroliuoti. Skaidrumas reiškia galimybę žinoti, kad duomenys gali būti apdorojami bei apdorojimo būdus. Nediskriminacija taip pat siejasi su skaidrumu, duomenų valdytojas turi užtikrinti prevencinius mechanizmus, kurie užkirstų kelią galimai diskriminacijai. Žinoma, pozityvus tikslas nebūtinai garantuoja norimą rezultatą.

Duomenų apsaugos kaip žmogaus teisės įgyvendinimo iššūkiai

Vienas iš pagrindinių iššūkių duomenų apsaugoje yra didelis kiekis savanoriškai teikiamų duomenų. Socialiniai tinklai, įvairūs prietaisai, kuriuos mes naudojame, renka duomenis apie mūsų biologinę, fizinę, elgsenos informaciją. Naujoji Daiktų interneto (Internet of Things) technologija gali prisidėti prie ne vien prie individualaus naudotojo duomenų rinkimo, bet ir prie jo aplinkoje esančių asmenų informacijos prieigos.

Kitas svarbus klausimas susijęs masiniu sekimu ir valstybių įsikišimo užmojo ribų nustatymu. Buvusio JAV Nacionalinės saugumo agentūros darbuotojo Edwardo Snowdeno informacijos nutekinimas atskleidė, kad visuotinis sekimas gali prisidėti prie teroristinių atakų grėsmės apčiuopimo. Taigi, šiandien susiduriame su sekimo metodų kismu ir aprėpties didėjimu.

Skaitmeninis amžius lemia, kad vis didesnės pastangos telkiamos į duomenimis grįstą sekimą (data surveillance). Akivaizdu, kad tai kuo toliau, tuo labiau kels vis daugiau klausimų, kas yra proporcingas duomenų gavimas, kada jis būtinas ir neišvengiamas.

Duomenų apsaugos klausimas iškyla ir tarptautinio bendradarbiavimo kontekste. Lyderiai neslepia, kad Europos Sąjunga siekia savo privatumo politiką eksportuoti į kitas valstybes bei nacionalinę jų teisę. Vienu atveju tai vyksta per prekybos susitarimus, kitu – per kitas tarptautines sutartis. Na, o gegužę Europos Komisija Pasaulio prekybos organizacijai pristatė e. komercijos taisykles, kurios apsaugotų vartotojus nuo galimų pažeidimų. Tai prisidėtų prie globalaus duomenų apsaugos teisės, kaip žmogaus teisės, pripažinimo.

Originally published here

Deimantė Rimkutė: Tavo (ne)privatumas 5G interneto amžiuje Skaitykite daugiau:

Galbūt iš pirmo žvilgsnio ši frazė gali būti priimta nerūpestingai: „na, ir kas?“ Žinoma, gal ir nieko blogo. Juk būtent dėl to gauname pasiūlymus, kurie kur kas aktualesni. Surinkti duomenys suteikia galimybę paslauga džiaugtis nemokant papildomos naudojimosi kainos. Tačiau lazda turi du galus; didėjantis duomenų surinkimo kiekis atneša ir tam tikras rizikas.

Žmogų apibrėžia ne vien jo asmens kodas, jis yra savimi, nes turi tam tikrą identitetą. Asmeniniai duomenys neatskiriama to dalis, jie atskleidžia žmogaus charakteristiką ir ją iliustruoja. Ši informacija gali būti itin vertinga tiems, kurie turi nebūtinai pačius geriausius tikslus. Dar visai neseniai viešoje erdvėje nuskambėjo JAV prezidento Donaldo Trumpo rinkimų ar Brexito kampanijos technologiniai sprendimai. Surinkti duomenys gali padėjo paveikti rinkimų rezultatus.

Platesniame kontekste per didelis produkto ar paslaugos individualizavimas gali pradėti kurti tam tikrus informacijos „getus“, kai gauname tik tam tikrą specifinę informaciją, kuri mums patinka, o ne tą, kurią galbūt taip pat reikėtų žinoti. Taip pat kiekvieną dieną tarptautinėje erdvėje girdima apie naujas tapatybės vagystes bei finansinius nusikaltimus. Atsakomybė dažnai krenta „paslaugos“ davėjui. Blogiausia, kad verslas ne visada pasirūpina savo vartotojų apsauga ir sukuria galimybę įsilaužėliams patekti į „duomenų namus“ per galines duris.

Tokie incidentai yra įrodymas, kad vartotojų duomenų saugumas ir privatumas nėra pakankamai apsaugotas ir trūksta jau dabar galiojančios teisės mechanizmų įgyvendinimo efektyvumo bei papildomų teisinių priemonių. Protingos politikos atsakas – neišvengiamas. Taigi, kyla klausimas, kaip tobulinti jau esamą tvarką?

Blogiausia, kad verslas ne visada pasirūpina savo vartotojų apsauga ir sukuria galimybę įsilaužėliams patekti į „duomenų namus“ per galines duris.

Sprendimai

Nėra vieno sprendimo, kuris užtikrintų duomenų apsaugą. Tačiau galimos skirtingos politikos pasiūlymų kombinacijos. Neseniai atliktame Consumer Choice Center tyrime buvo išskirti trys esminiai elementai: griežtesnė teisinė atsakomybė, papildomi sertifikavimo kriterijai bei draudimai, susiję su kilmės šalimi.

Pažeidimai įvyksta, nes, dažnu atveju, atsakingi asmenys nesielgia taip, kaip nurodyta teisės normose. Nors jau šiandien egzistuoja keli mechanizmai, kurie turėtų tai užtikrinti, akivaizdu, kad jie nėra efektyvūs arba užtektinai nekonkretūs. Tiek ES, tiek nacionalinės elektroninio saugumo taisyklės paprastai konkrečių priemonių nereikalauja apart „tinkamų priemonių“.

ES lygmenyje turėtų būti priimamos papildomos taisyklės, kurios užtikrintų vartotojų apsaugą programinės įrangos naudojimo, pardavimo ar perpardavimo kontekste, kai tai susiję su duomenų apsauga. Svarbu, kad visi papildomi techniniai standartai būtų neutralūs, visai kaip ir pati technologija, neturėtų būti reikalaujama naudoti specifinius tam tikrus paslaugų produktus, nes tai sukeltų kliūtis naujiems rinkos žaidėjams, inovacijų plėtrai.

Taip pat svarbu įsivesti tam tikras saugumo lubas ir grindis, mechanizmą, kuriuo vadovaujantis atsakomybė būtų sumažinta arba pašalinta. Jau dabar egzistuoja ES Kibernetinis aktas, remiantis jo nuostatomis galima būtų sukurti papildomus reikalavimus.

Nors jau šiandien egzistuoja keli mechanizmai, kurie turėtų tai užtikrinti, akivaizdu, kad jie nėra efektyvūs arba užtektinai nekonkretūs.

Anksčiau paminėti draudimai pagal kilmės šalį turėtų būti paskutinė priemonė. Dėl tam tikrų priežasčių galima manyti, kad kai kurios ES vyriausybės daro teisinį ar neteisėtą spaudimą privačioms įmonėms, skatindamos įtraukti programinės įrangos pažeidžiamumą, kuris gali būti panaudotas vyriausybių atstovų. Tai vėliau gali būti naudojama kaip didmeninių draudimų pagal kilmės šalį pateisinimo priežastis. Tokio tipo draudimas tikėtinai naudingi vartotojams nebus. Antra vertus, nerandant kito veiksmingo sprendimo ir nerandant aiškių sprendimų, šis pasiūlymas galėtų būti priimtinas.

Asmens duomenų, privatumo srities reglamentavimas turėtų būti grindžiamas ne vien ekonominėmis laisvėmis, bet ir tam tikra žmogaus teisių apsauga. Juk Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucija įtvirtina asmens teisę į privatumą ir orumą. Akivaizdu, kad didėjant asmens duomenų reikšmei, ši sritis reikalauja tinkamesnio reglamentavimo, kuris užtikrintų žmogaus teises, tačiau taip pat ir nesužlugdytų inovacijų plėtros.

Originally published here

Scroll to top