Privacy is not a bug in the code | Isabelle Falque-Pierrotin | TEDxIssylesMoulineaux

Isabelle has a very strong conviction about a certain form of fatality destined to the "end of privacy". She will explain that this is not inevitable and that this right that our forefathers won against totalitarian regimes is not to give up on the altar of connectivity and transparency. The consumer citizen must exercise his right to privacy.

Hello everyone!

I think we are 20 years old everyday!

And Europe is 20 as well, everyday,

and I'll probably have a lot to say

about many other topics.

So, in fact, I would like to show you

in any case, explain,

why is it that privacy
is not a bug in the code.

And for that, I will start
by talking about Argos.

Do you know who Argos was?

Argos was a giant

who lived 25 centuries ago.

And Argos was commissioned
by Hera, the wife of Zeus,

to monitor lo, a nymph
that Zeus wanted to conquer.

And Argos had a special quality,

he had 100 eyes,

50 to sleep and 50 to monitor.

So, obviously, Argos
was extremely effective.

Zeus tries to deceive Argos.

He morphs into a cloud，
but he can not deceive Argos.

So, he sends his son, Hermes,
the winged messenger.

And Hermes will charm
Argos with a chant

and will eventually behead Argos.

Io escapes;

Zeus follows her throughout Europe,

while Hera, who wants
to redeem the death of Argos,

decided to place his 100 eyes
on the body of his favorite animal,

the peacock.

But why is it that I tell you this story?

I tell you this story

because, in fact, it's a story
that's about us!

It is a European story, dark,

about a giant,
about monitoring and privacy.

And I think that today,
with Snowden's revelations still fresh,

and with GAFA around,
--Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon--

we have to ask ourselves as well
the same question as Zeus had.

How far are we willing to go
to protect our privacy?

Or to take Argos out?

This question doesn't make
too much sense in fact,

because privacy, as some say,

or some think, "Who cares about it?"

So, where do we start?

There is a word that has been used
before in a talk.

The starting point is that we entered
the "datification" world.

All intellectual, personal,
professional activities

are translated into data,
by data streaming,

and thus, individuals
are more and more often

categorized, analyzed, and stored

according to the traces
of data they leave.

And, of course, based on these data,

they are potentially under surveillance.

To justify the presence of surveillance,

the first argument given to us

is: "But if you fear monitoring,

it is because, actually,
you have something to hide!"

I would say with regard to this argument,
I think we're all guilty!

Because we all have, of course,
something to hide!

But it's more serious than that!

If we think like this,

if we have this mindset,

this turns into the argument
of all totalitarian regimes in the world,

of all the inquisitions in the world.

If we think like such,

it seems that all privacy
is considered a mere secret.

Guilt is almost presupposed.

But privacy isn't this.

Privacy is simply
the ability of each of us,

to be, in fact, oneself.

To be themselves, to express themselves,

the ability to behave in a certain way,
irrespective of the opinions of others.

And it is clear that privacy here

is not a private issue.

It's a political issue,

it's about the autonomy of each of us,

it's all about democracy in the end.

So I think that such argument

has to be firmly rejected.

Then, we are told:

"Privacy is not worth defending.

It's too late!"

It was deliberately sold
to us and it's more of the same,

GAFA,

either ones or the others,
as service providers

because it's so convenient.

It's true! Indeed!

And I think that you,
just like me, just as all of us,

are all addicted to the digital world.

We are all consumers of these services

but I think that we don't happily trade

what they bring,

in terms of our standard of living,
tracking our friends,

personal relationships,
in terms of information...

We don't want to give all this up!

But that said, it doesn't mean
we want to trade it for our privacy!

All research points at this.

People don't want

to expose themselves online.

What they want is control,

the power to control
their personal online data.

And to decide if such data

goes public or stays private.

And what they want,
is no blank cheque, so to speak,

in these service suppliers' hands,

to do anything they want with our data.

And people want to be able
to say: "That was my choice,

not the service provider's

that in the end, both my private
and public life have surfaced online."

The third argument we are given:

"Well, basically, privacy is great
but it's complicated,

it's difficult to preserve
and it fences innovation,"

all this awesome innovation
we were all talking about

and are ready "to develop."

And I think that this
is the most insidious arguments of all.

It's an argument
that you'll mainly hear in France.

But I say to all of you here today,

to all of those who really think so,

to those who really think
that the protection of privacy

is truly an obstacle
in the way of innovation,

and have real examples,

come to see me, come to CNIL

to let us know your problem

and we'll try to find a solution for you.

This is the second or the third time

I am extending this invitation,
based on these arguments,

for everybody to come,
but nobody ever came.

So personally, I am not too convinced
of the validity of such argument.

I am under the impression
that's an argument

which, in fact, it's easy
to support in theory,

but in fact, in truth,

I don't see how it can work.

On the contrary, I think

that the protection of privacy

can be a wonderful, competitive argument.

Because, in the end, it reassures
the customers, the citizens,

that their personal data
is appropriately handled

and admitted as such.

That is why I think that, on the contrary,

we can build a more durable innovation,

a longer lasting one,

in terms of protection of privacy.

This is what I briefly wanted
to share with you.

I believe that protecting our privacy

is not a vestige of the past.

I truly believe
it is not a bug in the code.

On the contrary, I believe it's a gem.

It's a political jewel,
it's the very fabric of democracy.

It's an economic nugget.

That said, I'd like to end by saying

that I believe
we should be extremely careful

about what it's happening
right now in Europe.

As you know, in Europe,

we have the 1995 Directive

that sets the legal framework
for data protection.

This framework
is being retouched, renewed,

and in light of all the lobbying,
actions and pressures

exerted by the [European] Parliament
on the Commission,

it's clear that this topic

is subject of intense public debate
on the international arena.

That's why I believe
we shouldn't turn a blind eye to it.

Our everyday life and our privacy

is a fight.

In light of this renewing
of the legal framework

we have to promote
this economic and political asset

which is our data protection.

I'll end up by returning to Argos.

I believe that we can't get rid of Argos.

He's already part of our lives.

And what it needs attention
is under surveillance!

Thank you all!

(Applause)