Repeated scandals reveal to what extent our personal data are exploited for commercial and political use. Where are they going? Who’s using them? What’s their face value?
Personal data is the new raw material of the economy. The personal data market is forecast to reach the size of one trillion euros, i.e. 8% of the EU’s GDP, by 2020. Online users are permanently producing personal data and yet have almost no control over their use.
The legal framework needs to be updated, data ownership rights need to be introduced. Europe is the right scale to act.
Our first report “Owning my personal data” (January 2018) has already helped to push forward the idea in the French public opinion.
Polls show that data protection and personal privacy are major issues for online users. Yet this is clearly at odds with their online behaviour. Users fall victim to this ‘intimacy paradox’. The less they feel their data are protected, the less they will value them, leading to a downfall of their online confidentiality preferences
Personal ownership rights are needed to introduce a price system allowing people to take back control of their data.
The digital economy is highly concentrated because various effects strengthen the influence of big players. The main online platforms benefit from strong network effects.
GDPR, the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, that came into effect in May 2018 fails to promote competition and could eventually undermine innovation.
To protect online users’ privacy while fostering competition in a market characterised by monopolistic tendencies, a price system has to be introduced as a subtle balance between market and regulation.
Personal ownership rights are needed for personal data to be exchanged. We put forward two models of data ownership: a “contractual” vision and a “proprietary” vision.
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