EU Parliament Takes Up Its Next Attempt To Wipe Out An Open Internet: Terrorist Content Regulation Vote On Wednesday
from the can-we-make-this-disappear-in-an-hour dept
For the past few weeks and months I've been warning people that if you were worried about the EU Copyright Directive, you should be absolutely terrified about the EU Terrorist Content Regulation, which has continued to march forward with very little attention compared to the Copyright Directive. We've detailed the many, many problems with the Terrorist Content Regulation, starting with the requirement that any site (even a one-person blog somewhere outside of the EU) be required to take down content within an hour of notification by an ill-defined "competent authority," but also covering other aspects, such as requiring mandatory content filters.
When the EU Parliament's civil rights committee, LIBE, moved the proposal forward last week, it stripped out some of the worst aspects of the law, but left in the 1 hour content removal requirement. And the largest group in the EU Parliament, the EPP, has already put forth amendments to bring back all the other bad stuff in the proposal. As MEP Julia Reda notes, the EU Parliament will now vote on the Terrorist Content Regulation on Wednesday, and that will include votes on bringing back the awful stuff as well as amendments to hopefully remove the ridiculous and impossible one hour takedown requirement. Reda is explaining why EU citizens should call on their MEPs to support an amendment to remove the one hour removal requirement:
Unfortunately, the unreasonable Commission proposal that illegal terrorist content must be taken down within one hour remains the default in the report adopted by the LIBE committee (see Article 4). The only exception to this rule is for the very first time a website owner receives a removal order from an authority, in which case they get 12 hours to familiarise themselves with the procedure and applicable deadlines. Afterward, regardless of platform size or resources, they must react within one hour in order to avoid harsh penalties. These penalties may amount to 4% of a platform’s turnover in case of persistent infringements (see Article 18).
A one-hour deadline is completely unworkable for platforms run by individuals or small providers, who have no capacities to hire staff tasked with handling potential removal orders 24/7. No private website owner can be expected to stay reachable over night and during weekends in the unlikely event that somebody uploads terrorist material. Their only realistic option available would be the automation of removals: Terrorism filters through the back door.
Blindly deleting or blocking flagged content without review is bound to lead to the deletion of legal uploads, such as a news report on terrorism that shows footage from a war zone, which may indeed be illegal in another context. Already today, there are plenty of examples of overzealous administrative authorities flagging perfectly legal material as terrorist content (Note: Unlike the title of that post suggests, these notices didn’t come from an EU agency, but a French national authority). Thus it’s imperative that websites of all sizes have the necessary time to review reports.
A joint attempt by the Greens/EFA and GUE groups to give providers more time to react was rejected by the LIBE Committee. Amendments by Greens/EFA, GUE and the S&D group will be put to the vote on Wednesday once more to try to get rid of the unworkable one hour deadline.
Separately, talks about the issue of upload filters that were in the original proposal, but removed by the LIBE, only to be re-introduced as an amendment by the EPP Group:
We managed to push back on upload filters, which are included in the Commission proposal in Article 6. The text adopted by the LIBE Committee makes explicit that the state authorities who can order platforms to remove material they consider terrorist content cannot impose obligations on web hosts to monitor uploads, nor to use automated tools for that matter.
Instead, the text calls for “specific measures” that hosts can take in order to protect their services (see Article 6). These measures can range from increasing human resources to protect their service to exchanging best practices (see Recital 16). But regardless of the measure chosen, hosts must pay particular attention to users’ fundamental rights. This clarification is a major victory, considering that the introduction of upload filters seems to be the main objective of the European Commission proposal.
The EPP is against this change and has tabled amendments that would re-introduce the possibility for authorities to force platforms to use upload filters. The plenary must reject the EPP’s pro-upload filter amendment 175 and adopt the LIBE position against upload filters (Amendments 84 to 89)!
Finally, there is the question of whether or not platforms should have their private Terms of Service elevated into the equivalent of law under the proposal. Again, LIBE got rid of this, but the EPP wants to bring it back:
In addition to having to act on removal orders, platforms were to receive “referrals” of content that may or may not be considered terrorist content, which they could then voluntarily assess not by standards of law, but their self-set arbitrary terms of service (see Article 5). Rightfully, the LIBE Committee realised that this would set a dangerous precedent for the privatisation of law enforcement and deleted the provision. While platforms will still undoubtedly make mistakes when removing content, they will at least have to judge by definitions of illegal terrorist content the EU set two years ago.
The EPP group has tabled amendments to try to re-introduce Article 5. On Wednesday, we will have to make sure that Article 5 stays deleted!
Given what we've already seen with the Copyright Directive, it will come as little surprise to suggest that there's a very real chance that the EU Parliament will approve a horrific version of this bill that will make it effectively impossible for any smaller website to operate within the EU without facing massive liability. For a site like our own, under some of these proposals, we would literally be required to hire someone in the EU to be on call 24 hours a day to pull down content. And while I'm sure various "services" would spring up to represent non-EU based websites, in what world am I going to be comfortable giving direct access to all of Techdirt's servers to some random person in the EU in charge of pulling content down as soon as anyone requests it?
Reda and I spoke about this a bit on last week's podcast, and while I know there's reasonable fatigue about all of these attacks on the internet (especially from the EU), it is really important to at least try to stop yet another awful law.
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: censorship, eu, eu terrorist content regulation, filters, takedowns, terrorist content, terrorist content regulation
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Look on the bright side
If they word it correctly, we can rid ourselves of both Christians and Muslims with one (nearly) stroke of the pen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Look on the bright side
that's racist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Look on the bright side
"that's racist"
True. More appropriate to state that correctly worded we could rid ourselves of any inflammatory or marginalizing religious content irrespective of denomination.
Right after which we would find ourselves also rid of everything holding any form of personal opinion at all.
The issue with applauding a..."terrorist"...content legislation which puts a condition on free speech completely subject to government arbitration is that in half the countries in europe today such legislation would immediately be used to suppress fully legitimate minority views.
That the commenter specifically targeted abrahamic religion is more concerning over that issue rather than over any racist bias or wording in the comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Look on the bright side
Types the person implying all Muslims are of Arabic descent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For 24/7/365 coverage, at least 5 people are required, and preferably at least 10, so that there are normally at least 2 on duty, and one if one of the next shift call in sick, wreck their car or otherwise fail to turn up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually, a company could perform this function for many clients, thus reducing the cost, much like an answering service does for after-hours calls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There is the small matter of root access to servers, and ensuring that that access does not get passed on when employees change jobs. Manageable when you employ them, much less so when you may not even know when an employee leaves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Actually, a company could perform this function for many clients, thus reducing the cost, much like an answering service does for after-hours calls."
Not really, no.
An answering service only has to take down names and settle easy problems.
Here we are discussing staff which needs to be in hand 24/7, viewing EVERY new article or comment and trying to use their own highly subjective standards as to what, exactly, would be considered "terrorist".
Is someone calling for a secession of the Basques, the Kurds, or the United Kingdom a terrorist? Tricky, because in two cases of the above that's actually the primary goal of two acknowledged terrorist organizations despite the opinion in question being fully legal.
Is an action on the West Bank or Gaza Strip a terrorist act? That depends on whether the reviewer of the article is on one side of that fence or the other.
Is a comment advocating that the US president be tarred and feathered terrorist speech? There are laws on the tablets suggesting that possibility.
And so on. Anti-terrorist laws are in many countries written in response to political knee-jerk reactions and have often been shown to lack basic judicial principles or outright be based on racist assumption.
It's pretty clear that the services of an answering service won't suffice. Especially so given that the judgment on whether an article is legally considered terrorist speech will later on be judged by government agents who have an entirely different view on what constitutes "terrorist" content.
The only way to fulfill this legislation is, essentially, setting up a government agency to do the takedowns directly.
So essentially the legislation can only be fulfilled by implementing full-blown government censorship. Or by the platforms canceling ALL uploads and/or comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So what's stopping those of us who aren't in the EU from just raising our middle finger at the whole endeavor and ignoring any demands we get from them? I have no physical presence in the EU, no plans to ever have one, and if they keep going down this road no plans to ever visit them in the future. I don't see how they have any legitimate or enforceable jurisdiction over site operators outside of their borders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because it is more than 550million potential visitors/customers to your website?
If you or your site doesn't want to comply, then don't allow your site to be accessed by the EU. Otherwise, yes you have to comply with their laws.
Masnick already stated that this could drive out small websites just like the previous copyright law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The same 550 million that Google is supposedly going to walk away from?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"The same 550 million that Google is supposedly going to walk away from?"
Well that's true. Those 550 million may or may not be able to even find foreign sites through google search, depending on to which extent google walks way.
Me, I'm thinking VPN services will be looking at glorious days in coming years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No, you can get by without blocking EU users (which cannot be done effectively anyway; there’s always ways around it) but you will need to make sure you don’t do business in the EU and don’t have assets there that could be seized to enforce a judgment. Better not travel there either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That still doesn't answer why we in the US have to comply. What are their enforcement options?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Supposedly the various reciprocity and extradition agreements.
Those have worked so well in the past.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They can just block the site, which is bad as it is. And seeing how Kim Dotcom is on trial by the US without ever being in the US (as an entity or as a person), everything is possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is because the pirated material "exists" where it was stolen. This was actually a precedent in California where one law firm copied another's marketing, and the Plaintiff got jurisdiction.
Pirates do not get "home court."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And terrorist material exists where it is read, and the EU gets jurisdiction. Keep that principle up, and using the Internet exposes you to all the laws of all countries, making it unusable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Unusable for you, maybe.
I'm not concerned. Your battles are not mine, and vice versa. Everyone for themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When you are exposed to every law of every country just by posting on the Internet,.. well enjoy your holiday in Iran
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
My site is run from a server in Washington state in the US. I'm in Wisconsin, and have absolutely zero physical or business presence in the EU, Russia China, or the Middle East. If someone from the any of those locations accesses my site that's their prerogative, and they can do so by connecting to my US-based server. Them coming to me doesn't make me subject to their laws any more than if they flew to the server and connected to it directly. They're welcome to think otherwise all they want, but this is a basic jurisdiction matter and without being able to threaten my non-existant local assets it's all bluster.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's been roughly how I see see this, but I am just a mod on a forum. I have no problem with sending them the middle finger and letting them block if they want to. For businesses though, it's a different matter because site blocking can cost them money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To echo Damien, yeah, fuck off.
If I run a blog or website here and I ever got a take down notice from the EU I'd probably laugh my self silly, keep calm and carry on regardless.
What a bunch of maroons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"you should be absolutely terrified about the EU Terrorist Content Regulation,"
Because YOU (Masnick) seem to be? Don't think so.
Hopefully hate speech will be included in that. Nothing wrong with a moderated internet. It's twenty years overdue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There is a lot wrong with trying to moderate every bodies conversations just because they are carried out by electronic means. The actual result will be that most people are silenced because there are not enough moderators to do the job. Note the number of moderators required is related to the number of people communicating online, and not the size of the site, and so lots of small sites is not a solution to the moderator problem..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
First all the profanity gets flagged. Next all slang in 180 languages and 3400+ dialects. Next religion will take a hit. Then codewords like lemon, and potato. Words that breed mistrust between educators and students like this lunch sucks and mud on your face. And then words that involve panic. Words like hot water and disease. It will ALL GET CENSORED!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's all fun and games until someone censors your ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"illegal terrorist content must be taken down within one hour"
Does this mean that Donald's twit feed will be taken down in the EU?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So what is legal terrorist content?
Inquiring minds want to know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Legal Terrorist Content
That would be things like:
Trump press conferences
Ajit Pai Announcements
Anything a Telecom or any other Lobbiest says.
Anything a US/EU or other countries Politicians say publicly (all of that is PR crap designed to "uses intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims"). Seems pretty close to the definition of Terrorist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Legal Terrorist Content
So the definition of Terrorism is: "a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims".
So Lawful Terrorism would be, "a person who uses lawful violence (aka police) and intimidation (aka Political Grandstanding), especially against civilians (voters), in the pursuit of political aims".
There is Lawful Terrorism (terrorism without the unlawful part...), which sounds an awful lot like a Politician (ignoring the 'one who is in politics' circular definition):, "a person who acts in a manipulative and devious way, typically to gain advancement within an organization."
So I don't know about you, but to me unlawful violence and intimidation sounds very similar to manipulative and devious.
Thus our Infamous Leader could be considered the biggest legal terrorist on the planet (ok those guys in the EU are in a close 2nd).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"So what is legal terrorist content?"
Anything calling for secessions? Basques, PKK, and Brexit comes to mind.
Anyone applauding or condemning any form of controversy - nothing concerning israel or palestina, then, no matter which side of the fence you're on.
Political and/or religious opinion.
Any form of comment using keywords assumed by actual terrorists to get around the restrictive legislation - so, in the end, everything, more or less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The EU is posting terroristic content designed to inflame people and restrict their rights of free expression. All EU content needs to be removed from the internet in 1 hour!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aid to terrorists?
How long before ISIS, or whatever the hell the non de jour is, clues in and starts sending automated takedown requests for anything that shows them in a bad light?
Will the EU then charge itself for giving material aid to terrorists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Aid to terrorists?
Does ISIS also enjoy the Right to Be Forgotten?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Aid to terrorists?
Who is ISIS?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Aid to terrorists?
I've forgotten. /sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Aid to terrorists?
"How long before ISIS, or whatever the hell the non de jour is, clues in and starts sending automated takedown requests for anything that shows them in a bad light?"
Or worse. Savvy of the proposed law, the trolls in charge of the "islamic state"/IS/Daesh, start using workarounds, describing their proposed actions in other terminology normally used by fully legitimate entities. As a result of which webpages dedicated to home cooking and DIY pages end up blocked én másse.
We've already seen hideous examples of this where phone surveillance gone wrong homed in on "keywords" indicating "terrorist conspiracy" - which turned out to be an electrician speaking about wiring and migraine about to blow his head up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From Weekend Update, 1975:
"The United Nations just passed a resolution equating Zionism with racism. When asked for comment, Sammy Davis, Jr. said 'What a breakthrough! Now, finally, I can hate myself!'"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Identifying terrorists on the internet is insanely easy...they all use initials.
ISIS, NSA, CIA, DNC, RNC, EU, MPAA, RIAA etc....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You forgot AI. Its the biggest terrorist of all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Automatic filtering, logrithyms and IPs scared out of their minds with concerns over heated comments and you will have a recipe for red flags and autodialing the government agencies over anything aimed at politics like dissenting views and utter disgust of policies and actions by law enforcement and without a fucking warning they'll be busting down your front door to put you in shackles. And if your lucky enough to live through the first few days of incarceration, you just might get to speak to your attorney.
That is what is going to happen when AI screens the comments. It will have direct link to all the agencies. Goodbye yellowbrick road.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One Answer Is Firewall Rules
For sites that can't afford the staff to avoid the risk of prosecution (or annoyance) by nation-states, one defense is to DENY access to the site via firewall rules. Keep the ban lists updated for IP Address ranges allocated to EU entities and ban them all. Alternatively, REDIRECT all requests originating in the EU to a "Sorry, you're not welcome, due to..." page. Raise public awareness in the EU.
Build a TOS page that explicitly declares users from the EU as personae non grata under current EU laws. Any EU agency that demands anything should be advised that their access to the site is an evasion of server-enforced rules - very possibly criminal under international cyberlaw - certainly a violation of the TOS for the site.
Heck, this could be the basis for a new business model...providing subscriptions to hourly-updated IP Address lists for DENY/REDIRECT rules for any particular collection of geographic, national, or political entities.
How long will the citizenry of the EU tolerate becoming increasingly fenced out the non-EU Internet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One Answer Is Firewall Rules
the flaw in your logic is, they might not even notice, how smart can they be if they are already putting up agendas like this in the first place??
if I am sitting humming to myself with my fingers in my ears do you think I will notice if it's cloudy out or not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]