Innovation Policy Post

Geneva -- All around the world, a debate rages over the protection of users’ actions and information online. In the developed world, this is seen primarily through the lens of personal privacy protections: how and when users’ data on popular services like Google and Facebook may be used commercially. Elsewhere in the world, the issues are often more stark, as what users say and do online can literally be a matter of life and death for them.

The House Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance held hearings this week on granting Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) to Russia.

CCIA sent letter to both House and Senate committee members urging them to consider the issue of Internet freedom in Russia as part of their discussion of the U.S.-Russia relationship.

Brussels -- Last week the European Commission initiated a public consultation titled: “A clean and open Internet: Public consultation on procedures for notifying and acting on illegal content hosted by online intermediaries”. As the name suggests, the consultation addresses rules and procedures for notifying and acting (N&A) on illegal content hosted by online intermediaries.

[Author’s Note:  This post was adapted from the author’s post on the DisCo (Disruptive Competition) blog — If you haven’t checked out http://project-disco.org, please do!]

The PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) was introduced in the Senate on May 12, 2011.  It is remarkable that that was now more than a year ago, and to think about how much has changed.

As Europe debates the balance of intellectual property rights in the wake of ACTA, Ireland is taking comments through the end of this month on a paper it published on copyright and innovation

On March 4, Russia held a Presidential election in which Prime Minister Vladimir Putin was returned to the Presidency for a third non-consecutive term.  However, the opposition and protestors allege widespread vote fraud, and thousands rallied in Moscow the day after the election.  These mass demonstrations, and those in December around Russia’s parliamentary elections, were informed and organized by utilizing social networks and the Internet.  Once again, we see the Internet contributing to the peaceful stirrings of democracy against an authoritarian regime, and the United States Congress should do what it can to safeguard Internet freedom in Russia.  

In the global battle over the future of the Internet countries that stand for an open, dynamic web with minimal regulation and limits on free expression are increasingly under pressure from authoritative States seeking greater control over its infrastructure and content. Here is a snapshot from the front lines.

On 29th February in Geneva, the UN’s Human Rights Council (HRC), the most influential international human rights body, had a panel discussion dedicated to Internet Freedom for the first time.

Geneva is the epicenter of intergovernmental processes that have a key impact on the future of the Internet.  As the only ICT sector trade association in Geneva, CCIA Geneva is in a great position to help ensure that governments like China, Russia, South Africa, and India which use these processes to push for an Internet managed by governments aren’t successful.

One of the most prominent trade issues in 2012 centers on Congressional approval of permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) with Russia.  While extending PNTR to Russia would provide some economic benefits to both countries following Russia’s WTO entry, we believe that there is another aspect to this issue to be considered: that of Internet Freedom.  

Yesterday, Twitter announced that it had created a targeted solution to removing locally “illegal” material on a country-by-country basis.  Perhaps understandably, the company has been accused of abetting censorship, particularly because Twitter is one of the online platforms that has played such an important role in empowering traditionally silenced minority groups, democracy activists and protestors around the world.  

Secretary Hillary Clinton told audiences connected in online broadcasts throughout the world Thursday that Internet freedom is a human rights issue and keeping the Internet open is a top diplomatic priority for the United States. The Netherlands hosted the Internet freedom event in the Hague along with a panel discussion at the Newseum in Washington DC. 

After the encouraging opinion of Advocate General Cruz Villalón in the Scarlet vs SABAM case delivered in April 2011, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) gave its final judgment on 24 November. One can say that the judgment is crucial for the Internet economy in general and for Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in particular, in two important ways. First, it clarifies and strengthens the ‘no general obligation to monitor’ provision enshrined in the e-Commerce Directive and, second, it makes clear that filtering measures raise concerns under a couple of fundamental rights, which have to be reconciled as much as possible. But let’s first turn to the facts of the case.