The document linked below is distributed to participants on a “need to know” basis – we are sharing the document because citizens need to know what is being proposed.
Key measures being proposed:
- Removal of any legislation preventing filtering/surveillance of employees' Internet connections
- Law enforcement authorities should be able to have content removed “without following the more labour-intensive and formal procedures for 'notice and action'”
- “Knowingly” providing links to “terrorist content” (the draft does not refer to content which has been ruled to be illegal by a court, but undefined “terrorist content” in general) will be an offence “just like” the terrorist
- Legal underpinning of “real name” rules to prevent anonymous use of online services
- ISPs to be held liable for not making “reasonable” efforts to use technological surveillance to identify (undefined) “terrorist” use of the Internet
- Companies providing end-user filtering systems and their customers should be liable for failing to report “illegal” activity identified by the filter
- Customers should also be held liable for “knowingly” sending a report of content which is not illegal
- Governments should use the helpfulness of ISPs as a criterion for awarding public contracts
- The proposal on blocking lists contradict each other, on the one hand providing comprehensive details for each piece of illegal content and judicial references, but then saying that the owner can appeal (although if there was already a judicial ruling, the legal process would already have been at an end) and that filtering such be based on the “output” of the proposed content regulation body, the “European Advisory Foundation”
- Blocking or “warning” systems should be implemented by social media platforms – somehow it will be both illegal to provide (undefined) “Internet services” to “terrorist persons” and legal to knowingly provide access to illegal content, while “warning” the end-user that they are accessing illegal content
- The anonymity of individuals reporting (possibly) illegal content must be preserved... yet their IP address must be logged to permit them to be prosecuted if it is suspected that they are reporting legal content deliberately and to permit reliable informants' reports to be processed more quickly
- Companies should implement upload filters to monitor uploaded content to make sure that content that is removed – or content that is similar to what is removed – is not re-uploaded
- It proposes that content should not be removed in all cases but “blocked” (i.e. make inaccessible by the hosting provider – not “blocked” in the access provider sense) and, in other cases, left available online but with the domain name removed.
Leaked document: http://www.edri.org/files/cleanIT_sept2012.pdf
CleanIT Project website: The Clean IT project
Microsoft “code of conduct”: Code of conduct
CleanIT's letter to Bits of Freedom about “factual inaccuracies” and their unfulfilled promise to produce a problem definition: http://18.104.22.168/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/20120106-Reaction-blog...
EDRigram article 29 August: http://edri.org/edrigram/number10.16/cleanit-safer-internet-for-terror...
EDRigram article 20 June: http://edri.org/edrigram/number10.12/the-rise-of-the-european-upload-f...