[DC-Trade] EU Committee on International Trade working document "Towards a digital trade strategy"

parminder parminder at itforchange.net
Fri Jun 23 22:34:48 PDT 2017


Jeremy, thanks for posting this.

However, I could never understand EU's dealing with rights issues
related to data in some kind of artificial, and wholly unsustainable,
separation from issues related to its economic value (implicated in
trade etc). Marietje's statement carries forward this paradox. In the
same breath she says that privacy rights ("rules about processing data")
will not be negotiated at trade talks and then that data flows should
unhindered and no data localisation regulation allowed.... Perhaps I
missed something here, or did not understand. But if countries are
rightfully be able to apply their privacy laws on data belonging to
their citizens, how does it square with fully free data flows and no
localisation regimes?! Will be obliged if someone can help me understand
this.

Thanks, parminder


On Saturday 24 June 2017 03:43 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> Marietje Schaake, who spoke at the IGF's main session on trade and the
> Internet last year, is also Rapporteur of the European Parliament
> Committee on International Trade, which recently released this working
> document:
>
> https://marietjeschaake.eu/en/towards-a-digital-trade-strategy
>
> Some excerpts (at least read the last one):
>
> (p.2) "The EU, as a community of values and the world’s biggest exporter
> of services, must play a role in leading this process. To be able to do
> that, a more profound discussion is needed about both the content and
> process of crafting the rules framing digital trade flows. What issues
> should be covered by bilateral or plurilateral trade agreements? What
> should be the role of the World Trade Organisation? How can we ensure
> free, fair and reciprocal market access for digital goods and services
> in third countries? How can we ensure that trade rules actually render
> tangible benefits for consumers inside and outside the EU?"
>
> (p.4) "Barriers to the free flow of data, including unjustified forced
> data localisation measures, are problematic for each company that trades
> internationally. For example, forcing enterprises to establish data
> centres within a country as a condition for providing services in that
> country does not make sense. A comprehensive prohibition of such forced
> data localisation requirements would prevent fragmentation of the
> digital world, and would stimulate foreign direct investment. The EU
> must have the ability to combat discriminatory, illegitimate and
> protectionist measures in third countries, to ensure that European
> companies can operate in a fair, predictable environment.
>
> In this context it goes without saying that rules on the processing of
> personal data should not, are not and will not be a part of trade
> negotiations. "
>
> (p.5) "In some countries, market access is only granted to companies on
> the condition that that disclose and hand over to the state the source
> codes of the software (or other products) they intend to sell. In
> exceptional cases, such as in government procurement procedures in the
> field of critical infrastructure, there may be legitimate reasons to
> require this. However, as a blanket requirement for market access,
> measures requiring source code disclosures are disproportionate.
>
> Likewise, governments may require access to a product’s encryption
> technologies as a condition of manufacturing or sale. Trade agreements
> could prohibit signatory governments from forcing companies to disclose
> or transfer details of the cryptographic technology used in their
> products, as a condition of manufacturing, selling, or distributing them
> in their country."
>
> (p.5) "However, while international cooperation is key to combat
> counterfeiting, trade agreements are not the place to extend the level
> of protection for rights holders by providing for more extensive
> copyright enforcement powers. The defeat of the ACTA-agreement has
> demonstrated that there is no political will to double down on copyright
> enforcement, especially in the digital environment. Similarly, there may
> be legitimate reasons to weigh the context in which IP protected goods
> will be used, to avoid people in developing economies from being forced
> to pay excessive prices. Also, internet service providers should not
> bear liability for the data they transmit or host through their services
> to an extent that would necessitate prior surveillance or filtering of
> such data."
>
> (p.7) "Trade agreements can be used as a lever to improve digital rights
> in a number of countries. Including provisions on net neutrality, forced
> data localisation, encryption and intermediary liability in trade
> agreements can have a strongly beneficial impact on the protection of
> freedom of speech in particular.  For instance, telecommunications
> chapters in trade agreements could require member states to ensure that
> business from other states should not be discriminated against when they
> transmit lawful network traffic. Digital trade rules can put the
> principle of intermediary liability on a stronger footing, by explicitly
> specifying that online service providers are not liable, under certain
> conditions, where services of intermediaries are used by third parties
> for infringing activities.
>
> Digital rights have a long tradition of being discussed in open
> multilateral stakeholder meetings, such as the Internet Governance
> Forum. A transparent process will be crucial in order to discuss topics
> that touch upon digital rights issues in trade negotiations. Given the
> importance of digital trade for our economies and societies it is
> crucial to demand from partners at least the same level of transparency
> as the EU in recent trade negotiations. Compared to other trading
> partners, the EU has for instance released its negotiation mandate for
> the CETA and TTIP negotiations, delivered systematic and comprehensive
> ex-ante studies as to the effects of these treaties, made position
> papers and negotiation text available online, while negotiators have
> extensively briefed democratically elected representatives on the state
> of negotiations. Transparency and stakeholder engagement are a necessity
> in general, but will be crucial to make sure civil society, technology
> experts and other stakeholders can share the knowledge and perspectives
> lawmakers and negotiators need for future proof policies."
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DC-Trade mailing list
> DC-Trade at opendigital.trade
> http://opendigital.trade/mailman/listinfo/dc-trade

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.eff.org/pipermail/dc-trade/attachments/20170624/e42289c8/attachment.html>


More information about the Dc-trade mailing list