Archive for the ‘privacy’ tag
News, blog posts, etc
Lisa Campbell, ‘Is Netflix just a novelty?‘ (Broadcast 14 February 2013). Given my interest in VOD (primarily how it is regulated but to get there requires understanding the market), the last few weeks have provided much to think about. I can’t decide whether to be impressed at the Netflix coup of launching House of Cards as an all-at-once release or cynical about how its press releases were parroted by some in the press. I think both. Anyway, the coverage in Broadcast does look at it from a number of different angles. (Thought I will return to although I’ve probably said it before: if the standard for being covered by EU audiovisual media law includes being ‘TV-like’ subject to interpretation in a ‘dynamic’ way, does this sort of move make a difference?)
Jeremy Phillips, ‘Save our hyperlinks! Paws for reflection as Profs Opine‘ (IPKat 15 February 2013). Commentary on the intervention of academic group the European Copyright Society (does it have a website? cannot find) in a very important case on hyperlinks, Svensson. The case is before the Court of Justice of the EU shortly and takes up a question much loved by IT textbooks more or less since they started to exist: is a link one of the acts restricted under copyright law? If so, then the consent of the author of the target page may be necessary – but the consequences are significant.
Claire Porter, ‘Google ‘flaw’ puts users’ details on display‘ (News.com.au 16 February 2013). Another tricky story about apps and privacy; this one is about the Google Play store. Worth noting that there is a bit of discussion about the way the story has been reported (and amended) – see e.g. here. Original link via Slashdot.
David Streitfield, ‘Tech Industry Sets Its Sights on Gambling‘ (New York Times 18 February 2013). Discusses the implications of any change in the law on online gambling in the US for social networks and for the casual gaming sector. Also mentions the interesting issue of gambling and Diablo.
William Turvill, ‘News agencies’ fear over impact of copyright law proposals‘ (Press Gazette 20 February 2013). It looks like the lobbying against the proposed implementation of the Hargreaves Review is well underway now. I think there is a fair point to be made about the constitutional problems (the typical, pernicious turn to secondary legislation in place of proper parliamentary scrutiny), although the substantive arguments tend to the alarmist. For example, I can see why the photographer groups who were critical of orphan works proposals in the past are sceptical about extended collective licensing. Less obvious to me is why that opposition extends to the long-overdue proposals on parody. Perhaps there’s just general opposition. We’ll see. Given that some of these recommendations are still overdue from Gowers 2006, it would be a shame to get stuck at this stage..
Speaking of parody: Kris Erickson, ‘Evaluating the Impact of Parody on the Exploitation of Copyright Works: An Empirical Study of Music Video Content on YouTube‘ (Bournemouth University for IPO, 2013). Fascinating attempt to measure the consequences of protecting (or not protecting) parody. Via Rebecca Tushnet.
And more on copyright: Lee Edwards, Bethany Klein, David Lee, Giles Moss, and Fiona Philip, ‘Framing the consumer: Copyright regulation and the public’ (2013) 19 Convergence 9-24 (£). Multi-disciplinary perspective on attitudes to copyright, with a particular interest in downloading (other articles in the same issue also explore the theme of attitudes and IP)
News, blog posts, etc
European Commission, ‘EU Cybersecurity plan to protect open internet and online freedom and opportunity‘ (press release, 7 February 2013). Marking the release of a new strategy and proposed Directive (download both of them here) on this topic. The interesting bit about this is how it’s framed – legally speaking it’s an internal market measure (not crime!); strategically, it follows up on the many comments about ‘trust’ in the Digital Agenda documents of the last couple of years. While most of the operative provisions of the Directive are about national authorities for infrastructure and cooperation between them, there is an interesting (proposed) obligation for member states to regulate ‘market operators’ in terms of security and also notification of breaches. (Incidentally, is this category of ‘market operator’ a new one? It has two sub-categories – information society services ‘which enable the provision of other’ ISSes (examples in an Annex are cloud computing platforms, app stores, search engines, social networks), and operators of certain types of critical infrastructure. Art 14 doesn’t apply, in essence, to telephone/mobile/broadband providers, because the electronic communications directives already occupy the field. (It also doesn’t apply to certain players in the much-maligned electronic signatures field – although I read that exclusion as being broader than those entities contemplated in the 1999 Directive). (The ‘open internet’ etc language of the strategy and press release is slightly overstated, I think).
John Brodkin, ‘Wi-Fi “as free as air”—the totally false story that refuses to die‘ (Ars Technica 8 February 2013). This is most curious. The (interesting and potentially significant) work of the FCC on what to do with UHF ‘white spaces’ – spectrum formerly used or left as a buffer for TV broadcasting but becoming available for other uses – has been of interest in IT law for some years now. Then seemingly from nowhere, a normal development in the regulatory process became the basis for an article about free wifi. This is not to say that white spaces and Internet access are unconnected; clearly, it’s one of the reasons that people beyond spectrum gurus talk about it. (I wrote about it in passing in this 2009 article, in section 5.5). But the licensing process does not deliver a free service by any means (even if, as is being discussed, the regulatory model would not include a license fee for spectrum use). Nor has anything particularly interesting happened in recent weeks – as Brodkin’s deconstruction points out, the interesting stuff either happened a few years ago (when the opening up started) or will happen in the future (if new services are launched).
Simon Fodden, ‘Edwin Mellen Press’s Curious Case‘ (Slaw 10 February 2013). A comment, with plenty of links, on the developing (and worrying) story about the huge defamation claim (the applicant seeks the equivalent of over £2m!) against a librarian (who wrote some quite critical things about a publisher, informed by his knowledge of the field) and his university employer. I would certainly not have anything to do with this publisher as a result of its actions in this case (whatever about the underlying allegations themselves!).
Alexander Hanff, ‘The murky world of privacy advocacy‘ (10 February 2013). A new blog and a rollicking start, with a detailed analysis of corporate funding for tech-related NGOs. It’s about time. Given the field I’m working in, I’ve seen quite a few of these organisations (and indeed, their close cousins, the consultant reinventing themselves as an NGO/think-tank with no membership, no membership and often nothing to add). I think the post by Hanff demonstrates a very honest attempt to understand the weaknesses of the lobbying system and reminds us all to think about the motives as well as the contents of interventions.
‘Virtual currency and virtual property revisited‘ (Technollama 11 February 2013). An overview of recent developments on virtual £££ and IP and other things, prompted by a piece in Forbes which mostly about virtual property). See also this nice PBS video on Bitcoin, etc.
Nina Mendelson, ‘Should Mass Comments Count?’ (2012) 2 Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law 173 (SSRN). This is a response to the author’s earlier work (and a debate about it), but reading the article covers much of what before quite neatly. The issue is a controversial one – how, when public consultation happens, to deal with different forms of participation (particularly one-click or template methods).
Michael O’Flaherty, ‘Freedom of Expression: Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Human Rights Committee’s General Comment No 34′ (2012) 12 Human Rights Law Review 627-654 (£, link). The author of this article was the rapporteur work on this General Comment and discusses the comment as well as some of the cases and stories it relied upon. Watch out for the interesting discussion of article 19 and emerging technology, too.
E Tarantino, ‘A simple model of vertical search engines foreclosure’ (2013) 37 Telecommunications Policy 1 (£, link). The new volume of this journal (mix of law, business, economics, etc) starts off with one of the topics of the year, competition law and search engines.
Double edition! At the end of January, I was caught up in the excitement of the official launch of CREATe. I was taking notes on laptop and paper, so more to follow on that soon.
News, blog posts, etc
Eric Goldman, ‘17 USC 512(f) Is Dead–Lenz v. Universal Music‘ (Technology & Marketing Law Blog 25 January 2013). Goldman discusses the latest decision in the Lenz case (the infamous ‘kid dancing to Prince‘ video and how it was taken down at the request of the record label). He reports on the way in which section 512(f) of the DMCA (misrepresentation in takedown notices) has been read in a narrow fashion by the court and argues that it will have little purpose in the future. This is interesting (as is his neat point that because a lot of takedowns now happen outside of the DMCA process, it’s already becoming irrelevant) – for me, having argued that the EU should apply its ‘groundless threats’ approach to notice and takedown to come into line with the DMCA, it’s a warning to draft that suggestion more carefully.
Mike Madison, ‘Coulton, Glee, and Copyright‘ (Madisonian 28 January 2013). On a theme of legal and other considerations – this is an article responding to a scandal which I confess had escaped me (involving Glee!), about a legal issue I’m more familiar with ‘covers of covers’. For the interest of non-US readers – this is a particular feature of US copyright law where a ‘cover version’ can be the subject of a compulsory licence. (Actually – as discussed in the post – this isn’t always the solution, as there can be negotiation or going through the Harry Fox Agency instead). However the situation here (the rights of B in its cover version of A’s composition against C’s cover version of A which is derived from B’s) may stretch the effectiveness of that solution (and, as Madison talks about in the second half of his post, suggest questions about the purpose of the law and about the ethics of the situation.
‘WhatsApp breaches privacy laws‘ (CBC News 28 January 2013). You know I like stories about apps. This one is about one of the success stories of last year, WhatsApp (instant messaging). As the CBC story explains, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (along with equivalent authorities in the Netherlands) has investigated a bunch of issues regarding the service and privacy. Some were resolved through changes to the operation of the service, but one major continuing breach was noted – the requirement to grant access to full address books in order to use the service. The full report is here.
Liat Clark, ‘WTO grants Antigua right to launch ‘pirate’ site selling US media‘ (Wired UK 29 January 2013). This story, widely reported during this period, is about Antigua’s success before the World Trade Organisation (some time ago now – see case file DS285) in its criticism of US violation of world trade law in respect of the regulation of online gambling. As suggested for a few year now – but now getting more likely as the measure has been approved – it proposes to use the WTO mechanism of trade retaliation, because the US has failed to implement the binding decision of the dispute settlement process. The US is professing shock and dismay. However, as a strong proponent of free trade (and indeed the sanctions associated with the WTO process), I’m sure that an understanding can be reached. Remember: the US took the case to an appeal and lost, and arbitration has also been pursued.
Jason Del Rey, ‘YouTube Set to Introduce Paid Subscriptions This Spring‘ (Advertising Age 29 January 2013). There’s been a flurry of stories in 2013 about how to build a model of charging for video-on-demand; this story explains the proposal to identify selected channels and charge a monthly (and possibly PPV) fee. Answers on a postcard – will this, if it succeeds, encourage broadcaster-managed non-archive VOD (e.g. the ‘catchup’ bit of 4od, for example) to try and build a charging system – and if so, is it Spotify-style or micropayments per programme? (I say non-archive VOD because there is a relatively clear mixed economy emerging for archive VOD with various forms of charging and ad support)
Kevin Chao, ‘Mobile Kills the Console But Advances the Gaming Industry‘ (Wired 31 January 2013). Is this finally the year of mobile gaming? Lovely stats here and a framing of the issue as being about reach, engagement and monetization. (There is however an ongoing and very significant issue in the UK – and no doubt elsewhere – about monetization and mobile, the role of mobile network operators vs (e.g.) Facebook credits vs other models and the role of PhonePayPlus (regulates premium rate calls and texts which is one of the ways the charge can be set) – see the very perceptive market study for that very organisation.
Bob Tarantino, ‘What the *BLEEP*? Coarse Language in Radio Broadcasts‘ (Entertainment & Media Law Signal 31 January 2013). Round-up of Canadian broadcast standard decisions on language and radio. (On that note, I noted subsequently how the New York Times reported the well-deserved Grammy success of Jay-Z & Kanye West as being for ‘___ in Paris’, and the awkward pacing of the bowdlerised broadcast version of the new UK no. 1 single, Thrift Shop; compare the editing on this page (short silencing of the offending part making the result ‘This is ___ing awesome’) with what actually went on air in the chart show (looping, making the result ‘This is aws-aws-awesome’), here at 2h54m)
Josh Halliday, ‘YouTube study shows children ‘three clicks away from explicit material’‘ (Guardian 5 February 2013). Oh dear. Apparently if you find a video aimed at children and then click and then click and click again you end up at a less suitable video. Traumatic I’m sure, but has anyone figured out a way to prevent that without making ‘related videos’ completely unworkable? Say a video has 20 ‘similar video’ links, then by the third click we are at up to 8000 possible videos – and by click five it’s over three million possibilities. See also Six Degrees of Separation, etc.
Adrienne Jeffries, ‘Why Amazon wants its own currency‘ (The Verge 5 February 2013). I was reminded about The Verge by a student recently – just in time for this piece on e-money, with a nice approach to the practical as well as legal or technological reasons to adopt a particular model of payment.
Patrick Wintour, ‘Peers pass low-cost arbitration law for victims of press defamation‘ (Guardian 6 February 2013). Somewhat overtaken by events since, but this was a tricky development in the post-Leveson story – specifically, adding in one bit of the recommendations to the Defamation Bill. Although I’m not convinced by this approach, I still hold to the view that the Defamation Bill needs to be properly linked up with the Leveson settlement. I appreciate that some people have waited a long time for defamation reform, and that there is work that needs to be done…but its changes will be more legitimate and sustainable if they form part of the new approach to press regulation (particularly as many of the Bill’s changes are specifically defended as pro-press).
On Thursday (8th December), a group of academics from seven UK institutions gave evidence at the Leveson Inquiry on the culture, practice and ethics of the press. I was one of the seven heard in what was termed a ‘hot tub’ format – this phrase has provoked much comment; I was vaguely familiar with it (for expert witnesses in trials, particularly scientists) and it does lend itself to interesting (if slightly worrying) images. The others were (in the morning) Steven Barnett, George Brock, Brian Cathcart and Angela Phillips, and then (alongside me in the afternoon) Julian Petley and Ian Hargreaves (yes, same Hargreaves as the Hargreaves Review, as a number of people have asked. No, I didn’t say thank you for the report, although I am a big fan of it). Each session opened with a discussion on journalism/media education and segued neatly into a broader discussion on the inquiry’s work, particularly regarding regulation of the press. We were asked to answer polite (and very well informed) questions from the two counsel (David Barr & Carine Patry Hoskins) and Lord Justice Leveson himself.
All three of the afternoon witnesses were there for the morning, so we had a good opportunity to see what our colleagues were saying – particularly the useful debate between Barnett and Brock on models of media regulation and the role of statute. It was interesting to watch the Inquiry go about its business – serious but not overly formal, and a technology-infused room (transcribed text appearing on screens, each lawyer with a computer in front of them, iPads and smartphones in circulation, and of course the fixed (and indeed unobtrusive) video cameras dotted around the room, linked to the live stream on the Inquiry’s website. On this occasion, it’s fair to say that neither Court 73 nor (I’m told) the overflow annex) were packed out – perhaps a day of academics does not have the appeal for others that is has for me! (Not even a Guardian live blog – which according to Charlie Brooker’s Black Mirror defines a serious event – but the Telegraph did have one (and a still of me in full hand-waving mode).
The full details of what we all said can be found in the transcripts: morning and afternoon. As a new lecturer I didn’t have a lead role in the discussion of education, although I was pleased to be able to talk about some of the things we are working on at UEA, particularly the interdisciplinary ‘Media & Society‘ module, and to comment (briefly) on the differences between media law for law students and media law for journalism students. (Lord Justice Leveson also appeared amused (or scared) at my observation that the inquiry itself is a useful part of this year’s media law syllabus). I enjoyed the discussion of the different careers of journalism graduates and the ups and downs of NCTJ recognition in the morning and afternoon sessions – a really useful exchange to review.
My next major intervention was regarding the Press Complaints Commission; this was the bit that made into the end of a Guardian report too. I suggested that some aspects of the Press Council of Ireland could form a part of UK reform – e.g. statutory recognition of an independently constituted Council, the involvement of journalists and not just proprietors, links between the responsible journalism defence to defamation law and Council membership. I also observed (and Twitter users took notice!) that UK publishers had joined the Irish council in respect of their Irish editions; others have made this point before but it does bear repeating. I added that investigative powers would only be appropriate if a press body was appropriately accountable for the exercise of those powers.
Of course, most of the questions directed to me were Internet-related, and it’s where I had the opportunity to put across quite a few points drawn from my research. While I wanted to emphasise that the idea of the lawless Internet is inaccurate (and has been for some time), I also discussed the importance of clear laws that individual bloggers etc could understand (and possibly be protected by akin to journalists if standards are met), the dangers of encouraging or requiring online intermediaries to be the key location of regulation (or treating them all, from telecoms providers to search engines, as the same), and also the strong points of some community-driven regulation. (Those who have read things I have written in law journals or even on this blog may recognise many of those points, and what I was trying to do was summarise them for the purposes of the Inquiry, which isn’t specifically about online media but will surely be dealing with it under various headings). I did coin an unintentional soundbyte, that hosts should not be the “new arbiter of what is right or wrong”. I also responded (not in much detail due to time) to Julian Petley’s comprehensive paper on freedom of the press vs freedom of expression, which I recommend as a very interesting reading on this topic. Oh, and I defended media studies as an important contribution made by the academic world, but that again won’t surprise readers. And then it was off to the cleverly squeezed in BBC remote studio for a chat with the fine Radio Norfolk : hear the results here (at 1h45m) and the following morning’s studio interview here (at 1h48m).
The Inquiry has a lot of work to do, and it’s running alongside other processes, such as the draft Defamation Bill. I’ve been watching it with fascination and it has been a privilege to be able to contribute. It continues to invite submissions from the public and will shortly be inviting further submissions on the press and the police (module 2). Based on what I’ve seen so far, its report should be wide-ranging and fascinating, and I hope to continue blogging about it and sending in my written observations in due source.
This week’s English newspapers (including the Guardian and Independent, but there may be others) carried a number of full-page advertisements for Google, which formed part of its current ‘Good To Know‘ campaign. The campaign is ‘in partnership with the Citizens Advice Bureau‘.
Some parts of the campaign strike me as extremely sensible and useful information, and leave me very pleased that Google is putting its money and reputation behind them. For example, one ad (which I first saw in a Tube station) emphasised Google’s 2-step verification; another (which I saw in print, but can’t recall where) gave examples of good passwords. (You can see a collection of these ads on the Good To Know website). The most recent ads, though, raise some interesting questions around data and privacy. As readers of the growing literature on the development of Google will know (most recently Douglas Edwards’ I’m Feeling Lucky on his experiences as employee #59), it’s clear that these issues are thought about and debated a lot within Google; this however is my external take and some quite preliminary questions rather than conclusions;.
One ad is about IP addresses – it doesn’t appear to be on the Google site, but I’ve scanned it (apologies for resolution) here. Explaining how a user in Brighton doesn’t need a plumber from New York when they use a search engine, the ad states that results based on where you are use your computer’s IP address. “It’s a number like 220.127.116.11 which acts a bit like the first part of a postcode to tell them the rough area your computer is in“. I think this isn’t the best definition of an IP address, particularly in the week where (in the Sabam decision regarding ISP filtering for copyright reasons) the Court of Justice of the EU found it to be common ground “that the injunction requiring installation of the contested filtering system would involve a systematic analysis of all content and the collection and identification of users’ IP addresses from which unlawful content on the network is sent. Those addresses are protected personal data because they allow those users to be precisely identified”. This confirms a direction in European Union practice, particularly the statements of the article 29 Working Party (e.g. opinion 1/2008 on search engines, opinion 2/2010 on online behavioural advertising), that an IP address can be personal data. In a way, I’d suggest, that the first part of a postcode is less likely to be.
Another ad (with a quirky little graphic about extra-shot coffee, which is what I’m drinking as I type this) (scanned here) draws a link between the barista knowing your coffee order (but not your name) as you walk through the door, and how Google and other websites act:
Making a note of your preferences in case you visit them again. It’s how they are able to recommend a particular artist you might like, or if you prefer to fly from a certain airport, or if you like a specific printer ink.
(I think ‘preferences’ here is broader than a technical meaning of preferences as in settings, but am open to correction).
Again, I can see what they are getting at, but I think the anonymous coffee order may not be the best model here – as (a) there are plenty of ‘preferences’ that are more revealing (and yes, legally sensitive) than coffee choice, and (b) concerns about profiling include the cumulative impact of data collection rather than a single point – the barista doesn’t know what you prefer when you go to the clothes shop next door!
Google does some great work around data – and the Good To Know website highlights this, including work on Data Liberation, cookie deletion and more. But there’s something about the ads above that I’m not as sure about.
I mentioned this campaign to a fellow academic and s/he pointed out that the ultimate target here might not be users, but the forthcoming (and unpopular with large Internet companies) revision of the Data Protection Directive. If that’s the case, Google’s intervention isn’t unwelcome – we need to hear its voice – but it’s worth debating those points. If it’s just about consumers, I think it goes in the right direction (particularly the security stuff), but the wording could be a good bit tighter.
Finally, I think there are questions to be asked about the role of the Citizens Advice Bureau. It knows well that the interests of consumers are different to the interests of corporations – see for example its current struggle to publish the results of investigations and how libel law appears to prevent that. So should it be involved with (a) a particular company and (b) a particular view of the law of privacy? Indeed, the UK government proposes (consultation paper here) to take a whole range of consumer information and advocacy functions away from public bodies and transfer them to the (private, charitable and generally wonderful) CAB. Should it therefore be more careful about taking ‘sides’, appearing to endorse the views of Google and in having the ads presented as authoritative and neutral?