[Manila Principles] Manila Principles draft 0.96 released

[Jeremy Malcolm]

On 27/02/2015 1:24 am, Jillian York wrote:
> c.	Governments must make available to both content providers and
> intermediaries the right to appeal orders for content restriction.
> d.	Intermediaries should provide internal mechanisms for review of
> decisions to restrict content for terms of service violation.
>
>
> Is there a reason that we're not explicitly calling for intermediaries
> to provide an appeals system to content providers? We did so in the
> attached paper, and it's been a major part of EFF's advocacy with
> companies over the past few years.

Not except that an "appeal" connotes a judicial process and a "review"
connotes a private one.  Thanks for pointing out that we need to improve
the language (or, at least, flesh out the intent in the background
paper) so that we cover this important point adequately.

> Another small note is that I think this requires, in the document itself
> and not the background paper, a defining of terms. I'm well-versed in
> this area, and "content provider" still threw me off at first glance;

Yeah that is a thorny one, because in the earlier draft we had a few
different terms that we used to describe the same thing and the latest
draft standardizes on "content provider".  But that does, for sure,
suggest eg. Sony Music, which absolutely isn't the intended meaning.

What can we call a user who uploads content that is better than "content
provider"?

And would hyperlinking (the first usage of) defined terms to the
definitions section of the background paper be adequate?  (From a design
side, we are limited in how much we can include on the page.)  Or adding
floating tooltip-like definitions?

> (small note: there's a typo in II. c. - complaint, not compliant)

No it means "compliant" ie. "those that comply" (with the criteria set
out in II. b.).  But there has, separately, been a comment that we may
need to have more criteria here, to avoid the intermediary forwarding
notices that contain false information.  OTOH adding more requirements
on intermediaries to review the notices that they forward would in
itself be a burden.

Your comments are much appreciated anyway, and I've made a note to come
back to them here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xJ-jjaaSGN7ZQfjuGftgwnWaPeK5JBZeaVA3-oiNAk4/edit#heading=h.30j0zll

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://eff.org
jmalcolm at eff.org

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt
PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD

Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 244 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.eff.org/pipermail/manilaprinciples/attachments/20150227/9545be95/attachment.sig>