- nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

The Digital First Aid Kit
by J.C. DE MARTIN July 17, 2014

July 17, 2014

*The Digital First Aid Kit -- Intro * The Digital First Aid Kit aims to provide preliminary support for people facing the most common types of digital threats. The Kit offers a set of self-diagnostic tools for human rights defenders, bloggers, activists and journalists facing attacks themselves, as well as providing guidelines for digital first responders to assist a person under threat. The Kit begins with ways to establish secure communication <https://digitaldefenders.org/digitalfirstaid/#section-secure-communication> when you or a contact are facing a digital threat and want to reach out for support. The Kit then moves on to sections on account hijacking <https://digitaldefenders.org/digitalfirstaid/#section-hijacking-accounts>, seizure of devices <https://digitaldefenders.org/digitalfirstaid/#section-devices-seized>, malware <https://digitaldefenders.org/digitalfirstaid/#section-malware> infections and DDoS attacks <https://digitaldefenders.org/digitalfirstaid/#section-ddos-mitigation>. Each section begins with a series of questions about you, your devices and your situation. These questions will guide you through a self-assessment or help a first responder better understand the challenges you are facing. It then lays out initial steps to understand and potentially fix the problems. The steps should also help you or a first responder to recognize when to request help from a specialist. *The Digital First Aid Kit is not meant to serve as the ultimate solution to all your digital emergencies.* It strives to give you tools that can help you make a first assessment of what is happening and determine if you can mitigate the problem on your own. If at any moment you feel uncomfortable or unsure about implementing any of the solutions outlined here, ask for help from trained professionals. The Digital First Aid Kit came about when a number of organizations working in the digital emergency field observed that once a person is targeted digitally, he or she often does not know what to do or where to turn for assistance. It was inspired by the belief that /everyone has the ability to take preventative measures to avoid emergencies and responsive steps when they are in trouble./ Further, everyone has the ability to help out a colleague facing trouble. The self-diagnostic quality of the Kit should also enable journalists, bloggers, activists and human rights defenders to understand what is happening to their digital assets, to be able to determine more rapidly when they should reach out for help, what kind of help they need, and improve individual digital safety. In addition, the Kit serves as a first responder checklist for individuals who a person under possible digital attack reaches out to first. The Digital First Aid Kit is a collaborative effort of EFF, <https://www.eff.org/> Global Voices <http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/>, Hivos <http://hivos.org/> & the Digital Defenders Partnership <http://digitaldefenders.org/>, Front Line Defenders <http://www.frontlinedefenders.org>, Internews <https://www.internews.org/>, Freedom House, <http://freedomhouse.org/> Access <https://www.accessnow.org/>, Qurium <https://www.qurium.org/>, CIRCL <https://www.circl.lu>,IWPR <http://iwpr.net/>, Open Technology Fund <https://www.opentechfund.org/> and individual security experts who are working in the field of digital security and rapid response. It is a work in progress and if there are things that need to be added, comments or questions regarding any of the sections please go to Github <https://github.com/RaReNet/DFAK>. Sections: Secure Communication <https://digitaldefenders.org/digitalfirstaid/#section-secure-communication> Account Hijacking <https://digitaldefenders.org/digitalfirstaid/#section-hijacking-accounts> Devices Seized <https://digitaldefenders.org/digitalfirstaid/#section-devices-seized> Malware <https://digitaldefenders.org/digitalfirstaid/#section-malware> DDoS Mitigation <https://digitaldefenders.org/digitalfirstaid/#section-ddos-mitigation> Helpful Resources <https://digitaldefenders.org/digitalfirstaid/#section-resources> *For questions, please get in touch with the Digital Defenders Partnership*: W: https://digitaldefenders.org E: ddp[at]hivos.org Twitter: @DigiDefenders <https://twitter.com/DigiDefenders>

1 0

QUESTIONS FOR UNESCO'S COMPREHENSIVE STUDY ON INTERNET RELATED ISSUES
by J.C. DE MARTIN July 17, 2014

July 17, 2014

***QUESTIONS FOR UNESCO'S COMPREHENSIVE STUDY ON INTERNET RELATED ISSUES* Submitted by admin on Fri, 27/06/2014 - 23:32 From now until November 2014, UNESCO is asking for inputs and research around this global questionnaire on Internet-related issues in the four areas of access to information and knowledge, freedom of expression, privacy, and ethical dimensions of the information society. The questions also explore the intersections between these areas and options for future UNESCO action in these fields. The findings, on topics which relate to UNESCO's mandate, will feed into a *comprehensive Internet-related study* mandated by UNESCO's 195 Member States through Resolution 52 of the Organization's 37th General Conference (November 2013). Contributions can be submitted through this open online questionnaire or at the many conferences where UNESCO organizes consultation events. Other comments and questions can be sent to Internetstudy(a)unesco.org <mailto:Internetstudy@unesco.org> [...] Continua qui: http://unesco-ci.org/cmscore/content/questions-unescos-comprehensive-study-…

1 0

British Telecom has no intention to issue a transparency report
by Federico Guerrini July 17, 2014

July 17, 2014

Credo posso essere di interesse per la lista *Access asked BT how it will protect consumer privacy. The answer: it won’t.* *London, UK - *Access was disappointed to learn that BT has no intention of no plans to join telcos around the world by releasing a transparency report on government requests for user data. Yesterday morning, Access attended BT’s Annual General Meeting 2014 (BT AGM) to address the company’s continual refusal to produce a transparency report highlighting the extent of government surveillance on its networks. In addition to issuing a question at the BT AGM, Access also presented a petition demanding the protection of users’ privacy. However, the company failed to announce any steps it would take to prevent governments from directly accessing its networks. Discouragingly, the Chairman of the Board also indicated support for a proposed law — the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act (DRIP) — that would expand data retention by companies operating in the U.K., and which would force telcos and internet companies to play an even greater role in unlawful government surveillance. Continua qui: http://accessnow.cmail2.com/t/ViewEmail/d/3E2919D7B73C543A/782AC67150BF9897… Ciao, Fed. -- https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/fellowships/journalist-fellows/p… www.federicoguerrini.com Il mio ultimo libro: Vivere Social http://www.bol.it/libri/Vivere-social.-Manuale/Federico-Guerrini/ea97888971…

1 0

Fwd: [CC-Europe] Commission Notice: 'Guidelines on recommended standard licences, datasets and charging for the re-use of documents'
by Federico Morando July 17, 2014

July 17, 2014

Penso che a molti appassionati di open data e PSI in lista possa interessare in documento di cui in oggetto e sotto... Citando da una prima veloce scorsa: "the CC0 public domain dedication is of particular interest. As a legal tool that allows waiving copyright and database rights on PSI, it ensures full flexibility for re-users and reduces the complications associated with handling numerous licences, with possibly conflicting provisions. If the CC0 public domain dedication cannot be used, public sector bodies are encouraged to use open standard licences appropriate to a member state's own national intellectual property and contract law and that comply with the recommended licensing provisions set out below." Anche se si dice "In the light of the said recommendations, consideration should also be given to the possibility of developing a suitable national open licence.", ci si salva poi con: "Where licences are required by law and cannot be replaced by simple notices, it is advisable that they cover attribution requirements only, as any other obligations may limit licensees' creativity or economic activity, thereby affecting the re-use potential of the documents in question." Federico -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [CC-Europe] Commission Notice: 'Guidelines on recommended standard licences, datasets and charging for the re-use of documents' Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 11:25:11 +0200 From: Timothy Vollmer <tvol(a)creativecommons.org> To: cc-europe <cc-europe(a)lists.ibiblio.org>, cc staff all <cc-staff(a)lists.ibiblio.org> fyi - Commissioner Kroes announced this at the OKFestival today in Berlin https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/commission-notice-guidelines-re… -- Timothy Vollmer Public Policy Manager, Creative Commons Get Creative Commons Updates http://bit.ly/commonsnews

1 0

UN Human Rights: "Dangerous practice of digital mass surveillance must be subject to independent checks and balances"
by J.C. DE MARTIN July 16, 2014

July 16, 2014

*Dangerous practice of digital mass surveillance must be subject to independent checks and balances - Pillay * http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=14875&Lang… GENEVA (16 July 2014) -- UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay warned Wednesday that studies by her office and others have revealed a "disturbing" lack of transparency about governmental surveillance policies and practices, "including de facto coercion of private sector companies to provide sweeping access to information and data relating to private individuals without the latter's knowledge or consent." "This," she said, "is severely hindering efforts to ensure accountability for any resulting human rights violations, or even to make us aware that such violations are taking place, despite a clear international legal framework laying down governments' obligations to protect our right to privacy, and other related human rights." Pillay said her Office has been working for over a year on the complex web of issues relating to the right to privacy in the face of modern digital technology and surveillance measures. It has examined existing national and international legislation, a number of recent court judgments, and compiled information from a broad range of sources, including via a questionnaire sent to States, international and regional organisations, national human rights institutions, non-governmental organisations and private sector businesses. As part of this ongoing process, Pillay's office on Wednesday published a report requested by the UN General Assembly in December 2013, which stresses the need for vigilance and procedural safeguards against governmental surveillance programmes. The report, entitled "The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age" warns that Governmental mass surveillance is "emerging as a dangerous habit rather than an exceptional measure" and that practices in many States reveal "a lack of adequate national legislation and/or enforcement, weak procedural safeguards, and ineffective oversight." "The technological platforms upon which global political, economic and social life are increasingly reliant are not only vulnerable to mass surveillance", the report says, "they may actually facilitate it." "The very existence of a mass surveillance programme...creates an interference with privacy. The onus is on the State to demonstrate that such interference is neither arbitrary nor unlawful," Pillay said, noting that article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that "no one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation." The Covenant, a binding treaty ratified by 167 States, also says that "everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks." The High Commissioner's report points out that "Secret rules and secret interpretations -- even secret judicial interpretations -- of law do not have the necessary qualities of 'law'. The secret nature of specific surveillance powers brings with it a greater risk of arbitrary exercise of discretion which, in turn, demands greater precision in the rule governing the exercise of discretion, and additional oversight." The report states that while judicial involvement can help assess whether such surveillance meets the standards required by international human rights law, "judicial involvement in oversight should not be viewed as a panacea." It calls for States to establish independent, institutions to monitor such surveillance. "In several countries, judicial warranting or review of the digital surveillance activities of intelligence and/or law enforcement agencies have amounted effectively to an exercise in rubber-stamping," it states. "Jurisprudence at the regional level has emphasised the utility of an entirely independent oversight body, particularly to monitor the execution of approved surveillance measures." While safeguards may take a variety of forms, the report notes that attention is turning increasingly towards mixed models of administrative, judicial and parliamentary oversight. "The involvement of all branches of government in the oversight of surveillance programmes, as well as of an independent civilian oversight agency, is essential to ensure the effective protection of the law," it states. The report emphasizes that when conducted in compliance with the law, including international human rights law, surveillance of electronic communications data can be necessary and effective for legitimate law enforcement or intelligence purposes. Where there is a legitimate aim and appropriate safeguards are in place, a State might be allowed to engage in surveillance. "However," the report says, "the onus is on the Government to demonstrate that interference is both necessary and proportionate to the specific risk being addressed." The laws governing such surveillance must also be publicly accessible and must contain provisions that ensure that collection of, access to and use of communications data are tailored to specific legitimate aims, as noted by the UN Human Rights Committee. The laws must be sufficiently precise and provide for effective safeguards against abuse. "Mass or 'bulk' surveillance programmes may thus be deemed to be arbitrary, even if they serve a legitimate aim and have been adopted on the basis of an accessible legal regime. In other words, it will not be enough that the measures are targeted to find certain needles in a haystack; the proper measure is the impact of the measures on the haystack, relative to the harm threatened." Mandatory third-party data retention, the report states, appears "neither necessary nor proportionate." "Any capture of communications data is potentially an interference with privacy and, further, the collection and retention of communications data amounts to an interference with privacy whether or not those data are subsequently consulted or used," it states. On the role of the private sector, the report notes strong evidence of a growing reliance by Governments on the private sector to conduct and facilitate digital surveillance. "On every continent," it says, "Governments have used both formal legal mechanisms and covert methods to gain access to content, as well as to metadata." "The enactment of statutory requirements for companies to make their networks 'wiretap-ready' is a particular concern, not least because it creates an environment that facilitates sweeping surveillance measures," it adds. It warns that a company that supplies data to the State, in response to a request that contravenes human rights law, itself "risks being complicit in or otherwise involved with human rights abuses." "Where enterprises are faced with government demands for access to data that do not comply with international human rights standards, they are expected to seek to honour the principles of human rights to the greatest extent possible, and to be able to demonstrate their ongoing efforts to do so," it states. "This can mean interpreting government demands as narrowly as possible, seeking clarification from a Government with regard to the scope and legal foundation for the demand, requiring a court order before meeting government requests for data, and communicating transparently with users about risks and compliance with government demands. There are positive examples of industry action in this regard, both by individual enterprises and through multi-stakeholder initiatives." While the report focused on the right to privacy, it notes that other rights are at risk due to mass surveillance, the interception of digital communications and the collection of personal data. These include the freedom of opinion and expression, the freedom of peaceful assembly and association, the right to a family life and the right to health. "The constant stream of new revelations shows how disturbingly little we really know about the precise nature of surveillance, and the extent to which our human rights are being violated, and responsibility for those violations is being evaded," Pillay said. "This report is a useful outline of the international legal framework governing these issues, and points to some alarming gaps in implementation, and some important remedies. As an immediate measure, States should review their own national laws, policies and practices to ensure full conformity with international human rights law. They must also act to eradicate discriminatory approaches, both against their own nationals and in relation to nationals of other countries." "The complexity of the challenges to the right to privacy in this rapidly and dramatically evolving digital age is going to require constant scrutiny and dialogue between all key sectors, including Governments, civil society, scientific and technical experts, the business sector, academics and human rights specialists," Pillay added. "Some incredibly important principles are at stake which go right to the core of each and every individual's rights." The report is due to be presented by the High Commissioner for Human Rights to the Human Rights Council at its next session in September, and to the General Assembly at its 69th session in October. ENDS To read the full report, please visit: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session27/Documents/A.… To read the opening remarks by High Commissioner Navi Pillay at the press conference held in Geneva Wednesday, log on to: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=14874&Lang… Visit the OHCHR page on the Right to Privacy in the Digital Age: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/DigitalAge/Pages/DigitalAgeIndex.aspx /For more information or media requests, please contact Rupert Colville (+41 22 917 9767 / rcolville(a)ohchr.org <mailto:rcolville@ohchr.org>), Ravina Shamdasani (+41 22 917 9769 / rshamdasani(a)ohchr.org <mailto:rshamdasani@ohchr.org> ) or Cécile Pouilly (+41 22 917 9310 / cpouilly(a)ohchr.org <mailto:cpouilly@ohchr.org> )/ *UN Human Rights, follow us on social media:* *Facebook:* https://www.facebook.com/unitednationshumanrights * Twitter:* http://twitter.com/UNrightswire *Google+* gplus.to/unitednationshumanrights * YouTube:* http://www.youtube.com/UNOHCHR *Storify: *http://storify.com/UNrightswire *Check the Universal Human Rights Index:* http://uhri.ohchr.org/en

2 1

NYT: "Invitation to a Dialogue: Internet Behemoths" (Marc Rotenberg)
by J.C. DE MARTIN July 16, 2014

July 16, 2014

Marc Rotenberg (EPIC) scrive al NY Times, che invita i lettori a commentare. jc Editors' Note: We invite readers to respond briefly by Thursday for the Sunday Dialogue. We plan to publish responses and a rejoinder in the Sunday Review. Email: letters(a)nytimes.com *To the Editor:* Your recent article about the reluctance of consumers to turn away from the Internet titans suggests that most users are largely satisfied with the current choices ("Principles Are No Match for Europe's Love of U.S. Web Titans," Business Day, July 7). A better reading could be that they have no real choices. A small group of companies today controls much of the online world. Internet companies have grown in part because of the same network effects --- the benefits that arise with many participants in the same communications environment --- that enabled the growth of the Internet. Large Internet companies have also benefited from powerful economic incentives, a lax regulatory environment, rapid technological changes and business practices that are designed to deprive users of meaningful choices. The practical consequence is increasing consolidation of Internet-based services and little real choice for consumers. [...] Continua qui: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/16/opinion/invitation-to-a-dialogue-internet…

1 0

“Internet è totalizzante ora datemi nuovi poteri sulla privacy e l’antitrust”
by Marco Trotta July 16, 2014

July 16, 2014

Che ne pensate? Il presidente dell’AgCom, Cardani: “Servono regole 2.0 come in Inghilterra” Telecom, quota mercato sotto il 50%. Tv, ricavi record per Cairo e Discovery http://www.unemia.it/internet-e-totalizzante-ora-datemi-nuovi-poteri-sulla-…

1 0

Rodotà: "Primi segnali di una svolta il diritto alla privacy è resuscitato"
by Alessandro Mantelero July 16, 2014

July 16, 2014

Rodotà: "Primi segnali di una svolta il diritto alla privacy è resuscitato" di ALESSANDRO LONGO http://inchieste.repubblica.it/it/repubblica/rep-it/2014/07/07/news/intervi… ROMA - "Data per morta la privacy è improvvisamente resuscitata per via del Datagate, che l'ha rimessa al centro dell'attenzione. Era stata messa da parte: per ragioni di sicurezza e dimercato. Ma adesso si vedono i segnali di una svolta, a favore dei diritti dei cittadini". Stefano Rodotà, giurista e tra i massimi esperti mondiali sui diritti della privacy, ritiene che stiamo entrando in una nuova era, per l'Occidente. "Si va verso una costituzionalizzazione dei diritti di internet", afferma. "E il diritto alla privacy ne sarà il motore fondamentale". Professore, tante notizie ultimamente hanno rimesso al centro la questione dei diritti di internet e alla privacy, che paiono due aspetti intrecciati in uno stesso nodo. Che sta succedendo? "Il mondo ha smesso di subire passivamente la prepotenza delle istituzioni deputate alla sicurezza e dei giganti del web. La richiesta delle prime è sempre stata questa, negli ultimi anni: dateci tutti i vostri dati, vogliamo sapere tutto di voi, per potervi proteggere dal rischio terroristico. Ma poi è scoppiato il datagate, lo scandalo delle intercettazioni di massa fatte dalla National security agency americana. Sono seguite prese di posizione da parte di leader come Angela Merkel e lo stesso Barack Obama, contro le ragioni della sorveglianza. La pretesa delle agenzie di sicurezza si è rivelata non più proponibile. Altra notizia significativa, ad aprile, è la sentenza della Corte di Giustizia che ha dichiarato non valida la direttiva Ue 2006 sulla conservazione dei dati di traffico telefonico dei cittadini Ue (pensata sull'onda degli attacchi terroristici di Madrid e Londra, ndr). L'ha ritenuta infatti una grave violazione dei diritti di privacy. Significa che sul terreno della sicurezza c'è oggi un'emersione della dimensione costituzionale. La Corte di Giustizia Ue è sostanzialmente la Corte costituzionale dell'Unione europea. Ha messo in evidenza che le norme di protezione dei dati personali hanno rango costituzionale. E se ne dovranno trarre le conseguenze". Come sta evolvendo invece la contrapposizione tra diritti degli utenti e richieste di dati personali da parte delle aziende web? "Le pretese che vengono dal mercato sono state poco evidenti, finora. Sono quelle dei nuovi padroni del mondo, i cosiddetti over the top. Mark Zuckerberg ha detto che la privacy è finita come regola sociale. Significa: tutti i dati che mettete su Facebook sono miei. Ma anche questa pretesa è stata messa in discussione e in questo momento i grandi soggetti del web, Facebook, Google eccetera si rendono conto che la dimensione della privacy va ormai affrontata. Cominciano a dare agli utenti un maggiore controllo sui loro dati. Si è avviato un processo che fino a poco tempo fa qualcuno riteneva impensabile". Ma come fare i conti con il fatto che la privacy negli Usa - dove queste aziende hanno una sede - è un diritto molto meno garantito che in Europa? "Sì, continuiamo ad avere un confronto tra modello europeo e modello statunitense, anche se ora non è più così evidente. Il primo è fondato sul riconoscimento sull'idea della privacy come diritto fondamentale della persona (come riconosciuto dalla Carta dei Diritti), l'altro è orientato all'autoregolamentazione. Il modello americano, però, sta ora cedendo di fronte alla necessità di leggi in materia. Si pensi alla nuova legge che limita il diritto del datori di lavoro di fare ricerche sui dipendenti in Facebook. C'è un avvicinamento insomma tra i due modelli, perché gli americani hanno capito che la privacy è una questione di libertà e di democrazia. La consapevolezza è emersa appunto per lo scandalo delle intercettazioni, che ha pure aperto il problema della violazione delle sovranità nazionali da parte degli Usa. La questione si è resa insomma ineludibile per il Governo Usa". Quale può essere il ruolo della politica e delle istituzioni? "Sono abbastanza prudente, per non dire scettico, nei confronti dello "stakeholdering" (cioè delle prassi o normative frutto dell'accordo tra diversi soggetti). Su questa strada fino a ieri sono prevalsi solo gli interessi del mercato e della sicurezza. Certo bisogna tenere conto di tutti i soggetti, ma la via da seguire non è quella del puro negoziato dove ognuno cerca di imporre un pezzo i propri interessi, ma quella della dimensione costituzionale. Sono fiducioso a riguardo perché di recente è arrivata la "costituzione di internet" Marco Civil in Brasile; ma anche la dichiarazione di Delhi sui diritti in rete. Si è rimesso in moto un processo che si era arrestato e che era cominciato con gli Internet Governance Forum delle Nazioni Uniti. Dal 2008 al 2010 aveva cominciato a dare risultati, poi si era interrotto. Ora il processo è ripartito. Siamo entrati in una fase in cui comincia ad avere riconoscimenti importanti la necessità di una costituzione per internet. Il creatore del web Tim Berners Lee ha detto che ci vuole un Bill of Rights per internet e che l'accesso a internet deve essere un diritto costituzionale. "Come l'accesso all'acqua", ha detto". Ma anche in Italia la situazione sta maturando in questo senso? "Si sta muovendo qualcosa da parte di alcuni gruppi parlamentari, in particolare di Stefano Quintarelli (Scelta Civica), che sta cercando di riportare nel dibattito la mia proposta del 2010: integrare l'articolo 21 della costituzione aggiungendovi il diritto all'accesso a internet. All'epoca, parlamentari bipartisan ne avevano fatto una proposta di legge, che di recente è stata ripresentata (dal Pd e dal M5S, ndr). Il tema insomma è stato incardinato in sede parlamentare. Un momento importante per riparlarne sarà a giugno, con l'arrivo previsto del regolamento sulla Data Privacy. Sarà uno dei compiti importanti della presidenza europea italiana completare questo aggiornamento della normativa europea sulla privacy. Il sistema di protezione dei dati sarà rafforzato. Ne verrà una svolta che avrà effetti immediati sui rapporti tra l'Ue e altri paesi, in nome dei diritti degli utenti". -- Avv. Alessandro Mantelero, PhD Aggregate Professor, Politecnico di Torino Director of Privacy and Faculty Fellow, Nexa Center for Internet and Society Visiting Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute Research Consultant, Sino-Italian Research Center for Internet Torts at Nanjing University of Information Science & Technology Programme Coordinator, Double Degree program in Management and IP Law, Politecnico di Torino–Tongji University of Shanghai http://staff.polito.it/alessandro.mantelero Politecnico di Torino Corso Duca degli Abruzzi, 24 10129 Torino - Italy in libertate fortitudo

1 0

NYT: "The Internet for All"
by J.C. DE MARTIN July 15, 2014

July 15, 2014

*ROOM FOR DEBATE* As Jim Dwyer pointed out in a Times column this week [1], as Internet access has become crucial for many Americans, particularly students, the inability to pay for online service has kept millions disconnected. Does the industry need to be more closely regulated, or subject to more government action, to provide wider Internet access to lower-income people? [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/nyregion/for-those-in-the-digital-dark-en… *DEBATERS* _*Government Should Invest in Fiber Optics*_ http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/07/10/how-to-make-the-internet-av… *Susan Crawford*, author, "Captive Audience" /Programs that have worked in Sweden could work here, installing lines and leasing them to Internet providers. / _*Keep Out Government and Service Will Improve*_ http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/07/10/how-to-make-the-internet-av… *Larry Downes*, Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy /Industry innovation and existing federally mandated subsidies will expand availability, which is wider than has been suggested./ _*Make Providers Regulated Utilities*_ http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/07/10/how-to-make-the-internet-av… *Jessica J. González,* National Hispanic Media Coalition /Universal access is crucial. Prices must be controlled and subsidies must be enforced. /

2 1

Zittrain: "Righting the right to be forgotten"
by J.C. DE MARTIN July 14, 2014

July 14, 2014

*Righting the right to be forgotten* July 14th, 2014 | by z | Published in Future of the Internet <http://futureoftheinternet.org/category/future-of-the-internet/> The F-T just published <http://futureoftheinternet.org/2014/07/14/righting-the-right-to-be-forgotte…> a piece I wrote about the implementation of the right to be forgotten in Europe. Here is a draft from which the op-ed was drawn: Last week Google formally launched a blue-ribbon committee of advisors to help it implement the European Court of Justice's new "right to be forgotten." Its work is cut out for it, as the search giant processes more than 70,000 requests <https://support.google.com/legal/contact/lr_eudpa?product=websearch> since May to decouple a claimant's name from possibly true but still "irrelevant" (and presumably reputation-damaging) search results. Turning theory into practice has revealed unanswered questions -- and some outright flaws -- in the Court's decision, regardless of where you might stand on the right's philosophical merits. The first puzzle is transparency. Other types of compelled redactions, such as for alleged copyright infringement, occasion a notification to searchers that results have been altered. But a specific notice that a search on someone's name is missing something could lead to a negative inference about the person even worse than the substance of whatever has been removed. So how to report on compelled takedowns in a way that is neither Orwellian nor self-defeating? One idea is for Google and other affected search engines to contribute to a database of takedowns that independent academics can analyze in order to produce credible insights about how the new right is working in practice. Are public figures looking to scrub their records to avoid scrutiny, or are the requestors more often private citizens? Are the takedowns focusing on content within obscure Web-originating message boards, or on archives of government records or newspaper articles? Without a record of takedowns, there will be no way to understand how the use and impact of the right are unfolding. [...] Continua qui: http://futureoftheinternet.org/2014/07/14/righting-the-right-to-be-forgotte…

1 0