Meeting notes (22 May 2012)

 

Webinar summary

IFFOR Policy Council, 22 May 2012

Topic	Person	Contents
Intro	Joan Irvine	Welcome, outline agenda.
Privacy update	Fred Cate	Current privacy and security issues and their implications
Questions and discussion	Policy Council	Questions/reflections on Fred's presentation
Europe update	Steve Winyard ICM	EU/UK environment and legislation
Questions and discussion	Policy Council	Questions/reflections on Steve's presentation
Censorship working group update	Jerry Barnett	Cover approach and future work
Piracy working group update	Trieu Hoang	Cover work done, approach and future work.
FOSI update	Florian Sitta	Summary of recent conference.
Questions and discussion	Policy Council	Questions/reflections on Trieu, Jerry and Florian's presentations
Closing	Joan Irvine	Thanks and update

 

Intro

IFFOR Executive Director Joan Irvine thanked the Council for its ongoing work, in particular – outreach. She gave a quick update on IFFOR issues, including the grant program, outreach efforts since the last webinar, issues where IFFOR had been able to have input (an example: a letter sent to UK MP Clare Perry over the independent parliamentary inquiry into online child protection).

 

Privacy update

The Policy Council's privacy and security representative Fred Cate gave an update on what was currently going on in the online privacy and security fields on both sides of the Atlantic. There are new laws being passed around the world with respect to privacy, he noted, but the two most significant at the moment are laws being designed in the European Union and by the White House in the US.

Cate highlighted a number of the main aspects of the EU proposed directive – which would be legally binding across the whole of Europe. They included a "right to be forgotten", strict rules on breach notification and the imposition of heavy fines. He talked about the arguments surrounding each. Progress of the directive is expected to be slow and controversial, with it becoming law in three years at the earliest.

The White House meanwhile has called for a Privacy Bill of Rights that is less precise than the EU plans but tries to introduce guarantees on the security and use of data. It has been vague on whether it was to see legislation – possibly reflecting the current political state of Congress. Tied in with that, the Federal Trade Commission has produced a report on privacy that identifies some key issues and areas to be considered.

In terms of broader areas of privacy, Cate highlighted Google's decision to combine the data from all of its 40 or so services as an important case study. He also mentioned Google's Street View service that has been subject to some review in Europe, as well as concerns that the company may have bypassed browser privacy settings. Other big topics include: the use of data by smartphone apps, including location; a growing pushback against government efforts to access data "in the cloud"; trans-border data exchanges; concerns over what "consent" means in the modern worlds; and better data security.

In discussion with the other council members, the issue of government accessing data without going through traditional channels was discussed, as well as the increase in the chief privacy officers in general, and what meaningful consent looked like in the modern world.

It was agreed that IFFOR could play a useful role in online privacy issues, and the idea of setting up a working group on this issue was floated and met positively.

 

Europe update

ICM Registry's Vice President of Europe, Steve Winyard, provided a summary of ICM’s understanding of potential legislation in Europe, so that the PC had a broader perspective ­­as it develops Best Practices and Policies.

 

Censorship working group

Chair of the working group Jerry Barnett gave an update on work carried out since the last Policy Council meeting.

There has been a lot of activity in recent months, Jerry explained. Network-level filtering within the UK is a topic of significant discussion, and an increasingly large number of organizations have started working together to oppose the idea.

[Note: IFFOR sent a letter to Claire Perry MP to explain its position and offer itself as a resource. Since the webinar, a number of companies including Google have voiced their opposition to "opt-in ISP filtering"; (BBC article).]

Regulator ATVOD's age-verification rules are causing problems. One company that has tried to introduce the rules has seen a 70 percent falls in sales, Jerry noted. Combined with the cost of introducing the system, it could mean the demise of many companies in UK

There is a possible challenge to the BBFC – British Board of Film Classification – following an obscenity case in the UK concerning Michael Peacock. Jerry is working a document that will summarize the current situation in the UK, as well as in other countries.

 

Piracy working group

Chair of the working group Trieu Hoang gave an update on work carried out since the last Policy Council meeting.

The group is researching methods to prevent payments for pirated content since the ability to prevent companies from making a profit from others' material is thought to be the most effective.

 

FOSI update

Council member Florian Sitta attended the Family Online Safety Institute (FOSI) conference in Brussels as an IFFOR representative.

Discussions included the failure of domain name Whois information (it was claimed 70 percent of domain names have false data); the need to update data protection laws; and efforts to improve self-regulation on privacy and content controls.

The discussions that followed the three presentations covered age-verification, in particular the impact it had had in Germany following its introduction a few years ago, as well as the overall aims and goals of those proposing content legislation.

There was also reference to a new coalition of top tech and media companies to make internet better place for kids.

 

Closing

Joan Irvine summed up the webinar and thanked everyone for the work done since the last webinar. She advised that IFFOR should continue to work with other groups on issues of joint interest. IFFOR will look at the idea of creating a Privacy Working Group.

Dates for the next webinar will be discussed shortly.