Internet News

French president Emmanuel Macron has been slammed after he set up a commission to fight conspiracy theories which critics have labelled the thought police. He said he believes conspiracy theories are a poison to French society. Members will include 15 academics, as well as journalists, teachers and lawyers.

Macron has asked them to produce a report on topics including how to prevent internet algorithms enslaving society, how advertisers exploit fake news and how to prevent foreign rival powers from spreading information.

Macron said in a TV interview that conspiracy theories are a key problem for France which is battling the perspective that all views are equal, that those of someone who is not a specialist but who has an opinion on the coronavirus are just as valid as those of a scientist.

But Francois-Bernard Huyghe, a political scientist at the Institute for International and Strategic Affairs in Paris, has slammed Mr Macron's new commission. He said:

I don't think that multiplying laws, censoring social media accounts or treating people as cretins is the solution. It provokes the opposite effect to the one desired and the feeling that something is being hidden.

The Lithuanian government has recommended that its citizens throw away Chinese smartphones , singling out devices from Xiaomi Corp for their censorship capabilities.

Last week, a report by the Lithuanian defence ministry's National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) alleged that Xiaomi's Mi 10T 5G smartphone, which is widely sold in Europe, has a built-in ability to detect and censor terms such as Free Tibet, Long live Taiwan independence or democracy movement.

The function at the centre of that report is supposedly advertising management software, which is used to shield users from ontent including pornography, violence and hate speech. According to a Xiaomi spokesman, such censorship tools are common in the smartphone and internet industry worldwide.

Australia's federal government is looking to bring on board credit card company Mastercard as part of its move toward developing a digital identity and age verification system for porn viewing.

Mastercard announced that it has joined into a new partnership with the Digital Transformation Agency and is seeking accreditation to become a digital identity service provider. It said it was looking to offer ways for the federal government to achieve an online age verification system.

But privacy experts are warning the government needed to pull the brakes on implementing without input from tech experts and the wider community.

Digital rights expert from Electronic Frontiers Australia Justin Warren said past experience had shown the government often began consultations long after plans had been drawn up. He added that it was important users be given options to protect their privacy.

The Joint Pre-Legislative Scrutiny committee has opened its work into the draft Online Safety Bill. Over the course of their enquiry, one area they must cover -- perhaps as their highest priority -- is the potential for the Bill to be abused as a means of politicising free speech, and your ability to exercise it.

As it has been drafted, the Bill gives sweeping powers to the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport, and potentially to the Home Secretary, to make unilateral decisions, at any time they please, as to what forms of subjectively harmful content must be brought into the scope of the bill's content moderation requirements. Shockingly, it allows them to make those decisions for political reasons.

These risks come in Part 2, Chapter 5, Section 33 of the draft, which states (emphasis our own):

(1) The Secretary of State may direct OFCOM to modify a code of practice submitted under section 32(1) where the Secretary of State believes that modifications are required--
(a) to ensure that the code of practice reflects government policy , or
(b) in the case of a code of practice under section 29(1) or (2), for reasons of national security or public safety.(nb this refers to terrorism and csea content)
(2) A direction given under this section--
(a) may not require OFCOM to include in a code of practice provisiion about a particular step recommended to be taken by providers of regulated services, and
(b) must set out the Secretary of State's reasons for requiring modifications (except in a case where the Secretary of State considers that doing so would be against the interests of national security or against the interests of relations with the government of a country outside the United Kingdom).
(3) Where the Secretary of State gives a direction to OFCOM, OFCOM must, as soon as reasonably practicable--
(a) comply with the direction,
(b) submit to the Secretary of State the code of practice modified in accordance with the direction,
(c) submit to the Secretary of State a document containing-- (i) (except in a case mentioned in subsection (2)(b)) details of the direction, and (ii) details about how the code of practice has been revised in response to the direction, and
(d) inform the Secretary of State about modifications that OFCOM have made to the code of practice that are not in response to the direction (if there are any).
(4) The Secretary of State may give OFCOM one or more further directions requiring OFCOM to modify the code of practice for the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1), and subsections (2) and (3) apply again in relation to any such further direction.

In other words, a government minister will have the authority to direct an (allegedly) independent regulator to modify the rules of content moderation on topics which are entirely subjective, entirely legal, and entirely political, and to order that regulator to enforce those new rules.

Online services, whether the biggest platform or the smallest startup, in turn, will have no choice but to follow those rules, lest they face potential penalties, fines, and even service blocking.

You don't have to be a policy expert, or a lawyer, to see how these illiberal powers could be misused and abused. We've already provided an example of how this blatant politicisation of the boundaries of free speech could be used to silence public debate on legal topics which the government of the day finds unacceptable, for example, migration . You may have strong opinions on that topic yourself, and you have every right to do so. However, your own ability to discuss that topic is on the table here too.

And as political currents shift and parties trade power, we risk a never-ending war of attrition where the government of the day simply silences topics, opinions, and opposition voices it does not want you to hear.

The political powers over free speech contained in the draft Bill are a rare area where the consensus is universal. Other groups, even those who are strongly in favour of the Bill, are equally uncomfortable with the level of government control over an allegedly independent regulator that has been placed on the table. These voices also include groups outside the UK who are alarmed by the potential these powers have to lower the UK's international standing as a free and democratic nation which upholds the right to freedom of expression.

This chorus should not be ignored. The clauses allowing government to politicise the boundaries of legal free speech have no place in this Bill, or indeed, in any Bill. As the pre-legislative scrutiny committee draws its conclusions, and as the draft Bill approaches its final form, these clauses must be deleted and left in the bin where they belong.

Earlier this month Russian internet censor Roscomnadzor said it would begin blocking VPN providers including NordVPN, ExpressVPN and IPVanish to prevent access to information the government wishes to censor. It now appears that multiple online services have been disrupted including BitTorrent and Twitch, with multiple parties pointing the finger towards Russia's blocking tools.

After making broad threats against a range of services in 2019, Russia made good on its warnings by blocking two providers, VyprVPN and OperaVPN. Then, earlier this month, Roscomnadzor said it would block several more including Nord VPN, ExpressVPN, IPVanish, Hola! VPN, KeepSolid VPN Unlimited, and Speedify VPN.

In advance of blocking the providers listed above, Russia reached out to the banking sector to ensure that any blocking wouldn't hurt their activities. According to Roscomnadzor, it received responses from 64 industry organizations, 27 of which use the mentioned VPN connections to support 33 technological processes. More than 100 IP addresses were presented in order to exclude them from access restriction policies.

After the new blockades came into effect, multiple online services reported that they were suffering connectivity issues. According to a Kommersant report, these include the game World of Tanks, gaming streaming service Twitch, FlashScore (a service used to access football scores and results), and even BitTorrent transfers.

The Texas House has passed House Bill 20, which addresses social media censorship, by a vote of 77 to 49. The bill now awaits approval by the state's senate.

The proposed law would make it illegal for social media platforms with more than 50 million users to censor the content of Texans based on viewpoint or geographical location.

The bill defines censorship as any action taken to edit, alter, block, ban, delete, remove, deplatform, demonetize, de-boost, regulate, restrict, inhibit, inhibit the publication or reproduction of, or deny equal access or visibility to expression, to suspend a right to post, remove, or post an addendum to any content or material posted by a user, or to otherwise discriminate against expression.

Update: Signed into law

11th September 2021. See article from cbsnews.com

Texas Governor Greg Abbott has signed a bill that aims to stop social media companies from banning users or nixing posts based solely on political opinions.

The new law requires social media companies with more than 50 million monthly users to disclose their content moderation policies and institute an appeals process. It would also require such social media companies to remove illegal content within 48 hours.

Under the state legislation, users may sue the platforms to get their accounts reinstated, and the Texas attorney general would be able to file suits on behalf of users.

Abbott said in a statement:

We will always defend the freedom of speech in Texas, which is why I am proud to sign House Bill 20 into law to protect first amendment rights in the Lone Star State. Social media websites have become our modern-day public square. They are a place for healthy public debate where information should be able to flow freely 204 but there is a dangerous movement by social media companies to silence conservative viewpoints and ideas. That is wrong, and we will not allow it in Texas.

The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) is set for an overhaul to drive greater innovation and growth in the UK's data sector and better protect the public from major data threats, under planned reforms announced by the Digital Secretary Oliver Dowden.

One year on from the publication of the National Data Strategy, the government has today launched a wide-ranging consultation on proposed changes to the UK's data landscape. As part of this, a new governance model is planned for the ICO, including an independent board and chief executive to mirror the governance structures of other regulators such as the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and Ofcom.

This follows the selection of John Edwards as the government's preferred candidate as the new Information Commissioner, who is currently serving as the New Zealand Privacy Commissioner.

Now that we have left the EU, the government wants to create a pro-growth and trusted data regime that unleashes data's power across the economy and society, for the benefit of British citizens and British businesses.

The reforms outlined in this consultation will:

• Cement our position as a science superpower, simplifying data use by researchers and developers of AI and other cutting edge technologies.

• Build on the unprecedented and life-saving use of data to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic.

• Secure the UK's status as a global hub for the free and responsible flow of personal data - complementing our ambitious agenda for new trade deals and data partnerships with some of the world's fastest growing economies.

• Reinforce the responsibility of businesses to keep personal information safe, while empowering them to grow and innovate.

• Ensure that the ICO remains a world-leading regulator, enabling people to use data responsibly to achieve economic and social goals.

Encrypted-email company ProtonMail sells itself on its privacy features, promising to let uses take control of their personal data.

But it had been legally obliged to collect data from an account said to be linked to a climate activist arrested by French police.

ProtonMail's website previously claimed encrypted emails cannot be shared with third parties. And as well as offering end-to-end encryption, it did not, by default, keep any IP [Internet Protocol] logs which can be linked to your anonymous email account.

ProtonMail has now removed the claim from the front page of its website, which it said it would update to clarify its obligations in cases of criminal prosecution. Its privacy policy now says: If you are breaking Swiss law, ProtonMail can be legally compelled to log your IP address as part of a Swiss criminal investigation.

The company also publishes reports of the requests for information it receives. And last year, it received more than 3,500 requests for assistance from Swiss authorities.

The company said it stood with activists and suggested those seeking anonymity also use The Onion Router (Tor) network, which hides users IP addresses under several layers of security.

A publisher can be held responsible for defamatory comments readers leave on its Facebook pages, the Australian High Court has ruled, in a decision that could have far-reaching consequences for social media users throughout Australia.

This decision may mean anyone who runs a social media page can theoretically be sued over disparaging comments posted by readers or random group members -- even if you aren't aware of the comment.

In other words, if you post content on your social media page and encourage or invite comments -- and people post defamatory comments there -- you're legally the publisher of those comments and can be sued, thanks to today's ruling.

The case focused on Facebook but the implications are not Facebook-specific. It can apply equally to Twitter, Instagram, and other social media too -- or websites (such as The Conversation) that have comments sections.

Facebook and Instagram page administrators can turn off comments altogether, and Twitter allows you to restrict comments so only certain people can post to it.

The ruling may inspire many social media account managers to make greater use of these features and tightly restrict comments -- or, where possible, switch them off completely.

The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) and Netflix have moved into the next phase of their partnership, which will see Netflix carry BBFC age ratings and ratings information on its service for years to come.

The new agreement follows a successful pilot phase, during which the innovative partnership - a first for the UK - between the streaming service and the regulator resulted in Netflix achieving 100% coverage of BBFC age ratings and content advice ('ratings info').

The conclusion of the pilot phase and the move to a long-term partnership has been welcomed by Caroline Dinenage, Minister of State for Digital and Culture, and by children's charities.

Netflix applies BBFC Classification Guidelines standards to films and television shows, which the BBFC has set based on large-scale public opinion research and auditing ratings to ensure consistency. Netflix's entire catalogue of original and acquired content now carries a BBFC age rating and a line of ratings information so that families can choose shows safe in the knowledge that everything they press play on is rated to trusted, BBFC standards which reflect UK expectations. This builds on Netflix's wide range of parental controls including PIN-protected profiles, maturity filters, profile locks and viewing history, helping parents make the right viewing choices for their families.

David Austin, Chief Executive of the BBFC, said:

Parents have been very clear that they want and expect online content to carry the same age rating it would carry offline, in the cinema or on DVD. Crucially for child protection, BBFC ratings guarantee that age classifications reflect UK parental and child expectations on issues such as sexual violence and drug use. Our innovative partnership with Netflix has proven that it is possible for streaming services to carry trusted BBFC age ratings on 100% of their content and will make a significant contribution to parents' peace of mind and children's wellbeing for years to come. We are calling on all other streaming services operating in the UK to follow Netflix's excellent example and work with us to give parents what they need.

Jessica Stansfield, Director of Ratings at Netflix, said:

Our members are our number one priority. We're committed to delivering an experience that doesn't just meet, but exceeds their expectations, which is why we are proud to be the first and only streaming service to voluntarily carry BBFC age ratings on 100% of our catalogue, while our updated parental controls provide the tools parents need to make the right viewing choices for their family.

Caroline Dinenage, Minister of State for Digital and Culture, said:

We want parents and young people to be able to make informed choices about what content is appropriate for them to watch. The BBFC's age ratings are well trusted and widely recognised, which is why I am pleased that this long-term agreement will see their ratings continue to be used across Netflix's content for years to come.

Two French campaign groups are suing the main ISPs in France, demanding the total block of several adult sites that they consider too accessible to minors.

The groups suing top French ISPs SFR, Orange, Bouygues Télécom, Free, Colt Technologies Services and Outre mer Télécomare are called e-Enfance (e-Infancy) and La Voix de l'Enfant (The Voice of the Child).

The ISPs were asked to appear next Thursday, September 9 in front of the Paris Judicial Court.

The lawsuit is proof that the French anti-porn groups intend to restrict access to adult content in that European market. Earlier this year, supporters of France's controversial age-verification law had claimed that they knew it was impractical and considered the passage of the measure as "symbolic."

ISP Orange told Le Figaro that they will "abide by the decision of the court and would shut down these sites speedily if that's what we are asked to do. But in the absence of a judicial decision, we apply the rules of net neutrality and freedom of expression"

Russia's internet censor Roskomnadzor has blocked six providers of virtual private networks (VPNs), which people can use to circumvent government website blocking.

The targeted VPN providers, include the widely used Nord VPN and Express VPN.

The move, announced on September 3, comes as Russian authorities tighten control of the Internet, blocking access to dozens of websites ahead of parliamentary elections this month.

The Russian censor justified the new restrictions by saying that VPNs allow access to blocked content created conditions for illegal activities, including those related to the distribution of drugs, child pornography, extremism, and suicidal tendencies.

As proud members of the LGBTQ+ community, we know first-hand the vile abuse that regularly takes place online. The data is clear; 78% of us have faced anti-LGBTQ+ hate crime or hate speech online in the last 5 years. So we understand why the Government is looking for a solution, but the current version of the Online Safety Bill is not the answer -- it will make things worse not better.

The new law introduces the "duty of care" principle and would give internet companies extensive powers to delete posts that may cause 'harm.' But because the law does not define what it means by 'harm' it could result in perfectly legal speech being removed from the web.

As LGBTQ+ people we have seen what happens when vague rules are put in place to police speech. Marginalised voices are silenced. From historic examples of censors banning LGBTQ+ content to 'protect' the public, to modern day content moderation tools marking innocent LGBTQ+ content as explicit or harmful.

This isn't scaremongering. In 2017, Tumblr's content filtering system marked non-sexual LGBTQ+ content as explicit and blocked it, in 2020 TikTok censored depictions of homosexuality such as two men kissing or holding hands and it reduced the reach of LGBTQ+ posts in some countries, and within the last two months LinkedIn removed a coming out post from a 16-year-old following complaints.

This Bill, as it stands, would provide a legal basis for this censorship. Moreover, its vague wording makes it easy for hate groups to put pressure on Silicon Valley tech companies to remove LGBTQ+ content and would set a worrying international standard.

Growing calls to end anonymity online also pose a danger. Anonymity allows LGBTQ+ people to share their experiences and sexuality while protecting their privacy and many non-binary and transgender people do not hold a form of acceptable ID and could be shut out of social media.

The internet provides a crucial space for our community to share experiences and build relationships. 90% of LGBTQ+ young people say they can be themselves online and 96% say the internet has helped them understand more about their sexual orientation and/or gender identity. This Bill puts the content of these spaces at potential risk.

Racism, homophobia, transphobia, and threats of violence are already illegal. But data shows that when they happen online it is ignored by authorities. After the system for flagging online hate crime was underused by the police, the Home Office stopped including these figures in their annual report all together, leaving us in the dark about the scale of the problem. The government's Bill should focus on this illegal content rather than empowering the censorship of legal speech.

This is why we are calling for "the duty of care", which in the current form of the Online Safety Bill could be used to censor perfectly legal free speech, to be reframed to focus on illegal content, for there to be specific, written, protections for legal LGBTQ+ content online, and for the LGBTQ+ community to be properly consulted throughout the process.

• Stephen Fry , actor, broadcaster, comedian, director, and writer.
• Munroe Bergdorf , model, activist, and writer.
• Peter Tatchell , human rights campaigner.
• Carrie Lyell , Editor-in-Chief of DIVA Magazine.
• James Ball , Global Editor of The Bureau Of Investigative Journalism.
• Jo Corrall , Founder of This is a Vulva.
• Clara Barker , material scientist and Chair of LGBT+ Advisory Group at Oxford University.
• Marc Thompson , Director of The Love Tank and co-founder of PrEPster and BlackOut UK.
• Sade Giliberti , TV presenter, actor, and media personality.
• Fox Fisher , artist, author, filmmaker, and LGBTQIA+ rights advocate.
• Cara English , Head of Public Engagement at Gendered Intelligence, Founder OpenLavs.
• Paula Akpan , journalist, and founder of Black Queer Travel Guide.
• Tom Rasmussen , writer, singer, and drag performer.
• Jamie Wareham , LGBTQ journalist and host of the #QueerAF podcast.
• Crystal Lubrikunt , international drag performer, host, and producer.
• David Robson, Chair of London LGBT+ Forums Network
• Shane ShayShay Konno , drag performer, curator and host of the ShayShay Show, and founder of The Bitten Peach.
• UK Black Pride , Europe's largest celebration for African, Asian, Middle Eastern, Latin America, and Caribbean-heritage LGBTQI+ people.

Apple has announced on its website that it will delay it implementation of device software that snoops on users' images nominally in the name of child protection, but could used be for anything that authorities demand. Apple said:

Update as of September 3, 2021: Previously we announced plans for features intended to help protect children from predators who use communication tools to recruit and exploit them and to help limit the spread of Child Sexual Abuse Material. Based on feedback from customers, advocacy groups, researchers, and others, we have decided to take additional time over the coming months to collect input and make improvements before releasing these critically important child safety features.

Ben Greenstone comments on a recent article in the Times commenting on a cross party cartel of powerful parliamentarians all calling for more obtrusive age verification:

The Chairs of both the Draft Online Safety Bill Joint Committee and the DCMS Select Committee, alongside the Shadow DCMS Secretary of State and the Children's Commissioner, are all calling for tougher age verification measures online.

It blows my mind that the piece does not make more of the fact that DCMS tried to introduce age verification for *actual online pornography* and failed because it was too hard. 18 year olds can have a credit card which can be used as a proxy measure... what do 13 year olds have?

This is classic just fix it from people who don't seem to have spent any time actually thinking about what fixing it would look like and what it would require. It's bad news for online service providers, but great news if you are planning to set up an age verification business.