10 Mar 2010 | Uncategorized
ISPs, Google, Facebook, eBay, Yahoo and the Open Rights Group sign letter saying bill threatens free speech
In a letter published in the Financial Times today, digital rights campaigners and consumer and industry groups argue a key amendment in the
Digital Economy bill is “poor law making” that will encourage site blocking and damage free expression.
Dear Sirs,
We regret that the House of Lords last week adopted amendment 120A to the Digital Economy Bill. This amendment not only significantly changes the injunctions procedure in the UK but will lead to an increase in Internet service providers blocking websites accused of illegally hosting copyrighted material without cases even reaching a judge. The amendment seeks to address the legitimate concerns of rights-holders but would have unintended consequences which far outweigh any benefits it could bring.
Endorsing a policy that would encourage the blocking of websites by UK broadband providers or other Internet companies is a very serious step for the UK to take. There are myriad legal, technical and practical issues to reconcile before this can be considered a proportionate and necessary public policy option. In some cases, these may never be reconciled. These issues have not even been considered in this case.
The Lords have been thoughtful in their consideration of the Bill to date. It is therefore bitterly disappointing that the House has allowed an amendment with obvious shortcomings to proceed without challenging its proponents to consider and address the full consequences. Put simply, blocking access as envisaged by this clause would both widely disrupt the Internet in the UK and elsewhere, threatening freedom of speech and the open Internet, without reducing copyright infringement as intended. To rush through such a controversial proposal at the tail end of a Parliament, without any kind of consultation with consumers or industry, is very poor law making.
We are particularly concerned that a measure of this kind as a general purpose policy could have an adverse impact on the reputation of the UK as a place to do online business and conflict with the broader objectives of Digital Britain. This debate has created a tension between specific interest groups and the bigger prize of promoting a policy framework that supports our digital economy and appropriately balances rights and responsibilities. All parties should take steps to safeguard this prize and place it at the heart of public policy in this area.
Yours sincerely,
Tom Alexander, CEO, Orange UK
Richard Allan, Director of Policy EU, Facebook
Neil Berkett, Chief Executive, Virgin Media
Matt Brittin, Managing Director, Google UK and Ireland
Charles Dunstone, Chairman, Talk Talk Group
Stephen Fry
Jessica Hendrie-Liaño, Chair, Internet Services Providers Association (ISPA)
Jill Johnstone, International Director, Consumer Focus
Jim Killock, Executive Director,
Open Rights Group
Mark Lewis, Managing Director, eBay UK Ltd
Ian Livingston, Chief Executive, BT Group
Professor Sarah Oates, University of Glasgow
Dr Jenny Pickerill, University of Leicester
Mark Rabe, Managing Director, Yahoo! UK and Ireland
Dr Paul Reilly, University of Leicester
Jess Search, Founder, Shooting People independent film makers
Professor Ian Walden, Queen Mary, University of London
Tom Watson MP
3 Mar 2010 | Uncategorized
The Digital Economy Bill — now under attack from quarters as diverse as Billy Bragg and the Federation of Small Businesses — threatens to grant Business Secretary Peter Mandelson’s successors the power to censor web content for any reason, and to punish innocent people for failing to prevent other people from infringing copyright.
The punishments being envisaged for copyright infringement might have, of course, included normal powers, perhaps to fine, as we do with fare dodgers, who commit what might seem a comparable financial offence.
But instead, Mandelson has opted for a medieval approach equivalent to banishment of the offender from everyday society: disconnection of them and their family or business from the internet.
The government knows full well that it cannot actually find out who has downloaded copyright material, only what internet connection has been used.
Because they are unable to identify actual infringers, the government has opted to use an iron fist and simply blame anyone whose internet account has been used for copyright infringement.
This has understandably got libraries and schools very worried, they too face the possibility of being disconnected because of the actions of their pupils.
Similarly, businesses such as hotels, pubs and cafes are getting worried that they too might be punished for the actions of their customers.
Additionally, the powers in clause 11, and the disproportionate punishments have worried groups like Liberty, and now Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights, who said:
“We do not believe that such a skeletal approach to powers which engage human rights is appropriate. There is potential for these powers to be applied in a disproportionate manner which could lead to a breach of internet users’ rights to respect for correspondence and freedom of expression.”
Liberty warn that clause 11 might be used as a broad power of censorship, and point to the mis-application of widely drafted powers including Clause 44 “stop and search powers” introduced for terrorism, and now used to justify searching teenagers across London.
The Secretary of State could for example order that those accessing websites that fit a particular criteria be cut off – for example political or religious websites considered to be extreme. It takes little imagination to envisage where such a power could lead. What has been described as a power to cut off illegal file-sharers is in fact better described as a power to cut of internet access for whomever the Secretary of State sees fit.
The music and film industries have demanded harsh punishments for offenders, but insist that legal processes should be limited, must be paid for and ensured that there are no reasonable defences. Evidence alone is enough to get your business, community group or family cut off.
Copyright holders are mistaken to think that punishments are the key to getting their new businesses to work. Laws rarely work when they need to be backed up by harsh and unfair punishment, especially of the innocent: our sense of fair play will tend to conclude that something in the law itself is at fault.
If you want to help, you can take action via Liberty’s website and at the Open Rights Group website.
Jim Killock is Executive Director of the Open Rights Group
26 Feb 2010 | Uncategorized
The Italian court’s decision in the Google/Vividown case is as incomprehensible as it is disturbing. Unfortunately, as the full ruling will not be made available for some time, we can only guess at the specifics of the court’s decision.
The three Google executives, rather than the company itself, were held criminally responsible for breaches of Italy’s data protection laws. The convictions could have been based on Google’s role as the provider of a “hosting” service for videos or, secondly, with regard to the privacy of the individuals in the video.
Providers of hosting services may not, following an EU Directive of 2000, be held liable if they expeditiously remove material upon receipt of a notice that material is illegal. While there is some debate about when the item was actually taken offline, prosecutors argued Google “should have” known about the video and that the internet giant should never have allowed the video to be uploaded. It seems both legally and logically implausible to argue that internet service providers of any type should live in a legal limbo, carrying out surveillance of their users based on a court’s belief they “should have known”.
On the second issue, the privacy of the boy victimised in the video, it seems difficult to see how credible the prosecutions evidence could have been as the Italian data protection authority did not support this case. In either scenario it seems very unlikely that the court decision was legally sound but the decision is part of a wider and profoundly dangerous trend in Italy with regard to freedom of communication, privacy and expression.
- Italy already has internet filtering laws that are almost certainly in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights.
- In January 2010, the Italian government proposed measures for prior checks of all content to be placed on video hosting site, blogs and news media.
- Media freedom in Italy continues to decline according to Freedom House, who registered a further deterioration in the country in its most recent report.
In such a context, the “chilling effect” of this judgement could be far-reaching. In an environment where the providers of online services have little or no legal certainty, the only realistic option would appear to be to err on the side of caution and censorship and many journalists and commentators seem to be taking the line of least resistance.
But in concert with the Italian government’s pre-existing plans to monitor all internet uploads this case could threaten user-generated content.
When legislation was proposed to outlaw anonymity online in order “to fight paedophiles” it was quickly revealed that document was secretly authored by Univideo, the Italian union for the movie industry. So was the Union’s concern really child abuse or was it copyright?
Unfortunately, the situation in Italy appears to be a sign of the future rather than an isolated case. The European Commission is in discussions with industry “stakeholders” about how to police the internet more efficiently for intellectual property infringements. The United States for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) proposes that internet providers put “measures” in place to prevent infringements in order to avoid secondary liability for transgressions of their clients and the European Commission is also soon due to publish proposals for internet blocking. But don’t worry, its just to protect children; nothing sinister!
Joe McNamee works as Advocacy Coordinatory for European Digital Rights in Brussels (EDRi). He works on issues related to privacy, cybercrime, intellectual property, freedom of information/communication and related topics.
24 Feb 2010 | Uncategorized
This is genuinely alarming.
An Italian court has convicted Google executives David Carl Drummond, George De Los Reyes and Peter Fleischer (now retired), for violation of privacy, after a video of an Autistic child being bullied was uploaded to Google Video.
The case was brought by charity Viva Down, who claimed that Google (which owns YouTube) was culpable for not gaining the consent of all parties in the video before it was uploaded. The charity also claimed that Google had been too slow to react when asked to remove the video.
Can Google really be responsible for every piece of content on Googe Video or YouTube? Doesn’t this seriously confuse how the web works?
This from the Google blog:
Google’s statement
But we are deeply troubled by this conviction for another equally important reason. It attacks the very principles of freedom on which the Internet is built. Common sense dictates that only the person who films and uploads a video to a hosting platform could take the steps necessary to protect the privacy and obtain the consent of the people they are filming. European Union law was drafted specifically to give hosting providers a safe harbor from liability so long as they remove illegal content once they are notified of its existence. The belief, rightly in our opinion, was that a notice and take down regime of this kind would help creativity flourish and support free speech while protecting personal privacy. If that principle is swept aside and sites like Blogger, YouTube and indeed every social network and any community bulletin board, are held responsible for vetting every single piece of content that is uploaded to them — every piece of text, every photo, every file, every video — then the Web as we know it will cease to exist, and many of the economic, social, political and technological benefits it brings could disappear.
