[Manila Principles] EuroParl draft report on prevention of radicalisation and recruitment of European citizens by terrorist organisations

[Rebecca MacKinnon]

Hi Jeremy, thanks for that update. There is clearly a lot of work for all of us to do…

Bringing in industry at this point sounds like a great idea. If I can be of help with the GNI and Telco Industry Dialogue please let me know.

Also note that the Ranking Digital Rights Corporate Accountability Index is launching on November 3rd. We’re still finalizing the report but the current draft references the Manila Principles, and intermediary liability comes up as an issue in various places in relation to how legal environments affect particular companies’ policies/practices.

More about the launch here (including IGF day 0 and main conference workshop):
https://rankingdigitalrights.org/2015/10/15/launching-november-3rd/

Discussion of how intermediary liability questions and trends factor in to the standards we’re trying to set, and advocacy we’re seeking to build around them, would be extremely welcome and appropriate.

Cheers,
Rebecca



On Oct 18, 2015, at 5:22 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:

> On 17/10/2015 11:50 pm, kyungsinpark wrote:
>> Manila Principles should definitely take action on this.
>> 
>> “Feels that the internet giants should be made aware of their responsibilities so that they delete illegal content as quickly as possible;” à This will very easily translate into a general monitoring obligation.
> 
> I agree.  I met with two policy officers from the European Commission last week to discuss the Manila Principles with them.  Although internally the Commission supports retaining the fundamentals of the existing regime, there is considerable political pressure to act against intermediaries who are seen as profiting from content without sharing that revenue with content providers (which means: ancillary copyright) and against intermediaries who host illegal content "actively" rather than "passively" (which means: establishing a duty of care, and making Content ID and notice-and-staydown compulsory).
> 
> I also met separately with some industry representatives, who are of the view that we should open up the Manila Principles to endorsement by industry groups.  The initiative actually came from their side, in view of the trajectory of the platform consultation and also new obligations on intermediaries at the national level in countries like Austria.  I tend to support this idea, since we have already established a strong base of civil society support for the Principles, so that there is no longer any danger that this could be seen as an industry-pushed initiative.  Bringing industry endorsers in now would only strengthen our case to push back against these adverse policies.
> 
> What do others think?
> 
> --
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> ManilaPrinciples mailing list
> ManilaPrinciples at eff.org
> https://lists.eff.org/mailman/listinfo/manilaprinciples

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.eff.org/pipermail/manilaprinciples/attachments/20151018/955526c3/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <https://lists.eff.org/pipermail/manilaprinciples/attachments/20151018/955526c3/attachment.sig>