Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Tim Berners-Lee Urges Web Users: 'Care About Your Data' (marketwatch.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the apathy-doesn't-scale dept.

"As the web celebrated its 29th birthday last week, Berners-Lee expressed disappointment with how his invention has turned out," reports MarketWatch. "He criticized Facebook and other tech heavyweights last week, saying they have 'made it possible to weaponize the web at scale.'

"But on Monday, the British computer scientist essentially told Zuck to buck up. 'I would say to him: You can fix it,' Berners-Lee tweeted. 'It won't be easy, but if companies work with governments, activists, academics and web users, we can make sure platforms serve humanity.'"

Tim Berners-Lee writes: This is a serious moment for the web's future. But I want us to remain hopeful. The problems we see today are bugs in the system. Bugs can cause damage, but bugs are created by people, and can be fixed by people.... My message to all web users today is this: I may have invented the web, but you make it what it is. And it's up to all of us to build a web that reflects our hopes & fulfils our dreams more than it magnifies our fears & deepens our divisions... Get involved. Care about your data. It belongs to you.

If we each take a little of the time we spend using the web to fight for the web, I think we'll be ok. Tell companies and your government representatives that your data and the web matter.

60 of 118 comments (clear)

  1. As usual, the ISPs are at fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If everyone could host servers, the problem of centralized data harvesting would evaporate overnight.

    1. Re:As usual, the ISPs are at fault by epyT-R · · Score: 2

      Even when we had it, ISPs still had no-server clauses in their TOS.

    2. Re:As usual, the ISPs are at fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So suddenly Tim "DRM" Berners-Lee cares about the little people?

    3. Re:As usual, the ISPs are at fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, lets all ignore the person who invented the web because he did something you don't agree with once.

    4. Re: As usual, the ISPs are at fault by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Apart from being about two different things they're almost identical.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    5. Re:As usual, the ISPs are at fault by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Yeah, lets all ignore the person who invented the web because he did something you don't agree with once.

      All hail the Slashdot Way!

    6. Re: As usual, the ISPs are at fault by jwymanm · · Score: 1

      This is what blockchain can and does provide. The future of the open web will be on crypto.

    7. Re:As usual, the ISPs are at fault by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Only servile senile old servants run servers! Apps are where it's 'appening!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    8. Re: As usual, the ISPs are at fault by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I see a difference between supporting something and accepting that realistically there's bugger all you can do about it.

      One of us is clearly a retard. If you can make a convincing argument why preventing you from watching a DVD is exactly equivalent to enabling someone to monitor your every move I'll concede that it's me.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    9. Re: As usual, the ISPs are at fault by dougdonovan · · Score: 1

      tim...we emailed each other 15 years ago...these users simply dont know how...to protect...their data. they just point and click and expect everything to be good.

    10. Re:As usual, the ISPs are at fault by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

      And THIS is exactly why we need Net Neutality

      OK. You're going to have to fill in some missing steps in your reasoning, for those of us who have trouble keeping up with your brilliance.

      --
      There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
  2. It's not that we don't care ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 2

    ... it's that it's way too late to do anything about it.

    The Internet is infected with capitalism and there ain't one goddam fucking thing that can be done about it.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    1. Re:It's not that we don't care ... by Archtech · · Score: 1

      There is a swamp. Don't despair; just walk round it.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    2. Re:It's not that we don't care ... by DogDude · · Score: 1

      You can easily not interact with the crappy portion of the web.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    3. Re:It's not that we don't care ... by SirAstral · · Score: 1

      I know right? Facebook is not hurting for anything and their future is looking bright. What defeatist attitude!

      There is always something that can be done about things and sitting around bemoaning your impotence is hardly a solution of any kind. The only thing it will do is make you ripe for suckering when the next ism comes around and promises you riches and wealth if you just sign up for it.

    4. Re:It's not that we don't care ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Your worldview is too small.

      It's not Facebook.

      It's the whole world wide web.

      No one's going to undo what's been done.

      You know that.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    5. Re:It's not that we don't care ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      List all the parts of the web that are not crappy with capitalism.

      Wait, name one part.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    6. Re:It's not that we don't care ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      It's swamp all the way down.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    7. Re:It's not that we don't care ... by DogDude · · Score: 2

      There are tons of individual web pages out there that are run by individuals. Tons.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    8. Re:It's not that we don't care ... by SirAstral · · Score: 2

      Is there something you seek to achieve here? No one want's to undo what has been done. They want to take advantage of it... to "capitalize" upon it. Where is your voice? It is nowhere, I do not see a single politician in the news saying we can't undo this, but I do see a lot of them ready to take advantage of it to do something about it.

      Your attitude is going to help make sure this problem never goes away and that a politician will be able to capitalize on it in some way and advance new laws that look like they will protect the citizens but will actually burn them instead... like the recent SESTA for example. Tell me, are you one of the majority that thinks America is a democracy?

    9. Re:It's not that we don't care ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      I know you're not making the mistake of declaring that individual web pages are barred from making money, so what, precisely, is you point?

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    10. Re:It's not that we don't care ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      It's not attitude, it's experience.

      I helped bring the Internet into the world and I saw the very first occurrences of spam.

      When people realized that the Internet was attracting eyeballs, the money changers hit and it's exploded since then.

      Efforts to control that are like pissing in the wind.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    11. Re:It's not that we don't care ... by DogDude · · Score: 2

      I don't give two shits about making money. That's not why the web exists.

      My point is that not all of the web is shit. There's plenty of non-commercial web out there.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    12. Re:It's not that we don't care ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Actually, money is the reason the Internet exists.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    13. Re:It's not that we don't care ... by martinfb · · Score: 1

      I disagree. It is in the hands of each of us. IF we ALL do our part, capitalism can be reigned in and fixed.

      Besides, "capitalism" is inherently a dog-eat-dog system anyway - survival of the fittest.
      As opposed to the more human friendly democratic socialism.

      --


      Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
    14. Re:It's not that we don't care ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      The hands of each of us (USA) is invested in the capitalism that infects the Internet.

      I'm not divesting -- are you?

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    15. Re:It's not that we don't care ... by DogDude · · Score: 1

      Yup. This AC. And then academics took over from the government people to make it a place where people could share information and ideas. It got all shitted up ("monetized") when the general public started using it.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
  3. Facebook is not a bug it's a mistake. by tomxor · · Score: 1

    Sorry Tim but your wrong here, you can't fix facebook because the mistake is systemic - it's centralised, and there is no fix for that which results in facebook still existing and profiting from user data on the other side. So long as facebook exists it's users are in danger.

    1. Re:Facebook is not a bug it's a mistake. by careysub · · Score: 1

      Pretty much.

      Zuck labored hard to wreck the web, and has profited immensely by doing it. To think that he will "fix" anything is ridiculous.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    2. Re:Facebook is not a bug it's a mistake. by Archtech · · Score: 1

      So long as facebook exists it's users are in danger.

      Only those who choose to be users.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    3. Re:Facebook is not a bug it's a mistake. by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      So long as facebook exists it's users are in danger.

      The information its users reveal on it is what's in danger.

    4. Re:Facebook is not a bug it's a mistake. by ChatHuant · · Score: 1

      Only those who choose to be users.

      That's not the case though. You CAN NOT choose not to be tracked; not being an user is just a mild inconvenience for the likes of Facebook.

      Facebook (and also Google) build shadow profiles on you, and they collect and correlate all kinds of data about you - both online and offline. Facebook slurps data about you from your friends' phone contact lists, from their tagged pictures, from web pages you visit which carry the Facebook tag. Google sucks your phone location data and your web searches. If you use their DNS provider, Google knows which web sites you visit and when. A large percent of web sites you may use also rat you out to Google via links to googleanalytics, googlefonts or gstatic.com. Google is even buying your real world credit card transactions, so they know what you're buying in brick-and-mortar stores, and when. It all goes into their stash.

      Really, you have no choice; you'll be watched by either of them (and who knows how many more) whether you sign for their services or not.

    5. Re:Facebook is not a bug it's a mistake. by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Only those who choose to be users.

      Not true. My wife, who has no real social media presence, has been tagged in photos on FB by friends. Our privacy laws in the US suck.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  4. Lt. Col. Obvious? by PessimysticRaven · · Score: 1

    Of course people need to care.
    But they don't and they won't. Not so long as they get that Pavlovian response from a Like/RT/Share/Reply.

    Hell, we have scores here on ./, too.

    --
    Consistency is only a virtue if you're not a screw-up.
    1. Re:Lt. Col. Obvious? by Archtech · · Score: 1

      Hell, we have scores here on ./, too.

      And if some of us cared about the downvotes, we would stop using /. But it's more important to express opinions that deserve to be heard. Personal feelings don't matter so much.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
  5. Re:Just use the Web by nospam007 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "There is absolutely no reason an intelligent, ... would use those services. "

    There are 2 billion people on the planet with an IQ below 85 and Facebook has 2 billion users.
    Go figure.

  6. DRM? by lkcl · · Score: 5, Informative

    are we talking about the same Tim Berners Lee, the one that has corporate sponsors paying him to put DRM into HTML5? why would we listen to him at all?

    1. Re:DRM? by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

      His call to users was just a lead-in to a call to Zuck.
      Tim is looking to get hired, I suppose. Maybe he too thinks "billionaires can save us".

  7. Re:Just use the Web by Archtech · · Score: 1

    Exactly so. I am sorry I don't have any mod points at the moment, or I would mod you up.

    Superficial, careless people notice the benefits of social media. Thoughtful, careful people are aware of the drawbacks and realise that they outweigh the benefits.

    Greatly, I would say.

    --
    I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
  8. It's part of a general problem by DeplorableCodeMonkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The public behaves like sheep and demands to be treated with respect...

    by wolves.

    No issue better illustrates this than gun control. Millions of voters who freak out at the idea of an armed public, taking responsibility for their own safety, etc. I'm not talking ARs in every closet; I'm talking Ms. Sophisticated Urbanite who wets herself at the idea of having a tiny .38 in her purse so she can do more than claw out the eyes of a rapist. Or Mr. Soccer Mom Dad who'd never own a 9mm/.40/.45 he could carry in public or a shotgun in case his home is burgled at night. They seriously believe they should be able to outsource everything to someone else and still not be treated like wards/sheep to be sheered by bad guys and the power structure.

    You want to be respected and feared as a group? You have to:

    1. Care.
    2. Take responsibility.
    3. Be willing to do your small part to make bad guys suffer.

    1. Re:It's part of a general problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      >They seriously believe they should be able to outsource everything to someone else

      Nope, just violence.

      Violence has no place in a civilized society. You can't argue this point. That's the whole reason there is a police force. The only people sanctioned to commit violence are police. Everyone else gets punished and Soldiers are for wars.

      Plus, just picture the insane world you talk about. Every motherfucker got a gun? huh? That's truly insane. Think of all the people you see in a day and picture all of them with guns. Now how many of them are going to be competent and safe with their firearms. Be real. More guns, more accidents more death. It's that fucking simple.

      It always gets back to the same thing, some people are more prone to violence than others. Laws and police protect the less predatory from the predatory so that there is not anarchy.

      (Oh, yeah: You're scary. I'm not looking for a shootout. I don't want to be anywhere near you. Ever.)

    2. Re:It's part of a general problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What a lousy comparison. How does using the internet put you at risk of dying? You must be really hung up on guns to try to steer the argument that way. But since you did. You really think gun control is about handguns? I know that "assault rifle" is a misleading term, but it's pretty clear these people who want gun control by getting rid of such things are talking about military style rifles that do a lot of harm very easily. I know gun owners who think that there is no need for AR-15s. The armed forces assign its members such weapons because they are far more effective at killing enemies than a 9-mm pistol or similar weapon.

      Many people think responsibility for safety does not have to include walking around with a lethal weapon because such items shouldn't be necessary in an advanced, civilized society. I'm responsible. I don't walk into unsafe places at night. I wear a helmet when I ride a bike. I don't see how I have to HAVE a gun to be considered responsible. How do you think all the other people who don't have a gun manage to NOT get mugged or assaulted all the time? I guess it's magic.

      In the meantime, children are shot daily one way or another because a gun is kept in the home. Why? Because a lot of gun owners themselves are apparently not responsible. Not all, but enough of them to leave guns available enough to kill a few dozen children daily. So tell me more about being responsible for safety with such an example.

    3. Re:It's part of a general problem by thecatt · · Score: 1

      The only people sanctioned to commit violence are police. Everyone else gets punished

      This is exactly right. And it is exactly what is wrong with the current system.

      Laws and police protect the less predatory from the predatory so that there is not anarchy.

      Almost. Laws and police protect the predatory from the prey.

  9. it is up to the users by FudRucker · · Score: 1

    you need to learn to use the internet without letting the internet use YOU!!!

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  10. Re:As usual, the visibility is at fault by epyT-R · · Score: 1

    with or without net neutrality, and with additional technical and performance caveats.

  11. Web Accountability by Justathot · · Score: 1

    Maybe the systemic problems of the 'web' could be ameliorated by
    (a) charging based on one's net data consumption - i.e. if you run a server to host content you get paid when people pull it, if you pull content you pay for it; and
    (b) changing web protocols so the content receiver can query the size (and other characteristics) each component before bringing it down (or streaming it) to decide whether to pull it or not.
    Maybe also -
    (c) changing to decentralized protocols that somewhat protect against content ripping. (Hard - if not possible, maybe a blockchain based reputation tracking and content time-stamping system would help).

    - If you post data to someone else's server, you get paid once and they get paid over and over for your content.
    Most content creators and maybe most everyone would keep their own server - support for running personal servers would be much better. The 'no personal servers allowed' ISPs would quickly go broke.
    - If your content is so good that your server is getting overloaded with requests, pre-negotiated contracts might shift the load to a commercial server that gets a percentage. Or maybe the web protocols inherently distribute popular content by making every server cache content for a cut of the income. That would require secure automated contracts and accounting.

  12. Facebook builds a shadow profile on non-members by tepples · · Score: 1

    I don't see how it's practical. Even if you're not a Facebook member, Facebook knows a lot about you from your IRL friends who have you in their phone contacts or tag you in photos and from logging the click stream from sites you visit that have Facebook's like button. These form what the media has referred to as a "shadow profile". And even if you use a DNS blocklist (hi APK!) to interfere with Facebook gathering your click stream, it's hard to control what members share about you.

    1. Re:Facebook builds a shadow profile on non-members by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      I keep seeing people bring this "shadow profile" thing up as if it's in some way bad...

  13. It does reflect our hopes and dreams. by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

    I may have invented the web, but you make it what it is. And it's up to all of us to build a web that reflects our hopes & fulfils our dreams more than it magnifies our fears & deepens our divisions... Get involved. Care about your data. It belongs to you.

    Unfortunately, too many people did get involved, which allowed the corporations to build a web that preys on humanity's base values: greed, fear, catering to the lowest common demoninator and social stratification.

    Zuckerberg (who is really no different than a corporation) is making a shitload of money off the web that he has perverted. He has no incentive to change it.

    Also, "activists, academics and web users" have no ability to make significant changes to the web against governments and corporations, all of the control is on the side of the government and corporations who own all of the infrastructure. We've even see the academic side of the web weaponized for corporate profit in the last decade (researchgate).

    Evolution of the existing web will be the only real fix to this issue. And it will continue to be a cat and mouse game between academics and corporations.

  14. I keep saying this by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    but my online privacy is the least of my worries. I've got robots and H1-Bs coming for my jobs in a society where my entire quality of life depends on it. I've got no reliable access to healthcare and massively increasing drug prices. My country's fighting 8 wars and working on 9 and 10 and we just spend over half our 1.3 trillion budget on said wars. My kid's college costs keep going up and up with no end in sight. Politically I've got gerrymandering, voter suppression, dark money and rising authoritarianism. Oh, and the trade wars and Wallstreet deregulation are about to cause another economic crash...

    Besides, there are way, way better ways to oppress me than reading my facebook feed. Just keep letting inflation destroy my wages and put me in a constant state of economic fear. If it's one thing that makes dictatorships easy it's economic calamity.

    It's like that XKCD comic about 1024 bit encryption. They're just gonna use a wrench to beat it out of me.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re: I keep saying this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Besides all that, how did you enjoy the play, Mrs Lincoln?

    2. Re:I keep saying this by andersenep · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you've got a lot of worries. I'll shed a tear for you.

    3. Re:I keep saying this by thePsychologist · · Score: 3

      Hey, but the fact that we are all providing massive amounts of data to online megacorporations is part of the reason why all the money is funneling into the hands of the few in the first place.

      --
      "What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." Ralph Waldo Emerson
    4. Re:I keep saying this by andersenep · · Score: 1

      You're a faggot, and she definitely was crying for the sake of crying. If internet privacy is such a petty concern in the face of more important worries, then shut the fuck up and go work on those issues instead of whining about it.

      Everything she is crying about (robots, H1Bs, healthcare, wars, kids college costs, political blah blah blah) is unimportant to me. Internet privacy is important to me, and that's the topic here.

      whatever....apply a completely non-related XKCD cartoon to your personal deficiencies and call it a day. i'll be laughing all the way to the bank.

  15. Re:He did not invent the fucking web. by tgeek · · Score: 1

    Of course not! We all know Al Gore invented the internet!

  16. Re:He did not invent the fucking web. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Hence the word "algorethms".

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  17. Out of touch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Nobody 'invented' the web. It is the logical and natural progression of computers.

    He was at the right place at the right time. Claiming "I invented the web" is a bit pathetic.

  18. Privacy, Piracy, Opportunity, Irony by Humbubba · · Score: 1
    "The fact that power is concentrated among so few companies has made it possible to weaponize the web at scale."

    This, coming from Tim Berners-Lee, who, against the principle of an open web, signed off on a DRMed HTML5, which puts control of the users' browsers the hands of media companies and content owners, distributors, and inevitably, governments and other hackers [1]. Talk about weaponizing the web.

    But I digress.

    Right now, the home office of Cambridge Analytica is being scoured by authorities in London, ostensibly looking for criminal activity, but actually they are trying to find out how CA did it. This sort of weapon they can use.

    Social control through social media is a door of opportunity opening wide. If you're wondering where the big buck computer jobs will be, look no further. It won't just be politicians hiring either. Advertisers make big bucks for target marketing right now, and this takes it to a whole new level. The prospects look great, unless you're concerned with niggling things like privacy. In that case, remember the immortal words of Sun cofounder and CEO Scott McNealy, "You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it."

    [1] https://www.theregister.co.uk/...

  19. And the software's not there. by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

    You have a point. Sure, people can use dynamic DNS, but ISP restrictions prevent an ecosystem of peers growing naturally.

    Another reason: viable decentralised social network software isn't there. I tried a couple @home social networks, including Elgg. It didn't work well.

  20. I don't think so by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    They funneled that money just fine in the 80s, 90s, 00s without all that data. There was a _very_ brief respite following WWII and that's about it. Other than that and the rich have been in charge forever.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/