Cr4 tpp leesburg2012

Freedom of Expression, Indirect
Censorship & Liability for Internet
Intermediaries

Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement
Leesburg, VA
09 September, 2012
Carolina Rossini
Director for International Intellectual Property
Electronic Frontier Foundation

 Platforms and conduits for expression, A2K,
association, and commerce

ISPs Web hosts Search engines

Any website that
enables user
commentary

Registrars
DNS providers Cloud computing CDNs
Registries

Payment
intermediarie
s

TPP article 16.3 mandates a system of ISP liability that pushes a
framework beyond ACTA and possibly the spirit of the DMCA,
since it opens the doors for:
•Three-strikes policies and laws that require Internet intermediaries
to terminate their users’ Internet access on repeat allegations of
copyright infringement
•Requirements for Internet intermediaries to filter all Internet
communications for potentially copyright-infringing material
•ISP obligations to block access to websites that allegedly infringe
or facilitate copyright infringement
•Efforts to force intermediaries to disclose the identities of their
customers to IP rightsholders on an allegation of copyright
infringement.

Policies to Enhance Freedom of Expression

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and
expression; this right includes freedom to hold
opinions without interference and to seek, receive and
impart information and ideas through any media and
regardless of frontiers.”

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights


To allow people to hold opinions without interference,
and to seek, receive and impart information, it is critical
to have the policy infrastructure that does not
impose liability on internet intermediaries for user
actions


Role of Internet intermediaries:

• Facilitate communication

• Protect freedom of expression
• Provide avenues for democratic
participation


• U.S has two primary internet liability protection laws

o Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
 Protects ISPs against copyright claims
 Notice and takedown without judicial review
o Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
• Protects ISPs against state laws and most federal laws


• Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
– Result of political process, balancing interests of the
copyright industry with the telecommunications industry
– Requires ISP to register with the Copyright Office to receive
protection
– Copyright holders can send notice to ISP to demand a
takedown
– ISP must remove for 10 to 14 days
– Content restored if user counter-notices -- unless copyright
holder files a lawsuit.

• Section 512 has had unintended consequences
– While it has procedural safeguards, it has resulted in the
removal of significant amount of non-infringing material
– Allows for short-term censorship, without any judicial input
• Campaign videos
• Media criticism
• Personal non-commercial videos
– Many smaller sites fail to register with Copyright Office and
lose advantages


• Economics of intermediaries are dependent on
scale.

• Benefit for an individual post is trivial

• Cost to have an employee assess the legality of
speech exceeds the profit from hosting that speech.

• To maximize information availability, allow posting
without ex ante review

• User generated content websites cannot function
with delay (e.g.OER)

• Liability rules should allow services to edit and
moderate content without taking on liability

• Filtering is ineffective
– Network level filtering impacts privacy

• Ex post review requires due process
• Notice and takedown risks creating censorship
regime
– Even short downtime impacts freedom of expression
• Most appropriate role is forwarding notices of alleged
infringement and then allowing the judicial system to
work
– This include protecting the privacy of posters


• Heavy regulation can vastly
increase costs beyond the
ability of startups.

• Even if large companies have
technical and financial
capacity to take some
actions, small startups do not


• To keep the pace of innovation, policy needs to
reduce costs for startups

• For jurisdictions who are trying to develop and
grow an online industry, policy structure is even
more important.

Privacy and Anonymity

• Due process for anonymous speech is critical for
freedom of expression
• Forced "identification and fear of reprisal might deter
perfectly peaceful discussions of public matters of
importance”

• “Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the
majority,” that “exemplifies the purpose” of freedom of
expression: “to protect unpopular individuals from
retaliation...at the hand of an intolerant society.”


• Why is anonymity important?

• Wide variety of reasons
– Criticism of political figures, corporations, bureaucrats
– Stigma or embarrassment

• Opposition parties, victims of violence, AIDS sufferers,
survivors of abuse can use Internet to share sensitive and
personal information anonymously without fear of
embarrassment or harm

“On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog”

Peter Steiner, On the Internet, No One Knows You’re a Dog, The New Yorker, (Vol.69, no. 20) (July 5, 1993)

• Internet intermediaries do know who’s a dog
• When a user posts content, third parties may want
to sue the use

• To sue the user, plaintiff must first identify the user

• Due process should protect identify users
• ISPs best practice is to provide notice to users, and
give time to allow for court review

• The economic benefits of unimpeded
information flows are undeniable, and
emerging innovative cloud-based
platforms necessarily operate in
numerous jurisdictions at once,
meaning the free flow of information is a
necessary condition for their ongoing
existence.

But protect privacy, respecting
the level chosen by sovereign
countries

1. while free flow of information is good, we should
not sacrifice privacy.

2. intellectual property should not be a barrier for
free flow of information, balancing privacy and
free flow is for another forum and another day.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement seeks to
adopt a general prohibition on restrictions to the
free flow of online information, raising several
questions regarding the role of trade agreements.
While the free flow of information has undeniable
economic and trade benefits, it is also inextricably
linked with complex social and political
considerations that might not be best resolved in
secretive, exclusive closed door trade negotiations.

Forum shopping
• The total number of new data privacy laws
globally, viewed by decade, shows that their
growth is accelerating, not merely expanding
linearly: 8 (1970s), 13 (1980s), 21 (1990s), 35
(2000s) and 12 (2 years of the 2010s), giving the
total of 89. [3]

• Is TPP the right place for this discussions???

• Privacy is a fundamental human right, and is central to the
maintenance of democratic societies. It is essential to human
dignity and it reinforces other rights, such as freedom of
expression and association, and is recognized under
international human rights law.(1)

• Activities that are contrary to the right to privacy, including the
surveillance by public authorities of personal communications,
can only be justified where they are necessary for a legitimate
aim, strictly proportionate, and prescribed by law.(2)

• Interesting framework:

Chile FTA with Australia and Colombia,
which requires countries to provide some
level of protection. (A "shall language" not
a "may language")

 Which level? 3 acceptable frameworks:

 "comparable safeguards” (UN Language) U.N. Doc. A/44/49
(1989)

 "equivalent level of protection" (OECD language)

 “adequate level of protection" (EU language).

 However, in all cases the language must be an "at least"
not the "up-to” and "at least according to OECD principles".

Conclusions
• countries should not use trade agreements to
challenge privacy laws as trade barriers

• we need to make clear about what type of information
we are discussing when discussing “free-flow”, which
historically is related to cross-personal-data flow
• and if we want the language to go beyond cross-
data-flow and actually deal with freedom of
expression, the e-commerce chapter is a limited
venue for that

Conclusion
• In the 15th century, Gutenberg’s printing press formed
the initial basis for the knowledge-based economy

• As we enter the 21st Century we have the opportunity
to realize the full benefits of this knowledge economy
by adopting a legal framework supports and enables
the tools necessary for free expression, privacy and
innovation.

Thank You!
¡Gracias!
cảm ơn bạn !
terima kasih!

http://www.eff.org

Cr4 tpp leesburg2012

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Cr4 tpp leesburg2012

More from Carolina Rossini

Cr4 tpp leesburg2012