CyberLaw Blog

Archive for the ‘ISP liability’ Category

Links to blog in email made sender liable, says US court: “

Defamatory content ‘published’

A US bankruptcy court has said that a man committed defamation just by forwarding an email with links in it to online material that was defamatory. The court said that the man ‘published’ the blog to his email recipients.…

“

(Via The Register – Public Sector.)

Internet Freedom under pressure in Denmark: “

On 27 May the Danish Supreme Court upheld a lower court decision which obliges internet service providers (ISPs) to block access to websites that may contain – or link to other sites which contain – material which infringes copyrights (the Pirate Bay in this instance).

The decision has rightly been criticized as a setback for internet freedom in Denmark. The decision attaches undue weight to the interests of copyright holders while ignoring obvious dangers of abuse, restrictions on internet freedom and access to information and the lack of any due process. The decision may lead to the blocking of websites that mainly includes content that does not infringe copyright and thus restrict the free flow of information. Moreover, by forcing ISP’s to police the Internet without due process the decision marks a dangerous precedent that is likely to include other ‘illegal’ or ‘offensive’ material in the future.

The Supreme Court’s decision is only the latest instance of a wider trend towards internet regulation in Denmark (ranked as the country with the freest press in the world by Reporters Without Borders).

In 2005 The Danish police set up the so-called Child Pornography Filter in co-operation with the Danish NGO Red Barnet (Save the Child). When Red Barnet and the Police identify web-sites that contain child pornography the police informs ISPs and request them to block access to these sites with no prior warning or hearing. The sites blocked by the filter are kept confidential by the police. In 2008 Wikileaks leaked all the sites blocked by the filter which seemed to show that several sites were either inactive or contained material that had nothing to do with child pornography.

Earlier in 2010 the Danish parliament (Folketinget) passed a law, which will allow the tax authorities to notify ISPs of web sites operated by ‘unauthorized’ providers of online-gambling. ISPs will then be requested to block access to such sites. Should the relevant ISPs refuse or fail to do so they will be subject to criminal liability. No courts or tribunals will review the decisions of the tax-authorities nor will the owners of the relevant websites be heard prior to a decision. It is an open question whether this law violates the Danish constitution’s prohibition against censorship and/or the European Convention on Human Rights’ protection of freedom of expression and access to information.

Several Danish lawmakers have proposed wide ranging restrictions on Internet access. Earlier in 2010 the Socialist Peoples’ Part proposed criminalizing surfing on ‘terror related web sites’ and the Danish Peoples’ Party has twice proposed banning www.psychedlica.dk a website dedicated to sharing information about drugs. According to media reports the Danish governments has also been very active in keeping the ongoing Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiations confidential. According to leaks from the ACTS negotiations the current ACTA draft envisages intrusive measures likely to threaten internet freedom and the right to privacy.

“

(Via Global Voices Advocacy.)

Ofcom creates piracy havens at small ISPs: “

Fleeing freetards could yet cause tiddler crackdown

Ofcom has decided that only fixed line ISPs with more than 400,000 subscribers will be forced to comply with the Digital Economy Act’s controversial anti-filesharing provisions.…

“

(Via The Register – Public Sector.)

US telco watchdog finds new legal basis for regulating ISPs: “The US telecoms regulator has redefined internet access in order to assert its authority to regulate the provision of broadband access there. The regulator recently suffered a legal defeat when a court ruled that it did not have the authority it claimed.“

(Via OUT-LAW News.)

Italian judge to Google: Internet not a lawless prairie: “An Italian judge explained in a court document why he found three Google executives guilty of violating privacy laws there.




“

(Via Macworld.)

High Court: Moderate user comments and you’re liable: “

Even fixing spelling can see you busted

A blog owner can avoid liability for user-generated content that appears on his site without being checked or moderated, the High Court has ruled. But fixing the spelling or grammar in users’ posts could lose him that protection, it said.…

“

(Via The Register – Public Sector.)

High Court ruling serves as a warning against any moderation of user comments: “A blog owner can avoid liability for user-generated content that appears on his site without being checked or moderated, the High Court has ruled. But fixing the spelling or grammar in users’ posts could lose him that protection, it said.“

(Via OUT-LAW News.)

The Free Speech Blog: Official blog of Index on Censorship » Google convictions: Who should police the internet?

26 February 2010 – by Joe McNamee

The Italian court’s decision in the Google/Vividown case is as incomprehensible as it is disturbing. Unfortunately, as the full ruling will not be made available for some time, we can only guess at the specifics of the court’s decision.

The three Google executives, rather than the company itself, were held criminally responsible for breaches of Italy’s data protection laws. The convictions could have been based on Google’s role as the provider of a ‘hosting’ service for videos or, secondly, with regard to the privacy of the individuals in the video.

Providers of hosting services may not, following an EU Directive of 2000, be held liable if they expeditiously remove material upon receipt of a notice that material is illegal. While there is some debate about when the item was actually taken offline, prosecutors argued Google ‘should have’ known about the video and that the internet giant should never have allowed the video to be uploaded. It seems both legally and logically implausible to argue that internet service providers of any type should live in a legal limbo, carrying out surveillance of their users based on a court’s belief they ‘should have known’.

On the second issue, the privacy of the boy victimised in the video, it seems difficult to see how credible the prosecutions evidence could have been as the Italian data protection authority did not support this case. In either scenario it seems very unlikely that the court decision was legally sound but the decision is part of a wider and profoundly dangerous trend in Italy with regard to freedom of communication, privacy and expression.

* Italy already has internet filtering laws that are almost certainly in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights.
* In January 2010, the Italian government proposed measures for prior checks of all content to be placed on video hosting site, blogs and news media.
* Media freedom in Italy continues to decline according to Freedom House, who registered a further deterioration in the country in its most recent report.

In such a context, the ‘chilling effect’ of this judgement could be far-reaching. In an environment where the providers of online services have little or no legal certainty, the only realistic option would appear to be to err on the side of caution and censorship and many journalists and commentators seem to be taking the line of least resistance.

But in concert with the Italian government’s pre-existing plans to monitor all internet uploads this case could threaten user-generated content.

When legislation was proposed to outlaw anonymity online in order ‘to fight paedophiles’ it was quickly revealed that document was secretly authored by Univideo, the Italian union for the movie industry. So was the Union’s concern really child abuse or was it copyright?

Unfortunately, the situation in Italy appears to be a sign of the future rather than an isolated case. The European Commission is in discussions with industry ‘stakeholders’ about how to police the internet more efficiently for intellectual property infringements. The United States for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) proposes that internet providers put ‘measures’ in place to prevent infringements in order to avoid secondary liability for transgressions of their clients and the European Commission is also soon due to publish proposals for internet blocking. But don’t worry, its just to protect children; nothing sinister!

Joe McNamee works as Advocacy Coordinatory for European Digital Rights in Brussels (EDRi). He works on issues related to privacy, cybercrime, intellectual property, freedom of information/communication and related topics.

ISP did not authorise customers’ copyright infringement, says Australian court: “An ISP was not liable for the copyright infringement of its customers, an Australian court has ruled, in what the judge claimed was the world’s first full trial of its kind. Australian and UK law on copyright liability are very similar.”

(Via OUT-LAW News.)

Google convictions reveal two flaws in EU law, not just Italian law: “OPINION: Criticism of last week’s conviction of three Google executives has focused on Italy’s legal system. That focus risks missing a wider point. Web hosts are unfairly exposed all across the EU and two legal changes are needed.”

(Via OUT-LAW News.)