Information Policy

High level discussions on online tracking

A meeting organised jointly by the University of Berkeley and the Institute for Information Law of the University of Amsterdam drew together an outstanding collection of international experts, NGOs and industry representatives to discuss online tracking protection and browsers.

Information Society Commissioner Neelie Kroes opened the event where she brandished the "stick" of strict enforcement of the e-Privacy Directive if industry did not accept the "carrot" of self-regulation to achieve compliance. She described as "encouraging" the EASA and IAB Best Practice Recommendation, which uses a tiny icon to alert users to the fact that they are being tracked and profiled and being delivered advertising designed to match that profile - using a cookie as an opt-out mechanism.

She pointed out that tracking is far more than cookies and can be done via browser fingerprinting and add-ons. She therefore called on the advertising industry to come up with a "do not track" (DNT) standard that "must be rich enough for users to know exactly what compliant companies do with their information and for me to be able to say to industry: if you implement this, then I can assume you comply with your legal obligations under the ePrivacy Directive." She challenged the industry to come up with such a standard within twelve months.

Commissioner Kroes' speech was followed by one from Federal Trade Commissioner Julie Brill. She provided an overview of the current US thinking and policy development. She said that her thinking was driven by three key concepts - the need for privacy by design, the need for simplified choice and the need for increased transparency. Regarding a DNT standard, she said it needed to be easy to use, effective, universal, had to cover collection as well as use of data and had to represent a persistent choice. The final point was clearly an issue due to at least one case in the US where an "opt-out" offered by an online company only lasted several days.

Commissioner Brill expressed particular concern about the situation in the mobile market. She said that, of the top 30 mobile apps, 22 did not have a privacy policy and those that did have a policy, did not make them particularly easy to find.

The third policy-maker to speak was Robert Madelin, Director General of DG Information Society of the European Commission. He acknowledged and welcomed the G8 approach that Internet regulation needed to be convergent and interoperable. He described his minimum criteria for the creation of self-regulatory systems, the basis of which comes from a document produced when Mr Madelin was Director General of the Health and Consumer Protection Directorate General of the Commission. Key points which he stresses are clear goals from the outset, involvement of all relevant stakeholders from the outset and clear metrics for the measurement of results.

The remainder of the meeting consisted mainly of very high-level panel discussions and a fascinating insight into the extent of online tracking, the technologies used and the main companies involved by Ashkan Soltani.

Self-regulation principles
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/overview/report_advertising_en.pdf

Ashkan Soltani
http://ashkansoltani.org/

Event website
http://www.law.berkeley.edu/11166.htm

IAB/EASA Best practice guideline
http://www.easa-alliance.org/binarydata.aspx?type=doc/EASA_BPR_OBA_12_...

Do Not Track: The Regulators' Challenge
http://www.w3.org/QA/2011/06/do_not_track_the_regulators_ch.html

(Contribution by Joe McNamee - EDRi)

http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number9.13/online-tracking-discussions

Negotiations end in confused text on Internet blocking

After months of negotiation, the Council, Parliament and Commission finally agreed a text on Internet blocking where everyone appears to have got what they wanted, except the European Commission. The agreed text now needs to be signed off by the political groups, before being put to a vote in the Civil Liberties Committee on 12-13 July 2011. A full vote of the European Parliament's plenary in September will definitively end the process in that institution.

The provisional text removes the proposed obligation on EU Member States to introduce web blocking and also removes the wording which proposed encouragement and "stimulation" (sic) of Internet providers to introduce blocking outside the rule of law.

The explanatory "recital" that is meant to provide clarification of the meaning of the main article is entirely schizophrenic. For those who wish to ignore the European Charter and European Convention on Human Rights, the explanation says that these provisions "are without prejudice to (unspecified) voluntary action taken by the internet industry." Neither"voluntary" or indeed what "action" is referred to is explained.

For those who wish to see provisions of Article 52 of the Charter and Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention respected, particularly with regard to the need for restrictions to be based on law, the text explains that "Member States should ensure that it provides an adequate level of legal security and predictability to users and service providers." This wording echoes rulings from the European Court of Human Rights interpreting the concept of "in accordance with the law" in various existing rulings.

The final compromise text allows blocking, doesn't require blocking, allows "voluntary" actions but does not explain what this might be, prohibits voluntary blocking, but possibly not in an enforceable way and suggests Member States should take action to remove the material at source, but uses wording so weak that it is practically unenforceable.

The European Commission's Communication "Towards an EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child" adopted in 2006 established a set of specific objectives for the Union. - item 6 was "communicating more effectively on children's rights". It is to be hoped that the chaotic mess that was adopted does not effectively communicate the coherence, quality and priorities of the European Union in this policy area.

EU Child Rights Communication
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2006:0367:FI...

EDRi's blocking booklet
http://www.edri.org/files/blocking_booklet.pdf

Compromise text and analysis
http://www.edri.org/blocking_negotiations

Proposal for a Directive on combating the sexual abuse, sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, repealing Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA (29.03.2010)
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0094:FI...

Impact assessment (25.03.2009)
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=SEC:2009:0355:FI...

Commissioner Malmström's blog (in Swedish and English) on this issue (29.03.2010)
http://ceciliamalmstrom.wordpress.com/2010/03/29/ett-slag-for-barnens-...

MOGiS (abuse survivors against internet blocking): Remove, don't block! - Act, and don't look away!
http://mogis-verein.de/eu/

(Contribution by Joe McNamee - EDRi)

http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number9.13/compromise-text-internet-blocking

Stealth Internet helps get images, messages out of troubled areas, but proves less useful for protests

By Joseph Marks

Advanced technology that keeps dissidents online during state-sponsored Internet blackouts can help the rest of the world stay informed about and engaged in a faraway struggle against an autocratic regime, but it may be less useful at keeping protest movements on track, analysts told Nextgov.

Technology such as the "Internet in a suitcase," touted in a New York Times storyearlier this month, also may be too expensive to deploy widely throughout an extended conflict and could raise significant new questions about data authenticity and security, they said.

The Internet in a suitcase -- which provides access to a stealth Web, via satellite, and is designed to be smuggled into areas where the Internet either has not penetrated or has been shut off by authorities -- is just one of several new State Department-funded tools described by the Times. All are centered on ensuring stable Internet and mobile access for dissidents in autocratic states and helping them circumvent government censorship.

Portable Internet technologies have been in development for a long time, mostly for aid organizations to set up communications in disaster areas where the Web has been knocked out or where there has been low penetration, according to Robert Guerra, director of Freedom House's Project on Internet Freedom.

Earlier versions of the technology, though, were too bulky to be snuck across a porous border and so expensive that few organizations would risk them being confiscated by a hostile regime. The initial devices also were able to carry only small amounts of data -- typically text-only emails between an aid organization's field crew and its home office.

The technology described in the Times would create something like a mobile wireless service spread that would be able to communicate with other stealth devices outside official Internet channels.

Guerra said it's clear some version of this technology already has been deployed in Syria, where YouTube videos and Flickr photos of opposition protests have emerged at the same time Internet service providers and observers on the ground have reported speeds far too slow to handle the high-bandwidth videos.

"One of two things is happening," Guerra said. "Either people have access to satellite Internet or they're shuttling those images to people across the border, say in Lebanon."

Sending images out and who's doing the sending

The Internet in a suitcase device would allow dissidents to keep pushing their images and videos outside national borders even if a largely state-run Internet service had been shut down, as it was in Syria earlier this month. The technology also could allow a small group of dissidents to maintain internal communications.

But the device is probably unable to provide Internet service to a large enough group inside such an area to help organize a mass protest movement, as enthusiasts credit Twitter and other social media with doing during protests following the 2009 Iranian election and the recent uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia.

"I personally think these tools would be much more effective at getting information out, which is an important element of using social media to protest," said Jillian York, director of the International Freedom of Expression at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "But, in terms of actually organizing, it depends on who gets access, how many people and whether they're the right people."

That question of whom to give the expensive, and perhaps proprietary technology to can be exceptionally tricky and the answer likely would come down to old-fashioned human intelligence gathering -- often in short supply in places like Iran, where the United States hasn't had diplomatic relations since the 1979 hostage crisis, and Libya, where the United States has had only spotty diplomatic relations for the past few decades.

Several months into funding a NATO bombing campaign in Libya, critics point out the United States still has little idea who the rebels seeking to overthrow Libyan President Moammar Gadhafi are and what their underlying political philosophy is.

Novices, phonies and the long revolution

While the new technology can be designed to be used by people without sophisticated tech savvy, Guerra said, problems may arise after the images and videos themselves are pushed out.

Novices are less likely, for instance, to be able to scrub metadata from photos and videos that could give away their locations to a government snoop, he said, possibly endangering lives.

Another unintended consequence of increased access to images and information from an uprising is that the public, expecting such media, may fall prey to hoaxes and disinformation, Guerra said.

The blog of a purported Syrian lesbian, for instance, which drew significant Web traffic as the country's protest movement gained momentum, turned out to have been written by a married Scottish activist-researcher.

In other cases, an autocratic regime could push out misinformation on its own, Guerra said, seeking to discredit a protest movement.

Another consideration about the long-term viability of stealth Internet technology is the hefty price tag -- about $3,000 per user per month on average for broadband quality capable of rapidly uploading photos and video, Guerra said.

But that may turn out to be a bargain price to transmit conflict images from a months-old Syrian protest movement following years of relatively quiet dictatorship. It's a much trickier proposition, though, to fund such technology to document decades-long, atrocity-filled conflicts in Somalia, Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Ultimately, Guerra said, new technology is sure to aid protest movements, but it can never be a replacement for the movement itself.

"There's this assumption that just because you have technology, you can protest in the streets and topple a regime," he said. "What we've seen in the past few months is there are a variety of equally important things. There needs to be what we saw in Egypt, as opposed to Libya and Syria -- a community that has the ability to organize online and offline.

"The Internet, in my view and in a lot of people's views, is a catalyst that helps reactions go faster," Guerra added. "But if you have those offline democracy and human rights skills, then it may take weeks or months longer, but you can have a revolution without the Internet. The Berlin Wall fell and there was no one Tweeting that."

 

http://www.nextgov.com/nextgov/ng_20110628_4512.php

Report: Myspace closes in on a sale

A deal for Specific Media to acquire Myspace from News Corp. reportedly could be announced as soon as today, although a final agreement is not yet set between the parties. Private-equity firm Golden Gate Capital also is said to be in talks with News Corp. Specific Media is negotiating a price of $30 million to $40 million, much less than the asking price of $100 million by News Corp., which paid $580 million in 2005, sources said.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304447804576413760346262824.html

Regulation of VoIP Services in the European Union

In order to encourage competition between Internet carriers of telephone traffic and traditional telephone the European Commission favors an EU-wide light touch approach to Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services.