International Reactions to U.S. Cybersecurity Policy: The BRICS undersea cable

International Reactions to U.S. Cybersecurity Policy: The BRICS undersea cable - The Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies: "BRICS nations have made significant progress in the institutionalization of their discussions surrounding Internet governance. However, no tangible agreements have emerged from these meetings. The BRICS nations agree that an Internet code of conduct must be developed, but they cannot agree upon what this code should include.

In fact, these meetings have recently produced more intra-bloc disconnect than political harmonization. At the 2015 BRICS summit in Ufa, Russia, India announced its “Indian Vision for the Internet.” India announced its desire to move from state-led Internet governance to a more multi-stakeholder perspective. India’s stance angered Russia, who traditionally views India as a political ally both within the BRICS bloc and outside it.

 Therefore, although the BRICS are united in their desire for alternatives to a United States-led global order, they are fundamentally divided upon how to complete this task." 'via Blog this'

A battle rages for the future of the Web | Ars Technica UK

A battle rages for the future of the Web | Ars Technica UK: ""DRM is a dangerous feature to standardise and have enabled across everyone's browser because it essentially enforces a black box of code to be installed on your browser which cannot be audited or looked at or even talked about by security researchers," Harry Halpin, a W3C employee who publicly threatened to quit in protest over the proposed EME standard, and left the organisation at the end of 2016, tells Ars.

Joi Ito, director of MIT's Media Lab, agrees. "By allowing DRM to be included in the standard we 'break' the architecture of the Internet by allowing companies to create places to store data and run code on your computer that do you not have access to,” he explains to Ars. "We will be left with a broken and fragile architecture, as well as browsers whose internal are off-limits to security researchers, who face brutal punishment for trying to determine whether your gateway to the Internet is secure enough to rely on."" 'via Blog this'

The Right Tools: Europe's Intermediary Liability Laws and the 2016 General Data Protection Regulation by Daphne Keller :: SSRN

The Right Tools: Europe's Intermediary Liability Laws and the 2016 General Data Protection Regulation by Daphne Keller :: SSRN: "The so-called “Right to Be Forgotten” established by the Court of Justice of the European Union in 2014 is about to change. The EU's General Data Protection Regulation, which goes into effect in 2018, introduces new notice-and-takedown rules for online information targeted by “Right to Be Forgotten” erasure requests. The new rules are ripe for abuse. They give private Internet platforms powerful incentives to remove user-generated content – whether or not that content, or the intermediaries’ processing of the content, violates any law. This threat to online expression and information could be reduced through procedural checks and balances in the OSPs’ removal operations and before regulators and courts.

This article details the problematic GDPR provisions, examines the convergence of European Data Protection and Intermediary Liability Law, and proposes ways that the EU’s own Intermediary Liability laws can restore balanced protections for privacy and information rights under the new law." 'via Blog this'

Online platforms and human rights - Cyberlaw seminar 16/2

Online platforms, such as social networks and other interactive online services, give rise to transnational “cyber-spaces” where individuals can gather and express their personalities imparting and receiving information and ideas. By reason of their transnational dimension as well as of their private nature, online platforms are regulated through contractual provisions, unilaterally established by the platforms’ providers and enshrined in the platforms’ Terms of Service (ToS).

Hence it may be argued that, by regulating the use of information within a specific online platform, ToS undertake a normative function that may be compared to that of the “Law of the Land”. However, differently from the Law of the Land, the contractual provisions delineated in the ToS can be applied in different jurisdictions, thus affecting platform users in spite of their geographical location. Furthermore, the private decisions that may be taken by the platform provider in order to implement the ToS (e.g. removing content which is not compatible with the ToS provisions) are not subject to the constitutional guarantees that frame public action in national jurisdictions.

In addition, it should be noted that the spectrum of rights and remedies that are granted to platform users through the ToS may be difficult to comprehend or even read in its entirety, and similar platforms may be regulated through very different provisions that might be unilaterally modified by platform providers.

In our seminar next Thursday 16 February, we will discuss the framework through which one could analyze the ToS of major online platforms from a human rights perspective. In particular, we will look at the scope of the international human rights to freedom of expression, privacy and due process, and the role of positive obligations imposed on States to ensure the existence of a sufficient protection of those rights.  As background to our discussion, please refer to:

- The book "Terms of Service and Human Rights: An Analysis of Platform Contracts", available at http://internet-governance.fgv.br/sites/internet-governance.fgv.br/files/publicacoes/terms_of_services_06_12_2016.pdf (in particular focusing on pp. 17-28, 92-107, 127-147)

- The article "Virtues and Perils of Anonymity: Should Intermediaries Bear the Burden?", available at: http://www.jipitec.eu/issues/jipitec-5-3-2014/4091 (in particular focusing on paras. 46-55).

- The episode of the Techdirt podcast "Terms of Service Are the New Constitution: Do They Need a First Amendment?"  https://www.techdirt.com/blog/podcast/articles/20150115/11423629712/techdirt-podcast-episode-7-terms-service-are-new-constitution-do-they-need-first-amendment.shtml

See also this interesting recent development on Google's Play Store: https://www.slashgear.com/google-play-prepares-to-remove-apps-over-missing-privacy-policies-09474464/

Look forward to the discussion. See you on Thursday!

Royal Society on Government’s response to report on Robotics and Artificial Intelligence

The Royal Society comments on the Government’s response to the Science and Technology Select Committee’s report on Robotics and Artificial Intelligence | Royal Society: "“Machine learning is already being used in a range of applications that we interact with every day, and has the potential to drive further innovations that could improve public services and create significant economic value. The Royal Society’s machine learning project is investigating the potential of machine learning over the next 5-10 years, and the barriers to realising that potential. " 'via Blog this'

G20germany Addressing digitalisation at global level

G20germany | G20 | Addressing digitalisation at global level:

""we must see digitalisation as an opportunity," underscored Sigmar Gabriel. The key preconditions are access for all to an efficient infrastructure, digital education, the international harmonisation of standards, and transparency and confidence in the digital world, he added.

 At the conference "Key Issues for Digital Transformation in the G20" the OECD and the German G20 Presidency aim to lay out political action in as concrete terms as possible. The results of the discussion will be incorporated in the deliberations when the G20 ministers responsible for digital affairs meet in Düsseldorf on 6 and 7 April." 'via Blog this'

Tele2 Sverige AB and Watson et al: Continuity and Radical Change - Lynskey

Tele2 Sverige AB and Watson et al: Continuity and Radical Change |:

"The Tele2 judgment represents a rupture with the past in one very significant way: the Court, for the first time, unequivocally states that blanket data retention measures are incompatible with EU law, read in light of the Charter. This radical finding is likely to receive a mixed reaction.

For instance, in the UK some will lament that this judgment comes too late to have influenced the passage into law of the UK’s new data retention legislation, the Investigatory Powers Act, 2016. This legislation – which allows for bulk interception and hacking, amongst other things – should now be found to be incompatible with EU law, with all of the post-Brexit implications for ‘adequacy’ this may entail (also here). Others, such as the UK’s Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation – David Anderson QC – have expressed regret." 'via Blog this'