Every internet user is now faced on a daily basis with dozens of terms and conditions which he accepts by passively clicking “ok”. It is very hard to escape all of the so-called cookies that scan our computers.
We are the first reponsibles for the dispossession of our personal data. Yet we don’t withdraw any direct remuneration from this raw material that we supply. There is a good reason for that: the monetization of our data is the main revenue source for the GAFA platforms. The apparent free nature of their services comes in reality at the expense of our privacy.
To put an end to the looting of our data by the web companies, GenerationLibre supports the introduction of a property right on personal data.
The industrial revolution forced the introduction of an intellectual property right; today’s digital revolution requires the introduction of a property right on personal data.
Inspired by the ideas of US researcher Jaron Lanier, the goal is to make each individual the legal owner of its personal data. Each one of us could then chose to sell its data to the platforms, or otherwise pay for their services to keep them.
This legal innovation doesn’t yet exist in any country in the world. Yet a property right is the next logical step after the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) which came into force in May 2018 in the EU. Europe needs to seize this opportunity to innovate and spread its model.
Taking back control of my data01
Today, the French state doesn’t fulfill its legitimate task to ensure that members of the same society have the means to survive.
France is losing the fight against poverty despite some 400 billion euros of social spending every year. It is time to replace our inefficient and unfair social system with a new mechanism.
We want to give every individual a fundamental security so that it can fully enjoy its freedom and make its own choices. We want to implement a universal basic income called LIBER which takes the form of a tax credit, calculated so that everyone can meet their basic needs.
Who can seriously be satisfied with the French social system, this maze of taxes and benefits built randomly over the past decades by what has become an obese, paternalistic and bureaucratic state ? We want an entirely different system.
Our LIBER proposal is financed by an income tax paid on the first euro earned: the LIBERTAXE. This new system makes it possible to tackle poverty effectively because the amount is calculated on the sole criterion of income, and replaces the maze of all the conditional allowances.
The proposal outlined by GenerationLibre avoids paternalism by making citizens responsible for their own choices. It also encourages work since the amounts received in the form of a negative tax decrease in a perfectly linear way as income grows.
Implementing a French UBI02
People no longer go to jail for their opinions, and the time when Voltaire wrote that “without the approval of the King, you cannot think” seems to be over. Nevertheless, we are witnessing a creeping return of censorship, in France and elsewhere.
For forty years, French governments have tried to eradicate stupidity. The Pleven Act of 1972 condemning discriminatory remarks can be considered as the starting point of this trend. Many other laws followed. They were all written with good intentions but in reality they end up limiting the scope of freedom of speech.
The most visible effect is that many debates now end up in French courts, and a self-censorship phenomena has appeared. If all these laws were applied strictly, only a few writings or remarks would escape our justice system.
How can we tolerate that a crime of blasphemy has actually been reintroduced by law?
The legislative power has abandoned its core principles and put the judge in an impossible position of restoring a common sense. By lawfuly adding exception after exception, restriction after restriction, the judge has now become the henchman of an overcautious and inhibiting society. This is detroying the French way of debating, made of excess, spirit and hope.
Our attachment to democracy lies in our belief that the individual is rational. As such, a properly informed opinion is in a much better position than the courts to decide the difference between good and bad.
Not harming others must remain the only possible restriction to freedom of speech. This justifies laws which protect individual privacy, reputation, and condemn any incitation to violence. We make several proposals to guarantee these few limits in this report.
Let people speak their mind03