Group items tagged

Representatives from the creative industries, leading UK search engines, and the IPO developed a Voluntary Code of Practice dedicated to the removal of links to infringing content from the first page of search results.

Signatories of the Voluntary Code of Practice are: Google Bing BPI Motion Picture Association

Procedural accountability” was a focus of discussion at the March 2018 workshop on platform responsibility convened by LSE’s Truth, Trust and Technology Commission. The idea is that firms should be held to account for the effectiveness of their internal processes in tackling the negative social impact of their services.

o be credible and trusted, information disclosed by online firms will need to be independently verified.

Piloting a Transparency Reporting Framework

A small group of companies with the largest online presence and high-risk features, which is likely to include Facebook, TikTok, Instagram and Twitter, will be in Category 1, while Category 2 services include platforms that host dating services or pornography and private messaging apps. The Government has said that less than 3% of UK businesses will fall within the scope of the legislation and the vast majority of companies that do will be Category 2 services, the UK government.

his set of rules creates a novel regulatory model

Again, leaving regulatory powers to a private entity without any public oversight is clearly not the right solution. But this is also not what, in my opinion, the new AVMSD does

But without transparency and information about individual cases, you surely can’t say whether the takedowns are really improving the media environment, or the providers are just trying to get rid of any controversial content – or, indeed, the content somebody just happens to be complaining about.

Could it be, another wondered, that the flurry of apocalyptic angst reflected the extent to which the Californian Ideology (which held that cyberspace was beyond the reach of the state) had seeped into the souls of even well-intentioned critics?

In reality, the problem we have is not the internet so much as those corporations that ride on it and allow some unacceptable activities to flourish on their platforms

This is what ethicists call “obligation responsibility” and in this country we call a duty of care. I

[19] The Order of the Court will incorporate provision for liberty to apply. By this mechanism the Plaintiff, if necessary and if so advised, will be able to seek further relief from the Court if there is any recurrence of the offending publication. Of course, in such eventuality, it will be open to Facebook, acting responsibly and in accordance with the principles and themes clearly expressed in this judgment, to proactively take the necessary removal and closure steps.

[20] I refuse the Plaintiff's application for the wider form of interim injunction sought by him. This was to the effect that Facebook be required to monitor the offending webpage in order to prevent republication of the offensive material. In this respect, I prefer the argument of Mr Hopkins that such an order would lack the requisite precision, could impose a disproportionate burden and, further, would potentially require excessive supervision by the Court. See Cooperative Insurance v Argyll [1997] 3AL ER 297, pages 303 – 304, per Lord Hoffman. See also Halsbury's Laws of England, Volume 24 (Fourth Edition Reissue), paragraph 849. The propriety of granting this discrete remedy will, of course, be revisited at the substantive trial, against the backcloth of a fuller evidential matrix, which should include details of how this social networking site actually operates from day to day.

The commercial importance of ISS providers is recognised in Recital 2 of the Directive which notes the significant employment opportunities and stimulation of economic growth and investment in innovation from the development of electronic commerce. The purpose of the exemption from monitoring is to make the provision of the service practicable and to facilitate the opportunities for commercial activity. The quantities of information described by the learned trial judge at paragraph [19] of his judgment explain why such a provision is considered necessary. Although the 2002 Regulations do not contain a corresponding provision they need to be interpreted with the monitoring provision in mind.

Given the quantities of information generated the legislative steer is that monitoring is not an option

he judge concluded that the existence of the XY litigation was itself sufficient to fix Facebook with actual knowledge of unlawful disclosure of information on Predators 2 or awareness of facts and circumstances from which it would have been apparent that the publication of the information constituted misuse of private information. In our view such a liability could only arise if Facebook was subject to a monitoring obligation

umber of the other “harms” identified in the White Paper may also constitute breaches of data protection law.