SCL: Forgetting What We Never Knew: "In NT 1 & Anor v Google LLC [2018] EWHC 261 (QB) (and the earlier judgment at [2018] EWHC 67 (QB)) we appear to be heading for ground-breaking judgments on the so-called right to be forgotten when we have no idea what information is sought to be erased from the Google search records.
We face the very real prospect that the lead judgment on this important issue will be based on a set of facts of which all applying the principles set out in the judgment remain in ignorance. All I can say, at least while using appropriate language, is that the situation is going to make life tough and, perhaps more important, is going to leave the goal virtually unguarded when the media weigh in with their inevitable attacks on any restrictions that the judgment seeks to apply.
We know that the information at the heart of each claim concerns an old criminal conviction.
The claimants say that in some respects the information returned by Google is inaccurate, and in any event ‘way out of date and … being maintained for far longer than is necessary for any conceivable legitimate purpose’. The Google defences include an assertion that the information is substantially accurate, and the propositions that if its search results involved the processing or disclosure of personal data or private information about the claimants this was necessary for the exercise of freedom of expression by internet users and/or necessary for the purposes of its own legitimate interests and/or (in at least some respects) was otherwise in the substantial public interest.
Google's defences apparently involve reliance on a deal of background information about the claimants, and the convictions which they seek to have de-listed.
Counsel for the media describe the issues as having ‘potentially profound and far-reaching ramifications on both a legal and general public interest level’.
The Court is concerned, especially in a context where there will be ‘substantial and obviously legitimate interest’ in the cases, about ‘open justice’. But, as Warby J states, ‘the proceedings would be self-defeating if the claimants were obliged, as the price of bringing their claims before the court, to submit every detail of the information they seek to protect to public scrutiny’.
I don’t envy Warby J as he seeks to frame a judgment which makes sense while having to use a range of techniques to protect the claimants’ identity. And I don’t envy those reporting the case while still respecting the reporting restrictions that apply. " 'via Blog this'
Tuesday, 27 February 2018
CYBER BLOCKCHAIN: Digital Currencies Inquiry
SCL: Digital Currencies Inquiry: "The House of Commons Treasury Select Committee has announced an inquiry into ‘digital currencies’.
The influential committee, chaired by Nicky Morgan MP, will look at the role of digital currencies in the UK, including the opportunities and risks that digital currencies may bring to consumers, businesses, and the Government.
It aims to examine the potential impact of distributed ledger technology—such as blockchain—on financial institutions, including the central bank, and financial infrastructure.
It will also scrutinise the regulatory response to digital currencies from the Government, the Financial Conduct Authority, and the Bank of England, and how regulation could be balanced to provide adequate protection for consumers and businesses without stifling innovation.
The Committee’s terms of reference are as follows"
'via Blog this'
The influential committee, chaired by Nicky Morgan MP, will look at the role of digital currencies in the UK, including the opportunities and risks that digital currencies may bring to consumers, businesses, and the Government.
It aims to examine the potential impact of distributed ledger technology—such as blockchain—on financial institutions, including the central bank, and financial infrastructure.
It will also scrutinise the regulatory response to digital currencies from the Government, the Financial Conduct Authority, and the Bank of England, and how regulation could be balanced to provide adequate protection for consumers and businesses without stifling innovation.
The Committee’s terms of reference are as follows"
'via Blog this'
JURISDICTION & PRIVACY: Europe seeks power to seize overseas data in challenge to tech giants
Europe seeks power to seize overseas data in challenge to tech giants: "The proposed rules are the latest attempt by authorities around the world to update regulations to keep pace with technology. In May the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) will come into effect, requiring firms to give customers more control over their online information.
The planned law would give European prosecutors the power to compel companies to hand over data, bypassing existing legal channels known as mutual legal assistance treaties (MLAT).
Jourova said the law would apply to crimes which carry a minimum penalty of three years to ensure serious crimes like terrorism and drug trafficking are covered, however discussions are still ongoing.
Under MLAT, which is widely criticized for being unwieldy and slow, a European prosecutor would have to go to the government of the country where the data was stored and ask for a local subpoena or search warrant.
Some privacy campaigners agree that the MLAT system needs to be changed to speed up the process, but oppose any moves to requisition personal data across borders." 'via Blog this'
The planned law would give European prosecutors the power to compel companies to hand over data, bypassing existing legal channels known as mutual legal assistance treaties (MLAT).
Jourova said the law would apply to crimes which carry a minimum penalty of three years to ensure serious crimes like terrorism and drug trafficking are covered, however discussions are still ongoing.
Under MLAT, which is widely criticized for being unwieldy and slow, a European prosecutor would have to go to the government of the country where the data was stored and ask for a local subpoena or search warrant.
Some privacy campaigners agree that the MLAT system needs to be changed to speed up the process, but oppose any moves to requisition personal data across borders." 'via Blog this'
PRIVACY: Facebook loses Belgian privacy case, faces fine of up to $125 million
Facebook loses Belgian privacy case, faces fine of up to $125 million: "In a case brought by Belgium’s privacy watchdog, the court also ruled that Facebook had to delete all data it had gathered illegally on Belgian citizens, including people who were not Facebook users themselves.
Facebook, which will be fined 250,000 euros a day or up to 100 million euros if it does not comply with the court’s judgment, said in a statement it would appeal the ruling.
“Facebook informs us insufficiently about gathering information about us, the kind of data it collects, what it does with that data and how long it stores it,” the court said.
“It also does not gain our consent to collect and store all this information,” it added in a statement.
The social media group uses different methods to track the online behavior of people if they are not on the company’s web site by placing cookies and invisible pixels on third-party web sites, the court said." 'via Blog this'
Facebook, which will be fined 250,000 euros a day or up to 100 million euros if it does not comply with the court’s judgment, said in a statement it would appeal the ruling.
“Facebook informs us insufficiently about gathering information about us, the kind of data it collects, what it does with that data and how long it stores it,” the court said.
“It also does not gain our consent to collect and store all this information,” it added in a statement.
The social media group uses different methods to track the online behavior of people if they are not on the company’s web site by placing cookies and invisible pixels on third-party web sites, the court said." 'via Blog this'
Sunday, 25 February 2018
Ireland pushes for UK TV channels to make post-Brexit move- Guardian
Ireland pushes for UK TV channels to make post-Brexit move | Politics | The Guardian: "Ireland is facing stiff competition for the Brexit spoils. It is understood Belgian authorities have also held events in London for the broadcasting industry, and Luxembourg has been sending letters out to TV chiefs arguing it is a natural home for TV as the operator of the Astra satellite system which distributes all the main UK channels including Sky and the BBC.
The Netherlands, where Netflix is based, is also considered to be in a good position.
Ireland has already lured 21 financial services to Dublin because of Brexit, including Bank of America, JP Morgan, Barclays and the credit agency Standard & Poor’s.
The Ofcom chief executive, Sharon White, warned last year “some are having to consider the disruption of relocation” warning that broadcasters may move staff “early” this year." 'via Blog this'
The Netherlands, where Netflix is based, is also considered to be in a good position.
Ireland has already lured 21 financial services to Dublin because of Brexit, including Bank of America, JP Morgan, Barclays and the credit agency Standard & Poor’s.
The Ofcom chief executive, Sharon White, warned last year “some are having to consider the disruption of relocation” warning that broadcasters may move staff “early” this year." 'via Blog this'
Saturday, 24 February 2018
CYBER Privacy: Letter to EU Commissioners: UK proposed ‘immigration exemptions’ from Data Protection Bill
Open Rights Group - Letter to EU Commissioners: Concern over United Kingdom’s proposed ‘immigration exemptions’ from Data Protection Bill: "The blanket immigration exemptions go beyond the necessity and proportionality of restrictions under Article 23 of the GDPR and directly interfere with an individual’s right of access to data, and for their data to be processed fairly under Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
We are concerned about the potential impact the immigration exemptions will have on the United Kingdom’s adequacy when it leaves the European Union.
The judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Maximillian Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner C- 362/14, lays out at para 74 in no uncertain terms, that the practical requirement for adequacy requires:
“...protection essentially equivalent to that guaranteed within the European Union.”
And at para. 95:
“Legislation not providing for any possibility for an individual to pursue legal remedies in order to have access to personal data relating to him, or to obtain the rectification or erasure of such data, does not respect the essence of the fundamental right to effective judicial protection, as enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter.”
Each of you represent an institution which holds a mandate to protect the interests of EU citizens and uphold the Charter of Fundamental Rights. That mandate includes the respect of these rights by member states.
We believe these proposed exemptions are particularly significant to all EU citizens currently resident in the United Kingdom in maintaining the protection of rights guaranteed to them in the Charter of Fundamental Rights." 'via Blog this'
We are concerned about the potential impact the immigration exemptions will have on the United Kingdom’s adequacy when it leaves the European Union.
The judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Maximillian Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner C- 362/14, lays out at para 74 in no uncertain terms, that the practical requirement for adequacy requires:
“...protection essentially equivalent to that guaranteed within the European Union.”
And at para. 95:
“Legislation not providing for any possibility for an individual to pursue legal remedies in order to have access to personal data relating to him, or to obtain the rectification or erasure of such data, does not respect the essence of the fundamental right to effective judicial protection, as enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter.”
Each of you represent an institution which holds a mandate to protect the interests of EU citizens and uphold the Charter of Fundamental Rights. That mandate includes the respect of these rights by member states.
We believe these proposed exemptions are particularly significant to all EU citizens currently resident in the United Kingdom in maintaining the protection of rights guaranteed to them in the Charter of Fundamental Rights." 'via Blog this'
CYBER Privacy: Letter to EU Commissioners: UK proposed ‘immigration exemptions’ from Data Protection Bill
Open Rights Group - Letter to EU Commissioners: Concern over United Kingdom’s proposed ‘immigration exemptions’ from Data Protection Bill: "The blanket immigration exemptions go beyond the necessity and proportionality of restrictions under Article 23 of the GDPR and directly interfere with an individual’s right of access to data, and for their data to be processed fairly under Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
We are concerned about the potential impact the immigration exemptions will have on the United Kingdom’s adequacy when it leaves the European Union.
The judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Maximillian Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner C- 362/14, lays out at para 74 in no uncertain terms, that the practical requirement for adequacy requires:
“...protection essentially equivalent to that guaranteed within the European Union.”
And at para. 95:
“Legislation not providing for any possibility for an individual to pursue legal remedies in order to have access to personal data relating to him, or to obtain the rectification or erasure of such data, does not respect the essence of the fundamental right to effective judicial protection, as enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter.”
Each of you represent an institution which holds a mandate to protect the interests of EU citizens and uphold the Charter of Fundamental Rights. That mandate includes the respect of these rights by member states.
We believe these proposed exemptions are particularly significant to all EU citizens currently resident in the United Kingdom in maintaining the protection of rights guaranteed to them in the Charter of Fundamental Rights." 'via Blog this'
We are concerned about the potential impact the immigration exemptions will have on the United Kingdom’s adequacy when it leaves the European Union.
The judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Maximillian Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner C- 362/14, lays out at para 74 in no uncertain terms, that the practical requirement for adequacy requires:
“...protection essentially equivalent to that guaranteed within the European Union.”
And at para. 95:
“Legislation not providing for any possibility for an individual to pursue legal remedies in order to have access to personal data relating to him, or to obtain the rectification or erasure of such data, does not respect the essence of the fundamental right to effective judicial protection, as enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter.”
Each of you represent an institution which holds a mandate to protect the interests of EU citizens and uphold the Charter of Fundamental Rights. That mandate includes the respect of these rights by member states.
We believe these proposed exemptions are particularly significant to all EU citizens currently resident in the United Kingdom in maintaining the protection of rights guaranteed to them in the Charter of Fundamental Rights." 'via Blog this'
CYBER China's Xinjiang surveillance is the dystopian future nobody wants
China's Xinjiang surveillance is the dystopian future nobody wants: "Today, Xinjiang has both a massive security presence and ubiquitous surveillance technology: facial-recognition cameras; iris and body scanners at checkpoints, gas stations and government facilities; the collection of DNA samples for a massive database; mandatory apps that monitor messages and data flow on Uyghurs' smartphones; drones to monitor the borders.
While there's some debate over how advanced the system tying these technologies together is, it's clear that China's plan is for a fully integrated system that uses artificial intelligence to rapidly process massive amounts of information for use by the similarly massive numbers of police in convenience stations.
"[Xinjiang] represents a very new frontier and approach when it comes to online surveillance and oppression."
For Uyghurs, it means that wherever they go, whomever they talk to and even whatever they read online are all being monitored by the Chinese government. According to The New York Times, "When Uighurs buy a kitchen knife, their ID data is etched on the blade as a QR code."" 'via Blog this'
While there's some debate over how advanced the system tying these technologies together is, it's clear that China's plan is for a fully integrated system that uses artificial intelligence to rapidly process massive amounts of information for use by the similarly massive numbers of police in convenience stations.
"[Xinjiang] represents a very new frontier and approach when it comes to online surveillance and oppression."
For Uyghurs, it means that wherever they go, whomever they talk to and even whatever they read online are all being monitored by the Chinese government. According to The New York Times, "When Uighurs buy a kitchen knife, their ID data is etched on the blade as a QR code."" 'via Blog this'
Wednesday, 21 February 2018
China’s "shameless" former internet czar Lu Wei was expelled from the Communist Party and investigated for corruption — Quartz
China’s "shameless" former internet czar Lu Wei was expelled from the Communist Party and investigated for corruption — Quartz: "An usually high-profile party official, Lu was the face of China’s vicious crackdown on the internet and free speech in the last few years. The CCDI statement reads as a rebuke of his flamboyance and swagger in the way he dealt with foreign tech giants including Apple and Facebook, and how he promoted China’s controlled vision for the global internet.
In 2014 when asked by a reporter why foreign sites like Facebook and Twitter are blocked in China, Lu infamously said: “We have never shut down any foreign sites. Your website is on your home soil. How can I go over to your home and shut it down?” Later that year, Lu toured Facebook’s offices in California, during which CEO Mark Zuckerberg showed him a copy of Xi’s book on communism, and said he had bought it for his employees.
Here’s a translation of all the allegations against Lu included in the statement" 'via Blog this'
In 2014 when asked by a reporter why foreign sites like Facebook and Twitter are blocked in China, Lu infamously said: “We have never shut down any foreign sites. Your website is on your home soil. How can I go over to your home and shut it down?” Later that year, Lu toured Facebook’s offices in California, during which CEO Mark Zuckerberg showed him a copy of Xi’s book on communism, and said he had bought it for his employees.
Here’s a translation of all the allegations against Lu included in the statement" 'via Blog this'
CYBER: Facebook - Financial Filings with US Regulator
Facebook - Financials: "Some of the information or materials made available on this website may contain forward-looking statements. Statements including words such as "believe," "may," "will," "estimate," "continue," "anticipate," "intend," "expect" or similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are subject to assumptions, risks and uncertainties that could cause actual events or actual future results to differ materially from the expectations set forth in the forward-looking statements.
Some of the factors which could cause Facebook's results to differ materially from its expectations include, but are not limited to, those described in the "Risk Factors," "Limitations of Key Metrics and Other Data" and "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" sections in Facebook's most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K or Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they were originally made to the public. Facebook assumes no obligation and does not intend to update these forward-looking statements. " 'via Blog this'
Some of the factors which could cause Facebook's results to differ materially from its expectations include, but are not limited to, those described in the "Risk Factors," "Limitations of Key Metrics and Other Data" and "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" sections in Facebook's most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K or Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they were originally made to the public. Facebook assumes no obligation and does not intend to update these forward-looking statements. " 'via Blog this'
CYBER: EC Illegal_content_Draft_recommendation
Or is it? Leaked to EDRi by a whistle blower, now online. Check the edits, very important 'via Blog this'
Saturday, 17 February 2018
CYBER Blockchain Week 6: Confessions of a Bitcoin sceptic – TechnoLlama
Confessions of a Bitcoin sceptic – TechnoLlama: "While blockchain hype has been increasing, some scepticism started seeping in. Many projects that started out as blockchain ended up implementing different technologies, this is because institutions thinking of developing a blockchain face time constraints, barriers to adoption, and sheer complexity. More interestingly, of 26,000 blockchain projects listed in the open source repository GitHub in 2016, only 8% survive to this day.
Perhaps the most scathing and interesting attack against blockchain hype has come from Kai Stinchcombe, who made a lot of waves by pointing out that in ten years the practical uses for the blockchain have been minimal, or even non-existent. While I disagree with the categorical statement, he does a good job of dissecting various case studies in favour of the blockchain, and finds them wanting.
Another fantastic critic of blockchain hype and Bitcoin in general is David Gerard, with his awesome book “Attack of the 50 Foot Blockchain“." 'via Blog this'
Perhaps the most scathing and interesting attack against blockchain hype has come from Kai Stinchcombe, who made a lot of waves by pointing out that in ten years the practical uses for the blockchain have been minimal, or even non-existent. While I disagree with the categorical statement, he does a good job of dissecting various case studies in favour of the blockchain, and finds them wanting.
Another fantastic critic of blockchain hype and Bitcoin in general is David Gerard, with his awesome book “Attack of the 50 Foot Blockchain“." 'via Blog this'
Colloquium on Fake News and Disinformation Online 27 February
Colloquium on Fake News and Disinformation Online | Digital Single Market: "Since last November, the Commission has been consulting numerous stakeholders on the issue of fake news and online disinformation in order to define a strategy to tackle this phenomenon.
Given the high public interest, DG Connect has decided to organize a Colloquium on Fake News and Disinformation Online to allow the interested parties to contribute further to the ongoing discussions that will feed into a Communication in spring 2018.
The Colloquium is intended to fine-tune the scope of the fake news issue in complement to the public consultation and the work of the High Level Expert Group. The key outcomes of this Colloquium will enrich the Commission's reflection on this highly complex issue. 27 February 2018, 15:00 – 18:00" 'via Blog this'
Given the high public interest, DG Connect has decided to organize a Colloquium on Fake News and Disinformation Online to allow the interested parties to contribute further to the ongoing discussions that will feed into a Communication in spring 2018.
The Colloquium is intended to fine-tune the scope of the fake news issue in complement to the public consultation and the work of the High Level Expert Group. The key outcomes of this Colloquium will enrich the Commission's reflection on this highly complex issue. 27 February 2018, 15:00 – 18:00" 'via Blog this'
Friday, 16 February 2018
Copyright: Anger at Google image search 'peace deal' - BBC News
Anger at Google image search 'peace deal' - BBC News: "As part of its agreement with Getty Images, the "view image" button has been removed.
While it is still easy for people to download an image, people are now encouraged to trawl through the website it appears on to find it.
Google said the change would "help connect users and useful websites".
Critics said the change made Google Images harder to use
It also removed the "search by image" button, which was an easy way of finding larger copies of photographs.
Getty Images said Google had also agreed to display image copyright information more prominently next to results." 'via Blog this'
While it is still easy for people to download an image, people are now encouraged to trawl through the website it appears on to find it.
Google said the change would "help connect users and useful websites".
Critics said the change made Google Images harder to use
It also removed the "search by image" button, which was an easy way of finding larger copies of photographs.
Getty Images said Google had also agreed to display image copyright information more prominently next to results." 'via Blog this'
Thursday, 15 February 2018
JUST Newsroom - Facebook, Google and Twitter accept to change their terms of services to make them customer-friendly and compliant with EU rules - European Commission
JUST Newsroom - Facebook, Google and Twitter accept to change their terms of services to make them customer-friendly and compliant with EU rules - European Commission: "Today they publish the changes Facebook, Twitter and Google+ made to their terms of services, to align them with the EU consumer protection rules and to ensure the rapid removal of illegal commercial content upon notification.
These changes will benefit more than a quarter billion of EU consumers who use social media. They come as the result of a joint action by national enforcers of the Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) Network led by the French authorities and facilitated by the Commission, which started at the end of 2016." 'via Blog this'
These changes will benefit more than a quarter billion of EU consumers who use social media. They come as the result of a joint action by national enforcers of the Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) Network led by the French authorities and facilitated by the Commission, which started at the end of 2016." 'via Blog this'
Week 5 Surveillance - The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 - YouTube
UKNOF39 - The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 - YouTube: "The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 is the biggest change to the UK's surveillance law framework in 15 years.
Neil will explain the changes, and set out the current position in terms of obligations which can be imposed on telecommunications operators." 'via Blog this'
Neil will explain the changes, and set out the current position in terms of obligations which can be imposed on telecommunications operators." 'via Blog this'
CYBER WEEK 11: Will Democracy Survive Big Data and Artificial Intelligence? - Scientific American
Will Democracy Survive Big Data and Artificial Intelligence? - Scientific American: "We are in the middle of a technological upheaval that will transform the way society is organized. We must make the right decisions now" 'via Blog this'
Union action 2018 : University of Sussex
Union action 2018 : University of Sussex: "The strike action is expected to take place over 14 days, starting from Thursday 22 February.
The dates for industrial action are:
Week 3 - Thursday 22 and Friday 23 February (two days)
Week 4 - Monday 26, Tuesday 27 and Wednesday 28 February (three days)
Week 5 - Monday 5, Tuesday 6, Wednesday 7 and Thursday 8 March (four days)
Week 6 - Monday 12, Tuesday 13, Wednesday 14, Thursday 15 and Friday 16 March (five days)
The University recognises the rights of staff to take lawful industrial action" 'via Blog this'
The dates for industrial action are:
Week 3 - Thursday 22 and Friday 23 February (two days)
Week 4 - Monday 26, Tuesday 27 and Wednesday 28 February (three days)
Week 5 - Monday 5, Tuesday 6, Wednesday 7 and Thursday 8 March (four days)
Week 6 - Monday 12, Tuesday 13, Wednesday 14, Thursday 15 and Friday 16 March (five days)
The University recognises the rights of staff to take lawful industrial action" 'via Blog this'
Judge Tosses Playboy's Lawsuit Over Links to Centerfold Photos | Hollywood Reporter
Judge Tosses Playboy's Lawsuit Over Links to Centerfold Photos | Hollywood Reporter: "U.S. District Judge Fernando Olguin on Wednesday dismissed Playboy's complaint with leave to amend, asking the magazine to carefully evaluate the contentions made in Happy Mutants' motion to dismiss before drafting a second amended complaint.
In short, the website owner argues that there is no evidence that Boing Boing copied or displayed the centerfold photos or that any of its users downloaded the images instead of viewing them.
Olguin quotes a decision in Quentin Tarantino's 2014 lawsuit against Gawker Media over a link to a copy of his Hateful Eight script, which at the time had yet to be produced.
"An allegation that a defendant merely provided the means to accomplish an infringing activity is insufficient to establish a claim for copyright infringement," held U.S. District Judge John F. Walter in that case. "Rather, liability exists if the defendant engages in personal conduct that encourages or assists the infringement."" 'via Blog this'
In short, the website owner argues that there is no evidence that Boing Boing copied or displayed the centerfold photos or that any of its users downloaded the images instead of viewing them.
Olguin quotes a decision in Quentin Tarantino's 2014 lawsuit against Gawker Media over a link to a copy of his Hateful Eight script, which at the time had yet to be produced.
"An allegation that a defendant merely provided the means to accomplish an infringing activity is insufficient to establish a claim for copyright infringement," held U.S. District Judge John F. Walter in that case. "Rather, liability exists if the defendant engages in personal conduct that encourages or assists the infringement."" 'via Blog this'
Sunday, 11 February 2018
Solutions and policy dilemmas regarding minors’ protection online – Research4Committees
Solutions and policy dilemmas regarding minors’ protection online – Research4Committees: "Whereas much emphasis has been put on the use of self-regulation in the past, gradually, a shift to more sophisticated types of co-regulation can be observed. Recent legislative instruments (or review procedures thereof), such as the General Data Protection Regulation or proposals for a new Audiovisual Media Services Directive, require for instance that codes of conduct that are drafted by industry actors are approved by regulatory authorities or impose more stringent procedural safeguards and evaluation mechanisms. Such an approach is especially suitable to reach delicate policy goals, such as the realisation of children’s rights in the digital environment." 'via Blog this'
Friday, 9 February 2018
“No alternative methodology was proposed” – Michael Otsuka – Medium
“No alternative methodology was proposed” – Michael Otsuka – Medium:
There is likely to be a strike at Sussex and all the major old (pre-1992) universities. This is unprecedented - a total (hopefully temporary) breakdown in trust between professors and their universities.
I know pension disputes are almost impenetrable - and the professors' pension is the biggest private scheme in the UK (just bigger than British Telecom in fact!).
Here's what I understand, in simple terms:
the universities put forward a system to fund pensions every 3 years, but this year the goalposts were moved very significantly to account for the very unlikely concept of one or more of the major universities in the UK failing in the next generation. I suspect the problems that could cause such a breakdown in society would be more important than a pension deficit, but the fact is that no research-intensive university has ever failed.
The valuation used would both massively cut professors' pensions and their take-home pay. It is supported by just 42% of those 61 universities, with 53% opposed. I do not know where Sussex sits on this. The link in the article is to analysis by an LSE professor for those of you who like maths!
"Given that Alistair Jarvis is CEO of UUK, it is especially puzzling that the organisation he leads falsely claims, in their latest Q&As, that UCU has proposed no alternative methodology. Had UUK taken on board this alternative approach, rather than denying its existence, we could have avoided the difficulties to the scheme caused by the 42% of UUK members who ‘broke’ the September valuation by calling for a lower level of investment risk (to which UUK’s proposed move to 100% DC is an incoherent response).
Please see this post entitled “An explanation, via buy-to-let analogy, of First Actuarial’s approach…” for further explanation of the merits of the alternative approach whose existence UUK denies." 'via Blog this'
There is likely to be a strike at Sussex and all the major old (pre-1992) universities. This is unprecedented - a total (hopefully temporary) breakdown in trust between professors and their universities.
I know pension disputes are almost impenetrable - and the professors' pension is the biggest private scheme in the UK (just bigger than British Telecom in fact!).
Here's what I understand, in simple terms:
the universities put forward a system to fund pensions every 3 years, but this year the goalposts were moved very significantly to account for the very unlikely concept of one or more of the major universities in the UK failing in the next generation. I suspect the problems that could cause such a breakdown in society would be more important than a pension deficit, but the fact is that no research-intensive university has ever failed.
The valuation used would both massively cut professors' pensions and their take-home pay. It is supported by just 42% of those 61 universities, with 53% opposed. I do not know where Sussex sits on this. The link in the article is to analysis by an LSE professor for those of you who like maths!
"Given that Alistair Jarvis is CEO of UUK, it is especially puzzling that the organisation he leads falsely claims, in their latest Q&As, that UCU has proposed no alternative methodology. Had UUK taken on board this alternative approach, rather than denying its existence, we could have avoided the difficulties to the scheme caused by the 42% of UUK members who ‘broke’ the September valuation by calling for a lower level of investment risk (to which UUK’s proposed move to 100% DC is an incoherent response).
Please see this post entitled “An explanation, via buy-to-let analogy, of First Actuarial’s approach…” for further explanation of the merits of the alternative approach whose existence UUK denies." 'via Blog this'
Germany’s new hate speech act in force: what social network providers need to do now | Technology Law Dispatch
Germany’s new hate speech act in force: what social network providers need to do now | Technology Law Dispatch: "On 1 October 2017, the German Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz (Network Enforcement Act, „NetzDG“) entered into force. The NetzDG shall be an “act to improve enforcement of the law in social networks”, and aims at combating fake news and hate speech. Regulatory offences may be fined by up to EUR 5 million for individuals and up to EUR 50 million for the platform provider itself.
The NetzDG has been criticised since the beginning of the legislative process, as a great number of lawyers deem the law incompatible with the principle of freedom of expression and the upcoming EU E-Privacy Directive that will be effective 25 May 2018.
Therefore, everyone is waiting in suspense for the first complaints brought up against this law to the German Federal Constitutional Court, or even the European Court of Justice." 'via Blog this'
The NetzDG has been criticised since the beginning of the legislative process, as a great number of lawyers deem the law incompatible with the principle of freedom of expression and the upcoming EU E-Privacy Directive that will be effective 25 May 2018.
Therefore, everyone is waiting in suspense for the first complaints brought up against this law to the German Federal Constitutional Court, or even the European Court of Justice." 'via Blog this'
Thursday, 8 February 2018
‘A sign that you’re not keeping up’ – the trouble with Hotmail in 2018: Guardian
‘A sign that you’re not keeping up’ – the trouble with Hotmail in 2018 | Technology | The Guardian: "In the beginning, we all got a Hotmail address to use as an alternative to a work address, some time between discovering email and realising your boss could read them all (circa 1996). The downfall started – and this will be a curiosity to digital natives – when people started to pay for their personal email account. Because it was free, Hotmail attracted all the people who didn’t want to pay or didn’t know you could and the brand thereby became tainted by them, this being the era when paying for stuff still conveyed connoisseurship, rather than cluelessness.
It didn’t help that there was nothing sacred about a Hotmail account, because you could just get another one, so there were a lot of sillynames.featuringrabbits@hotmail.com. Plus it was global, so you could never get your own name unless you added nine digits after it, like a Russian trollbot.
Soon, it was all basically teenagers and people who needed a second email account for their double life.
With the passage of time and the absence of a brand overhaul, the word “hotmail” near your name started to be quite ageing; like “ntlworld” or “blueyonder”, it was a sign that you weren’t keeping up. It was a deduction that wouldn’t stand up in a court of law, but online it is inference, not certainty, that drags you down. When you could have an ageless Yahoo address, there is just no call to leave this kind of footprint, unless “incredibly old” is your calling card." 'via Blog this'
It didn’t help that there was nothing sacred about a Hotmail account, because you could just get another one, so there were a lot of sillynames.featuringrabbits@hotmail.com. Plus it was global, so you could never get your own name unless you added nine digits after it, like a Russian trollbot.
Soon, it was all basically teenagers and people who needed a second email account for their double life.
With the passage of time and the absence of a brand overhaul, the word “hotmail” near your name started to be quite ageing; like “ntlworld” or “blueyonder”, it was a sign that you weren’t keeping up. It was a deduction that wouldn’t stand up in a court of law, but online it is inference, not certainty, that drags you down. When you could have an ageless Yahoo address, there is just no call to leave this kind of footprint, unless “incredibly old” is your calling card." 'via Blog this'
Facebook moderator: I had to be prepared to see anything - BBC News
Facebook moderator: I had to be prepared to see anything - BBC News: ""I think Facebook was caught out by fake news. In the run-up to the US election, it seemed highly off the radar, at least at the time I was working there. I really cannot recall ever hearing the term 'fake news'.
"We saw a lot of news articles that were circulating and reported by users, but I don't ever recall management asking us to browse news articles to make sure that all the facts were accurate.
"It's very monotonous, and you really get used to what's spam and what's not. It just becomes a lot of clicking. Would I recommend it? If you could do anything else, I would say no."
The BBC shared Sarah's story with Facebook. In response, a Facebook spokesman said: "Our reviewers play a crucial role in making Facebook a safe and open environment. This can be very challenging work, and we want to make sure they feel properly supported. That is why we offer regular training, counselling, and psychological support to all our employees and to everyone who works for us through our partners.
"Although we use artificial intelligence where we can, there are now over 7,000 people who review content on Facebook..."" 'via Blog this'
"We saw a lot of news articles that were circulating and reported by users, but I don't ever recall management asking us to browse news articles to make sure that all the facts were accurate.
"It's very monotonous, and you really get used to what's spam and what's not. It just becomes a lot of clicking. Would I recommend it? If you could do anything else, I would say no."
The BBC shared Sarah's story with Facebook. In response, a Facebook spokesman said: "Our reviewers play a crucial role in making Facebook a safe and open environment. This can be very challenging work, and we want to make sure they feel properly supported. That is why we offer regular training, counselling, and psychological support to all our employees and to everyone who works for us through our partners.
"Although we use artificial intelligence where we can, there are now over 7,000 people who review content on Facebook..."" 'via Blog this'
CYBER British courts may unlock secrets of how Trump campaign profiled US voters: Guardian
British courts may unlock secrets of how Trump campaign profiled US voters | Technology | The Guardian: "British data protection laws may provide some transparency on the company at the heart of Trump’s data operation – Cambridge Analytica – and how it created profiles of 240 million Americans. In January, Carroll discovered he – and a group of other citizens – had the right under UK law to ask for his personal data back from the company, and when it failed to supply it, he started filing pre-trial actions to sue the company under British law.
The lawsuit is the result of a unique situation, according to Ravi Naik of Irvine Thanvi Natas, the British solicitor who is leading the case. It arose because although Cambridge Analytica is largely owned by Trump’s biggest donor, hedge-fund billionaire Robert Mercer, and though its vice-president at the time of the US election was Trump’s former chief strategist, Steve Bannon, the company was spun out of an older British military and elections contractor, SCL, with which it still shares staff, directors and a London office." 'via Blog this'
The lawsuit is the result of a unique situation, according to Ravi Naik of Irvine Thanvi Natas, the British solicitor who is leading the case. It arose because although Cambridge Analytica is largely owned by Trump’s biggest donor, hedge-fund billionaire Robert Mercer, and though its vice-president at the time of the US election was Trump’s former chief strategist, Steve Bannon, the company was spun out of an older British military and elections contractor, SCL, with which it still shares staff, directors and a London office." 'via Blog this'
CYBER: Internet legal developments to look out for in 2018
Cyberleagle: Internet legal developments to look out for in 2018: "A preview of some of the UK internet legal developments that we can expect in 2018. Any future EU legislation will be subject to Brexit considerations and may or may not apply in the UK.
EU copyright reform As it navigates the EU legislative process the proposal continues to excite controversy, mainly over the proposed publishers’ ancillary right and the clash between Article 13 and the ECommerce Directive's intermediary liability provisions.
-
EU online business As part of its Digital Single Market proposals the European Commission published a proposal for a Regulation on "Geo-blocking and other forms of discrimination".
Privacy The proposed EU ePrivacy Regulation continues to make a choppy voyage through the EU legislative process.
Intermediary liability On 28 September 2017 the European Commission published a Communication on Tackling Illegal Content Online" 'via Blog this'
EU copyright reform As it navigates the EU legislative process the proposal continues to excite controversy, mainly over the proposed publishers’ ancillary right and the clash between Article 13 and the ECommerce Directive's intermediary liability provisions.
-
EU online business As part of its Digital Single Market proposals the European Commission published a proposal for a Regulation on "Geo-blocking and other forms of discrimination".
Privacy The proposed EU ePrivacy Regulation continues to make a choppy voyage through the EU legislative process.
Intermediary liability On 28 September 2017 the European Commission published a Communication on Tackling Illegal Content Online" 'via Blog this'
CYBER Fake news evidence session in Washington D.C. UK Parliament
Fake news evidence session in Washington D.C. - News from Parliament - UK Parliament: "The Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee questions Google, Facebook and media experts on fake news. The session takes place in Washington DC, the ever first select committee session to be live-streamed from abroad. Watch the session: Fake news
Inquiry: Fake news
Evidence session
MPs from the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee spend a day in Washington D.C. taking evidence on Fake News and misinformation at George Washington University. Starting at 14.00 (UK time)" 'via Blog this'
Inquiry: Fake news
Evidence session
MPs from the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee spend a day in Washington D.C. taking evidence on Fake News and misinformation at George Washington University. Starting at 14.00 (UK time)" 'via Blog this'
CYBER: Claire Wardle on Fake News
Written evidence - Dr Claire Wardle, Shorenstein Centre on Media, Politics and Public Policy: "Definitions
Language and terminology matters, and for that reason the term ‘fake news’ should not be used to discuss this phenomenon. When describing the complexity of information disorder, it is woefully inadequate. Neither the words ‘fake’ nor ‘news’ effectively capture this polluted information ecosystem. Much of the content used as examples in debates on this topic are not fake, they are genuine but used out of context or manipulated.[2] Similarly, to understand the entire ecosystem of polluted information, we need to consider far more than content that mimics ‘news’.
Online formats that should be considered as part of this conversation include:
Websites created to deliberately spread disinformation;
Inaccurate posts on public social media, forums and message boards (Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, 4Chan, Gab etc.);
Inaccurate information shared on closed messaging apps such as WhatsApp, Facebook, Messenger, Telegram or Discord;
Visual posts on social media sites (Instagram, YouTube, Pinterest) and closed messaging apps (including inaccurate photographs, videos, memes, and data visualisations that have been manipulated or fabricated);
Inaccurate information published via so-called ‘dark posts’ on social networks that micro-target updates to certain users;[3]
Text, image and video results on search platforms (e.g. Google, Bing, YouTube)
Inaccurate comments or content published on consumer review sites (e.g. Amazon, TripAdvisor)
Manufactured signatures on online petitions (e.g. Change.org)
Offline events created online, for example the creation of Facebook ‘Events’ pages" 'via Blog this'
Language and terminology matters, and for that reason the term ‘fake news’ should not be used to discuss this phenomenon. When describing the complexity of information disorder, it is woefully inadequate. Neither the words ‘fake’ nor ‘news’ effectively capture this polluted information ecosystem. Much of the content used as examples in debates on this topic are not fake, they are genuine but used out of context or manipulated.[2] Similarly, to understand the entire ecosystem of polluted information, we need to consider far more than content that mimics ‘news’.
Online formats that should be considered as part of this conversation include:
Websites created to deliberately spread disinformation;
Inaccurate posts on public social media, forums and message boards (Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, 4Chan, Gab etc.);
Inaccurate information shared on closed messaging apps such as WhatsApp, Facebook, Messenger, Telegram or Discord;
Visual posts on social media sites (Instagram, YouTube, Pinterest) and closed messaging apps (including inaccurate photographs, videos, memes, and data visualisations that have been manipulated or fabricated);
Inaccurate information published via so-called ‘dark posts’ on social networks that micro-target updates to certain users;[3]
Text, image and video results on search platforms (e.g. Google, Bing, YouTube)
Inaccurate comments or content published on consumer review sites (e.g. Amazon, TripAdvisor)
Manufactured signatures on online petitions (e.g. Change.org)
Offline events created online, for example the creation of Facebook ‘Events’ pages" 'via Blog this'
Week 3 Liability: Why (Allegedly) Defamatory Content On WordPress.com Doesn’t Come Down Without A Court Order | Techdirt
Why (Allegedly) Defamatory Content On WordPress.com Doesn’t Come Down Without A Court Order | Techdirt: "The threat to legitimate speech posed by the notice and takedown process is behind our policy for dealing with defamation complaints. We do not remove user content based only on an allegation of defamation.
We require a court order or judgment on the content at issue before taking action.
The third example above illustrates why we do not honor takedown demands that aren't accompanied by a court order. If we chose not to wait for a court order, but instead eliminated any potential liability by immediately disabling the site, we would have taken an important, and truthful, voice offline.
Our policy is the right one for us, but it can also be costly. We are often sued in defamation cases around the world based on our users' content. At any given time, we have upwards of twenty defamation cases pending against us around the globe.
This is an inevitable side effect of our policies, and we try to be judicious about our involvement in the cases that we do see. Some cases result in a quick and straightforward judgment, but others require more fact-finding and we often face a choice about what our level of involvement should be.
Ideally, we want to spend our resources fighting cases that matter–either because there is a serious risk to the freedom of speech of users who want their content to remain online, or because there is a serious risk to the company or our people. We recognize that we have some power as a host to not only demand a court order before removing content, but also that we can play a part in ensuring a more fair adjudication of some disputes if we are actively involved in a case. We view this as an important role, both for our users and for the values of free speech, especially in cases where important speech issues are at stake and/or there is a very clear differential in power between the complaining party and our user" 'via Blog this'
We require a court order or judgment on the content at issue before taking action.
The third example above illustrates why we do not honor takedown demands that aren't accompanied by a court order. If we chose not to wait for a court order, but instead eliminated any potential liability by immediately disabling the site, we would have taken an important, and truthful, voice offline.
Our policy is the right one for us, but it can also be costly. We are often sued in defamation cases around the world based on our users' content. At any given time, we have upwards of twenty defamation cases pending against us around the globe.
This is an inevitable side effect of our policies, and we try to be judicious about our involvement in the cases that we do see. Some cases result in a quick and straightforward judgment, but others require more fact-finding and we often face a choice about what our level of involvement should be.
Ideally, we want to spend our resources fighting cases that matter–either because there is a serious risk to the freedom of speech of users who want their content to remain online, or because there is a serious risk to the company or our people. We recognize that we have some power as a host to not only demand a court order before removing content, but also that we can play a part in ensuring a more fair adjudication of some disputes if we are actively involved in a case. We view this as an important role, both for our users and for the values of free speech, especially in cases where important speech issues are at stake and/or there is a very clear differential in power between the complaining party and our user" 'via Blog this'
2017 was the year digital ad spending finally beat TV - Recode
2017 was the year digital ad spending finally beat TV - Recode: "Advertisers spent more on digital than traditional TV.
To be specific: Digital ad spending reached $209 billion worldwide — 41 percent of the market — in 2017, while TV brought in $178 billion — 35 percent of the market — in 2017. That’s according to Magna, the research arm of media buying firm IPG Mediabrands.
Bear in mind that this isn’t because TV ads are cratering — TV ad spending is still flat or slowly growing, depending on the year. And in most cases big TV advertisers have yet to move much of their budget over to digital, even though Facebook and Google are working hard to make that happen.
But you can expect that gap to keep growing" 'via Blog this'
To be specific: Digital ad spending reached $209 billion worldwide — 41 percent of the market — in 2017, while TV brought in $178 billion — 35 percent of the market — in 2017. That’s according to Magna, the research arm of media buying firm IPG Mediabrands.
Bear in mind that this isn’t because TV ads are cratering — TV ad spending is still flat or slowly growing, depending on the year. And in most cases big TV advertisers have yet to move much of their budget over to digital, even though Facebook and Google are working hard to make that happen.
But you can expect that gap to keep growing" 'via Blog this'
RIP John Perry Barlow, 1947-2018 / Boing Boing
RIP John Perry Barlow, 1947-2018 / Boing Boing: "As EFF's Cindy Cohn -- who introduced me to Barlow -- writes, Barlow has been recently vilified as a naif who failed to foresee the power of the internet to control and censor, to troll and dox, but nothing could be farther from the truth.
Barlow wrote the Declaration and co-founded the Electronic Frontier Foundation precisely because he foresaw those possibilities: he saw that the world would be remade by general-purpose networks tied to general-purpose computers, and that unless we committed ourselves to making that network free, and fair, and open, that it would give the powerful and wicked the power to exert unprecedented, near-total control over our lives.
Today, Barlow is dead, and his vision is vindicated: the risks Barlow foresaw (along with other EFF founders like John Gilmore and Mitch Kapor) are more imminent than ever" 'via Blog this'
Barlow wrote the Declaration and co-founded the Electronic Frontier Foundation precisely because he foresaw those possibilities: he saw that the world would be remade by general-purpose networks tied to general-purpose computers, and that unless we committed ourselves to making that network free, and fair, and open, that it would give the powerful and wicked the power to exert unprecedented, near-total control over our lives.
Today, Barlow is dead, and his vision is vindicated: the risks Barlow foresaw (along with other EFF founders like John Gilmore and Mitch Kapor) are more imminent than ever" 'via Blog this'
Tuesday, 6 February 2018
Digital Platforms and the Widening EU/US Competition Law and Regulation Gap: About Google Search and Net Neutrality
Digital Platforms and the Widening EU/US Competition Law and Regulation Gap: About Google Search and Net Neutrality Registration, Wed, 21 Feb 2018 at 16:00 | Eventbrite: "The panel will reflect on the increasing EU/US gap in regulating digital platforms with regard to the enforcement of competition law, and net neutrality rules. The first part of the discussion will focus on the EU Commission’s Google Search case and will explore its implications for the interpretation of Article 102 TFEU. The second part of the discussion will take a comparative perspective and will examine the growing EU/US gap in this area, both with regard to the implementation of competition law to digital platforms and net neutrality rules" 'via Blog this'
Friday, 2 February 2018
FAKE NEWS YouTube will put disclaimers on state-funded broadcasts to fight propaganda | Ars Technica
YouTube will put disclaimers on state-funded broadcasts to fight propaganda | Ars Technica: "YouTube's latest strategy to fight the spread of misinformation involves putting a disclaimer on videos from certain news sources. The online video website announced it will start labeling videos posted by state-funded broadcasters to alert viewers that the content is, in some part, funded by a government source.
YouTube will begin labeling videos today, and the policy extends to outlets including the US's Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and the Russian government broadcaster RT.
According to a report by The Wall Street Journal, PBS videos will now have the label "publicly funded American broadcaster," while RT will have this disclaimer: "RT is funded in whole or in part by the Russian government."
FURTHER READING
Here are the Kremlin-backed Facebook ads designed to foment discord in US
The new policy is YouTube's way of informing viewers about where the content they're watching is coming from, a piece of information often hidden or left unsought by the viewers themselves." 'via Blog this'
YouTube will begin labeling videos today, and the policy extends to outlets including the US's Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and the Russian government broadcaster RT.
According to a report by The Wall Street Journal, PBS videos will now have the label "publicly funded American broadcaster," while RT will have this disclaimer: "RT is funded in whole or in part by the Russian government."
FURTHER READING
Here are the Kremlin-backed Facebook ads designed to foment discord in US
The new policy is YouTube's way of informing viewers about where the content they're watching is coming from, a piece of information often hidden or left unsought by the viewers themselves." 'via Blog this'
Content Moderation & Removal at Scale: NOW at Santa Clara Law
Content Moderation & Removal at ScaleSanta Clara Law: "Overview of Each Company’s Operations
Each company will describe their content moderation and removal operations, such as org charts, department names and job titles, headcount, who determines the policies, escalation paths, and “best practice” tips.
Automattic: Paul Sieminski, General Counsel
Dropbox: Ted Dean, Head of Public Policy
Facebook: Monika Bickert, VP Consumer Operations
Google: Nora Puckett, Senior Litigation Counsel
Medium: Alex Feerst, General Counsel and head of Trust & Safety
Pinterest: Adelin Cai, Policy Team
Reddit: Jessica Ashooh, Director of Policy
Wikimedia: Jacob Rogers, Counsel
Yelp: Aaron Schur, Deputy General Counsel, Litigation" 'via Blog this'
Each company will describe their content moderation and removal operations, such as org charts, department names and job titles, headcount, who determines the policies, escalation paths, and “best practice” tips.
Automattic: Paul Sieminski, General Counsel
Dropbox: Ted Dean, Head of Public Policy
Facebook: Monika Bickert, VP Consumer Operations
Google: Nora Puckett, Senior Litigation Counsel
Medium: Alex Feerst, General Counsel and head of Trust & Safety
Pinterest: Adelin Cai, Policy Team
Reddit: Jessica Ashooh, Director of Policy
Wikimedia: Jacob Rogers, Counsel
Yelp: Aaron Schur, Deputy General Counsel, Litigation" 'via Blog this'
Margrethe Vestager on Twitter: ".@Qualcomm to pay fine of €997m"
Margrethe Vestager on Twitter: ".@Qualcomm to pay fine of €997 mio. They illegally shut out rivals from market of LTE baseband chipsets for over 5 years. Misuse of dominant position. Don’t.": ".@Qualcomm to pay fine of €997 mio. They illegally shut out rivals from market of LTE baseband chipsets for over 5 years. Misuse of dominant position. Don’t." 'via Blog this'
COPYRIGHT Article 13 Open letter – Monitoring and Filtering of Internet Content is Unacceptable :: Civil Liberties Union for Europe
Article 13 Open letter – Monitoring and Filtering of Internet Content is Unacceptable :: Civil Liberties Union for Europe: "Article 13 of the proposal on Copyright in the Digital Single Market include obligations on internet companies that would be impossible to respect without the imposition of excessive restrictions on citizens’ fundamental rights.
Article 13 introduces new obligations on internet service providers that share and store user-generated content, such as video or photo-sharing platforms or even creative writing websites, including obligations to filter uploads to their services.
Article 13 appears to provoke such legal uncertainty that online services will have no other option than to monitor, filter and block EU citizens’ communications if they are to have any chance of staying in business.
Article 13 contradicts existing rules and the case law of the Court of Justice. The Directive of Electronic Commerce (2000/31/EC) regulates the liability for those internet companies that host content on behalf of their users. According to the existing rules, there is an obligation to remove any content that breaches copyright rules, once this has been notified to the provider.
Article 13 would force these companies to actively monitor their users‘ content, which contradicts the ‘no general obligation to monitor‘ rules in the Electronic Commerce Directive. The requirement to install a system for filtering electronic communications has twice been rejected by the Court of Justice, in the cases Scarlet Extended (C 70/10) and Netlog/Sabam (C 360/10)." 'via Blog this'
Article 13 introduces new obligations on internet service providers that share and store user-generated content, such as video or photo-sharing platforms or even creative writing websites, including obligations to filter uploads to their services.
Article 13 appears to provoke such legal uncertainty that online services will have no other option than to monitor, filter and block EU citizens’ communications if they are to have any chance of staying in business.
Article 13 contradicts existing rules and the case law of the Court of Justice. The Directive of Electronic Commerce (2000/31/EC) regulates the liability for those internet companies that host content on behalf of their users. According to the existing rules, there is an obligation to remove any content that breaches copyright rules, once this has been notified to the provider.
Article 13 would force these companies to actively monitor their users‘ content, which contradicts the ‘no general obligation to monitor‘ rules in the Electronic Commerce Directive. The requirement to install a system for filtering electronic communications has twice been rejected by the Court of Justice, in the cases Scarlet Extended (C 70/10) and Netlog/Sabam (C 360/10)." 'via Blog this'
Week 11: A Bitcoin Conference Rented a Miami Strip Club—and Regretted It - Bloomberg
A Bitcoin Conference Rented a Miami Strip Club—and Regretted It - Bloomberg: "Moe Levin, CEO of Keynote, which organized the conference, at first defended the choice of venue, calling it “the ideal layout for networking.” Nude performances were halted until 11 p.m., and if it later became a place where people felt uncomfortable, that wasn’t the conference’s fault, he said in a phone interview.
Within a few hours, he did an about-face, a real-time demonstration of the growing pains in the nascent industry. “Having the networking party at E11even was a misstep,” he wrote in an email. “We always aim to be as inclusive as possible and create a safe environment.”
Keynote also will take steps to improve the gender balance at next year’s conference, starting with inviting more women to speak on panels. This year, 85 of the 88 slots for presenters were assigned to men, according to a list posted online.
The earliest days of cryptocurrencies were dominated almost entirely by men, but that’s changing, at least slowly. A 2015 survey indicated that more than 90 percent of Bitcoin users were male; a different survey a year later put the share around 87 percent" 'via Blog this'
Within a few hours, he did an about-face, a real-time demonstration of the growing pains in the nascent industry. “Having the networking party at E11even was a misstep,” he wrote in an email. “We always aim to be as inclusive as possible and create a safe environment.”
Keynote also will take steps to improve the gender balance at next year’s conference, starting with inviting more women to speak on panels. This year, 85 of the 88 slots for presenters were assigned to men, according to a list posted online.
The earliest days of cryptocurrencies were dominated almost entirely by men, but that’s changing, at least slowly. A 2015 survey indicated that more than 90 percent of Bitcoin users were male; a different survey a year later put the share around 87 percent" 'via Blog this'
Week 1: A Code of Ethics for Data Science – dj patil – Medium
A Code of Ethics for Data Science – dj patil – Medium: "2.5 quintillion bytes of data are created every day. It’s created by you when you’re commute to work or school, when you’re shopping, when you get a medical treatment, and even when you’re sleeping. It’s created by you, your neighbors, and everyone around you. So, how do we ensure it’s used ethically?" 'via Blog this'
Thursday, 1 February 2018
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)