
Leaked document: EU Presidency calls for massive internet filtering - sdiepend
https://edri.org/leaked-document-eu-presidency-calls-for-massive-internet-filtering/
======
pmyteh
Non-EU readers should bear in mind that the presidency of the EU is much
_much_ weaker than that of, say, the US. It's rotated around the countries on
a schedule, and has mainly agenda-setting authority.

That is, countries who hold the presidency will use it to try to get movement
on some issues that they care about, but it doesn't have anywhere close to
enough power to get something passed which the other member states do not
agree with. Real power sits with the Commission, the Council of Ministers and
the Parliament in various proportions.

~~~
icebraining
True. One wonders what Estonia, or its government, has to gain from this,
though.

~~~
andy_ppp
It's the same thing all autocrats want which is to consolidate their power
while protecting the little people from themselves.

I can see where they are coming from though; I'm pretty sure the
investigations of Internet usage that turn up on politicians desks contain
pretty disconcerting information about the human condition.

~~~
icebraining
This seems to be focused on copyright, not "protecting the little people from
themselves." I find a financial reason more likely to be behind this push.

~~~
andy_ppp
Yes after finding and reading the document (TFA was hosed) I have totally
misunderstood it's content; maybe a better headline including the word
copyright would help.

~~~
matt4077
Thank you for admitting the misunderstanding.

It's really dangerous to go around calling democratically elected governments
"autocratic". These people really do try, and there's really no indication
that any government except maybe Hungary is bent on perpetuating their power.
Calling them names just removes any incentives for anybody to do well: Why
bother, if you're just going to be called an incompetent autocrat anyway?

------
dalbasal
China’s example is massive.

China’s success has proven that countries _can_ succeed without adopting
western liberal freedoms. In fact, success adopting only a small subset of
economic and personal freedoms, and none of the political freedoms. The
economy is good, the state is stable..

Proof of concept for non-liberal systems.

This means freedoms need to be argued for on their own merits. Free speech for
its own sake. No censorship for its own sake. etc.

Much harder. Much more prone to compromise and erosion.

~~~
JBReefer
A huge chunk of millennials are non longer believe in free speech [0], and
everyone seems to agree that Facebook et. al's censorship of objectionable
content is great. Between the insanity of the current government/far right,
and the rise of the far/tankie left, I'm not sure that liberalism is long for
this world, even in the West.

[0] [http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-
millen...](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-
ok-with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/)

~~~
SimbaOnSteroids
I don't recall a time in history when publishers (what Facebook et al. are)
were required or expected to publish whatever any random person or
organizations opinions.

Furthermore, the country most in favor of limiting free speech to protect
minorities, Germany(70% pro, 29% against, total population) , ironically has
the most experience with the dangers of both extremes of allowances on speech.
On one hand the Nazi's were able to rise to power partly because they were
able to publicly scapegoat groups of people who were eventually slaughtered en
mass. On the other hand you have the Stasi who would torture and murder people
based on a whiff of being critical of the ruling party.

Look, I'm for free speech, but lets not pretend that its an issue that doesn't
require a modicum of nuance to approach.

~~~
ntuch
> publishers (what Facebook et al. are)

They're not publishers, so your argument falls apart in the very first
sentence.

I don't recall a time in history when services (what Facebook et al. are) were
allowed to police the content of communications made with their service. I
don't recall AT&T, when they allow customers to communicate using their
telephone lines, being allowed to police the content of those communications.
I don't allow printer manufacturers being allowed to police the things people
print.

Before you reach for the keyboard to type the words, "that's different" \- no,
no it's not. It's not different at all. Facebook offers a service. They aren't
publishers. My analogy is closer to reality than yours. It just so happens
that Facebook is technically able to police my speech, and so you've chosen to
shrug and say it's okay. If AT&T had been technically capable of listening to
my speech and policing it, what argument would you make that they shouldn't be
allowed to do that? Whatever argument you come up with, I make the same
argument for facebook.

> I'm for free speech, but

"...but I'm not really for free speech."

It's all or nothing. You either accept it as a principle because you
understand that it's literally the most important principle, or you don't. In
your case, you don't.

~~~
majormajor
The problem with your analogy is that it is tied to a very small window in
history.

Has liberalism and free speech only existed in the time span where there's
been regulated common-carrier type "services"?

Lets roll back the clock to before AT&T. Was there free speech and liberalism?
Was any printer required to print anyone's manuscript? Was any newspaper
required to be open to all opinions? Was any private person or organization
required to spread those opinions across the world?

Historically, Facebook is much more like an open-to-the-masses
publisher/distributor than you claim, with the difference resting more in
economics (cost of publishing) than anything else. But that difference is
hugely significant in practical terms - an unrestricted Facebook doesn't have
much historical analog at all, hence the debate.

~~~
SimbaOnSteroids
I agree that it doesn't have much a historical precedent and its important to
have this debate, I'm not sure where I fall on it myself if I'm being honest,
but facebook does have historical precedent in its size, in the past we've
busted up corporations that have grown to this size into smaller individual
entities but idk how you'd do that with fb, you could spin off instagram or
maybe spin off its video hosting services but this all gets really tricky
really fast.

------
adekok
> the Presidency has worked hard in order to make the proposal for the new
> copyright Directive even more harmful than the Commission’s original
> proposal,

I read that as "corporations can enforce copyright... I can't"

See Youtube drama of a news organization using someone's video without
attribution or payment... and then filing automated copyright claims against
the original, because parts of the "copyrighted news broadcast" appear
verbatim in the video.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
I think there's also a serious risk of infringing on fair use/fair dealing and
even remixes and so on here. An algorithm can't tell whether you're using
content for piracy or for criticism. As you point out, YouTube's Content ID
system has given us a fantastic preview of the potential problems here.

~~~
icebraining
Their solution seems to be mandating providers to offer a mechanism for
redressing grievances and having the rightsholders explain themselves in a
reasonable time period. It seems to be just for PR (it doesn't seem to provide
any mechanism in case the explanation is ridiculous), but it could provide an
interesting venue for DDoSing copyright holders.

------
Joe-Z
I sincerely hope that we will succeed in keeping the internet as democratic as
possible and not let it be destroyed by corporate interests in the name
'terrorism prevention'.

I'd like to give a shout-out to epicenter.works, an Austrian NGO, which I've
been following the last 1.5 years or so. I think it's hard to get the public
engaged in these topics, but they seem to be really determined.

Here's a google translate link to one of their latest articles / achievements
(preventing a 'surveillance package' in Austrian law):

[https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&tl=en&u=h...](https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fepicenter.works%2Fcontent%2Fueberwachungspaket-
gescheitert-wir-rufen-zum-schulterschluss-fuer-sicherheit-statt)

~~~
tinus_hn
The Internet was never democratic. When did you get to vote on anything?

~~~
FoeNyx
> When did you get to vote on anything?

October 2000, there were a worldwide online vote to select some members of the
ICANN Board of Directors.

[https://www.icann.org/news/icann-
pr-2000-09-21-en](https://www.icann.org/news/icann-pr-2000-09-21-en)

~~~
likelynew
I love HN.

------
chatmasta
> upload filter

Your upload is my download. A user _uploads_ an HTTP request to a server, and
the server _uploads_ an HTTP response to the user. Of course that sounds
unnatural compared to the user downloading the HTTP response. But the
difference between upload/download is purely semantic and only distinguishes
the _intent_ of the user. Regardless of terms used, data flows in one
direction, then back in another. The only distinguishing factor is its
direction and whether or not both sides can establish the initial connection.
So in that sense, a server uploads data to the user, who implicitly permitted
the sever to do so when establishing the connection.

This misappropriation of technical language to advance a policy goal is
revealing in that it shows the concept is fundamentally unlegislatable and
therefore unenforceable, or worse, arbitrarily enforceable.

This is just part of an ongoing legislative pattern of the past 5-10 years. My
reading of its trajectory is that regulatory regimes will eventually require
licenses to run any service behind public IP addresses, to register domain
names, and to advertise BGP routes or run public DNS resolvers. When coupled
with centralization of inbound routing infrastructure (transatlantic fiber)
and/or increased regulation of IP transit companies, this licensing
legislature will work effectively.

~~~
pmlnr
> A user uploads an HTTP request to a server, and the server uploads an HTTP
> response to the user.

Direction-wise, this is true, connection-wise, it's not. There is no active
connection initiated from the server to the client; it's one long connection
that is client->server, only the direction of the data changes.

------
program_whiz
Is anyone surprised at this? The internet is a single point which governs the
majority of information and communication for the people now. Someone who is
in power can potentially eliminate threats and increase their own
power/wealth. I would be more surprised to find the opposite -- that the
powerful had privately written a memo telling others that privacy matters more
than their own power/wealth/safety.

Its like all the "shocking" revelations on the corruption of elections using
voting machines -- hardly surprising given that the manipulation guarantees
"legitimate" power from the people, the cost is fairly low relative to payoff,
and the effect is largely untraceable.

~~~
pmlnr
> The internet is a single point which governs the majority of information and
> communication for the people now.

That is because instead of building mesh networks out of our routers, mobile
phones, home servers, raspberry pis, we, in Europe, are waiting on the
{government,council,leadership,isp,bigco} to do it for us. It would be more
than possible to build city-wide networks in the UK and cross-city connections
with, for example, long range ubiquity, without and ISP or corporation or BT
involved, but nobody seems interested, because nobody care any more. Virgin
blocked a few more sites, "meh".

I know this sounds like a rant, but I'd really love to see a worm which turns
every wifi capable device into gigantic mesh network and see how ISPs panic.

------
apk-d
Personally, I think the cookie law could be expanded a bit further. Currently,
I'm not always appropriately notified that the website I'm visiting uses
cookies. How about we institute a law that requires browsers to implement a
feature that detects when a cookie is stored, locks the browser and proceeds
to play an unbridged rendition of the _Ode to Freedom_ (yes, that's really
what it's called) while displaying a full page warning that you have to
manually accept. Later, we could expand the mechanism to cover websites that
use CSS stylesheets.

------
rebuilder
So at a quick glance at the leaked document, it seems to contain provisions
for requiring certain services to let copyright holders have unlicensed
content pulled and to provide ways to stop such content being posted in the
first place. Excluded from this group would be e.g. ISPs, storage providers
and service providers whose primary function is not to distribute content to
the public.

The article seems very alarmist and light on detail. This draft may well be
pretty bad, but I'd recommend reading it to form your opinion.

------
sdbrown
So I admit that I've only skimmed the PDF on statewatch.org that the site
points to, but I didn't see the "massive filtering" bit. This reads like the
DMCA seems to be practiced; can someone point out to me the specific page
number of the PDF, or better the text within the document, which refers to the
content filtering?

I'm not saying the DMCA is a good thing or a bad thing; I'm just trying to get
calibrated to what is being proposed in the directive. Thanks for the help!

------
jonssons
and they still call me paranoid ...

------
_fizz_buzz_
> follow in the footsteps of China regarding online censorship

This phrase makes the article seem overly dramatic. The proposed directive is
all about copyright and not about censorship in the common sense. So, if I own
the copyright (e.g. I wrote a blog post critizing the European Commission),
this directive doesn't apply to me.

~~~
snsr
Copyright enforcement is censorship.

------
provost
The web page is receiving the "hug of death" right now, and is having
difficulty loading.

Pasting the content here in case it goes down (I did not include the in-
paragraph hyperlinks though).

However, here is the leaked document they reference in the first sentence:
[http://www.statewatch.org/news/2017/aug/eu-council-
copyright...](http://www.statewatch.org/news/2017/aug/eu-council-copyright-
directive-estonian-compromises-11783-17.pdf)

======================================

A Council of the European Union document leaked by Statewatch on 30 August
reveals that during the summer months, that Estonia (current EU Presidency)
has been pushing the other Member States to strengthen indiscriminate internet
surveillance, and to follow in the footsteps of China regarding online
censorship. Standing firmly behind its belief that filtering the uploads is
the way to go, the Presidency has worked hard in order to make the proposal
for the new copyright Directive even more harmful than the Commission’s
original proposal, and pushing it further into the realms of illegality.

According to the leaked document, the text suggests two options for each of
the two most controversial proposals: the so-called “link tax” or ancillary
copyright and the upload filter. Regarding the upload filter, the text offers
two alternatives:

* Option A maintains the Commission’s original proposal of having in place an upload filter which will be under the control of platforms and other companies that are hosting online content. Although it removes mentions to “content recognition technologies”, in reality, there is no way to “prevent the availability” (another expression which remains in the text) of certain content without scanning all the content first.

* Option B is, at best, a more extreme version of Option A. In fact, it seems so extreme that it almost makes the first option look like a reasonable compromise. This may, of course, be the “diplomatic” strategy. In this extreme option, the text attacks again the liability regime of the e-commerce Directive – which, bizarrely, would not be repealed, leaving us with two contradictory pieces of EU law but adds a “clarification” of what constitutes a “communication to the public”. This clarification establishes that platforms (and its users) would be liable for the copyright infringing content uploaded by its users.

The proposals in this leak highlight a very dangerous roadmap for the EU
Member States, if they were to follow the Presidency’s lead. The consequences
of these flawed proposals can only be prevented if civil society and EU
citizens firmly raise their voices against having a censorship machine in the
EU. We will be turning on our call tool at savethememe.net before each of the
key votes in the European Parliament. Make use of the tool, and call your
representatives to stop the #censorshipmachine!

No, you can’t enjoy the music you paid for, says EU Parliament Committee
(05.07.2017) [https://edri.org/no-you-cant-enjoy-the-music-you-paid-for-
sa...](https://edri.org/no-you-cant-enjoy-the-music-you-paid-for-says-eu-
parliament/)

Proposed Copyright Directive – Commissioner confirms it is illegal
(28.06.2017) [https://edri.org/proposed-copyright-directive-
commissioner-c...](https://edri.org/proposed-copyright-directive-commissioner-
confirms-it-is-illegal/)

EU Copyright Directive – privatised censorship and filtering of free speech
(10.11.2016) [https://edri.org/eu-copyright-directive-privatised-
censorshi...](https://edri.org/eu-copyright-directive-privatised-censorship-
and-filtering-of-free-speech/)

Copyright reform: Document pool [https://edri.org/copyright-reform-document-
pool/](https://edri.org/copyright-reform-document-pool/)

(Contribution by Diego Naranjo, EDRi)

======================================

~~~
QAPereo
That's horrendous... as it stands what are the odds this sees the light of
day? I really hope this leak is a test, and it's just blown out of the water
for now.

~~~
bleke
I guess today maybe no, but 10-15 years later and after one or few terrorists
attacks with standard narrative, we will get in situation where without
government id you could not write a comment, like today in china. This is not
happening because of need security, but because of people ignorance and
government greed to control everything.

------
samuell
Site can't be reached at the moment. Anybody care to provide a TL;DR?

