Security, Openness and Privacy

(No.136) Free cross-border flow of Internet traffic

Go to Report
Status: 
Accepted
Workshop Theme: 
Security, Openness and Privacy
Theme Question: 

Freedom of expression and free flow of information: how do legal framework, regulations, and principles impact this?


Concise Description of Workshop: 

International law provides for the exercise and enjoyment of the right to freedom of expression and access to information regardless of frontiers. Being a global network the Internet enables and facilitates the flows of information, content and services as well as people’s communications across borders. In this context it is considered important to have a free and unimpeded flow of Internet traffic. Part of the challenge in this area lies with the fact that there are differences in national regulatory and policy frameworks and approaches.

Organiser(s) Name: 

Council of Europe and the European Internet Services Providers Associations

Submitted Workshop Panelists: 

Mr Bertrand de la Chapelle, International Diplomatic Academy, France - MODERATOR
Mr Matthias Traimer, Head of Department, Media Affairs and Information Society, Federal Chancellery, Constitutional Service, Austria
Ms Anne Carblanc, Head of Information, Communications and Consumer Policy Division, OECD
Mr Franklin Silva Netto - First Secretary, Head of the Division for the Information Society, Ministry of External Relations, Brazil
Mr Michael Rotert - European Internet Services Providers Associations
Mr Iarla Flynn, Google Head of Public Policy for Australia and New Zealand
Mr Milton Mueller, Syracuse University
Mr Robert Guerra, Citizens Lab, University of Toronto

Gender Report Card
Please estimate the overall number of women participants present at the session: 
About half of the participants were women
To what extent did the session discuss gender equality and/or women's empowerment?: 
It was not seen as related to the session theme and was not raised
Report
Reported by: 
Elvana Thaçi
A brief substantive summary and the main issues that were raised: 

Discussions focused on different aspects of cross-border dependencies which stem from the borderless infrastructure of the Internet. The Internet address system is not organised according to national borders as the post system is, where we have a postal codes, a city and a country to create a postal address. The Internet’s transport system is not based on such a system; it spread accross borders.
 
Representatives of the technical research community underlined that the cross-boder dependencies in  turn may  affect Internet traffic flows or otherwise Internet content flows.
 
Internet Service Providers make connecting arrangements regardless of whether one or more national borders are located in between them.  The route servers are distributed in different jurisdictions. Depending on technical choices and  arrangements, information requests originating from within one country may go through  route servers in other countries. If in the latter countries content filtering and blocking measures are applied they could affect access to information. Instances of upstream filtering as well as technial incident were discussed.
 
There was a general shared feeling among discussants that although there are many instances of upstream filtering and interferences with traffic, many other remain undocumented.
 
The Council of Europe presented its exploratory work in respect of developing a draft instrument on cross-border flow of Internet traffic.
 

Conclusions and further comments: 

Discussions about policy responses highlighted that further documenting of issues and challenges with free flows of information across borders is needed. These issues are complex as is Internet’s technology.
 
In particular, it is very important to analyse the extent to which commercial connectivity choices and technical solutions can address the identified issues and the extent to which international co-operation underpinned by international frameworks is needed. Another critical aspect of free flows of Internet content is the lack of uniform conception internationally as to what is legal content.
 
The principles of due diligence co-operation set forth in the Council of Europe’s Recommendation on the universality, integrity and openness of the Internet do provide a framework of reference for continuous thinking.
 
It was noted that there are some positive trends to keep the information lanes open are currently emerging in international trade policy.
 
Reflection on international co-operation on the free flows of Internet content should continue. An intermediary step could be to start building an environment of shared expectations, by way of starting discussions at regional and international levels.

(No.132) Power grab? Understanding the clash of security communities.

Go to Report
Status: 
Withdrawn
Workshop Theme: 
Security, Openness and Privacy
Theme Question: 

Question 1: What impact can security and governance issues have on the Internet and human rights?

Concise Description of Workshop: 

 

Organiser(s) Name: 

Andreas Schmidt, Delft University of Technology, Academia, WEOG

Previous Workshop(s): 

No

Submitted Workshop Panelists: 

 

Paul Vixie, Internet Systems Consortium, Technical Community, GRULAC, Confirmed 

 

Prof. Milton Mueller, Syracuse University, Civil Society, GRULAC, Confirmed 

 

Prof. Ron Deibert, University of Toronto, Academia, WEOG, Pending

 

Andrea Glorioso, European Commission, International Organisation/Government, WEOG, Pending

 

N.N., Civil Society/Technical Community, Asia Pacific, Planned

Name of Remote Moderator(s): 
Hadi Asghari, Delft University of Technology (confirmed)
Assigned Panellists: 

(No.128) Empowering Internet Users – which tools?

Go to Report
Status: 
Accepted
Workshop Theme: 
Security, Openness and Privacy
Theme Question: 

Freedom of expression and free flow of information: how do legal framework, regulations, and principles impact this?


Concise Description of Workshop: 

Offline rights are online rights. Both governmental and non-governmental actors agree that the international corpus of human rights and fundamental freedoms remains valid and applicable to activities on, and access to, the Internet. There is, however, a shared feeling in different Internet communities that there is a need to elaborate further on how the Internet has shaped the application of existing human rights standards, and how accepted rights can shape the Internet.

Organiser(s) Name: 

Council of Europe The Internet Rights & Principles Coalition

Submitted Workshop Panelists: 

Mr Wolfgang Benedek, Professor for International Law and International Relations at the University of Graz, Austria
Mrs Meryem Marzouki - European Digital Rights (EDRi) and CNRS & Université Pierre et Marie Curie, France MODERATOR
Mr Marco Pancini - Senior Policy Counsel, Google
Dr Matthias Traimer, Head of Department, Media Affairs and Information Society, Federal Chancellery, Constitutional Service, Austria
Mr Michael Rotert - European Association of Internet Service Providers (EuroISPA)
Ms Joy Liddicoat, Association for Progressive Communications

Name of Remote Moderator(s): 
Elvana Thaçi
Gender Report Card
Please estimate the overall number of women participants present at the session: 
About half of the participants were women
To what extent did the session discuss gender equality and/or women's empowerment?: 
It was raised by one or more of the speakers as an important aspect of the session's theme
Report
Reported by: 
Elvana Thaçi, Council of Europe
A brief substantive summary and the main issues that were raised: 

Panellists and discussants acknowledged a number of initiatives undertaken by different stakeholders to develop a better understanding by Internet users with regard to the implementation of international human rights standards on the Internet. Some notable examples are the Charter of Rights and Principles elaborated by the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles and the Internet Rights Charter of the Association for Progressive Communications.
 
The Council of Europe presented its initiative to develop a Compendium of existing rights of Internet Users. The objective is, by building on these initiatives, to give citizens a practical means of understanding their fundamental rights and freedoms online and to help them communicate with Internet actors when they think that their rights have been violated.
 
Discussions confirmed that people are reaching for tools on their rights and freedoms not only as a means of improving their enjoyment of their rights and freedoms but also as leverage on Internet public policy.
 
Private sector panellists presented different tools that they make available to Internet users. For example, some ISPs have created hotlines where users can report their problems but they are limited in scope. The approach taken is usually to assist law enforcement in fighting criminal activities online rather than to offer Internet users a tool that is responsive to a wider array of concerns with regard to the exercise of their rights and freedoms.
 
Google presented several initiatives it has taken to improve Internet users’ online safety and to ensure transparency towards them as well as other activities in the exercise of its corporate social responsibility.

Conclusions and further comments: 

Discussions with workshop participants focused on problems that users encounter such as removal of Internet content without due process, harassment of online bloggers, tracking users’ activities online, the full enjoyment of freedom of expression, online safety, cyber stalking of women, jurisdictional issues, etc.
 
Corporations do generally recognise their social responsibilities and to a certain extent exercise such responsibilities. However, the international legal obligation to ensure the protection of Internet users’ rights and freedom lies in the first place with states. More needs to be done to operationalise citizens’ rights and freedoms online and to ensure that they have access to effective remedies. The Council of Europe’s initiative to elaborate a Compendium of existing rights of Internet users is therefore a welcome development which is capable of renewing and re-affirming states’ commitments to human rights.

(No.125) Innovative application of ICTs to facilitate child protection online

Go to Report
Status: 
Accepted
Workshop Theme: 
Security, Openness and Privacy
Theme Question: 

Ensuring security and protection of the online users (Security , openness and Privacy)

Concise Description of Workshop: 

Protection of children and young people from exploitation has been already established as a key issue that needs to be adddressed at this forum and various workshops and discussions have taken place in the last 6 IGF sessions. Current studies and work of International agencies reveal that there must be continued efforts and mobilisation of various sectors involved within the Internet development and policy making to ensure such efforts continue to refine and be effective for the safeguarding of the rights of children.

Organiser(s) Name: 

ECPAT International - International child rights organisation who works with multistakeholder approach, working with law makers, law enforcement , industry, independent experts, academicians and researchers and children and young people globally. ECPAT has ECOSOC status with UN and is a member of the Virtual Global Force and partner of the ITU led COP (Child online protection ) project.

Submitted Workshop Panelists: 

Jacqueline Beauchere (Microsoft ),CONFIRMED
John Carr (eNACSO), CONFIRMED
Natasha Jackson (GSMA) CONFIRMED
Larry Magid (connectsafely.org) CONFIRMED
Richard Allan, Director of public policy EMEA
VGT representative Anjan Bose (ECPAT International) - Chair CONFIRMED
The panel has good geopgraphic and gender balance covering USA, Europe and Asia and with similar percentage of male and female panelists.
 

Name of Remote Moderator(s): 
Jim Prendergast
Gender Report Card
Please estimate the overall number of women participants present at the session: 
About half of the participants were women
To what extent did the session discuss gender equality and/or women's empowerment?: 
It was not seen as related to the session theme and was not raised
Report
Reported by: 
Anjan Bose
A brief substantive summary and the main issues that were raised: 

The growth of online applications and social networking platforms in recent times has also seen these platforms being used for distribution of child abuse images and used for approaching children. While law enforcement is actively collecting intelligence about such crimes against children, the sheer volume of these online interactions make it extremely challenging for them to collect information in real time about the ongoing incidents. It is extremely important that 1) the time between an incident and its reporting is minimized and 2) intelligent tools are developed by the technology industry (in line with the proactive monitoring tools to detect and remove spam and phishing for example) that can use social engineering tools to build smart applications whereby suspicious actions from the users will be detected and progressive monitoring within the boundaries of policy set forth by the services will be conducted.
 
 
This workshop focused on brainstorming ideas around technology that can aid law enforcement, procedures that can be put in place to guide people for better reporting of inappropriate content or incidents and also examining what the industry is doing currently to help law enforcement and the general public when their services are being misused.
The three IT and communication agencies that were represented in this panel were: Microsoft, Facebook and GSMA.
 
Microsoft has been an industrial leader in terms of creating services and tools that are given free to law enforcement to deal with online crimes, particularly against children. The recent contribution is in the form of a technology called photoDNA that uses the worst of the worst list from the database that NCMEC
(National Centre for missing and exploited children) in the United States creates, containing the images of children they receive through their reporting system.
The PhotoDNA technology creates unique signature of these images that are different from other hashing mechanism in the sense that they can detect the images even if the files are changed and edited for size, name and other features.
The technology when applied to online services (such as in the system deployed by Facebook in their Social networking platform) allows automatic detection when someone uploads such images and flagged for law enforcement investigation. This prevents the circulation of such images over and over again.
 
Microsoft also support the CETS (child exploitation tracking system which was developed by Microsoft to help law enforcement across the globe to gather essential data and investigate online child sex offenders.
 
In regard to handling reports from public and working with law enforcement, interesting approach has been taken by Facebook. They operate in a Pyramid style reporting procedure whereby different levels of priority actions are given based on the type of incidents reported. The more urgent reports that may also concern immediate risks to children are escalated to the authorities quicker than other less urgent reports. Also the community level reporting of inappropriate materials are analysed for content and taken down if found inappropriate. Facebook’s no nudity clause is strictly enforced even for adult materials and their policy strictly bars the user from uploading such content. In case of violations accounts are suspended or even truncated after repeated violations.
 
It is interesting to note that there are proactive smart monitoring and actions that are already being deployed by Facebook. For example, if an account profile is refused by multiple users from accepting friends request the systems already flags the user as suspicious and may mark the account for suspension. Such smart tools needs to be enhanced to better detect and deter the unlawful and potential harmful interaction between an offender and a child and can provide insight to law enforcement or the family of the child if such incidences do occur.
 
Facebook has committed to continue to work with child rights agencies to ensure that their technologies and services cater to the needs of the children and to develop the best guides and resources for educating them on how to stay safe online.
 
GSMA (GSM association ) represented the interest of the mobile phone industry and their alignment with the European Framework for mobile phone operators. There are 4 distinct principles that govern their work – a) Classification of commercial content so that appropriate filters can be designed to screen inappropriate content from children b) access control mechanisms such as parental filters to prevent unauthorized access to such content c) Education and awareness raising for children and parents to better educate them about using the mobile phones in safe ways and informing about reporting mechanisms if such situation arise and d) working with International reporting hotlines and law enforcement to report illegal content involving child abuse images and removing them from the networks.
 
It was highlighted that the work of the Internet Reporting hotlines are of paramount importance to investigate matters related to child abuse images online and also for victim identification purposes. The GSMA mandate supports the creation and promotion of such reporting hotlines and they have already helped in the creation of a toolkit to assist the setup of new reporting hotlines.
ECPAT has been closely involved in such process as was INHOPE and it is very important to keep this partnership going for future collaboration.
Apart from the representatives of the private sectors, the panel also drew upon the expertise of individuals and representative from the child protection agencies who elaborated the need for concerted action against the criminals who produced , distribute and consume child abuse images and also that education alone cannot solve issues when children as young as 3-4 years are going online
Protection mechanisms needs to be created to better compliment the education and awareness efforts and cultural and local contexts needs to be considered as well.

Conclusions and further comments: 

1) Child abuse images represents a crime scene and its severity needs to be considered.
2) Educational and awareness raising, empowerment of children are essential, but in situations where children going online or are being victims of ICT servicese as young as 3-4 years old, it does not solve the problem.
3) Effective legal measures and reporting systems are crucial.
4) Private sector is already developing technologies and enhancing reporting systems and proactive monitoring but those systems needs to continually evolve.
5) A lot of confusion and lack of understanding still exists among the public in general and certainly among those who are lobbying for free speech and expression about the nature and impact of child abuse images and they fail to see how these images are just not images but representation of horrific abuse and violation of the rights of the child

(No.121) Protecting you and your rights: Article 15 of the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime

Go to Report
Status: 
Withdrawn
Workshop Theme: 
Security, Openness and Privacy
Theme Question: 

What impact can security and governance issues have on the Internet and human

Concise Description of Workshop: 

States have a positive obligation to protect the rights of individuals. This includes their protection against crime but also against arbitrary interference into rights by public authorities. The Budapest Convention helps states meet this challenge with respect to cybercrime: it requires governments to take measures against offences against and by means of computer data and systems, to provide law enforcement with procedural powers for effective investigations and to engage in efficient international cooperation. At the same time Article 15 protects individuals against arbitrary intrusion.

Organiser(s) Name: 

Alexander Seger, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, France

Submitted Workshop Panelists: 

Representatives of law enforcement and civil society from countries of different regions of the world. Details TBC

Name of Remote Moderator(s): 
TBC

(No.118) Law Enforcement via Domain Names: Caveats to DNS Neutrality

Go to Report
Status: 
Accepted
Workshop Theme: 
Security, Openness and Privacy
Theme Question: 

Questions 5

Concise Description of Workshop: 

In many countries, Internet domain names and addresses in the global Domain Name System (DNS) are more frequently used for legal enforcement purposes, such as anti-piracy and counterfeit, attacking cyber-crimes and prevent pornography and obscenity, etc. Under the law enforcement measures, a domain names may be ceased resolving, redirected to a new location (i.e. legal warning page from authority) or transferred to another party.

Organiser(s) Name: 
  • Hong Xue, Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL), Beijing Normal University, Academia, Asia Pacific
  • Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza, Vice-Coordinador, Center for Technology and
    Society at Getulio Vargas Foundation Law School (CTS/FGV), Brazil, Latin America
  • Bertrand de La Chapelle, Director of the Internet & Jurisdiction Project at the International Diplomatic Academy in Paris, France, Europe
  • Vivekanandan, Director of Global Internet Governance & Advocacy (GIGA), NALSAR University, Academia, Asia Pacific
  • Leo Liu, Chinese Domain Name Users Alliance, Civil Society, Asia Pacific
Submitted Workshop Panelists: 

 Agenda and Confirmed Panelists

  • Hong Xue, Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL), Beijing Normal University, Academia, Asia Pacific  (confirmed)

  Topic: Law Enforcement Measures through ccTLDs

  • Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza, Vice-Coordinador, Center for Technology and Society at Getulio Vargas Foundation Law School (CTS/FGV), Brazil, Latin America (confirmed)

   Topic: Civil Society's Role in Law Enforcement

  • Bertrand de La Chapelle, Director of the Internet & Jurisdiction Project at the International Diplomatic Academy in Paris, France, Europe (confirmed)

   Topic: Law Enforcement and Jurisdiction

  • Vivekanandan, Director of Global Internet Governance & Advocacy (GIGA), NALSAR University, Academia, Asia Pacific  (confirmed)

   Topic: Intermediary Liability in India

  • N. Ravi Shanker, Addl. Secretary, DOT, Government of India, Asia Pacific (confirmed)

    Topic: Governmental Role in Law Enforcement

  • Mr. Keith Davidson, Vice Chair, Asia Pacific Top Level Domain Association, Asia-Pacific (confirmed)

   Topic: InternetNZ Principles for ccTLDs
 

Name of Remote Moderator(s): 
Jing Ma, China Science and Technology Association
Gender Report Card
Please estimate the overall number of women participants present at the session: 
About half of the participants were women
Report
Reported by: 
Hong Xue, Organizer and Moderator of the Workshop
A brief substantive summary and the main issues that were raised: 

 

(No.118) Law Enforcement via Domain Names: Caveats to DNS Neutrality

 

November 8, 2012, 11:00-12:30; Room 1

 

We had a multi-stakeholder panel, with ccTLD managers, academics and civil society activities. It

was also geo-graphically diversified panel with panelists from Brazil, Russia, India, China and

France. So we called it BRIC+ discussion.

 

The Panel primarily talked about how Internet domain names and IP addresses are growingly

being used for legal enforcement purposes, such as anti-piracy and counterfeit, anti-cyber-crimes,

anti-pornography and IPR protection, in many jurisdictions.

 

Under the law enforcement measures, a domain names may be ceased resolving, redirected to a new location (i.e. legal warning page from authority) or transferred to another party. The Panel compared the respective laws, policies and practices in Brazil, Russia, India and China with respect to DNS filtering. The Panel noted that the study on DNS filtering in ccTLD name space is underdeveloped and much needed. Although most ccTLDs in these countries don’t making content filtering policy or take down or filter domain names by themselves, they would definitely enforce the decisions from domestic public authorities (i.e. court orders and/or administrative decisions). Some ccTLD would even fast track the law enforcement requests from foreign authorities. 

Conclusions and further comments: 

 

All the Panelists strongly concerned the negative impact of DNS filtering on free speech and free flow of information on the Internet as well as on Stability and Security of Domain name system. The Panel was against to use DNS as a control panel for content regulation. The Panel also addressed the danger of segregation or differentiation of Internet traffic in different territories. The Panel believes states should exercise their sovereignty carefully so as not to restrict cyber-travel in the truthfully globalized and

borderless network.

(No.116) An industry lead approach for making internet a better place for kids

Go to Report
Status: 
Accepted
Workshop Theme: 
Security, Openness and Privacy
Theme Question: 

Question 6

Concise Description of Workshop: 

 Margareta Traung, the European Commission It is generally agreed that the Internet is a place of opportunities for children but that they need to be empowered to make the most of it.

Organiser(s) Name: 

European Commission, DG INFSO (Alina Radu and Margareta Traung) together with Researchers, ICT companies (members of the CEO coalition) and NGO's

Submitted Workshop Panelists: 

Richard Allan, Facebook (confirmed) Marco Pancini, European Senior Policy Counsel (confirmed) Peter Matjasic, European Youth Forum (confirmed) Ms Sabine van Verheyen, MEP, European Parliament (confirmed) Veronica Donoso, Child Focus (confirmed) John Carr, eNACSO (confirmed) Jim Killock, Open Rights Group (confirmed) Sevinj Muradova, Ministry of Economic Development Azerbaijan, ISWM Project (confirmed) John McNamee, European Digital Rights (confirmed) Cornelia Kutterer, Microsoft (confirmed) One youth representative from eNacso (confirmed, name TBD)

Name of Remote Moderator(s): 
Camino Manjon, DG INFSO, European Commission
Gender Report Card
Please estimate the overall number of women participants present at the session: 
About half of the participants were women
To what extent did the session discuss gender equality and/or women's empowerment?: 
It was not seen as related to the session theme and was not raised
Report
Reported by: 
Margareta Traung, the European Commission
A brief substantive summary and the main issues that were raised: 

Veronica Donoso (Childfocus) set the scene by presenting some of the findings from the EU Kids Online survey conducted in 27 European countries in 2010 to investigate the risks and opportunities that children encounter online. The findings show that:

  • Children and parents are concerned about the same issues. They worry that the children will be contacted by strangers while they are online and that they will come across inappropriate content.
  • Few children use reporting tools as they don't find them user-friendly.
  • Not all children use privacy settings for their profiles on social media. For some this is by choice, but there are also issues regarding their user-friendliness. The settings are hard to use and there is a lack of consistency between different services.
  • Parental controls are being used especially for parents of younger children for whom the tools seem to be effective. However, the tools don't seem to be effective for older children.

 
Cornelia Kutterer, explained that Microsoft takes child safety seriously and has safeguards and tools for parents allowing them to avoid access to inappropriate content and limit the use of the computer, for example, in regards the time spent online. Microsoft has also done extensive interviews with parents to find out why parental control tools are being insufficiently used. One reason is that children can be tough negotiators so some parents just let go after some time. But it might also relate to the age - some parents don't want to control their children and prefer to talk to them instead of restricting the access. In most countries, a fairly high percentage of parents preferred not to put restrictions in place. However, this doesn't say that the tools shouldn't be available. The concept of active choice was also mentioned, and although it was not defined precisely what this would mean in the European context, it could be an opportunity for parents to make the decision as to whether they want to install parental tools or not.
 
Marco Pancini (Google) presented the work done by the Coalition's action group on providing simple and robust reporting tools. This group has collected the practices within the industry, which show that some companies provide reporting tools at the browser level and some through an application. In order to further explore how service providers can provide simple reporting tools for users, a workshop was organised bringing together hotlines and helplines with industry representatives.
 
The Coalition working group on age appropriate privacy settings has also collected best practices from the members. However, according to Richard Allen (Facebook), it will not be possible to achieve a common unified model for privacy settings. He further said that "when people are not surprised by who sees their information, then you have succeeded with the privacy settings"; you need to tell people up-front what will happen when they apply certain settings.  However, social networks cover the whole spectrum of people and content so there is a challenge as to how to design privacy settings.  Also, privacy by default wouldn't work both because of the complexity and because one reason for being on social networks is that you want to broaden your network. The question is to what extent people need to protect themselves.
 
What did the Coalition members learn from the process?
Marco Pancini answered that to get companies to cooperate you need to build trust. Richard Allan agreed that trust is important to make it work since you have to show your weaknesses and admit that you don't have all the answers. Cornelia Kutterer added that some of the actions put forward in the Coalition are of less interest to Microsoft since they already have safeguards in place, for example for the Xbox and Xbox live where they are built-in by design.
 
Jim Killock (Open Rights Forum) took the view that governments have to take an overall responsibility for protecting children online. The European Commission was criticised for pointing to education but still asking for self- regulation, which can be problematic. How you use child filters is now becoming a problem for every adult in the UK since they are going to be applied for everybody because of the active choice on parental control tools. Jim Killock warned that a toxic situation could develop that would spill over to immediate reaction without the proper gathering of evidence. He warns that self-regulation can spill off to blocking areas other than child protection.  He also pointed out that children do need access to all sorts of information which some parents and schools deny them.
Referring to this last remark, Cornelia Kutterer stressed that parental controls should be adapted to the age of the child with white lists for the youngest users and less restrictions for older children.
 
John Carr pointed out that in Europe a child has the right to its own privacy and that the cultural and legal environment in the US is different. He further said that human rights law doesn't mean zero regulation and that states have an obligation under international law to protect children. John Carr has been waiting for a market-led solution since the mid-nineties, but the only solution provided so far is education and awareness. He therefore believes that the market will not solve all the problems and those who need to be protected the most will not be reached by the awareness raising. Where is, for example, the market-led solution for the 3 and 4 year olds who need technical solutions in order to be protected?
 
Sevinj Muradova represented the Azeri NGO "Nur" Children and Youth Public Union, which has worked on child participation and empowerment since 1997. The internet is something new in Azerbaijan and Internet safety is a priority. Children in rural areas need special attention. Civil society can be a great help to engage with young people and plays an important role for the social development and inclusion of young people. Media is seen as a source for entertainment, mobile technologies is widely adopted and most mobile operators provide internet access for free.
 
Peter Matjasic (the European Youth Forum) agreed with the previous speakers that children are a particularly vulnerable group but argued that the preferred solution could be empowerment with a tailored approach for different age groups. He agreed that age maturity is an important concept and that some restrictions should be in place up to a certain age, but emphasised that full transparency is important. He also pointed out that parents are not always the best placed to make decisions for their children and that not only children need to "think before they post". He suggested investing in media literacy programmes and said that peer learning can play a role.
 

Conclusions and further comments: 
  • All measures have to be evaluated in order to understand their impact and the academic world has an important role to play in order to inform policy makers;
  • Education is the best filter;
  • Stop obsessing and look at children as individuals with rights and don't put all children in the same box;
  • Technology tools are helpful but they are not the only solution - continued dialogue with the child is also needed;
  • If there are good national structures in place, rapid solutions can be found when needed and the legislative route can be avoided;
  • Parents still have the main influence on their kids;
  • Better communication about success stories, for example by setting up a platform for sharing best practice;
  • Online safety is a shared responsibility, and we need to ensure that young people are integrally involved in shaping, but also learn to respect, the “rules in the sandbox”.

(No.111) Protecting the rule of law in the online environment

Go to Report
Status: 
Accepted
Workshop Theme: 
Security, Openness and Privacy
Theme Question: 

Security, Openness and Privacy - Questions 1,4; Emerging Issues - Question 1,2 This workshop has significant relevance to the questions: Security Openness and Privacy Question 3 Security Openness and Privacy Question 2 Security Openness and Privacy Question 5

Concise Description of Workshop: 

Stakeholders with an interest in restraining certain types of content and conduct seek to co-opt Internet intermediaries as their enforcement agents, using measures such as notice and takedown, network blocking, and other techniques. At the heart of such procedures lie two implicit claims: that the law proscribes certain content or conduct, and that the content or conduct in question does in fact fall within the proscribed category.

Backgroung Paper: 
Organiser(s) Name: 

This workshop is jointly organised by the European Commission, and EuroISPA, the industry body representing the interests of Internet Services Providers in Europe, reflecting the multi-stakeholder principle.

Submitted Workshop Panelists: 

The workshop planned as an interactive session with a moderated panel of experts. 50% of the time will be allocated to opening statements from the experts, in which they will be asked to address the indicated questions. 40% of the time will be allocated to interventions from the floor, and 10% of the time for closing statements. The following experts will be invited (listed in suggested speaking order):  
Affiliation: International organisation with role in human rights, e.g. Council of Europe; alternatively, academic Stakeholder group/role: Legal expert Questions to answer: What are the key characteristics of adequate mechanism for resolving dispute and complaints that content and/or conduct is illegal or infringes the rights of a third party?
Affiliation: Intellectual property rights holder: e.g. IFPI, MPAA etc Stakeholder group/role: Private sector complainant (civil complaints) Questions to answer: When you ask Internet intermediaries (ISPs, YouTube etc) to adopt non-judicial process for taking action against infringing content, what procedures do you adopt (or would you accept) to provide independent scrutiny of the claims you make in lodging individual complaints?
Affiliation: Law enforcement authority Counter-terrorism or anti-extremism specialist Stakeholder group/role: Public authority alleging serious criminal offences, but where defence to allegations may invoke claims of legitimate free speech, especially of a political or religious nature Questions to answer: When you ask Internet intermediaries (ISPs, YouTube etc) to adopt non-judicial process for taking action against infringing content, what procedures do you adopt (or would you accept) to provide independent scrutiny of the claims you make in lodging individual complaints?
Affiliation: EuroISPA Stakeholder group/role: Internet intermediaries (networks and online services) Questions to answer: What do you do to balance the interests of complainants against those accused of Internet misuse, to uphold the law while protecting fundamental rights?
Affiliation: European Digital Rights, or Electronic Frontier Foundation Stakeholder group/role: Citizen’s interest (fundamental rights of defendant party to complaint) Questions to answer: Under what conditions can Internet intermediaries help to uphold the legitimate rights of third parties and the public interest in suppressing crime? 
Affiliation: European Commission Stakeholder group/role: Policy makers charged with balancing rights Questions to answer: What systematic and structural measures can be put in place to ensure all legitimate interests are respected in non-legislative measures such as public-private partnerships and intra-industry agreements?
 
Speakers
- Council of Europe, Lee Hibbard (confirmed)
- Malcom Hutty, EuroISPA (confirmed)
- Catherine Trautmann, MEP (confirmed)
- Eric Pigal, EESC (confirmed)
- Harry Temmink, DG MARKT, European Commission (confirmed)
- Frederik J. Zuiderveen Borgesius, Universtity of Amsterdam (confirmed)
- Rashid Hajili; Media Rights Institute Azerbaijan (confirmed)
- Katitza Rodriguez, EEF (confirmed)
- Chris Marcich, President and Managing Director of MPAA-EMEA (confirmed)
- Giuseppe Vaciago, Criminal Lawyer (confirmed)

Name of Remote Moderator(s): 
Camino Manjon, DG CONNECT, European Commission
Report
Reported by: 
Maciej Tomaszewski
A brief substantive summary and the main issues that were raised: 

Lee Hibbard (Council of Europe) highlighted the importance of the application of human rights framework in online environment. He emphasised that human rights are also applicable in cases involving only private parties.
 
Chris Marcich, (President and Managing Director of MPAA-EMEA) said that copyright enforcement should focus primarily on commercial websites infringing copyright and on taking down infringing content from websites. However, he would not favour targeting individuals in copyright enforcement.
 
Claudio Ruiz (Derechos Digitales) said that there is a common understanding that human rights apply in online environment, and therefore the main question is how to strike a balance between different conflicting rights. This question is essential as in particular nowadays, more threats to human rights are observed.
 
Eric Pigal, (EESC) mentioned important issues to be considered in online environment, namely (1) applicable law, (2) jurisdiction, (3) forensic connections
 
Giuseppe Vaciago (lawyer and LEA expert) said that the proper application of rule of law in online environment require first the definition of serious crime. Then, it should be clearly said that law enforcement should focus primarily on those crimes. 
 
Rashid Hajili (Media Rights Institute Azerbaijan) presented a case of the journalist's imprisonment in Azerbaijan. ECHR considered this case as violation of freedom of expression. He said that this is an example how criminal law may restrict human rights. Therefore, he said although it is important that governments intervene in online environment, this intervention might not bring positive effects in countries with low protection of the rule of law.
 
Harrie Temmink (DG MARKT, European Commission) presented the context of the liability regime in the E-commerce Directive which is the basis for Notice and Action (N & A) procedures within the EU. Secondly, he presented how the European Commission is preparing to introduce improvements in these procedures. He ensured that those improvements are in conformity with the rule of law and consulted with all relevant stakeholders.
 
Catherine Trautmann, (MEP) reminded that any limitation of fundamental rights should be narrowly defined and prescribed clearly by law. However, current legal framework is not that clear and many legal terms are not well defined. Also, she highlighted that the effective protection of fundamental rights require the proper definition of the burden of proof on the parties to the proceeding.
 
Malcolm Hutty, (EuroISPA) said that a major issue for service providers was distinguishing between content that is claimed to be illegal and content for which a legitimate legal defence may apply. In any case, a clear and easy to apply procedure is needed to address the procedure of dealing with illegal content.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Discussion:
 
A participant to the panel argued that N & A procedure does protect adequately fundamental rights as it is shaped in way that intermediaries have interest in taking down content immediately in order to be exempted from liability. Harrie Temmink provided detailed explanations highlighting, that according to the E-commerce Directive intermediaries are required to take down content only if they are convinced about the illegality of the content.
 
Other participant to the panel presented some problems related to three strikes law as introduced recently in New Zealand, including (1) the creation of additional regime of liability for copyright infringement, (2) unjust reversal of burden of proof, and finally, (3) the lack of possibility to genuinely enforce three-strike. This proves more generally that current copyright framework tries to prevent acts which are impossible to be stopped. Lee Hibbard answered that this problem should be seen as part of broader perspective of Internet freedom notion. Chris Marcich repeated that he advocates targeting large commercial-scale infringers of copyright.
 
Finally, one of the participants to the panel said that it is still important to ensure safeguards for the protection of human rights in N & A procedure to avoid chilling-out effect. Therefore, a clear obligation of full transparency and accountability should be imposed on intermediaries. Catherine Trautmann supported this idea.
 

Conclusions and further comments: 

Conclusion:
 
While the participants had each brought their own perspectives and particular concerns to this discussion, it was noted that there was consensus amongst those present on some fundamental principles for protecting the rule of law in the online environment.

  1. There was support for the proposition that the rule of law and the right to procedural fairness is invoked when intermediaries intervene to suppress content and activity online on the grounds that it is illegal or infringes the rights of a third party.
  2. There was support for the proposition that while illegal material and behaviour should be addressed, legal material and behaviour should not be suppressed, which implies a need for mechanisms to distinguish the legal from the illicit.

By synthesising these propositions, it therefore follows that it is necessary for the mechanisms to distinguish legal from unlawful content and behaviour to be ones that ensure the safeguard of fundamental rights of the party notifying illegality of the content, as well as of the content owner.
 

(No.110) Freedom of expression and freedom from hate on-line (Young People Combating Hate Speech On-line)

Go to Report
Status: 
Accepted
Workshop Theme: 
Security, Openness and Privacy
Theme Question: 

How to secure freedom of participation and expression on the Internet without fear of harrassment or hate speech? How are these matters perceived on a global scale?

Concise Description of Workshop: 

The Internet offers the possibility of every user/participant to create, publish, distribute and consume media content fostering therefore a space of full participation, engagement and self-expression. Online space, just as offline space, presents new opportunities, challenges and threats to young people. Just as in offline space, young people may equally be victims and agents of abuse and human rights violation. Interaction in online space among different participants in communication, even though democratic and uncensored, cannot and is not to be value-void. The project Young People Combating Hate Speech On-line builds on the experiences ‘All Different-All Equal’ European youth campaigns and the capacity and competence of young people and youth organisations to act within online space. The project will mobilise European and national actors through a variety of activities such as training courses, development of educational materials, national seminars and conferences. Central to the project is a European youth media campaign which will be designed and implemented with the agency of young people and youth organisations. The campaign will adopt a positive and pro-active message – a campaign for freedom of expression on-line – while having a clear stance against all forms of racism and discrimination on-line. Youth from groups targeted by on-line hate speech – such as refugees and asylum-seekers, Muslims, LGBT and Roma – will play a particular role in the campaign. A network of young bloggers will form the core of the project and will play a central role in the preparation of an on-line media campaign The workshop will explore the tensions and dilemmas of human rights on-line activists who use the Internet for promoting a culture of universal human rights and, at the same time, are confronted with various forms of hate speech on-line. How to raise awareness and take action about understanding and living cyber-space as public space without limiting freedom of expression? How to empower and involve targets of hate speech so that they can use the Internet without fear? We'll base the workshop on a survey that we'll conduct among young people across Europe between June and September 2012. The survey and the workshop will contribute to an on-line media youth campaign for human rights and freedom of expression on line. Beyond the European reality, the project and campaign will reach out to members of thwe Islamic Organisation Conference in Africa and Asia. The on-line survey and the media campaign will also invite for participation from other continents. In view of this, the workshop has two main purposes: - To discuss with various stakeholders the perception of the risks and measures taken to prevent, educate and denounce hate speech (and its actual relevance for young people)  - To identify common global approaches to deal with/associate youth participation in Internet governance within a human rights framework.
Draft Agenda of the workshop

  1. Introduction of the workshop and panelists
  2. Freedom of expression as and human rights: framework for combating hate speech on-line. Introduction to the Council of Europe project and on-line campaign.
  3. Youth and hate speech on-line: results of surveys on attitudes and perceptions of young people about hate speech on-line
  4. Combating hate speech and fighting for freedom of expression: the case of #SupportYemen
  5. Global values and approaches to promote freedom of participation  and expression of young people on-line and combating hate speech? What can be learnt? What shall we promote? --> Conclusions.
  6. Brief round of feed-back and evaluation.
Organiser(s) Name: 

Mr Rui GOMES, Council of Europe - Youth Department, Intergovernmental organisation; Eastern Europe and WEOG

Previous Workshop(s): 

No

Submitted Workshop Panelists: 

Ms Maria Paschou, Chair, Advisory Council on Youth civil society; WEOG, Confirmed.
Ala'a Jarban, Academia / Youth, "Support Yemen", Sana'a University, Asia Pacific, Confirmed.
Nicola Douglas, Youth, Civil Society, Youth IGF Project, Confirmed.
 

Name of Remote Moderator(s): 
Ms Letizia Gambini (TBC)
Gender Report Card
Please estimate the overall number of women participants present at the session: 
The majority of participants were women
To what extent did the session discuss gender equality and/or women's empowerment?: 
It was raised by one or more of the speakers as an important aspect of the session's theme
Please include any comments or recommendations you have on how to improve the inclusion of issues related to gender equality and: 

The duration of the workshop does not allow to cover sufficiently all the issues related to gender equality.

Report
Reported by: 
Tamara Gojkovic and Rui Gomes
A brief substantive summary and the main issues that were raised: 

The workshop explored the tensions and dilemmas of human rights online activists who use the Internet to promote a culture of universal human rights and, at the same time, are confronted with various forms of hate speech online. The workshop addressed these issues from the perspective of young people as users and stakeholders of the Internet and, especially, looked at the global dimension of the issues and the responses being provided by various stakeholders.
The programme started with a presentation by Ala’a Jarban, young blogger from Yemen, who presented the situation in Yemen regarding hate speech online. In his opinion, Internet and human rights go hand in hand. Young activists in Yemen used Facebook to organise their activities, they were tweeting and blogging. The government’s reaction was to follow them, arresting and kidnapping them; many ended up in prison. On the other hand there are numerous Facebook pages spreading hatred and discrimination towards minorities. There are even organised movements, offline and online, which are targeting females and activists. It should be fought back by providing guidance and support and organized campaigns in online world. In Yemen hate speech online is used mostly in reference to cyber-bullying, otherwise it is only associated to pornographic web sites.
Nicole Douglas from Youth IGF project spoke about cultural acceptance of hate speech. From where she comes from, it is not part of the culture, since there is more cyber bullying and offensive opinions on forums based on stereotypes and ethnicity. It is not organized, but the fact that many people talk about it creates opinion that it is not offensive. It is scary that, because of anonymity, there is no identified source, except the fact that it is generally accepted.  Education is the best method to fight this discourse as it will make people more self-aware regarding what they are posting online and effects it has on other people. There are no legislative enforcements when you are online, so community based response is very important. Community is defining what is acceptable or not online -it should not be designed by those who make platforms, but those who are using.
There was a comment from audience that South Africa was good example how hate speech is handled offline – cases are prosecuted to the court.
Another comment from audience was related to power of certain societal groups to fight hate speech. For example, hash tag good Jew was taken down since Jewish community had strong response to it. The question is if Roma community would have the same power to take it down.
A participant expressed his concern regarding community responses since we need to be careful what we are promoting and aware of the responsibility.
 Audience (another person): Since internet is full of different people, can we say that community is always right and is it the best one to react?
In the discussion that ensued, the following comments and arguments were brought forward:
- Human rights are not respected offline all the time as well. If we act towards better human rights offline we need to do it online as well. We need to take into account local contexts, as well.
- We need to define who is drawing the line between violating someone’s rights.
- Offline and online are the same….we need to be empowered. If antisemitic books are not allowed and hash tags are, that doesn’t make sense.
- People can’t be anonymous offline as you can be online. We are losing some depths in online world. Two worlds are not merged yet.
- The level of acceptance of hate speech froze. People are getting used to people mistreating others. Just like in case of football fans.
- Things need to be said, and freedom of expression should be expressed. There is a difference between offline and online, you can’t reach large audiences like online or to be anonymous.
It is important to keep hate speech visible online because it can  be followed and monitored. Better than it is hidden in the basement.
Further discussion brought different comments from audience:

  • is it organized or it is personal view, and where is the limit in commenting and when it becomes hate speech. Or it is only exchange of points of view.
  • Debate on freedom of expression is lasting for a long time. We need to involve parents, schools, but also researches should be done.
  • We need to go back and think of who we are – is my real identity online or offline.

After this, Maria Paschou, chair of the Advisory Council on Youth presented the upcoming Council of Europe’s campaign against hate speech online.
The comments and reaction s to the campaign were very positive and encouraging. Participants encouraged the Council of Europe to link with existing similar initiatives rather than re-cereating everything from scratch. Involvement of actors and stakeholders from outside the Council of Europe member states should also be encouraged and given visibility.
Participants from Brasil and Canada shared examples of monitoring hate speech and of protecting young people. They proposed to the Council of Europe to make us of – and learn from – existing monitoring and protection mechanisms.

Conclusions and further comments: 
  • Hate speech online is not a European exclusivity. It exists in other countries and in different forms. Hate speech can also be used as an argument to counter freedom of expression and participation online.
  • Education is central to raise awareness of hate speech and its risks for young people. Education and awareness-raising ought o include a human rights dimension (human rights education), regardless of the context: media education, Internet literacy, citizenship education…
  • Young people ought to be supported in taking an active in educating about the Internet and human rights online
  • Combating hate speech ought to be done in the respect of human rights; the purpose therefore is not to curtail freedom of speech and expression online but to actually reinforce by strengthening young people’s awareness and confidence and removing fear of being exposed to, or target of, hatred.
  • Young people may feel very alone and powerless against forms of hate speech online
  • Doing away with the difference offline and online: the people are the same and so are the issues. Youth work and other forms of intervention ought to consider online and offline forms of interventions as part of the same approach.
  • National legal frameworks against online discrimination and hate speech should be enforced, but this is not the first aim or concern of the campaign (other bodies and stakeholders should, however, deal with that).
  • We need more research about the extent, impact and forms of hate speech online and its influence on young people. As brought up by several participants, it is also important to learn from what is being done in various parts of the world.

The results of the workshop in the plenary session on Security, Openness and Privacy which, not surprisingly, was focused on hate speech and freedom of expression.

(No.109) National Cyber-Defense and Critical Infrastructure Protection

Go to Report
Status: 
Withdrawn
Workshop Theme: 
Security, Openness and Privacy
Theme Question: 

Question 1

Concise Description of Workshop: 

The proposed workshop will discuss the development of policy and infrastructure for national-level cyberdefense, cybersecurity, and cyber-warfare coordination.

Backgroung Paper: 
Organiser(s) Name: 

 

  • Bill Woodcock, Packet Clearing House

  • Liesyl Franz, Consultant

 

Submitted Workshop Panelists: 

 

  • Eric Rosenbach, United States Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Cyber Policy

  • Bill Woodcock, Packet Clearing House

  • Kurtis Lindqvist, NetNod

  • Quek Tong Boon, Singaporean Ministry of Defense

 

Name of Remote Moderator(s): 
Bevil Wooding, Packet Clearing House
Syndicate content