Texas Regulators Learned Nothing From February's Carnage, Prepare To Repeat The Cycle

from the whoops-you-froze-to-death-surcharge dept

Texas consumers recently learned the hard way that regulatory capture can prove to be fatal. Texas energy companies (and the regulators and lawmakers who love them) ignored a decade-plus of warnings that they needed to harden their utility infrastructure in the face of climate change. As a result, we're still measuring the casualties. Not only did 700 Texans die after they lost power during a brutal cold snap last February, but a new report by ProPublica found that an additional 1,400 Texans were hospitalized, and at least 7 died.

A joint investigation by ProPublica, NBC, and The Texas Tribune found that lax regulatory oversight (aside from, yes, poor human decision making) was a primary reason people keep dying from something so avoidable as carbon monoxide poisoning:

"regulations that would force companies to reduce generators’ carbon monoxide emissions and make the machines safer have been stymied under a statutory process that empowers manufacturers to regulate themselves."

If you squint and tilt your head just right, you may be able to detect a common theme across countless U.S. business sectors (also see: telecom, banking, insurance, energy), where letting giant companies monitor themselves doesn't always work out so great.

You would have thought Texas regulators and energy companies learned something from the experience of February, but you'd be wrong. Texas state lawmakers did pass a law urging Texas utilities to maybe someday think about hardening their infrastructure for increasing colder weather, but they included loopholes that excluded a systemic cornerstone: natural gas companies. Then mysteriously forgot they included those loopholes (which likely means gas industry lawyers wrote the law and the lawmakers they throw campaign contributions at failed to read it, which happens much more than you'd think).

Some companies have wisely updated their infrastructure and symptoms, but they have been warning local reporters they're in the minority, and Texas regulators and lawmakers still aren't taking the problem seriously. Especially when it comes to protecting the reliable flow of natural gas across the state, and tracking upgrades with any consistency:

"energy experts say Texas’ grid remains vulnerable, largely because newly written regulations allowed too much wiggle room for companies to avoid weatherization improvements that can take months or years. More than nine months after February’s storm — which could exceed Hurricane Harvey as the costliest natural disaster in state history — a lack of data from regulators and industry groups makes it impossible to know how many power and gas facilities are properly weatherized."

The Texas natural gas industry did find the time to implement a new $3.4 billion surcharge (with the blessing of state regulators) on Texas consumers' energy bills. So instead of forcing the Texas gas industry to update it's systems to avoid more fatalities, they passed bills that intentionally exempted them from such requirements. Then greenlit steep new surcharges that made consumers pay for the sector's incompetence. All while denying that the underlying reason (climate change caused by pollution) this is even happening in the first place. Great.

Filed Under: electric grid, energy, regulators, texas

Facebook Still Can't Admit That Launching Libra During An International Privacy Scandal Is Idiotic

from the well-duh dept

One of the less charming aspects of Facebook is its executives' total inability to read the room. For example, any sensible company under Facebook's recent level of scrutiny would take the contrite and humble approach -- pausing most operations to insist they'd seen the error of their ways, pummeling home the claim that they were pausing expansion ambitions to ensure they were leaving no stone unturned to fix the problem and company culture (even if the company in question never genuinely intended such a thing).

Instead Facebook, one of the wealthiest companies to ever exist, engaged in repeated PR gaffes and face plants, most of which were their own making. Like thinking it was a good idea to launch a dating app in the middle of a privacy firestorm. Or thinking it was a good idea to push a "privacy protecting" VPN on users that wound up being spyware. Or, you know, thinking it was a good idea for it to push hard into the cryptocurrency space while facing numerous international investigations for being a dumpster fire when it comes to protecting its users' privacy and security.

To that end, a paywalled report at The Information this week hinted that Facebook was finally backing away from its Libra cryptocurrency plan after numerous partners had wisely exited the (likely) doomed venture. Last year Facebook had already been slowly backing away from its original vision of Libra as a fully open, decentralized network, putting it in stark contrast with those excited about the decentralized nature of blockchain-based networks.

But the company and the Libra Association (or what's left of it) subsequently told Ars Technica that nothing has changed:

"The Libra Association has not altered its goal of building a regulatory-compliant global payment network, and the basic design principles that support that goal have not been changed nor has the potential for this network to foster future innovation."

Government regulators around the world balked at the dumb idea from the start. Stripe, Paypal, eBay, Visa, Mastercard, and Mercado Pago all quickly sensed the project was a dumpster fire and quickly backed away. Most of the companies that actually know something about international payment systems want nothing to do with this project. But this being Facebook, it apparently knows better, and will probably keep beating this dead horse for another year or so before it admits the project is a turd, in large part because nobody trusts the company to get it right after Cambridge Analytica.

Filed Under: cryptocurrency, currency, libra, money, regulations, regulators
Companies: facebook

Want A Box At The Grammies With Two Bigshot Congressmen? That'll Be $5,000 (Entertainment Lobbyists Only)

from the soft-corruption dept

We've talked a lot in the past about the concept of soft corruption. These are the kinds of practices that are most likely legal, and possibly even common among the political class, but which absolutely stink of corruption to the average American. And that's a huge problem, not just because of the general ethical questions raised by such soft corruption, but because it creates a cynical American public that does not trust politicians to adequately represent their interests.

Here's just one example. It appears that a bunch of industry lobbyists have been receiving the following email:

If you can't read it, it says the following:

Subject: Chairman Jeffries Grammy Weekend Feb 8-10

Good afternoon!

Chairman Hakeem Jeffries and Ranking Member Nadler will be splitting a box for the upcoming Grammy Awards Feb 8-10. The room block is at the newly renovated Sheraton Grand Los Angeles, which is a short walk from the Staples Center. To access the invite and registration form, please CLICK HERE

Tickets are $5,000 each. If you need a second ticket then please let me know and I will put you in touch with Yuichi Miyamoto from Ranking Member Nadler's team.

Please let me know as soon as possible if you want to attend since we have a limited number of spots. We also request that you use the room block for the stay.

Thanks again!

The link then takes people to an official invite to hang out with Reps. Jeffries and Nadler at the Grammies. Just $5 grand a pop. They'll even book your hotel for you! What a deal! What a steal!

Jeffries and Nadler are both bigshots in Congress. Jeffries (who originally ran for Congress stating: "Washington is broken. Congress is dysfunctional.... We deserve more") was just elected to be the chair of the Democratic Caucus, which makes him an incredibly powerful Congressman. Nadler is the current "Ranking Member" on the powerful Judciary Committee, and once the new Congress begins, will become the Chair of the Judiciary Committee -- the very committee in Congress that is in charge of copyright law. Nadler has a long history of pushing horrific anti-public copyright bills. Back in 2012, he proposed what I jokingly referred to as the RIAA Bailout Act of 2012, as the entire point of the bill was to drastically increase the rates internet radio would have to pay the record labels. He's also mocked digital rights activists, by calling the idea that "you bought it, you own it" was "an extreme digital view."

So, it certainly does seem notable that both of these Congressional Reps (1) have "a box" at the Grammies and (2) they're actively asking industry lobbyists to give them $5,000 per ticket to hang out with the Congressmen at the Grammies.

Again, some may suggest that this is "how fundraising is done" in Congress (though, frankly, it's usually a bit less blatant). But, even so, is this how it should be done? Doesn't anyone in Jeffries' or Nadler's office think that going to a key recording industry event and asking the industry's biggest companies to pay them $5k to spend some time with them... looks really, really bad? And, relatedly, how the hell can we trust that the various copyright bills that are certain to be under Nadler's control over the next two years (at least) are actually written for the benefit of the public, as per the Constitutional requirement, rather than the benefit of his $5,000 paying "friends" who hang out with him at the biggest celebration of the industry over which Nadler gets to set key rules?

In the past, there have been ethical questions raised by Congressional Representatives hosting fundraisers targeting industries they have jurisdiction over regulating, but these things tend to get swept under the rug in Congress as part of "the way things are done."

But, it certainly stinks of the kind of "soft corruption" that makes the public distrust the government. Indeed, it's the kind of thing that makes people say: "Washington is broken. Congress is dysfunctional.... We deserve more."

Filed Under: congress, copyright, grammies, hakeem jeffries, jerry nadler, lobbying, recording industry, regulators, soft corruption

Optometrists Push For State Laws Blocking Online Eye Exams

from the no-competition-please,-we're-doctors dept

Billing itself as a sort of Uber-for-eye-exams, telemedicine startup Opternative recently came on the scene offering a quick, inexpensive alternative to traditional optical exams that uses your computer and smartphone. Following a 25-minute online exam, an ophthalmologist will approve your results and issue a prescription for a cost of $40. No doctor visit is required.

Unfortunately, just like Uber, there's a powerful lobby of incumbents who don't want the status quo disrupted. Now they're pushing legislation in several states to shut down online eye exams.

As someone who recently had to get glasses, I like the idea of an online option the next time I need a checkup (and unlike many people, I only have to walk a few blocks from my office to see an eye doctor). Of course, my first question was: "Is it accurate?" But, at least according to its clinical trial, the online version appears to be equivalent in accuracy to its analog counterpart.

The technology is approved in 45 states, and the service is currently available in 33. So, unlike transportation network companies like Uber that had to contend with onerous insurance, safety and liability questions, the regulatory status quo of telehealth services like this is that they are legal in most jurisdictions.

Indeed, telemedicine is nothing new. Through its more than 40-year history, it has shown great potential for cost savings in both private sector and government programs. This potential will only grow, as wearables and smartphones become more sophisticated and ubiquitous. For instance, in Opternative's case, the service is about half as expensive as a traditional eye exam. Future competitors in the space, or economies of scale, could bring costs down even further.

Unfortunately, a powerful lobby of brick-and-mortar optometrists is pushing for legislation to shut them down. In Georgia, a bill (HB 775) was passed by both houses of the state Legislature that would ban these online eye exams. Aptly listed as "restrictions on sale and dispensing of spectacles," this legislation is clear in its purpose to protect licensed brick-and-mortar optometrists from unwanted competition. Now it's up to Gov. Nathan Deal to sign or veto the bill. He has until the first week of May to decide.

Blocking new telehealth applications like this one will only serve to raise prices, reduce the ability of low-income or rural individuals to access care and stifle future smartphone-driven innovations. As former Speaker Newt Gingrich wrote in a column for USA Today:

There are more than 100,000 smartphone apps for health purposes, including one that detects heart attacks and another that helps diabetics monitor their blood sugar....And every day more are invented. Many of these smartphone enabled apps and devices will be better than the methods they're replacing — more convenient, faster, less expensive, and, in a growing number of cases, more accurate.... In healthcare, however, there is a growing effort by the existing, expensive systems to defend old, costly, less convenient, and slower methods by simply outlawing most of the competition.

What's happening in Georgia, Indiana, Nebraska, South Carolina, Oklahoma and elsewhere, is a shameless attempt to capture the regulatory apparatus by a rent-seeking cartel that wants to preserve the status quo at all costs. If these acts of cronyism are allowed to proceed unchecked, they inevitably will contribute to a disastrous chilling effect for innovation in the health sector -- an area already encumbered by a massive regulatory burden.

This will only make us all poorer, and less healthy.

Filed Under: georgia, indiana, innovation, internet, lobbying, nebraska, oklahoma, optometry, regulators, south carolina, telemedicine
Companies: opternative

As India Goes After Google, A Simple Question: Do You Really Want Governments Deciding Search Results?

from the just-asking dept

Earlier this year, European antitrust authorities went after Google (hours after EU officials announced plans to harm American internet companies to "help" local internet companies). Google just last week responded to the initial claims, saying that "improving quality isn't anti-competitive." Of course, the more detailed response is still private, so we don't know the full extent of what's being discussed. And, now, it appears that India is going after Google based on similar charges, claiming that it somehow leverages its own position in rigging either search results or putting its own services ahead of competitors above the search results.

Based on the responses from 30 businesses spanning search, social networks, ecommerce, travel and content sites, the CCI director-general last week filed a report that accuses Google of abusing its dominant position to rig search outcomes, both the actual search result as well as sponsored links. This marks the first case globally where an antitrust body is formally raising such charges against Google.

It's a bit surprising to see Facebook apparently take part in this effort, because it can't be long until it's receiving similar scrutiny around the globe for its position in the social networking space. The article is a bit confusing, but from it, there seems to be a mishmash of different accusations, some of which are more nutty than others. The key one -- which is at the heart of the claims in the US and in Europe -- is that for certain searchers, Google puts its own services first, before the "organic" search results. So, for example, if you do a search on something local, it would show you Google's local information (built on top of Zagat's info) rather than a competing rating service. Or, it may highlight Google Maps over some competitor.

At least one company, Flipkart, appears to claim that its own "organic" search results depend on how much the company spends on buying ads on the site. Companies make this claim all the time and there has never been the slightest bit of evidence to support those claims. If any such evidence comes out, then that would be a serious issue, and Google should have to answer for it. However, given how frequently it's been shown to be baseless, it seems unlikely that Google is actually polluting its organic search results based on a company's advertising plans (in fact, Google has made it pretty clear that the folks who handle the search algorithm have absolutely no insight into the advertising side of the business).

The claims about Google promoting its own services (maps, local, flights, finance, etc.) over competitors still seems like a weird one. Promoting those so-called "one box" results, is (as the company has claimed) providing more useful services. You can see why other companies may get upset about it, but is there any actual consumer harm? That seems a lot harder to find.

The only argument I've seen that makes any sense at all in all of these accusations is that Google could present better results in its onebox area if it made use of its own internal algorithm (which conceivably could determine that another company's services rank better than Google's). But as we've said in the past about that exact suggestion: even if Google should make that change, it is really the government's job to determine what is "the best" way to present search results?

I have a lot of difficulty believing that bureaucrats in either Brussels or Mumbai are somehow going to have a better idea how to provide the best possible search results for consumers, than the folks at Google who spend all their time working on these issues. Instead, this seems like companies who are upset that they don't rank well enough in Google complaining, because Google is big. If Google is actually shown to be doing something that actively harms consumers, that's one thing. But all of these complaints still seem to rest on companies (not consumers) bitching that they don't like how high they rank in Google. Well guess what? I don't like how Techdirt ranks in Google either, but I don't go running to the government to complain about it.

Filed Under: antitrust, india, regulators, search, search engines
Companies: facebook, flipkart, google

Canada Forces A La Carte Rules On Cable Industry, Bell Pouts By Refusing To Show Regulator On Television

from the flexible-pricing-packages-are-the-devil dept

For years, the United States has had an on again off again love affair with the idea of a la carte television -- or the ability to purchase only the channels you want to watch. After a ten-year debate, "common wisdom" appears to have largely decided against the idea, the public buying into the cable industry's argument that selling channels individually would: a) kill niche television channels and b) drive up the cost of cable. Of course, the cost of cable TV is climbing skyward anyway, and the Internet has become the perfect place for those niche channels to flee to. Frankly, I've always wondered why there's any hesitation when it comes to blowing up a sector in such dire need of meaningful disruption.

Thankfully, Canada has decided to go ahead and play the guinea pig for us in terms of exploring what an a la carte future would look like. After holding fifteen months of consumer hearings and waiting for years unsuccessfully for more flexible pricing options, Canadian regulatory agency the CRTC has decided to force the issue. The CRTC this week issued a ruling requiring not only that Canadian cable operators provide a discount $25 entry level core TV tier, but that above that, users are allowed to pick channels a la carte. In a statement, the CRTC explained it this way:

"Canadians, who choose to do so, will be able to supplement the entry-level television service by buying individual channels that will be available either on a pick-and-pay basis or through small, reasonably priced packages. If they so choose, they will have the option of selecting theme-based packages—such as sports, lifestyle or comedy—offered by their service providers. By December 2016, Canadians will be able to subscribe to channels on a pick-and-pay basis, as well as in small packages. In addition, Canadians will have the choice of keeping their current television services without making any changes, if these continue to meet their needs and budgets."

Of course, the ruling is being met with all manner of hand-wringing from opponents of a la carte and the cable industry about how this is going to "destroy television as we know it." Canadian media has been flooded all week with stories about how this will only drive up costs, confuse consumers, harm the TV industry, result in cats and dogs sleeping together, and generally just wreak havoc on the TV ecosystem. Except, Canadian law professor Michael Geist points out that if you look past this breathy doomsday analysis in the press and actually ask real analysts, they point out the idea will probably save consumers money:

"Maher Yaghi of Desjardins Capital Markets says the changes could “lead to a reduction of $5 to $10 in monthly [revenue per user] as customers get the option to choose the channels they want to watch and move discretionary money toward OTT (over-the-top) services such as Netflix." Canaccord Genuity analyst Dvai Ghose suggests even bigger declines of $9 to $21 for some customers. In fact, Ghose notes that “current entry-level TV monthly prices for the large BDUs are as follows: Bell Fibe TV $45.95, Rogers Cable $40.48, Shaw $39.90 and Videotron $38.00 and Telus $34.00 ($29.00 if bundled).” A $25 service is obviously going to result in reduced spending for those consumers."

So yes, the claim that we should avoid a la carte TV because it will make TV bundles -- already seeing hikes many times the rate of inflation -- more expensive is just silly. So are the claims that forcing more flexible channel bundles on cable operators will somehow destroy quality television ("people will stop creating art if you don't help prop up our failing business model" has long been an entertainment industry rallying cry). While there are a few folks in the media who seem to get it, there's been a strange, overarching gushing adoration of the much-hated channel bundle in the media that's rather inexplicable, and in no way really tied to what consumers actually want. "Be careful what you wish for," the media logic seems to go, "or you'll pay a lot of money for cable television!" they bizarrely warn.

Canadian cable operators obviously weren't happy with the decision, but Canadian telco Bell apparently thought it would be a really good idea to ignore its editorial firewall, and "punish" the CRTC by pettily refusing to show CRTC chief Jean-Pierre Blais on bell-owned CTV:

"Mr. Crull became angry with the CRTC’s so-called pick-and-pay decision last week.According to sources close to the network who spoke on condition of anonymity, Mr. Crull directed senior news staff at CTV, the country’s largest private broadcaster, to exclude Mr. Blais from coverage of the story on Bell-owned networks. The ruling will give consumers more freedom to choose individual TV channels as part of cable and satellite subscriptions, but it could also affect Bell’s bottom line."

After taking a media beating, Bell Media President Kevin Crull was forced to issue a mealy mouthed mea culpa stating he'd "learned a valuable lesson" about editorial control and really dumb decisions. Of course, Bell continues to insist the CRTC's move will only raise rates for consumers. Because, you know, cable TV rates weren't increasing under the current pay TV bundle model -- and keeping consumer prices low is every giant cable operator's top priority.

Meanwhile, those who've been claiming that a la carte TV will somehow destroy television as we know it now have an interesting petri dish to keep an eye on in Canada. Of course it's very possible the regulations are awful or at the very least accomplish nothing. I think one fair point made is the people most attracted to this "skinny bundle" may have already moved on to cheaper streaming options. Still, the CRTC has made it clear that after fifteen months of public hearings, this is what Canadian consumers have told them they want.

With consumers facing bi-annual rate hikes for an abysmal assortment of mediocre content and awful customer service -- isn't it time to at least start experimenting? I've always been confused by the hand wringing over consumer interest in a la carte, as if it's the consumer's job to somehow ensure that cable companies continue to make the sort of bloated profits they've long grown used to. Their only job is to demand quality product at a reasonable price, something cable companies across North America have been failing spectacularly at for more than a decade as they grow ever larger, consolidate, and then jack up programming rates as if it's going out of style.

Refusing to explore a la carte TV solely because we're worried it might harm the bloated profits of an apathetic TV industry makes little to no sense to me. These companies, in the U.S. and Canada alike, had a decade to adapt and have fought pricing and package evolution (not just a la carte but any package flexibility) tooth and nail every step of the way. Why not try something different? And if the cable companies and their 300-channel bundles of reality television dreck struggle to adapt to the one-two punch of regulatory intervention and competition from Internet video? Just maybe it was time for their ungracefully-aging business model to sail quietly into the sunset instead of pouting like a chubby, petulant child.

Filed Under: a la carte, cable tv, canada, crtc, jean-pierre blais, kevin crull, petty, regulators
Companies: bell canada

Italian Regulators Fine TripAdvisor For Not Sniffing Out Every Single Fake Review On The Site

from the thank-goodness-for-section-230 dept

We've talked quite a bit about the importance of Section 230 of the CDA in the US, and how it protects internet sites from the actions of their users. Some have tried to downplay the importance of Section 230, arguing that it goes too far in protecting bad behavior, or even arguing that it has little impact on innovation. Yet, take a look at the situation in Italy, where regulators are now fining TripAdvisor because some people put up fake reviews on the site:

The American company, which allows travelers to rate hotels and restaurants around the world, has been fined 500,000 euros, or about $610,000, by an Italian regulator for not doing enough to prevent false reviews on its site.

The fine represents one of the first times that a review site has faced financial penalties in Europe or the United States for failing to clamp down on potentially false reviews.

The regulator, the Italian Competition Authority, called on TripAdvisor to stop “publishing misleading information about the sources of its reviews,” and gave the company 90 days to comply with the ruling.

Except, of course, it's not TripAdvisor "publishing" the "misleading information." It's TripAdvisor's users. This is the key point that we've made about Section 230: that it forces people to recognize the difference between a site and its users. In the past, we've even noted that we shouldn't even need a Section 230 because it should be common sense that you don't blame a site for the actions of its users -- but seeing how frequently people do that, the importance of Section 230 is quickly obvious.

TripAdvisor says it's going to appeal the decision -- as it should. Otherwise, it makes you wonder if TripAdvisor should bother doing business in Italy at all. And that would be a real shame. Just last year I visited Italy, and TripAdvisor was tremendously helpful in picking the hotel where I stayed (which turned out to be wonderful). Blaming and fining the site because some people misuse it seems like setting a really dangerous precedent.

Filed Under: competition, fake reviews, italy, regulators, reviews, section 230
Companies: tripadvisor

Even If Google Could Improve Its Recommendations, Is It The Government's Job To Tell It To Do So?

from the seems-troubling dept

There were reports a few weeks ago that the European Commission has reopened its antitrust investigation into Google. The main issue is how Google promotes certain (usually internal) results in so-called "answer boxes" in a way that may hurt other sites. We've been skeptical of the idea of European bureaucrats deciding what Google's search results should look like, but earlier this year, it appeared that a settlement had been reached in which Google would point to competitors' results in some cases.

Against this backdrop, a few organizations, led by Yelp and TripAdvisor have created a somewhat fascinating site and tool called Focus On The User -- a play on Google's own core philosophy of "focus on the user and all else will follow." The site makes a very compelling argument that when Google is returning opinions (i.e., ratings) rather than factual answers, that it could do a much better job than just pointing to results from Google+. That is, if you do a search on "best restaurants in San Francisco" Google will show you results as rated by Google+ user reviews.

The Focus on the User site shows that rather than just relying on Google's own data, users would benefit greatly if Google used its own search algorithm to pull in results from reviews elsewhere. In short, where you might see a box up top with seven to ten reviews (all linking to Google pages), Yelp and TripAdvisor are arguing that if you just used Google's "organic" search algorithm to find the most relevant review pages, consumers get a much better experience. And they have a fair amount of data to back that up, showing a greater number of clicks in such a box (which you can test yourself via the site).

As noted above, the results are compelling. Using Google's own algorithm to rank all possible reviews seems like a pretty smart way of doing things, and likely to give better results than just using Google's (much more limited) database of reviews. But here's the thing: while I completely agree that this is how Google should offer up reviews in response to "opinion" type questions, I still am troubled by the idea that this should be dictated by government bureaucrats. Frankly, I'm kind of surprised this isn't the way Google operates, and it's a bit disappointing that the company doesn't just jump on this as a solution voluntarily, rather than dragging it out and having the bureaucrats force it upon them.

So while the site is fascinating, and the case is compelling, it still has this problem of getting into a very touchy territory where we're expecting government's to design the results of search engines. It seems like Yelp, TripAdvisor and others can make the case to Google and the public directly that this is a better way to do things, rather than having the government try to order Google to use it.

Filed Under: antitrust, eu, government, recommendations, regulators, search
Companies: google, tripadvisor, yelp

EU Regulators Want Google To Expand Right To Be Forgotten Worldwide And To Stop Telling What Links Have Been Forgotten

from the worldwide-censorship dept

We've been covering the ridiculous ruling in the EU on the "right to be forgotten," which was interpreted to mean that search engines could be forced to delete links to perfectly truthful stories (and even if those stories are allowed to be kept online). Google has been trying to comply with the over 90,000 requests it has received -- nearly half of which it has approved -- and removed from its European searches. The company has been struggling to figure out how to comply with the ruling, and those struggles continue. Originally, it was going to place a notice on search results pages where links had been removed (like it does with copyright takedowns) alerting people that stories were missing. However, regulators told Google that would defeat the purpose. So now, Google's European search results show a message on nearly every search on a "name" that results might have been removed.

Either way, once Google started removing the requested stories, it did the right thing, alerting the websites that links were being removed. Of course, that just resulted in many of those publications writing about it, and bringing the original news back into the public eye.

In response to all of this, European regulators are apparently quite angry again, summoning representatives from Google, Yahoo and Microsoft (but mainly Google) to argue that the removals should be global, not just for Europe and that the companies should stop informing websites if their stories were removed. One hopes that these three companies would fight strongly against either such proposal. The idea that Europe can dictate how search engines in other parts of the world work is dangerous. We've already noted that a Canadian court seems to think it has similar powers, and that's going to create a huge mess. Any time courts and regulators in one country think they can dictate how websites work in other countries, that is creating a massive jurisdictional mess (where contradictory rulings may run into each other), as well as allowing oppressive states to claim they, too, have the right to dictate how the web works in more open countries.

As for blocking sites from being informed, that would clearly go against basic transparency principles, and lead to yet another huge mess for websites which will (quite reasonably) wonder why their stories have gone totally missing from Google searches (especially if forced to extend it around the globe).

Of course, the real problem here is with the original ruling. The idea that public information that is widely disseminated already can magically be made private because someone thinks it's embarrassing and that it's no longer important is simply a ridiculous assertion in the first place. All of the problems that have come in implementing this are because the initial premise -- trying to disappear public information -- is so messed up.

Filed Under: eu, jurisdiction, regulators, right to be forgotten, transparency
Companies: google, microsoft, yahoo

Italy Attempting To Have Copyright Enforced By Regulators, Not Courts

from the bad-ideas-at-work dept

A year and a half ago, we thought this plan was dead in the water, but apparently while we weren't paying attention, a plan moved forward in Italy to take significant copyright enforcement powers out of the courts and, instead, give it to the Italian regulator AGCOM. If you want to see a recipe for a bad idea, this is it. Regulators are very much subject to regulatory capture, and a regulatory board entirely focused on copyright enforcement will almost certainly be controlled by maximalists who come from industry, rather than those with the public benefit in mind.

As it stands, the proposal is currently being reviewed by the EU to see if it complies with EU directives. A ruling in favor of the AGCOM plan would have a huge negative impact on Italy, innovation and culture.

If the initiative of AGCOM goes through, it will create an important precedent in Europe, since the enforcement of copyright in the Internet is normally carried out by courts, not by administrations.

ISPs, consumers, libertarians and experts have vigourosly contested AGCOM’s proposal because it could affect freedom of speech as well as business rights. In particular, they challenge the modality whereby the Italian regulator would supervise and tackle copyright infringements in the Internet by way of orders of removal and blocking. By contrast, rightshodlers associations as well as the Italian Collecting Society SIAE have supported the initiative.

The UN has already expressed its concerns about the proposal, noting that handing free expression controls to a regulatory agency, rather than an elected body, is a serious mistake, because if any content is to be removed from the internet, it should first be reviewed by a court. But the current proposal pretty much dispatches with the courts entirely in many cases, leaving the issues entirely up to regulators. Imagine if the US Copyright Office or the US Patent Office got to determine enforcement of those laws, rather than the courts. It would be a disaster for free expression and innovation -- and yet that's exactly what Italy is seeking to do.

Hopefully, the EU will reject this plan for stifling free expression and removing basic due process within the court system in Italy.

Filed Under: agcom, copyright, italy, regulators