Recently in Cyberlaw Category
In a bizarre display of Italian privacy protection, Google bosses have been found guilty for infringing the privacy of an individual who was attacked, videoed and shared online using the Google Video Service. BBC News Article Here.
Italy of course have now an interesting set of cases making various parts of ‘normal’ web activity illegal. Remember when then made all blogs illegal as they amounted to “clandestine” press?
So - what are the options now for ISPs? The technological approach could mean the masking of faces from videos automatically, using similar face recognition technology employed in Google Street View. Costly and only for the big firms. Option 2, pull out of Italy; again costly but easiest. Thirdly appeal.
This is the best option. As far as I can determine (with my limited Italian - awaiting a good translation of the judgement to land in my inbox), the judgement goes against the European Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) article which states that…
Article 12
“Mere conduit”
- Where an information society service is provided that consists of the transmission in a communication network of information provided by a recipient of the service, or the provision of access to a communication network, Member States shall ensure that the service provider is not liable for the information transmitted, on condition that the provider:
(a) does not initiate the transmission;
(b) does not select the receiver of the transmission; and
(c) does not select or modify the information contained in the transmission.
The acts of transmission and of provision of access referred to in paragraph 1 include the automatic, intermediate and transient storage of the information transmitted in so far as this takes place for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission in the communication network, and provided that the information is not stored for any period longer than is reasonably necessary for the transmission.
This Article shall not affect the possibility for a court or administrative authority, in accordance with Member States’ legal systems, of requiring the service provider to terminate or prevent an infringement.
NB This is implemented in the UK as the The Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002.
If one is to take the narrow, technical definition, the ‘internet’ is a series of (essentially) peer-to-peer systems which communicate as defined by the TCP/IP protocol. So in this respect, as long as two or more systems are connected and not controlling, the internet exists. Assuming the broader definition of internet - the many layers and international free-flow of information and global access, it is therefore not unreasonable to assert that the internet (and web) as we perceive it could well be ‘switched off’ internationally. This may be achieved through denial of service attacks or cables being cut (the FLAG FEA, SMW4, and SMW3 lines as example last year http://bit.ly/r0O8). But more simply through political intervention.
The example which I cite is Turkey, where approximately 2,000 websites have now been blocked through the courts. This is achieved by banning ISPs from delivering certain content. And let us not forget the “Great Firewall of China”. But what many people don’t realise is that the UK’s IWF provides a list of websites which are voluntarily opted in to by most ISPs. Similar services exist in other countries too. This societal desire to restrict content to users enforces the views of a few onto the many. Is this merely switching people off, or is it switching off nations to content?
Whilst China seems to be relaxing internet access controls, many (if not most) are increasing controls to access. We don’t live in a world of free information and access, we live in one which can be restricted nationally or completely switched off by ISPs, Governments or anyone with a good hacksaw.
Prepared in response to BBC Digital Revolution Post
Quick note on the BBC News article, “US man ‘stole 130m card numbers’”
This article outlines how relaxed US institutions are when it comes to security. It will be interesting to find out how much social engineering was employed in gaining information. But to the point of this comment, ignore all paraphrasing in the article which concerns how the attack was carried out. The author should read some of the following articles:
For the code savvy who want to see worked examples
Preventing SQL attacks - Paper from Univ. Columbia
(NB: We don’t condone hacking!)
In response to the @BBCDigRev BBC Digital Revolution blog post, “The rise of the eNation”, cyberissues.eu has posted the following response;
There are many arguments against the view that eBay has become a nation state.
Firstly, the communications platform, Skype is governed by the jurisdiction of each nation under which its various legitimate entities are registered. In the UK, Skype Limited is registered in Luxembourg and so are bound by the domestic courts. Furthermore, if the assets are distributed globally, the nation which houses the controlling firm (i.e. eBay US) has a wide span of control for controlling and taxing the activities of its subsidiaries. Whilst the firm can exert pressure on some nations by way of avoiding or changing regulation, it can only do so within a certain framework, typically akin to the regulations of the ‘top’ host nation. Where eBay has its main advantage is that it can, in theory, change its ‘top’ host nation to a ‘friendly’ jurisdiction (think tax breaks from Eastern European countries after the fall of the command economies).
However, for Paypal to operate in each jurisdiction, it must comply with local regulations, hence why there are various incarnations of Paypal worldwide. HMRC and others are right to be concerned, but it Paypal presents no more concern for legitimate or illegitimate business than other tax avoidance techniques. Merely the medium has changed. Of course in Europe, Paypal is a bank and is (again) registered in Luxembourg having formerly been registered in the UK. This jurisdiction choosing may have short term advantages, but in the long run are still constrained by the laws of nation states.
It should be noted that Paypal does not operate its own currency; accounts are linked to banks and the exchange rates are determined by the market. This is by no means similar to World of Warcraft banking.
And finally, the fostering of a community does not incur a nation state. It has been found time and again by Sociologists, Psychologists and Anthropologists that the differences within a society are far greater than the differences found between societies. It therefore makes sense that a close community of people all brought together through choice are from different places.
However, trans-national firms are brining a homogeneity toward the jurisdictional difficulties of the internet. Eventually, nations will be forced to operate in a similar fashion to one another. For instance in the UK, recent legislation (such as the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008) is tending toward applying the onus on the consumer rather than the producer of materials. This allows the courts to prosecute domestic individuals where previously the foreign perpetrator would have gone unpunished. In an ever changing digital world, the battle for retaining hetrogeny between societies will be the difficult task, especially where firms such as eBay as attempting to impose their self-defined standards across the globe.
Piracy has existed for centuries, and is often not just a case of who created the work, but more often, who has paid for the rights form the original copyright owner. Many argue that record labels are getting too excited about piracy on the internet because it has happened for as long as the industry has been alive; “backing up” of cassettes and CDs between friends and the like. However, internet piracy differs dramatically from “traditional” piracy.
The internet issue is twofold. Firstly, the perceived anonymity of the internet leads users to publish carelessly. The internet, particularly the web, is rarely anonymous. This enables firms to be able to track perpetrators, but also track losses with greater accuracy.
The second problem, particularly for firms and copyright holders is mass replication with a single publication. This is something that was rarely achieved by traditional methods, particularly in music and film without professional equipment. This also extends to distribution, as there is a negligible cost for spreading illegal content on the internet where in ‘physical’ examples there are considerable costs.
There are then a few questions. Is piracy a problem of the web / internet medium? Not particularly, but free and easy distribution is. Is piracy a problem of attitude by industry and copyright owners? Perhaps, but only in commercial terms. Recognition is something easily removed by the web, but it also serves to promote. The first single by La Roux and its Skream Dub-Step remix is a case in point. So is piracy a problem of consumer attitudes? Probably.
Certainly there is a learning curve for all stakeholders, one which is unlikely to be resolved in the foreseeable future. Piracy is not unique to the web, or indeed the internet. It has become the latest medium by which the practise has emerged.
This is a short piece which will have a full paper written about it soon! It will include a discussion of UK copyright law, the US cases and contract law consideration
“The power of technology - such as blogs - meant that the world could no longer be run by “elites”, Mr Brown said. ” — Jonathan Fildes (BBC News)
The notion that technology has changed everything, including foreign policy, has been addressed by Gordon Brown at TED Global.
The article states: ” Policies must instead be formed by listening to the opinions of people ‘who are blogging and communicating with people around the world’, he said. “
Whilst this seems like a move in the right direction, domestic inhabitants might be concerned that their views may be quashed and decisions will be led not by elected individuals, but those commanding a voice in the global blogosphere. This global approach adopted by Brown needs to consider the cross-societal issues when listening to any tom, dick or blogger across the world.
Justice Eady ruled that the Google search engine is not a 'publisher' and so therefore cannot be sued for libel in the UK (read more on Out-law.com News).
Essentially, Google have been found to have a liability similar to that of an ISP in the UK. The landmark case for this was Godfrey v Demon Internet Ltd, QBD, [1999] 4 All ER 342, [2000] 3 WLR 1020; [2001] QB 201 (full decision provided).
Essentially, as long as the ISP has takedown procedures, and act promptly upon them, then they are not liable for 3rd party content. In the Google case, J. Eady stated that this was essential and that Google had complied.
However, no court decision has yet defined what an appropriate time is between notice and take-down, and what the procedure should be for false take-down demands.
“Popular social networking site Facebook is breaching Canadian law by holding on to users’ personal information indefinitely, a report has concluded.” — Via BBC News
This retention of data issue has been the subject of much unrest concerning websites such as Amazon, Google and Yahoo! (see the Out-law.com News Article). However, with the focus now turned on Facebook, the arguments against this sort of data retention may enter the public arena once more with huge public support.
This follows wide-scale disapproval of previous Facebook terms of service.
