Wednesday, 15 November 2017

Week 5/6 + Copyright: Julia Reda – New EU law prescribes website blocking in the name of “consumer protection”

Julia Reda – New EU law prescribes website blocking in the name of “consumer protection”: "European Parliament passed the Consumer Protection Cooperation regulation. Unfortunately, it contains an overreaching general website blocking provision. Additionally, consumer protection improvements were watered down or removed completely in last-minute trilogue negotiations with the Council." 'via Blog this'

Week 7: Contracts for the supply of digital content and personal data protection | European Parliamentary Research Service Blog

Contracts for the supply of digital content and personal data protection | European Parliamentary Research Service Blog: "The interplay between this proposed private law instrument and the existing public law rules on data protection (notably the recently adopted General Data Protection Regulation) have been the subject of some debate. The European Data Protection Supervisor’s recent opinion was critical of the proposal, arguing that, in the EU, personal data ‘cannot be conceived as a mere economic asset’ and cannot therefore be treated as the consumer’s contractual counter-performance in lieu of money.

 The draft report prepared by the co-rapporteurs in Parliament includes those contracts in which consumers do not pay a price (but potentially provide data) within the scope of the proposal. It eliminates however the notion of personal data as a form of contractual ‘counter-performance’." 'via Blog this'

Week 5: Commemorating the 20th Anniversary of Internet Law’s Most Important Judicial Decision | The Recorder

Commemorating the 20th Anniversary of Internet Law’s Most Important Judicial Decision | The Recorder: "§230’s implications first became clear from the first appellate court opinion interpreting it, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling in Zeran v. AOL.

The Zeran case involved a pernicious cyber-harassment attack. An unknown perpetrator posted inflammatory messages to AOL purporting to be from Zeran, which prompted outraged readers to bombard Zeran with angry phone calls.

The Fourth Circuit concluded that §230 protected AOL from liability for publishing the inflammatory messages.

The Zeran case interpreted §230 quite broadly, providing liability immunity even when online publishers exercise editorial control over third party content, and even when the online publisher fails to respond to takedown notices.

Due to its timing and its breadth, the Zeran opinion had an enormous influence on subsequent courts’ interpretations of §230, leading them to apply the statutory immunity expansively across a wide range of circumstances.

Together, §230 and the Zeran ruling helped create a trillion-dollar industry centered around user-generated content.

Because of its influence on such a key issue, the Zeran ruling is widely considered the most important Internet Law ruling ever.

It is also a controversial opinion, and debates about the ruling’s conclusion and implications continue to this day." 'via Blog this'

Week 7: ECtHR: Einarsson v Iceland, Defamation on social media and Article 8

Case Law, Strasbourg: Einarsson v Iceland, Defamation on social media and Article 8 – María Rún Bjarnadóttir | Inforrm's Blog: "ECtHR´s statement about the internet as a platform raises a special interest. The case regards the expression of an individual that had no commercial interest or as a media or public persona, and was using what he presumed to be a personal social media platform. In light of this background, the ECtHR statement about the nature of the internet and its potential harms is noteworthy.

It states that “the risk of harm posed by content and communications on the Internet to the exercise and enjoyment of human rights and freedoms, particularly the right to respect for private life, is certainly higher than that posed by the press” and continues to refer to the findings in the case of Delfi v. Estonia  [46)]. In Delfi, the ECtHR found that an online news platform, that had a commercial interest in the online distribution of material, could be held liable for malicious third party material. The reference is likely intended to address the potential infliction of harm of damaging material online due to the vast scope of possible online distribution, even if the ECtHR does not discuss the issue further in the Judgement. As social media platforms increasingly serve as platforms for heated societal debates in Iceland as other states, it is not impossible to assume that the impact of Judgement will be a form of temperature control for public debate in those spheres."



'via Blog this'

Week 11 Zero-rating and net neutrality - decisions (so far) in the EU

Zero-rating and net neutrality - decisions (so far) in the EU | Technology's Legal Edge: "Many European regulators are yet to consider the issue of net neutrality and zero-rated services following the 2015 Regulations. For those who have reached decisions since the introduction of the 2015 Regulations, most seem to have concluded that as long as the service provider does not discriminate between zero-rated services and non-zero-rated services once a user’s data cap is reached, the service provider’s zero-rated offerings will be found to be in compliance with the 2015 Regulations. If, however, the user is permitted to continue using the zero-rated services after reaching a data cap, the BEREC guidelines (which say that allowing a zero-rated service to continue when others are blocked is an automatic per se breach) have been followed." 'via Blog this'

Week 7: Who’s responsible for what happens on Facebook? Analysis of a new ECJ opinion

EU Law Analysis: Who’s responsible for what happens on Facebook? Analysis of a new ECJ opinion: "Who is responsible for data protection law compliance on Facebook fan sites? That issue is analysed in a recent opinion of an ECJ Advocate-General, in the case of Wirtschaftsakademie.

 This case is one more in a line of cases dealing specifically with the jurisdiction of national data protection supervisory authorities, a line of reasoning which seems to operate separately from the Brussels I Recast Regulation, which concerns jurisdiction of courts over civil and commercial disputes.  While this is an Advocate-General’s opinion, and therefore not binding on the Court, if followed by the Court it would consolidates the Court’s prior broad interpretation of the Data Protection Directive.  While this might be the headline, it is worth considering a perhaps overlooked element of the data-economy: the role of the content provider in providing individuals whose data is harvested." 'via Blog this'

Monday, 13 November 2017

Week 9/Cyber: MINIX — The most popular OS in the world, thanks to Intel | Network World

MINIX — The most popular OS in the world, thanks to Intel | Network World: "But here’s the crazy part: That’s not the only operating system you’re running. 

If you have a modern Intel CPU (released in the last few years) with Intel’s Management Engine built in, you’ve got another complete operating system running that you might not have had any clue was in there: MINIX. 

That’s right. MINIX.

The Unix-like OS originally developed by Andrew Tanenbaum as an educational tool — to demonstrate operating system programming — is built into every new Intel CPU.

MINIX is running on “Ring -3” (that’s “negative 3”) on its own CPU. A CPU that you, the user/owner of the machine, have no access to. " 'via Blog this'