Law and Information

With the usual time-lag, the debate about Internet censorship in repressive countries such as China and the role of Internet intermediaries such as Google, Microsoft and Yahoo! has now arrived in Europe. The EU Parliament now confirms what many of us have argued for months, i.e., that the problem of online censorship is not exclusively a problem of U.S.-based companies and is not only about China.

The recent resolution on freedom of expression on the Internet by the European Parliament starts with references to previous resolutions on human rights and freedom of the press, including the WSIS principles, as well as international law (Universal Declaration of Human Rights) and opens with the European-style statement that restrictions on online speech “should only exist in cases of using the Internet for illegal activities, such as incitement to hatred, violence and racism, totalitarian propaganda and children’s access to pornography or their sexual exploitation.”

Later, the resolution lists some of the speech-repressive regimes, including China, Belarus, Burma, Cuba, Iran, Libya, Maldives, Nepal, North Korea, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, Turkmenistan and Vietnam. The resolution then makes explicit references to U.S.-based companies by recognizing that the “…Chinese government has successfully persuaded companies such as Yahoo, Google and Microsoft to facilitate the censorship of their services in the Chinese internet market” and “notes that other governments have required means for censorship from other companies.” European companies come into play with regard to the sale of equipment to repressive governments, stating that

“… equipment and technologies supplied by Western companies such as CISCO Systems, Telecom Italia, Wanadoo, a subsidiary of France Telecom have been used by governments for the purpose of censoring the Internet preventing freedom of expression.” (emphasis added.)

The resolution, declaratory in nature, in one of its probably most significant parts calls on the European Commission and the Council “to draw up a voluntary code of conduct that would put limits on the activities of companies in repressive countries.” The policy document also stresses the broader responsibility of companies providing Internet services such as search, chat, or publishing to ensure that users’ rights are respected. Hopefully, the Commission and the Council will recognize that several initiatives aimed at drafting such code of conducts are underway on both sides of the Atlantic (I have myself been involved in some of these processes, including this one), and will engage in conversations with the various groups involved in these processes. In any event, it will be interesting to see how the Commission and the Council approach this tricky issue, and as to what extent, for instance, they will include privacy statements in such a set of principles - a crucial aspect that, interestingly enough, has not been explicitly addressed in the Parliament’s resolution.

The resolution also calls on the Council and Commission “when considering its assistance programmes to third countries to take into account the need for unrestricted access by their citizens.” Further coverage here.

Update: On the “European Union’s schizophenric approach to freedom of expression”, read here (thanks, Ian.)

John Palfrey runs a session today at the Oxford Internet Institute’s Summer Doctoral Program on Internet Generativity, presenting and discussing Jonathan Zittrain’s paper on Internet Generativity (a.k.a. Z-Theory). John starts mapping the evolution of cyberlaw and policy discourses, leading up to the Z-theory.

• ’82 e-2-e arguments in system Design (Saltzer, Reed, Clark paper) – technical argument
• Fast forward to ’96: Internet no longer a medium of academics, geeks, etc.
• 1996 two strong political arguments emerged. 1) John P. Barlow at WEF, Davos: Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace: Governments have no place in cyberspace; out of reach 2) David Johnson/David Post: Law & Borders: similar argument, framed differently – libertarian view of government; claim more descriptive than Barlow’s. (Internet is different)
• Lessig’s “Code”: Johnson & Post are wrong, Barlow too. Internet is not unregulable. It’s regulated all the time. Four means of regulation, incl. law (“east coast code”), code (“west coast code”), social norms, and markets. (originally three, added markets.) Interplay among the forces (indirect regulation). Framework of four modes of regulation a.k.a. New Chicago School.
• 2002/03: Rise of the wisdom of the crowd. Yochai Benkler. 1) “Hourglass architecture” arguments: different layers of the Internet. It’s not only about the regulation of dots (cf. Lessig’s illustration of the four modes of regulation), it’s also about the question how it is regulated at the different layer (physical, logical, content) = refining Lessig & e-2-e principle; 2) Coase’s Penguin. Nature of firm has changed (OSS); emergence of third mode of production (commons-based peer production); non-compensated works.
• Emergence of these forms of interaction is a reason not to regulate.
• Means of regulation: the crowd itself could become a regulatory force, beyond the individual/social norms mode.
• Here, Zittrain comes into play. Z-theory: Four key claims. 2 descriptive, 2 normative arguments:
• Extraordinary security threats exist (so far, focus of regulators has been on different things, e.g. porn): threat of a “digital 9/11”; e-2-e network design is one that leaves network open and makes it vulnerable. Viruses (worms, etc.) could wipe up everything.
• Response to that real security threat: “code” in form of lock down of the PC.
• TiVo-izatin of PC/Internet (other example: mobile phones, come out of the box, are not programmable)
• What to do about it? So far: leave the net alone (e-2-e argument). However, we need a better argument for what the response should be. Argument of generativity. What we care about is not the e-2-e principle, but about systems that are generative (e.g. MS operating system, on which you can run a .exe file). Positive principle: if it’s generative, it’s good.
• Way to get there: Think of new solutions that build upon Benkler’s second argument: wisdom of the crowd (”5th mode of regulation”). Peer production of governance.
• E.g. stopbadware.org
• Challenges (e.g.): what does it mean for institutional design and institution building? Implications of the approach: privacy concerns (see JZ’s paper)

Now discussion. Job well done, JP, as always.