EFF Exposing The Back-Room Deals That Allow Corporations And Governments To Control The Web

from the sorry-you-didn't-get-the-memos,-stakeholders dept

Wed, Oct 5th 2016 8:38am — Tim Cushing

The EFF is publishing a series looking at the multitude of ways gatekeepers and governments can make content disappear from the web -- using everything from legislation they helped craft to applying pressure to multiple points between the content they want removed and the person who put it there.

But not every tool used to remove content comes in a form that can be contested by the general public. Some of these tools are the result of private agreements with private entities -- agreements in which users have no say. The EFF calls it "Shadow Regulation."

For example, agreements between copyright holders and Internet companies that give copyright holders the ability to effectively delete users' content from the Internet, and agreements on other topics such as hateful speech and terrorism that can be used to stifle lawful speech. Unlike laws, such agreements (sometimes also called codes, standard, principles, or guidelines) aren't developed with public input or accountability. As a result, users who are affected by them are often completely unaware that they even exist.

Even those who are aware of these agreements have few options for changing them, because users aren't a party to these private deals. They tend to cover multiple companies, so shaming or boycotting a single company isn't an option. And asking regulators to step in might not be possible either, because these agreements often have the active support of government officials who see them as a cheap and easy alternative to regulation.

It may be difficult to battle these agreements, but there's nothing to be lost by exposing their inner workings to those affected by them. The EFF names a few examples: the "six strikes" infringement notification system, Europe's hate speech code of conduct, and the MPAA's "Trusted Notifier" program, which requires domain name registries to disable domains accused of infringement.

But the reach of these private agreements extends much further than this. Pretty much every intermediary between hosted content and those seeking to view it have options at their disposal for disappearing content should they be pressured to do so. The EFF highlights each link in the chain between site visitors and the hosted content, showing how these have been affected by shadow regulation.

ISPs, payment providers, certificate authorities, and search engines all are forms of internet connective tissue that can be severed at any time, and with few recourse options for those whose content has been removed. The private agreements aren't just used by other private entities, like the MPAA and RIAA. They're also exploited by censorious governments to stifle criticism or reporting that's at odds with the official government line.

This is the introduction to a series of posts by the EFF, which will more closely examine each of these "weak links." Just as importantly, the EFF is hoping to provide readers with the information they need to fight back against this unofficial, often-opaque form of speech regulation.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, private agreements, regulations, shadow regulations

19 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Pixelation, 5 Oct 2016 @ 8:46am

No Control
I'm left to wonder when these agreements will be used for nefarious purposes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Oct 2016 @ 8:53am

Re: No Control
Well I don't know exactly about the private to private ones... but if you remember, the government was pressuring financial institutions to stop dealing with pornographers and such awhile back. It was, and presumably still is, preventing people from engaging in constitutionally protected speech.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Oct 2016 @ 8:58am

Not just corporations and governments. Activists can take advantage of these weak links, too. And wow have they ever. Mostly to the detriment of Free and Open Internet activists.

The hidden weak link are the people who run the target platform. If you're on anything smaller than Twitter, key persons who run a given platform are vulnerable to personal attacks to intimidate or coerce them into shutting down the offending speech. I've had the misfortune of witnessing this multiple times over the past several years.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 5 Oct 2016 @ 9:18am

Re: No Control
Stop wondering. "when" is "now" and "already".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Whatever, 5 Oct 2016 @ 9:25am

Oooooooh! Curse you, Snooooowdeeeeeen!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 5 Oct 2016 @ 9:49am

This is why we need decentralized systems, badly. The bright side is there are plenty of people working on them. While it seems somewhat stalled I have high hopes for the block chain developments!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
orbitalinsertion (profile), 5 Oct 2016 @ 10:46am

That's what happens when you give IANA to the UN. </Mr. Gumby>
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Roger Strong (profile), 5 Oct 2016 @ 11:11am

Re:
It's been known for a while that there's another NSA / Booz Allen Hamilton leaker. It looks like he may have been uncovered.

BBC: US government contractor 'stole classified files'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Oct 2016 @ 11:23am

Re: Re: No Control
Payment providers are also pressuring gun stores. More regulation from the left. They don't like you, they will find ways to shut you up or shut you down even though they have no legal right to do it. They don't believe in dealing in the marketplace of ideas, they want to control the marketplace. Just look at the name calling that starts with about the second word out of their mouth. They figure they can get the right to defend themselves against personal attacks that they won't have to defend their indefensible positions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Oct 2016 @ 11:56am

Re: Re: Re: No Control
If only "gun seller/buyer" were a protected class...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Oct 2016 @ 12:21pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: No Control
It is, by the 2nd amendment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Oct 2016 @ 12:30pm

Re:
Fully decentralized systems require 'fixed' ip addresses so that they can be linked by the hosts file. Anything less requires some central server to track dynamic IP addresses, which is what makes torrent users so easily tracked, unless they use TOR or VPN's to hide their IP address.
A central DNS facility is useful for public web sites, but less so for private communications and private groups using the Internet. Multiply replicated data is also usefule, which is what made Usenet so resident to global censorship.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Uriel-238 (profile), 5 Oct 2016 @ 1:03pm

Constitutional amendments
Not unless the protection is enforced.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2016 @ 6:23am

Re: Re: Re: No Control
And it is only "the left" that does this - how cute is that?
Take off your blinders dude, see the world.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2016 @ 8:55am

Re: Re:
Stole? Does that mean NSA no longer have those classified files?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2016 @ 8:57am

Re: Re:
Tor is not spelled "TOR".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thad, 10 Oct 2016 @ 1:08pm

Re: Re: Re:
"Tor" was, originally, an acronym standing for "The Onion Router". The project may not officially style its name as "TOR", but that's correct according to the rules of the English language.

I'm not going to spell "MacOS" with a lowercase "m" either, dammit. And I still hyphenate "Wal-Mart".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2016 @ 1:45pm

Re: Re: Re:
Tor is not spelled "TOR".

Unless you know proper English, that is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mb (profile), 12 Oct 2016 @ 11:11am

Extortion Anyone?
I would love to see that case where the Entire BoD for Corporation X is brought to bear charges of extortion for damages to someone based upon one of their "guidelines."
[ link to this | view in thread ]