FYI -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: EU Tech Policy Brief: June Recap Resent-Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2016 12:00:56 +0200 Resent-From: d004620@polito.it Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2016 06:00:54 -0400 From: Center for Democracy & Technology <info@cdt.org> Reply-To: info@cdt.org To: demartin@polito.it EU TECH POLICY BRIEF CDT <https://cdt.org> /This is the monthly EU Tech Policy Brief from the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT). It highlights some of the most pressing technology and internet policy issues under debate in Europe, the US, and internationally, and gives CDT's perspective on them. Our aim is to help shape policies that advance our rights in a digital world./ /Please do not hesitate to contact our team in Brussels: Jens-Henrik Jeppesen <mailto:jjeppesen@cdt.org>, Jorge Castro <mailto:jcastro@cdt.org>, or Scott Craig <mailto:scraig@cdt.org>, and connect with us @CenDemTech <https://twitter.com/CenDemTech> and @JensJeppesenCDT <https://twitter.com/JensJeppesenCDT>./ /We welcome feedback on the issues we deal with. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please unsubscribe using the link at the bottom of this email./ *Intermediary Liability: Letter to European Commission on Code of Conduct for Illegal Hate Speech Online* CDT sent a letter <https://cdt.org/insight/letter-to-european-commissioner-on-code-of-conduct-f...> to European Commissioner for Justice Vĕra Jourová asking a number of questions and raising various concerns about the Code of Conduct on Countering Illegal Hate Speech Online <http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-rights/files/hate_speech_code_of_con...>. The European Commission developed the Code together with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft, and announced it on 30 May. It is one of many initiatives governments and authorities in Europe and elsewhere are taking to restrict various types of content. Our letter questions whether the practices laid down in this Code of Conduct are sufficient to ensure that the free expression rights of internet users are protected and respected. We ask how courts or other independent arbiters will be involved in determining what is and what is not /illegal/ hate speech, and what standards will be applied. We ask about what appeal mechanisms or remedies will be available for internet users whose speech has been censored under this regime. Finally, we ask how the Code will ensure transparency and safeguards against misuse. *Intermediary Liability: JHA Council adopts conclusion on improving criminal justice in cyberspace and European Commission presents new communication on radicalisation* This month, EU Ministers on Justice and Home Affairs adopted Council conclusions on improving criminal justice in cyberspace <http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-10007-2016-INIT/en/pdf>, setting out three priorities: Enhancing cooperation with service providers, streamlining Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) proceedings, and reviewing rules on enforcement jurisdiction in cyberspace. The conclusions mandate the European Commission to develop several initiatives and to report on their progress from December 2016. CDT has consistently <https://cdt.org/blog/law-enforcement-without-borders/> called <https://cdt.org/insight/microsoft-ireland-case-can-a-us-warrant-compel-a-us-...> for improvements <https://cdt.org/insight/mlat-reform-a-straw-man-proposal/> to the MLAT system for access to data by law enforcement authorities because, although imperfect, the system respects the rule of law and decreases the risk of improper access to data. The European Commission should present the first deliverables on these initiatives by June 2017. Together with the Council conclusions, the European Commission presented a new "Communication on supporting the prevention of radicalisation leading to violent extremism <http://ec.europa.eu/education/library/publications/2016/communication-preven...>". No new initiatives are proposed, but the Communication outlines the roles of the European Commission, Member States, and relevant stakeholders in preventing and tackling radicalization and violent extremism online. *Digital Copyright: Ancillary rights — unnecessary barriers for innovation and free speech* CDT submitted its input <https://cdt.org/blog/cdt-responds-to-european-commission-consultation-on-anc...> to the European Commission's public consultation on the role of publishers in the copyright value chain and on the "panorama exception", restating our objections <https://cdt.org/blog/ancillary-wrongs-in-spains-ley-de-propiedad-intelectual...> to the introduction of ancillary rights in copyright laws in Europe. Our chief concerns are negative effects of such rights on smaller publishers, citizen journalism and, more importantly, freedom of information. Firstly, ancillary rights negatively impact publishers by creating barriers to access to their works by adding transaction costs and legal uncertainty for individuals or organisations wishing to link to online publications, resulting in decreased traffic to publishers' own sites. A decrease in traffic to publishers' online offerings would disproportionately affect smaller publishers and those who operate primarily online. Secondly, creating a neighbouring right for publishers would negatively impact authors by adding barriers between their works and their audiences as well as between authors and published works they might wish to reference. Thirdly, issues may arise from a right dependent on defining a class of persons or entities as "publishers." In the online context, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to define such a class without either making the class too broad or too narrow. Creating a new right for a vaguely-defined group will lead to both confusion as to who may claim the right and abuses by those who would improperly claim it. The European Commission is expected to present its second set of proposals on copyright after the summer, most probably in September. We hope the European Commission recognises the negative effects for innovation and free speech online that an ancillary right would have. *Open Internet: BEREC publishes its draft Net Neutrality guidelines and US FCC wins court appeal* The Body of European Regulators on Electronic Communications (BEREC) published its long-awaited draft Guidelines on the Implementation by National Regulators of European Net Neutrality Rules <http://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/public_con...>. The guidelines will aim to ensure consistent application of the Telecoms Single Market (TSM) Regulation by providing NRAs with recommendations on particular issues such as zero-rating, traffic management techniques, and specialised services. BEREC invited public comments <http://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/press_rele...>, and will issue final guidelines by 30 August. This is the deadline by which the TSM Regulation instructed BEREC to lay down implementation guidelines. CDT is currently working on its input to the public consultation. In addition, moving to the US, in a resounding victory for net neutrality advocates and consumers alike, CDT welcomes <https://cdt.org/blog/d-c-circuit-decision-in-us-telecom-v-fcc-a-win-for-pres...> the Washington, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in /US Telecom v. FCC//./ In the landmark ruling, the court clearly upheld the FCC's authority to classify broadband as a Title II common carrier, which will prevent broadband providers from leveraging their market power to discriminate against or block lawful content. *Internet Governance: IANA Transition Proposal meets NTIA criteria necessary to advance* Another major milestone has been reached <https://cdt.org/blog/iana-transition-proposal-meets-ntia-criteria-necessary-...> in the IANA transition with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announcing in a report <https://www.ntia.doc.gov/report/2016/iana-stewardship-transition-proposal-as...> that the community proposal "meets the criteria necessary to complete the long-promised privatization of the IANA functions." With regard to the criteria that the proposal should not replace the US Government role with a government-led or intergovernmental organization solution, the report clearly states that "the naming community firmly grounds its proposal in multi-stakeholder bodies, processes, and decision making" and that "the proposed structure of participation does not allow any opportunity for dominance by governments or any other single stakeholder community." The NTIA's comprehensive report confirms that the methodical — at times belaboured — approaches that the community undertook to address the challenges of replacing the clerical and stewardship roles of the US Government and enhancing ICANN's accountability were ultimately the right ones. *Tech Talk: CDT's monthly podcast* Do not forget to listen to our new podcasts on staying secure online while traveling <https://soundcloud.com/cdt-tech-talk/fake-atms-at-defcon-staying-secure-onli...>, fairness in algorithms and privacy-smart wearable companies <https://soundcloud.com/cdt-tech-talk/algorithmic-fairness-embedded-privacy-t...>, and what's next in US government surveillance reform <https://soundcloud.com/cdt-tech-talk/section-702-what-it-means-why-needs-ref...>. You can find Tech Talk on SoundCloud <https://soundcloud.com/cdt-tech-talk> and on iTunes <https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/cdt-tech-talk/id1010874517>. #CONNECT WITH CDT Donate <https://cdt.org/donate/> FB <https://www.facebook.com/CenDemTech> YouTube <https://www.youtube.com/user/CenDemTech> Twitter <https://twitter.com/CenDemTech> Subscribe <https://cdt.org/#getinvolved> This message was sent to demartin@polito.it from: Center for Democracy & Technology | info@cdt.org | Center for Democracy & Technology | 1401 K Street, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20005 Unsubscribe <http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=22839771&l=6026&s=7AWI&m=217...>