Telecommunications Act 1984 s.94

Telecommunications Act 1984: "The Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a copy of every direction given under this section unless he is of opinion that disclosure of the direction is against the interests of national security or relations with the government of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, or the commercial interests of any person." 'via Blog this'

TRILCon 2016 - Winchester, as discussed by Dr Townend

TRILCon 2016: "“Knowledge is power. Information is power. The secreting or hoarding of knowledge or information may be an act of tyranny camouflaged as humility.”

The flow of information can be fundamental to building trust, assessing risks, understanding rights and enforcing law.

Information (Big and small) can enable consumers to understand how their personal data will be shared: a social worker to identify a child at risk of abuse; the police to make a connection between a terrorist and a ‘clean skin’.

There are those who would argue that all information, including personal and even sensitive data, should be shared more freely and openly, and that risks of doing so are overstated.

However, an aspect of power is control, an ability to decide when, how and with whom information should be disclosed. Technology has given power to some and taken it away from others, yet could technology contribute to restoring an information balance? And how does the law need to change in order to address the power of information in this technological age?

We are delighted that both the Information Commissioner’s Office and the UK’s Digital Catapult will be working with the 2016 TRILCon organisers to oversee and chair workshops/breakout sessions." 'via Blog this'

2016/2007(INI) 23.2.2016 DRAFT REPORT on virtual currencies

2016/2007(INI) 23.2.2016 DRAFT REPORT on virtual currencies (2016/2007(INI)) Committee on Economic and Monetary AffairsRapporteur: Jakob von Weizsäcker

Theresa May Wants Us To Leave The European Convention On Human Rights

Theresa May Wants Us To Leave The European Convention On Human Rights - RightsInfo:

"I also know that others will say there is little point in leaving the ECHR if we remain members of the EU, with its Charter of Fundamental Rights and its Court of Justice.  And I am no fan of the Charter or of many of the rulings made by the Court.

But there are several problems that do apply to the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, yet do not apply to the Court of Justice in Luxembourg.  Strasbourg is in effect a final appeals court; Luxembourg has no such role.  Strasbourg can issue orders preventing the deportation of foreign nationals; Luxembourg has no such power.  Unlike the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Treaties are clear: “national security,” they say, “remains the sole responsibility of each Member State.” " 'via Blog this'

Arch-rivals Microsoft & Google call truce and agree to end lawsuits

Arch-rivals Microsoft & Google call truce and agree to end lawsuits - Computer Business Review: "In September 2015, Microsoft and Google agreed to end their patent dispute over phones and Xboxes. With this arrangement, around 20 lawsuits in the United States and Germany were dropped.

 Another major issue that Microsoft charged Google with was the way in which the search giant allegedly favoured its own search engine results, ranking down the results of competitors in vertical search results.

Not just Microsoft was involved in the 2010 European Commission lawsuit, with other companies such as TripAdvisor, Expedia, Expedia and Nokia also complaining against Google's Android operating system for deceptively locking out competition.

 Microsoft was a member of two groups, ICOMP and FairSearch, which were fighting against Google Android for its antitrust actions over its search business. It withdrew its membership from these groups before sorting issues with Google." 'via Blog this'

Privacy International v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs et al. Case No. IPT/15/110/CH

Bulk Personal Datasets Challenge | Privacy International: "Privacy International v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs et al. 

Reference: Case No. IPT/15/110/CH 

Venue: Investigatory Powers Tribunal 

Commenced: 08.06.2015

Hearing date: July 2016 Investigatory Powers Tribunal" 'via Blog this'

European Commission Press release - Mergers: Commission approves acquisition of WhatsApp by Facebook

European Commission - PRESS RELEASES - Press release - Mergers: Commission approves acquisition of WhatsApp by Facebook: "The Commission’s investigation focused on three areas: (i) consumer communications services, (ii) social networking services, and (iii) online advertising services.

 As regards consumer communications services, the Commission focussed its assessment on apps for smartphones, as WhatsApp is not available for other devices. The Commission found that Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp are not close competitors. Indeed, despite the fact that Facebook Messenger is a standalone app, the user experience is specific given its integration with the Facebook social network. For WhatsApp, access to the service is provided through phone numbers while for Facebook Messenger, a Facebook profile is required. Users seem to use the two apps in different ways and many of them use the two apps simultaneously on the same mobile handset. Furthermore, this is a very dynamic market with several competing apps available on the market, such as Line, Viber, iMessage, Telegram, WeChat and Google Hangouts.

 The consumer communications apps market is characterised by network effects, that is to say the value of the service to its users increases with the number of other users. Network effects may allow the entity which enjoys a large network to keep its competitors out of the market. Given their popularity, both WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger already have large customer bases. However, a number of factors mitigate the network effects in this particular case. Indeed, the Commission found that the consumer communications apps market is fast growing and characterised by short innovation cycles in which market positions are often reshuffled. Moreover, launching a new app is fairly easy and does not require significant time and investment. Finally, customers can and do use multiple apps at the same time and can easily switch from one to another.

 As regards social networking services, the market investigation showed that their boundaries are continuously evolving. Some third parties suggested that WhatsApp is already a social network which competes with Facebook. However, the Commission found that the parties are, if anything, distant competitors in this area, in particular given a substantially richer experience offered by Facebook. Moreover, there is a large number of alternative service providers, including other consumer communications apps, such as Line and WeChat. Further, even in the event of an integration between WhatsApp and Facebook such that Facebook's position in social networking services could be strengthened, the net gain in terms of new members of the social network would be limited, since the user base of WhatsApp already overlaps to a significant extent with that of Facebook. Hence, no matter what the precise boundaries of the market for social networking services are and whether or not WhatsApp is considered a social network, competition is unlikely to be negatively affected by the merger for such services." 'via Blog this'

ICOMP on Statement of Objections against Google Android

“ICOMP is confident competition authorities everywhere are catching on how Google works. The Android strategy to lock in consumers is similar to other Alphabet Google products under investigation: undercut competitors by dumping Android free of charge to make it dominant, tie and bundle Google products with Android, block the best screen space with Google apps.”

Michael Weber, Chairman of ICOMP the Initiative for a Competitive Online Marketplace

Smartphones and tablets have become part of the lives of most Europeans. Google dominates this market through its ownership or control of the Android operating system as well as a range of apps and online products. Android devices are central to millions of EU citizens’ daily movements, their planning, and decision making. These devices collect masses of personal data. Where you go, what you look for online and what you are interested in is all tracked and stored. Data about these things is only valuable in context. Google probably has more context relevant data than any company on the planet. Android provides the platform, Google search then tracks internet searching and browsing, and use of Google apps follows your daily needs and captures your data. All are valuable sources of information for advertising. It’s a very successful strategy. With a market cap over $547 bn Google earlier this year overtook Apple as the biggest company in the world, bar none.

Overall, from its position of unrivalled market power, Google controls and manipulates users’ demands. Android is a cornerstone of the Google edifice. However, Android ceased to be a truly open source platform some time ago. Google’s agreements with phone manufacturers mean that Google apps are always on the home screen of Android devices, in front of the customer, straight out of the box. Exclusivity agreements and the Android Compatibility Program is used as a club to make phone manufacturers do what Google wants. Top positioning and display of Google products is used to steer consumers towards Google’s own products and services. Google’s control and manipulation of demand bolsters its position in markets for apps and what they are used for.

In short Google rigs the system so that Google apps, not necessarily the best apps for consumers’ needs, are put in front of people ahead of those of its competitors.

Commissioner Vestager’s latest measure, to send a Statement of Objections (SO) to Google about its Android platform, is a significant step in the long running formal investigations. An SO cannot be dismissed as a mere preliminary matter – it is the product of considerable investigation, and detailed analysis of large amounts of factual evidence. An SO almost always leads to a considerable fine and, we hope more importantly, to significant changes in the defendant’s business practices.

The EC’s mission is a public interest one. It is required to safeguard consumers and make sure that markets are open and competition takes place on the merits of the products people may need. The Commission’s step in taking formal proceedings, by issuing a further SO, recognizes the high stakes involved at the present time as more and more people become digitally dependent.

As the main player in the digital world Google has embedded itself in an increasingly interconnected EU industry. It has already extended its dominance in online search to mobile. Absent vigilant EU competition enforcement, Google has swiftly monopolised access to many markets and, looking forward, is on path to monopolise an ever larger slice of the European economy.

All sorts of devices are increasingly interconnected over the web. Smartphone and Smart TV media and entertainment are early examples. Google News is promoted over more popular news rivals. Google is a broadcaster and through YouTube provides a channel that can be accessed on smart devices everywhere. It can be expected to promote its own products in its own interests to smartphone users over other broadcast and film content. It has recently supported the US FCC moves to replace the set top box. Its system could well become the navigation system for users’ decisions over their choice of programs and films on any smart device. We currently regulate electronic program guides in the EU, in the public interest to ensure cultural diversity and support the public service missions of our national broadcasters. Imagine the Digital Single Market where all national telecoms companies and broadcasters are beholden to Google’s decisions over their visibility. At the top of the Commssion’s Digital Single Market policy proposals are issues over geo-blocking and access to programmes, football and films from different member states. Our cultural diversity rules and policies about media ownership and control also need to be understood in terms of the new digital reality.

Google’s central position on smartphones and smart devices also allows it to affect user choices over many other industries. The economy is shifting to industrial use of the Internet, known as the Internet of Things. For example, Google is a short step away from becoming central to peoples’ decisions over their choice not only of mobile services and media and telecoms suppliers, but of payments systems and products controlled by, accessed from and bought through smart devices. This may affect our choices for everyday essentials in addition to telecoms, such as groceries and energy, in fact anything where the smart device is the interface to the web.

The Commission has recognised that a truly Digital Single Market is at the heart of the European economy. A healthy economy needs a healthy heart. This means one that functions effectively for users, and industry, alike. We believe that Google is close to the heart of the economy and restricts its proper functioning. The entire system needs to be robust and the body of the economy needs to be competitive. For this to happen, Google needs to operate openly, transparently and in a non discriminatory way, in the wider public interest.

ICOMP’s members represent a wide range of interests in the digital sphere, and seeks to promote a healthy and vibrant EU economy. Our membership not only welcomes this SO but the Commission’s on-going investigation and potential extension of the Statement of Objections in the context of the EU economy and its policies to ensure its effective functioning in the future.

Why Yahoo could sell for less than its cash on hand

Why Yahoo could sell for less than its cash on hand: "
Simon Webb and Duncan Nicholls | Getty Images
Wall Street looked for clues on the future of Yahoo Tuesday as the internet company reported earnings that could influence its potential sale. But earnings left at least one important question unanswered: What's the floor of a bid for Yahoo?

 Although pressure mounts for Yahoo to sell itself to the highest bidder, the plan is far from final, experts told CNBC. Indeed, Yahoo hasn't committed to either a reverse-spin-off of its Asian assets nor a sale of its core business — and it's a mystery what's up for auction. 


Despite declining revenues, Yahoo announced Tuesday it had $7.1 billion in cash. But media outlets like Re/code and The Wall Street Journal have sources that say bids are likely to come in a range of $4 billion to $8 billion dollars.

‹

Yahoo's Mayer: We know what the 'top priority' is

Yahoo team may not be capable of sale: Starboard's Smith
›

So if Yahoo has $7.1 billion in cash on hand, why would a potential buyer think they could get $3 billion less?
"It is still not clear what is being offered in the auction, but I can almost guarantee you that it does not include cash on hand," said Aswath Damodaran, finance professor at the Stern School of Business, who has owned shares of Yahoo.
Damodaran initially valued Yahoo in 2014, calling the company "a puzzle, a mystery and an enigma." He found the core business was worth $4.6 billion and has declined in value since." 'via Blog this'

REVEALED: Privacy International Releases Trove of Documents That Proves Staggering Reach of Surveillance Agencies | Privacy International

REVEALED: Privacy International Releases Trove of Documents That Proves Staggering Reach of Surveillance Agencies | Privacy International:

"Since March 2016 Privacy International has received over 1000 pages of disclosure from the intelligence agencies.

On 12 March 2015, the Intelligence and Security Committee published its report “Privacy and Security: A modern and accountable legal framework” (“the ISC Report”). The ISC report disclosed, for the first time, the existence of Bulk Personal Datasets:

The publication of this Report is an important first step in bringing the agencies ‘out of the shadows’. It has set out in detail the full range of the agencies’ intrusive capabilities, as well as the internal policy arrangements that regulate their use. It has also, for the first time, avowed Bulk Personal Datasets as an agency capability” (underlining indicates emphasis added)." 'via Blog this'

5 things to know about Margrethe Vestager’s Google probe

5 things to know about Margrethe Vestager’s Google probe – POLITICO: "European antitrust enforcers can extract fines of up to 10 percent of a company’s global revenues. In Alphabet’s case, that would work out as several billion, although European antitrust enforcers have yet to top the €1 billion fine they imposed on chipmaker Intel in 2009.

But it doesn’t have to come to that.

 “FairSearch believes that the effects of Google’s anti-competitive behavior can be resolved through remedies,” said the organization in a statement Monday, arguing Android should stop forcing phonemakers to install a suite of apps if their want to get the Play Store.

 Yet such negotiations can be difficult to close: Google and the Commission spent years trying to settle a 2010 probe into Google’s search engine. That fight continues, and now the Commission is opening a second front." 'via Blog this'

Reflection on the Review of the ePrivacy Directive workshop

Reflection on the Review of the ePrivacy Directive workshop — Medium: "Gwendal Legrand from CNIL (the French data protection authority) shifted the debate to other forms of measures that can be done on the browsers level (for example, privacy as default settings) and mentioned Do-Not-Track (DNT) as a possible technical measure.

Frederik Borgesius a researcher at Institute for Information Law at the University of Amsterdam, suggested that the scope of the Directive needs be wider and include over-the-top services (OTT), such as Whatsapp and Skype, and pointed that the ePrivacy also deals with another fundamental right which is the freedom of expression.

Estelle Masse from Access Now an NGO advocating for digital rights, argued that the Directive does not differentiate between different kind of cookies, specifically first and third parties, while other types such as super-cookies already exist and are resilient to users’ control mechanisms as they come back again after deletion. Masse mentioned their research on privacy concerns over cellphone tracking headers and pointed to the risks it involves. " 'via Blog this'

How Europe Is Going After Google, Amazon and Other U.S. Tech Giants

How Europe Is Going After Google, Amazon and Other U.S. Tech Giants - The New York Times: "In February, European officials agreed to a new so-called safe-harbor deal with the United States that would govern how American tech giants and thousands of other businesses move people’s digital data, including social media posts and financial information, back and forth across the Atlantic.

The agreement aims to address privacy concerns by including written guarantees by the United States — to be reviewed annually — that American intelligence agencies would not have indiscriminate access to Europeans’ digital data when it is sent across the Atlantic.

Europe’s highest court in October 2015 had struck down an earlier safe-harbor agreement, saying it was flawed because it allowed American government authorities to gain routine access to Europeans’ online information.

That ruling, by the European Court of Justice, empowered regulators of data privacy in each of the bloc’s nations to evaluate how data is moved from their countries to the United States, and it will permit national authorities to impose tougher restrictions on specific data transfers.

In April, Europe’s national privacy regulators said the safe-harbor deal did not go far enough to safeguard the personal information of Internet users in Europe, serving notice that American companies could face protracted country-by-country legal battles even if the safe-harbor agreement is ratified. 


Separately, American technology companies are facing many regulatory challenges over taxation, antitrust and privacy matters.

On taxation, European Union officials are intent on imposing a blocwide standard for taxation and clawing back what they consider improper tax breaks granted by national governments to multinational companies, including the technology giants." 'via Blog this'

Europe Tried to Rein In Google. It Backfired

Europe Tried to Rein In Google. It Backfired. - The New York Times: "In the almost two years since Europeans gained the “right to be forgotten” on the Internet, Google has passed judgment in over 418,000 cases — roughly 572 a day — from people wanting links of certain search results to be removed, according to the company's records. It has approved fewer than half of those requests, all behind closed doors.

Google’s total number of privacy-related judgments is double those of most of Europe’s biggest individual national authorities over the same period, even though these public agencies address a wider range of data protection complaints.

 Despite a history of animosity toward the company, national regulators have handed over the review powers to Google with few complaints, saying they are merely following Europe’s complex data protection rules. Other search companies, including Microsoft, have been given the same authority, though their number of judgments pales by comparison.

Some consumer groups and privacy experts are not satisfied with that arrangement. They have sounded alarm bells over a for-profit company — one that relies on tapping into people’s digital lives to make billions of dollars and that is the subject of multiple privacy and antitrust investigations — playing such a central role in protecting individuals’ data, and doing so in such a secretive manner.

 Google has not responded to requests, including an open letter last year from primarily European and American academics, to explain how its review process works. And since 2014, when “right to be forgotten” was enshrined, the company has declined to give any journalists access to its team of fewer than 50 employees — mostly lawyers and paralegals based at its Dublin offices — who review the demands. Google also did not respond to questions for this article about the decision process." 'via Blog this'

The secret rules of the internet

The secret rules of the internet | The Verge: "While tech solutions are rapidly emerging, the cultural ones are slower in coming. Emily Laidlaw, assistant professor of law at University of Calgary and author of Regulating Speech in Cyberspace, calls for "a clarification of the applicability of existing laws." For starters, she says, Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act needs immediate overhaul. Companies, she argues, should no longer be entirely absolved of liability for the content they host.

 For more than five years, Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society has pushed for industry-wide best practices. Their recommendations include corporate transparency, consistency, clarity, and a mechanism for customer recourse. Other civil society advocates call for corporate grievance mechanisms that are accessible and transparent in accordance with international human rights law, or call on corporations to engage in public dialogue with such active stakeholders as the Anti Defamation League, the Digital Rights Foundation, and the National Network to End Domestic Violence.

"What we do is informed by external conversations that we have," explained Facebook’s Bickert in early March. "Every day, we are in conversations with groups around the world… So, while we are responsible for overseeing these policies and managing them, it is really a global conversation."" 'via Blog this'

Wireless Industry Survey: Everybody Really Loves Zero Rating

Wireless Industry Survey: Everybody Really Loves Zero Rating | Techdirt: "The majority of consumers still don't really understand what zero rating is, much less that there's some obvious hidden costs involved.

As such, when approached with "free" services, they're thrilled.

They generally don't understand that the usage caps selected by their ISP are an arbitrary, artificial construct to begin with, untethered to financial or network congestion reality. Or that the very practice of giving wealthier, bigger companies cap-exempt status puts other smaller companies (and non-profits and educational efforts) at a very real disadvantage in the market. Or that over the years, data has shown that caps aren't an effective way to target network congestion, can hinder innovation, hurt competitors (especially if an ISP's exempting only its own services), and confuse consumers, many of whom aren't even sure what a gigabyte is.

So yes, it's complicated, and requires some education. " 'via Blog this'

We will look back at cyber-harassment as a disgrace – if we act now: Danielle Citron

We will look back at cyber-harassment as a disgrace – if we act now | Danielle Citron | Opinion | The Guardian: "Legal developments reflect a growing understanding of cyber-harassment’s harms. In the US, 27 states have criminalised revenge porn – also known as non-consensual pornography. California’s attorney general Kamala Harris created a first-of-its-kind online resource to train law enforcement about cyber-harassment. Her office successfully prosecuted revenge porn operators for soliciting the posting of nude photos and charging for their removal. Inspired by Harris, the Federal Trade Commission entered into a consent decree with a revenge porn operator for inducing the disclosure of confidential information for financial gain.

 In the UK, cyber-harassers have been held responsible for their destruction. There are now laws to bring to bear against online abuse. Prosecutions under the Malicious Communications Act have resulted in convictions, as in the case involving death threats tweeted at Caroline Criado-Perez. In April 2015, the UK criminalised revenge pornography. What the UK still needs is better training of law enforcement and perhaps some clarification of the laws already on the books rather than a new set of laws, as the Conservative MP Maria Miller suggested this week." 'via Blog this'

User:ClueBot NG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:ClueBot NG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

"ClueBot-NG is not a person, it is an automatic robot that tries to detect vandalism and keep Wikipedia clean. A false positive is when an edit that is not vandalism is incorrectly classified as vandalism.

The bot is not biased against you, your edit, or your viewpoint (unless your edit is vandalism).

False positives are rare, but do occur. By handling false positives well without getting upset, you are helping this bot catch almost half of all vandalism on Wikipedia and keep the wiki clean for all of us.

False positives with ClueBot-NG are (essentially) inevitable. For it to be effective at catching a great deal of vandalism, a few constructive (or at least, well-intentioned) edits are caught. There are very few false positives, but they do happen.

If one of your edits is incorrectly identified as vandalism, simply redo your edit, remove the warning from your talk page, and if you wish, report the false positive. ClueBot-NG is not (yet) sentient — it is an automated robot, and if it incorrectly reverts your edit, it does not mean that your edit is bad, or even substandard — it's just a random error in the bot's classification, just like email spam filters sometimes incorrectly classify messages as spam." 'via Blog this'

Hyperlinking to unlicensed Playboy photos is not copyright infringement says Advocate General

Hyperlinking to unlicensed Playboy photos is not copyright infringement says Advocate General - Lexology: "In order to establish an act of communication, the intervention of the ‘hyperlinker’ must be vital or indispensable in order to benefit from or enjoy the works. The AG referred to the case in Football Association Premier League and Others (C-403/08 and C-429/08) where the owner of a pub intentionally gave his customers access to a copyright-protected broadcast, without which access, they would not have been able to enjoy the broadcast works.

He considered that it had to follow that hyperlinks posted on a website which direct to copyright-protected works freely accessible on another website cannot be classified as an ‘act of communication’ because the intervention of the website operator which posts the hyperlink, in this case GS Media, is not vital or necessary to enable users to access the Playboy photographs, including those who visit the GeenStijl website.

It is also not sufficient that the hyperlink facilitates or simplifies users’ access to the work in question.
Even though GS Media was aware that the photographs on Filefactory.com and Imageshack.us had been leaked but had still provided hyperlinks on the GeenStijl website 'in flagrant violation of the rights of the author of those works', because there was no act of communication,

GS Media’s motives and the fact that it was or ought to have been aware that the initial communication of those photographs on the other websites had not been authorised by Sanoma were irrelevant." 'via Blog this'

Eric Goldman: intermediary liability and S.230 CDA 1996

Eric Goldman: intermediary liability and S.230 of the Communications Decency Act 1996 : News and events : ... : Law : University of Sussex: "Thursday 14 April
13:00 until 14:00
Moot Room, Freeman Building

Speaker: Eric Goldman
Add this event to your calendar

Professor Eric Goldman visits Sussex to speak about intermediary liability and the most important legislation in the history of internet law: S.230 of the Communications Decency Act 1996.

Professor Goldman is the world’s leading academic expert on the subject, having taught internet law since 1995. Eric Goldman is a Professor of Law at Santa Clara University School of Law, where he is also Director of the school’s High Tech Law Institute." 'via Blog this'

GDPR - ST_5419_2016_INIT - EN - EUR-Lex

EUR-Lex - ST_5419_2016_INIT - EN - EUR-Lex: "REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation)

ST 5419 2016 INIT - 2012/011 (OLP)" 'via Blog this'

Joined Cases C-293/12 & 594/12 Digital Rights Ireland & Seitlinger: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Joined Cases C-293/12 and 594/12 Digital Rights Ireland and Seitlinger and Others: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly |: "In its eagerly anticipated judgment in the Digital Rights Ireland case, the European Court of Justice held that the EU legislature had exceeded the limits of the principle of proportionality in relation to certain provisions of the EU Charter (Articles 7, 8 and 52(1)) by adopting the Data Retention Directive. In this regard, the reasoning of the Court resembled that of its Advocate General (the facts of these proceedings and an analysis of the Advocate General’s Opinion have been the subject of a previous blog post). However, unlike the Advocate General, the Court deemed the Directive to be invalid without limiting the temporal effects of its finding. This post will consider the Court’s main findings before commenting on the good, the bad and the ugly in the judgment." 'via Blog this'

How 'unfriendly' ISP cables are tapped

https://twitter.com/csoghoian/status/715547487231152128

Infringing Website List (IWL) - Intellectual Property Office with no due process

Infringing Website List (IWL) - YouTube: "Mar 24, 2016
This film explains how brands and advertising companies can sign up to the IWL to stop their ads appearing on illegal websites" 'via Blog this'

Guerilla Cyclist — Hogan Lovells' assessment of Privacy Shield is as...

Guerilla Cyclist — Hogan Lovells' assessment of Privacy Shield is as...: "I wonder if the Commission asked Hogan Lovells to write an opinion on how a successor to SH could be made to meet the requirements of the EU Court of Justice (Digital Rights Ireland and Schremms); and if this present HL analysis is actually a re-use of that opinion, with the original being kept secret as “legally privileged”.
The Privacy Shield (PS) is linked in an odd way to a bunch of other documents, including letters from various US officials, listed on p. 28, the precise status of which are seriously unclear.

 The report makes this odd remark about them (directly underneath the list):
“Taken together these letters are presented as binding commitments from the US government that there are meaningful and effective limitations on the US government’s access to data transferred under the Privacy Shield.”

What the hell does that mean? Are they binding:
In international law — do they constitute a treaty between the EU and the USA in the sense of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties?
in US law? What exactly is the status of these “letters”? Can they be relied upon in US courts by EU data subjects?
Even from a quick reading, I can see at least four further crucial defects in the Hogan Lovells analysis:" 'via Blog this'