In an effort to ease the strain on internet infrastructure, the European Union is asking that Netflix stream video to standard definition when necessary.
Thierry Breton, European Commissioner for internal market, tweeted that he had talked directly to Netflix CEO Reed Hastings to make his request.
Important phone conversation with @ReedHastings, CEO of @Netflix
To beat #COVID19, we #StayAtHome
Teleworking & streaming help a lot but infrastructures might be in strain.
To secure Internet access for all, let’s #SwitchToStandard definition when HD is not necessary.
Companies are already struggling to keep up with the added strain on networks. Microsoft has recently begun throttling non-essential Office 365 features to ease the strain on Teams. Facebook has similarly been struggling to keep up with the additional WhatsApp usage, as the app is currently being used even more than it does during New Year’s Eve, its normal peak usage period.
As the pandemic continues to force people to stay home and telecommute, additional companies will likely be called to take the same measures as Netflix.
Canada’s Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Navdeep Bains, has said the country will not be pressured into make a decision on Huawei.
Canada is part of the Five Eyes group of countries that work closely on intelligence. Of the group, the U.S., Australia and New Zealand have banned Huawei from their 5G networks, while the UK has opted to include the Chinese firm in a limited role. Canada has yet to decide, but is warning the country must do what is best for itself.
According to Bloomberg, Bains told the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. “We will make sure that we proceed in a manner that’s in our national interest. We won’t get bullied by any other jurisdictions.”
“Countries have raised their concerns. We’re engaged with our Five Eyes partners. We know that this is a very important issue,” he added. “But we will make a decision that makes sense for Canadians and protects Canadians.”
The U.S. has been pressuring its allies, both in the Five Eyes and EU, to ban Huawei. It’s safe to say the U.S. certainly wants to win over its closest ally geographically but, based on Bains’ remarks, that may be easier said than done.
The European Union (EU) “lawmakers voted 582-40 in favor of a resolution to spur action by the Commission on a single charging solution for smartphones,” according to AppleInsider.
Two weeks ago EU regulators issued a statement detailing their intention to push for universal phone charger connectors. Regulators had been ‘encouraging’ companies to unify around a single standard for years, but were disappointed those companies had failed to follow through. As a result, they were preparing to push for mandatory measures that would force companies to adopt a single solution.
Apple, in particular, has been vehemently opposed to the measure, as they have the most to lose thanks to their proprietary Lightning connector. With an installed base of some 1.5 billion devices, there’s an entire ecosystem of companies, devices, peripherals and more—all built around the Lightning cable.
Unfortunately for Apple, their arguments do not appear to have made much of a difference. As AppleInsider highlights, the European Parliament may well have had Apple in mind when saying “the use of wireless charging technology entails additional potential benefits such as mitigating e-waste; highlights that many mobile telephones already use wireless charging methods and that fragmentation in this area should be avoided; calls, therefore, on the Commission to take measures to best ensure the interoperability of different wireless chargers with different mobile radio equipment.”
At this rate, it seems likely a future generation of iPhones will be sporting an entirely different type of connector.
Politico is reporting that the European Union (EU) is considering banning facial recognition in public areas for up to five years.
Facial recognition is quickly becoming the latest battleground in the fight over user privacy. Some countries, such as China, have embraced the technology and taken surveillance of citizens to an all-new level. The U.S. has waffled back and forth, rolling out facial recognition in sensitive areas—such as airports—but often making participation optional. However, the Department of Homeland Security recently made headlines with a proposal that would expand facial recognition checks at airports, making them mandatory for citizens and foreigners alike.
The EU, however, may be preparing to take the strongest stand against facial recognition and toward protecting individual privacy. According to a draft document Politico obtained, the EU is looking to expand its already rigorous privacy laws with a “future regulatory framework could go further and include a time-limited ban on the use of facial recognition technology in public spaces.”
The ban would cover facial recognition use by both public and private entities.
“This would mean that the use of facial recognition technology by private or public actors in public spaces would be prohibited for a definite period (e.g. 3-5 years) during which a sound methodology for assessing the impacts of this technology and possible risk management measures could be identified and developed,” adds the document.
As the debate about facial recognition continues, it will be interesting to see where the U.S. lands: whether it will emphasize protecting individual privacy like the EU, or emphasize surveillance like China.
Last March Google was fined a record $5 billion by the EU over antitrust charges related to the company tying its browser and search engine to the Android OS. It appears the company has found a way to abide by the law while charging its competitors at the same time, according to The Verge.
Starting March 1, EU citizens will be given a choice of four search engines—including Google—to use as the default search for Chrome, as well as the Android search box. To select the search engines that will appear, Google opted for an auction system.
“The search engines shown to new users will vary for each EU country, with the selection decided based on a ‘fourth-price’ auction system. Each provider tells Google how much it’s willing to pay the company every time a user selects their product as the default. The three highest bidders are then shown to users, with the chosen provider paying Google the amount offered by the fourth-highest bid. This process is repeated every four months.”
Under this system, Microsoft’s Bing is now only shown as an option in the UK and not in any other EU country. In all likelihood, this is because the UK has higher search ad revenue than other countries, and Microsoft was likely unwilling to pay a higher price for less profitable markets.
As The Verge goes on to highlight, many of Google’s competitors are not happy with what is being perceived as a “pay-to-play auction” they feel goes against the spirit of the EU’s ruling. Given the close eye the EU has kept on Google, it will be interesting to see if they step in as a result of Google’s “solution.”
The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) went into effect on January 1, but Mozilla has vowed to apply its protections to all Firefox users in 2020.
CCPA is a law California passed to protect user privacy and give people more control over how corporations can use their data. CCPA requires companies to be transparent about what data they collect and how they use it, as well as give users the ability to stop companies from selling their data.
Microsoft was one of the first companies to publicly commit to applying CCPA protection to all of its U.S. customers. Mozilla is taking it a step further, applying CCPA rights to all Firefox users around the world. This is not the first time Mozilla has taken this stand. When the EU passed its GDPR privacy legislation, Mozilla similarly extended those protections to all users.
Mozilla is also committing to extending these rules to so-called “telemetry data,” the anonymous technical information about browser usage that helps Mozilla improve security and performance.
“One of CCPA’s key new provisions is its expanded definition of ‘personal data’ under CCPA. This expanded definition allows for users to request companies delete their user specific data.
“As a rule, Firefox already collects very little of your data. In fact, most of what we receive is to help us improve the performance and security of Firefox. We call this telemetry data. This telemetry doesn’t tell us about the websites you visit or searches you do; we just know general information, like a Firefox user had a certain amount of tabs opened and how long their session was. We don’t collect telemetry in private browsing mode and we’ve always given people easy options to disable telemetry in Firefox. And because we’ve long believed that data should not be stored forever, we have strict limits on how long we keep telemetry data.
“We’ve decided to go the extra mile and expand user deletion rights to include deleting this telemetry data stored in our systems. To date, the industry has not typically considered telemetry data ‘personal data’ because it isn’t identifiable to a specific person, but we feel strongly that taking this step is the right one for people and the ecosystem.”
This is good news for all Firefox users and will likely help it continue to gain market share amongst privacy-minded individuals. Hopefully more companies will follow Mozilla and Microsoft’s example.
Reuters is reporting that European Union (EU) antitrust regulators are asking to look at documents detailing Google’s data collection practices.
The EU has already levied hefty fines against Google in past cases, amounting to $8.8 billion in the last two years. The judgements were the result of investigations proving Google had violated antitrust rules by using its dominance unfairly. If the current set of questions are any indication, Google may be facing yet more punishment.
According to Reuters, the regulators sent questionnaires to a number of different companies. The companies were given a month to reply and provide information on Google’s data collection policies. Regulators were interested specifically in online advertising, local search, web browsers, online ad targeting, login services and more.
“Companies were asked about agreements providing data to Google or allowing it to collect data via their services in recent years, and whether they were compensated for this.
“Regulators also wanted to know the kind of data sought by Google, how it uses it and how valuable the companies consider such data. Another question asked whether Google and the companies were subjected to contractual terms that prohibit or limit the use of the data.
“Regulators also wanted to know if Google had refused to provide data and how this affected the companies.”
Whether anything will come of this new inquiry remains to be seen. Given the current climate, however, Google would do well to try to allay any concerns the EU has.
Huawei dodged another bullet in its efforts to become the dominant 5G equipment provider, with German Chancellor Angela Merkel refusing to call for an outright ban on the company.
Reuters reports that Merkel did call for a higher threshold of security for 5G, as opposed to previous wireless technologies, but believes it can be achieved without singling out any one company.
“I tend to trust ourselves to define high security standards, higher than with 4G, 3G and 2G, but not to shut out vendors from the beginning….We have always stood for fair and free competition, and also fact-based competition, and not simply qualified it based on differing political systems,” Merkel said.
The news follows a similar stand by the French government. According to Reuters, Junior Economy Minister Agnes Pannier-Runacher told BFM Business television: “We do not target one equipment maker. There is no exclusion.”
The French government will, however, reserve the right to vet all 5G equipment providers and make sure they pass national security checks.
The two countries are taking a much different stand than the U.S., where the Trump administration has already implemented a ban on Huawei. U.S. officials have been trying to pressure European allies to follow suit although, obviously, they are not meeting with much success.
Microsoft has announced an update to its cloud contract terms, one that brings it into greater compliance with EU privacy laws.
In October, Reuters reported that an EU probe voiced serious concerns that Microsoft’s contract terms violated the GDPR, the comprehensive privacy laws the EU adopted last year.
“Though the investigation is still ongoing, preliminary results reveal serious concerns over compliance of the relevant contractual terms with data protection rules and the role of Microsoft as a processor for EU institutions using its products and services,” said the EU watchdog EDPS in a statement.
To address those concerns, as well as respond to customer feedback, Microsoft has updated its terms, bringing them inline with the GDPR.
“At Microsoft, we listen to our customers and strive to address their questions and feedback, because one of our foundational principles is to help our customers succeed. Today Microsoft is announcing an update to the privacy provisions in the Microsoft Online Services Terms (OST) in our commercial cloud contracts that stems from additional feedback we’ve heard from our customers.
“Our updated OST will reflect contractual changes we have developed with one of our public sector customers, the Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security (Dutch MoJ). The changes we are making will provide more transparency for our customers over data processing in the Microsoft cloud.
“Microsoft is currently the only major cloud provider to offer such terms in the European Economic Area (EEA) and beyond.
“We are also announcing that we will offer the new contractual terms to all our commercial customers – public sector and private sector, large enterprises and small and medium businesses – globally. At Microsoft we consider privacy a fundamental right, and we believe stronger privacy protections through greater transparency and accountability should benefit our customers everywhere.
“Before and after GDPR became law in the EU, Microsoft has taken steps to ensure that we protect the privacy of all who use our products and services. We continue to work on behalf of customers to remain aligned with the evolving legal interpretations of GDPR.”
Once the darling of the U.S. economy, big tech has increasingly come under scrutiny, with some politicians—most notably Senator Elizabeth Warren—even calling for the breakup of big tech companies.
According to a report by Business Insider, EU Commissioner Margrethe Vestager doesn’t share that opinion. Commissioner Vestager has made a name for herself going after big tech companies like Google, Amazon and Apple, in some cases imposing record fines. In spite of the reputation she’s built, Commissioner Vestager believes breaking up big tech will only result in more problems.
“From a competition point of view, you would have to do something that breaking up the company was the only solution to the illegal behavior, to the damage,” Vestager said. “And we don’t have that kind of case right now. We don’t have a problem that big where breaking up could be the solution.”
Instead, Vestager believes big tech companies—especially those that dominate a particular segment—should be held to a higher standard.
“When you get that big, you get a special responsibility, because you are the de factor the ruler in the sector that you own.”
While scrutiny and fines are certainly not welcome, it’s safe to say most tech companies would welcome Vestager’s approach, especially when compared with the possibility of a breakup.
Google received a welcome victory in the European Union’s highest court in relation to the EU’s “right to be forgotten” rules.
For the past five years, EU citizens have enjoyed the right to have search engines remove embarrassing or outdated information from their indexes. At the heart of the case was whether the right to be forgotten extended beyond EU borders.
The CNIL, a French privacy regulatory body, had ordered Google to expand the right to be forgotten globally. Google resisted, citing concerns that authoritarian regimes in other parts of the world would abuse the feature to cover up crimes and human rights violations. The CNIL eventually tried to levy a $109,901 fine.
Ultimately, however, the EU ruled that the right to protect personal data was not an absolute right, and that there was no obligation for Google—or any other search engine—to delist search results outside of the EU.
While Google praised the decision, it is not without complications. Google has relied on geoblocking to ensure EU citizens do not see delisted search results. Geoblocking does not, however, mean that the search results are not there—it simply means they are not accessible to someone within the EU. A person based in the U.S., or anywhere else outside of Europe, would still be able to find the very things someone in Europe may have filed to have delisted and will never see themselves.
Despite the complications, the ruling was welcomed within the tech community. The case was being watched closely to see how much authority the EU had to impose regulations on a U.S. company. Had Google lost, the long-term implications for Google and every other tech firm would have been profound—and gone far beyond mere search results.
Apple CEO Tim Cook spoke at 2018 International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners in Brussels last night and gave a bold and possibly controversial privacy speech. Cook directly challenged Facebook, and tech companies in general, to change their perspective on privacy. He also said that Apple is fully supportive of ‘a comprehensive federal privacy law in the United States.’
Below is the full text of Apple CEO Tim Cook’s speech followed by the full video embed:
Apple CEO Tim Cook – The Privacy Speech
It is an honor to be here with you today in this grand hall, a room that represents what is possible when people of different backgrounds, histories, and philosophies come together to build something bigger than themselves. I am deeply grateful to our hosts. I want to recognize Ventsislav Karadjov for his service and leadership. And it’s a true privilege to be introduced by his co-host, a statesman I admire greatly, Giovanni Butarelli.
Now Italy has produced more than its fair share of great leaders and public servants. Machiavelli taught us how leaders can get away with evil deeds, and Dante showed us what happens when they get caught.
You Set an Example for the World
Giovanni has done something very different. Through his values, his dedication, his thoughtful work, Giovanni, his predecessor Peter Hustinx, and all of you have set an example for the world. We are deeply grateful.
We need you to keep making progress, now more than ever. Because these are transformative times. Around the world, from Copenhagen to Chennai to Cupertino, new technologies are driving breakthroughs in humanity’s greatest common projects. From preventing and fighting disease, to curbing the effects of climate change, to ensuring every person has access to information and economic opportunity.
We See Vividly, Painfully, How Technology Can Harm Rather Than Help
At the same time, we see vividly, painfully, how technology can harm rather than help. Platforms and algorithms that promised to improve our lives can actually magnify our worst human tendencies. Rogue actors and even governments have taken advantage of user trust to deepen divisions, incite violence, and even undermine our shared sense of what is true and what is false.
This crisis is real. It is not imagined, or exaggerated, or crazy. And those of us who believe in technology’s potential for good must not shrink from this moment. Now, more than ever, as leaders of governments, as decision-makers in business, and as citizens, we must ask ourselves a fundamental question: What kind of world do we want to live in? I’m here today because we hope to work with you as partners in answering this question.
Technology Doesn’t Want To Do Great Things – That Part Takes Us
At Apple, we are optimistic about technology’s awesome potential for good. But we know that it won’t happen on its own. Every day, we work to infuse the devices we make with the humanity that makes us. As I’ve said before, technology is capable of doing great things, but it doesn’t want to do great things. It doesn’t want anything. That part takes all of us.
That’s why I believe that our missions are so closely aligned. As Giovanni puts it, “We must act to ensure that technology is designed and developed to serve humankind and not the other way around.”
Privacy is a Fundamental Human Right
We at Apple believe that privacy is a fundamental human right. But we also recognize that not everyone sees it that way. In a way, the desire to put profits over privacy is nothing new.
As far back as 1890, future Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis published an article in the Harvard Law Review making the case for a “Right to Privacy” in the United States. He warned, “Gossip is no longer the resource of the idle and of the vicious, but has become a trade.”
Our Own Information is Being Weaponized Against Us
Today that trade has exploded into a data industrial complex. Our own information, from the every day to the deeply personal, is being weaponized against us with military efficiency. Every day, billions of dollars change hands, and countless decisions are made, on the basis of our likes and dislikes, our friends and families, our relationships and conversations, our wishes and fears, our hopes and dreams.
These scraps of data, each one harmless enough on its own, are carefully assembled, synthesized, traded, and sold. Taken to its extreme, this process creates an enduring digital profile and lets companies know YOU better than YOU may know yourself.
We Shouldn’t Sugarcoat the Consequences… This is Surveillance
Your profile is then run through algorithms that can serve up increasingly extreme content, pounding our harmless preferences into hardened convictions. If green is your favorite color, you may find yourself reading a lot of articles or watching a lot of videos about the insidious threat from people who like orange.
In the news, almost every day, we bear witness to the harmful, even deadly, effects of these narrowed worldviews. We shouldn’t sugarcoat the consequences. This is surveillance. And these stockpiles of personal data serve only to enrich the companies that collect them. This should make us very uncomfortable. It should unsettle us. And it illustrates the importance of our shared work and the challenges still ahead of us.
We Support a Comprehensive Federal Privacy Law in the US
Fortunately, this year, you’ve shown the world that good policy and political will can come together to protect the rights of everyone. We should celebrate the transformative work of the European institutions tasked with the successful implementation of the GDPR. We also celebrate the new steps taken, not only here in Europe, but around the world. In Singapore, Japan, Brazil, New Zealand, and many more nations, regulators are asking tough questions and crafting effective reforms.
It is time for the rest of the world, including my home country, to follow your lead. We at Apple are in full support of a comprehensive federal privacy law in the United States. There and everywhere, it should be rooted in four essential rights.
First, the right to have personal data minimized. Companies should challenge themselves to de-identify customer data, or not to collect it in the first place. Second, the right to knowledge. Users should always know what data is being collected and what it is being collected for. This is the only way to empower users to decide what collection is legitimate and what isn’t. Anything less is a sham.
Third, the right to access. Companies should recognize that data belongs to users, and we should all make it easy for users to get a copy of, correct, and delete their personal data. And fourth, the right to security. Security is foundational to trust and all other privacy rights.
There Are Those Who Would Prefer I Hadn’t Said All of That
Now, there are those who would prefer I hadn’t said all of that. Some oppose any form of privacy legislation. Others will endorse reform in public and then resist and undermine it behind closed doors. They may say to you, ‘our companies will never achieve technology’s true potential if they are constrained with privacy regulation.’ But this notion isn’t just wrong, it is destructive.
Technology’s potential is, and always must be, rooted in the faith people have in it, in the optimism and creativity that it stirs in the hearts of individuals, and in its promise and capacity to make the world a better place. It’s time to face facts. We will never achieve technology’s true potential without the full faith and confidence of the people who use it.
At Apple, Respect for Privacy and Suspicion of Authority Are in Our Blood
At Apple, respect for privacy and a healthy suspicion of authority have always been in our bloodstream. Our first computers were built by misfits, tinkerers, and rebels, not in a laboratory or a boardroom, but in a suburban garage. We introduced the Macintosh with a famous TV ad channeling George Orwell’s 1984, a warning of what can happen when technology becomes a tool of power and loses touch with humanity.
And way back in 2010, Steve Jobs said in no uncertain terms, “Privacy means people know what they’re signing up for, in plain language, and repeatedly. It’s worth remembering the foresight and courage it took to make that statement.
When we designed this device we knew it could put more personal data in your pocket than most of us keep in our homes. And there was enormous pressure on Steve and Apple to bend our values and to freely share the information. But we refused to compromise.
In fact, we’ve only deepened our commitment in the decade since. From hardware breakthroughs that encrypt fingerprints and faces securely and only on your device to simple and powerful notifications that make clear to every user precisely what they’re sharing and when they are sharing it. We aren’t absolutists, and we don’t claim to have all the answers. Instead, we always try to return to that simple question: What kind of world do we want to live in?
At every stage of the creative process, then and now, we engage in an open, honest, and robust ethical debate about the products we make and the impact they will have. That’s just a part of our culture. We don’t do it because we have to, we do it because we ought to. The values behind our products are as important to us as any feature.
The Dangers Are Real From Cyber-Criminals to Rogue Nation States
We understand that the dangers are real from cyber-criminals to rogue nation states. We’re not willing to leave our users to fend for themselves. And, we’ve shown, we’ll defend them, we will defend our principles when challenged.
Those values, that commitment to thoughtful debate and transparency, they’re only going to get more important. As progress speeds up, these things should continue to ground us and connect us, first and foremost, to the people we serve.
For AI to be Truly Smart, It Must Respect Human Values
Artificial Intelligence is one area I think a lot about. Clearly, it’s on the minds of many of my peers as well. At its core, this technology promises to learn from people individually to benefit us all. Yet advancing AI by collecting huge personal profiles is laziness, not efficiency. For Artificial Intelligence to be truly smart, it must respect human values, including privacy.
If we get this wrong, the dangers are profound. We can achieve both great Artificial Intelligence and great privacy standards. It’s not only a possibility, it is a responsibility. In the pursuit of artificial intelligence, we should not sacrifice the humanity, creativity, and ingenuity that define our human intelligence. And at Apple, we never will.
In the mid-19th Century, the great American writer Henry David Thoreau found himself so fed up with the pace and change of Industrial society that he moved to a cabin in the woods by Walden Pond. Call it the first digital cleanse.
Yet even there, where he hoped to find a bit of peace, he could hear a distant clatter and whistle of a steam engine passing by. “We do not ride on the railroad,” he said. “It rides upon us.”
Those of us who are fortunate enough to work in technology have an enormous responsibility. It is not to please every grumpy Thoreau out there. That’s an unreasonable standard, and we’ll never meet it. We are responsible, however, for recognizing that the devices we make and the platforms we build have real lasting, even permanent effects, on the individuals and communities who use them.
What Kind of World Do We Want to Live In?
We must never stop asking ourselves, what kind of world do we want to live in? The answer to that question must not be an afterthought, it should be our primary concern. We at Apple can, and do, provide the very best to our users while treating their most personal data like the precious cargo that it is. And if we can do it, then everyone can do it.
Fortunately, we have your example before us. Thank you for your work, for your commitment to the possibility of human-centered technology, and for your firm belief that our best days are still ahead of us.
The European Union is on the prowl again in a likely attempt to win cash and concessions from Amazon. This is another investigation in a long string of investigations into American companies designed to extract big cash payments.
European Commissioner for Competition, Margrethe Vestager, indicates that the issue is the possible use of third-party seller data by Amazon to determine which products it might decide to produce and sell itself, thus competing and presumably putting out of business the other sellers of that product. Vestager admits that there have been no formal complaints from resellers but they “have people” coming to them and asking questions about this issue.
European Commissioner for Competition, Margrethe Vestager discussed their investigation on CNBC’s Closing Bell:
EU Suspects Amazon Is Using Data to Compete With Third-Party Sellers
It’s too early to have a concern but we like to understand how this is working because Amazon has this dual role, they host a lot of little guys and enabling them to do e-commerce which is a great thing, at the same time they’re a big guy in the same market. How do they treat the data that they get from the little guy? Does that give them an advantage that cannot be matched or how to understand this?
We have concerns from the marketplace and we have seen this also in a sector-wide inquiry so so we’re very interested to learn also in deep detail how this works.
There Are No Formal Complaints Filed From Third-Party Sellers
One thing is to enable the little guy to do business. It’s another thing that once you have enabled it and you see how it works in the marketplace basically you take it and because you’re a big guy you do large scale so you can sort of occupy that marketplace yourself. We have people coming to us with concerns but no formal complaints have been filed from third-party sellers.
The EU Already Settled an eBook Case with Amazon
We have already had one Amazon case on eBooks, on German and English spoken eBooks. We saw that Amazon was saying if you as one of our suppliers do something innovative, if you lower your prices or something like that, you always have to give us the same benefit and that, of course, made it very difficult for the eBooks market to innovate.
If you always have to give Amazon whatever you have then of course that puts a lid to innovation. That we solved in a settlement actually covering ebooks in almost all segments.
Not Opposed to Amazon but We Have Questions
It’s important that the price point is right because for many people on a low budget, of course, low prices is of the essence and enabling choice is a great thing. We also want to see that innovation is thriving because being a customer in an innovative marketplace is, of course, better than being a customer in a non-innovative marketplace.
This is what we’re trying to understand how does this work and of course, it may turn out that we have no further questions to be asked but that remains to be seen.
EU Commision Meeting With US FTC
We’ve had a very good meeting today with Federal Trade Commission Chairman Joseph Simons and others from the FTC, and we didn’t discuss in any detail these questions. What we discussed is our cooperation which is actually very good because we exchange views, but we don’t try to walk in each other’s shoes.
Status of the Google EU Investigation
Of course, we expect a change of behavior because the decision is a cease-and-desist decision, you have to stop this and you cannot put anything in its place that has an equivalent effect. This is about enabling choice for the ones who produces our phone so that that maybe you can have a phone that carries other apps when you have the out-of-the-box experience.
That is important for us to see this change in the marketplace to show that those who actually have the skills maybe to do another operating system from the Android open source code that they may be able to do that. The fine will have to be paid and then of course it is for Google to decide if they will appeal the case or not.
In a disturbing agreement from the perspective of free speech advocates Tuesday, the European Commission and U.S. based social media companies Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft agreed to a “Code of Conduct” on “hate speech”. It’s pretext is to stop terrorist related propaganda on social media, but reading the announcement from the EU it looks to also be a way to censor opposition to negative news about Muslims. The EU describes it this way:
The IT Companies support the European Commission and EU Member States in the effort to respond to the challenge of ensuring that online platforms do not offer opportunities for illegal online hate speech to spread virally. They share, together with other platforms and social media companies, a collective responsibility and pride in promoting and facilitating freedom of expression throughout the online world. However, the Commission and the IT Companies recognise that the spread of illegal hate speech online not only negatively affects the groups or individuals that it targets, it also negatively impacts those who speak out for freedom, tolerance and non-discrimination in our open societies and has a chilling effect on the democratic discourse on online platforms.
The EU further describes the purpose for the new rules as follows:
In order to prevent the spread of illegal hate speech, it is essential to ensure that relevant national laws transposing the Council Framework Decision on combating racism and xenophobia are fully enforced by Member States in the online as well as the in the offline environment. While the effective application of provisions criminalising hate speech is dependent on a robust system of enforcement of criminal law sanctions against the individual perpetrators of hate speech, this work must be complemented with actions geared at ensuring that illegal hate speech online is expeditiously reviewed by online intermediaries and social media platforms, upon receipt of a valid notification, in an appropriate time-frame. To be considered valid in this respect, a notification should not be insufficiently precise or inadequately substantiated.
The problem is what is hate speech? It’s well known that the EU has often twisted the idea of hate speech from a battle with Islamic extremists and terrorists to a fight to stop the speech of those opposing their extreme positions. For instance, is it hate to draw a political cartoon of Mohammed as the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo did which resulted in the murder of 12 members of its staff by radical Islamic extremists. By Western standards of free speech, obviously not. But from the EU’s point of view maybe.
Many see these new rules as Orwellian and distressing that US based social media companies would agree to censorship of views the EU doesn’t agree with. From Breitbart:
Janice Atkinson MEP told Breitbart London: “It’s Orwellian. Anyone who has read 1984 sees it’s very re-enactment live.
“The Commission has been itching to shut down free speech in the Parliament and now they’re attacking social media. We have already seen Facebook ‘policing’ so-called right-wing postings.
“If an MEP, such as the centre-right Hungarians, the Danish People’s Party, the Finns, the Swedish Democrats, the Austrian FPO, say no to migration quotas because they cannot cope with the cultural and religious requirements of Muslims across the Middle East who are seeking refugee status, is that a hate crime? And what is their punishment? It’s a frightening path to totalitarianism.”
UKIP’s Justice and Home Affairs spokeswoman Diane James MEP told Breitbart London:
“This legislation is so vague that it is the thin end of the wedge not just curb hate speech but free speech as well.
“Different people and cultures across Europe have different ways of communicating. The Liberal tradition in Britain for instance is more open and very different from that of dictatorial former Communist countries in the East.
“The EU was sold to people as a Common Market, it became a political union and now wishes to decide and compromise our civil liberties as a people. This is unacceptable to a free people who have a right to know where all this legislation is leading to.
“In my opinion, if the EU still allows to me have an opinion, I believe this matter should be decided by national parliaments rather than the unelected European Commission.“
Faced with this lamentable outcome, and with no possibility to provide meaningful input to this process, the Commission has left us with no other choice but to withdraw from the discussion,
said Estelle Massé, EU Policy Analyst at Access Now.
It is ironic that the Commission is threatening to take Member States to court for failing to implement EU law on racism and xenophobia while it is persuading companies like Google and Facebook to sweep offences under the carpet,
added Joe McNamee, Executive Director at European Digital Rights.
In a release, the EDRi explains why they have a problem with this new Code of Conduct agreement:
What is in today’s code of conduct?
– an explicit statement that companies will “take the lead” in policing controversial speech online, which means that law enforcement authorities will not be taking the lead;
– an undertaking that IT companies will ban content that should already be legally banned;
– an undertaking to review notifications against company terms of service first and then, “if necessary” to review them against the law. In practice, this means that the legal procedures for testing the legality of content against the law will never be used as the code of conduct asks for illegal content to be banned by terms of service.
In short, the “code of conduct” downgrades the law to a second-class status, behind the “leading role” of private companies that are being asked to arbitrarily implement their terms of service. This process, established outside an accountable democratic framework, exploits unclear liability rules for companies. It also creates serious risks for freedom of expression as legal but controversial content may well be deleted as a result of this voluntary and unaccountable take down mechanism.
This means that this “agreement” between only a handful of companies and the European Commission is likely in breach of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, under which restrictions on fundamental rights should be provided for by law. It will, in practical terms, overturn case law of the European Court of Human Rights on the defense of legal speech.
In a very close vote, the EU Parliament has decided to recommend member states drop any and all charges against NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.
The body called on countries to “drop any criminal charges against Edward Snowden, grant him protection and consequently prevent extradition or rendition by third parties, in recognition of his status as whistle-blower and international human rights defender.”
The vote was 285 to 281.
The vote came alongside a larger resolution urging the EU Commission to “ensure that all data transfers to the US are subject to an “effective level of protection.”
The EU Parliament called on the Commission to “immediately take the necessary measures to ensure that all personal data transferred to the US are subject to an effective level of protection that is essentially equivalent to that guaranteed in the EU”. It invites the Commission to reflect immediately on alternatives to Safe Harbour and on the “impact of the judgment on any other instruments for the transfer of personal data to the US, and to report on the matter by the end of 2015.”
Snowden has responded on Twitter, calling it a “game-changer.”
Hearing reports EU just voted 285-281, overcoming huge pressure, to cancel all charges against me and prevent extradition. Game-changer.
“We welcome today’s decision of the European Parliament recognizing Edward Snowden as a human rights defender and calling upon member states to grant him protection from prosecution,” said Wolfgang Kaleck, Snowden’s EU lawyer. “It is an overdue step and we urge the member States to act now to implement the resolution.”
Edward Snowden is still in Russia, and still being sought by the US government. In July, the Obama administration responded to a petition to pardon Snowden with a resounding no thanks.
You may have not noticed anything wrong with that sentence, and to be honest it’s hard to fault you if you didn’t. Apple’s smartwatch is actually called the Apple Watch, but hey – it should’ve been the iWatch, right?
Anyway, the iWatch doesn’t exist. But Apple is still facing legal action over it.
Probendi, an Irish software firm has filed legal documents against Apple claiming its use of the term iWatch in Google ads is a violation of trademark.
“Apple has systematically used iWatch wording on Google search engine in order to direct customers to its own website, advertising Apple Watch,” says Probendi.
In other words, Probendi is miffed that Google searches for “iWatch’ return results for the Apple Watch. Of course, companies buying ads that direct customers to their products when related queries are entered is nothing new.
The recent public announcement of “Apple Watch”, the new wrist wearable device/smart watch by Apple Inc., has been preceded and followed by persistent rumors identifying said product with the name “iWatch”.
Probendi Limited hereby informs to be the exclusive holder of the Community trademark “iWatch” No. EU007125347, registered for computers and software effective as of August 3, 2008.
Consequently, Probendi Limited is the sole entity lawfully entitled to use the name “iWatch” for products such as “Apple Watch” within the European Union, and will promptly take all appropriate legal actions to oppose any unauthorized use of “iWatch” by whomever for that kind of products.
According to Bloomberg, Probendi is currently working on a product called the iWatch, but it doesn’t exist yet. The company has held the iWatch trademark since 2008, and according to an audit commissioned by Probendi that trademark is worth nearly $100 million.
Back in March, the European Commission announced a proposal for an ecommerce sector antitrust inquiry. It said at the time that there were indications that some companies could be taking measures to restrict cross-border ecommerce, and that the inquiry would focus on better identifying and addressing such measures.
“It is high time to remove remaining barriers to e-commerce, which is a vital part of a true Digital Single Market in Europe,” said Commissioner Margrethe Vestager. “The envisaged sector inquiry will help the Commission to understand and tackle barriers to e-commerce to the benefit of European citizens and business.”
A lot of ecommerce businesses have been getting questioned by the EU as part of the probe, according to a report from The Wall Street Journal, which says:
The European Commission, the bloc’s top antitrust regulator, sent out the first batch of questionnaires last week to businesses in all 28 EU countries. More than 2,000 businesses are expected to be questioned as part of the probe, including online marketplaces; Internet streaming services; content producers; manufacturers that sell goods online; as well as broadcasters.
One executive at a U.S.-based Internet company who didn’t want to be identified said the questionnaires were “quite lengthy” and had been sent to “everyone and their brother.”
The publication managed to get its hands on a copy of the questionnaire, which has over 150 pages. It reportedly says it aims ti give regulators a “better understanding of e-commerce-related business practices as they affect providers of digital content.”
According to the EU, about half of EU consumers shopped online in 2014, but only 15% of them bought online from a seller based in another EU Member State.
Google has been under investigation by the EU for five years, and last week, the European Commission sent a Statement of Objections to Google alleging it has abused its dominant position in the market for general internet search services by favoring its own comparison shopping product in general search pages. It also announced a probe into the company’s Android business.
In addition to all of this, regulators appear to be growing more and more interested in the business of Internet search, and are now reportedly taking a closer look at the industry as a whole, beyond Google’s dominance. Reuters is reporting that European regulators are preparing a “widespread inquiry” looking at not only Google, but also at Microsoft and Yahoo, aimed at determining if they’re transparent enough about how they display search results.
This inquiry will reportedly explore the dominance of U.S. tech companies, and seek to determine if there is a level playing field for European companies. The report says:
In a draft of the Commission’s strategy for creating a digital single market, seen by Reuters, it says it will “carry out a comprehensive investigation and consultation on the role of platforms, including the growth of the sharing economy.” The investigation, expected to be carried out next year, will look into the transparency of search results – involving paid for links and advertisements – and how platforms use the information they acquire.
…
The inquiry will also look at how platforms compensate rights-holders for showing copyrighted material and limits on the ability of individuals and businesses to move from one platform to another.
The inquiry is expected to be announced on May 6. Meanwhile, the French government is looking at requiring search engines to display at least three rivals on their homepages and to “reveal the workings of their search ranking algorithms to ensure they deliver fair and non-discriminatory results,” reports TechCrunch.
This may or may not actually become law, but if it does, search engines like Google would reportedly have to pay a penalty of 10% of gross revenues if it doesn’t comply.
Earlier this month, we heard that the European Commission was about to “move against” Google, “setting the stage for charges” against the search giant after a five-year-long investigation and several attempts by Google to settle. Now, the WSJ is reporting again that Europe’s antitrust regulator has indeed decided to file formal charges.
This will be the EU’s largest antitrust case since the famous one against Microsoft.
According to the report, new antitrust chief Margrethe Vestager made the decision on Tuesday after consulting with European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker. She is expected to inform the other EU commissioners at a Wednesday meeting. Google could reportedly face fines in excess of $6 billion (10% of its annual revenues based on last year).
Even with formal charges, settlement discussions can reportedly still take place, and but if unproductive, Google may face major penalties.
If the case goes to court, the whole thing could play out for a much longer period of time.
Earlier this month, reports came out that the commission has been asking companies who have filed complaints against the search giant for permission to publish info they submitted as confidential. These include those in the shopping, local, and travel industries.
Obviously we’ll learn more as the Commission makes a formal announcement.
The European Commission is about to “move against” Google, “setting the stage for charges” against it, according to a new report from The Wall Street Journal, citing people familiar with the matter, and adding that the commission has been asking companies who have filed complaints against the search giant for permission to publish info they submitted as confidential. These include those in the shopping, local, and travel industries.
The investigation has been going on for five years, and has looked close to being resolved several times, but the commission is always convinced that it needs to go further. Will that happen again? it depends on its next move and Google’s response. The commission could bring charges, and Google could offer a settlement proposal. It could also go to court, which could see the whole thing playing out for a much longer amount of time without Google having to succumb to certain demands.
With all of the public complaints we’ve seen against Google from competitors over the years, it should be quite interesting to see what has been held back under confidentiality agreements. The commission is reportedly requesting to use documentation of meetings and phone interviews related to Google Shopping, for one.
Former European Commission competition chief Joaquin Almunia left office in November as Margrethe Vestager stepped into the position. Vestager indicated in the past she would take her time with the antitrust investigation. Now, according to the Journal’s sources, she’s planning to move forward in a “relatively short time frame.” It also says she has suggested that she prefers “legal certainty of formal charges” as opposed to settlements.
Late last year, the European Parliament was found to be considering a proposal to call for a breakup of Google, specifically to separate the company’s search business from the rest of its offerings. When the subject came up for a vote, the proposal was approved, though the Parliament doesn’t have the authority to require a Google breakup on its own. The idea was to convince the commission.
The Journal has been dredging up information from Google’s old antitrust investigation by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission in recent weeks. Of one of the reports, the FTC said, was creating a “misleading narrative”.
Late last year, EU regulators in Brussels said they wanted the controversial “Right to be Forgotten” ruling applied to search results on a global basis rather than just in its own jurisdiction as it stands today. In other words, if someone is successfully able to get Google (or other search engines) to remove search results about them from its index in Europe, regulators want the search engine to remove the results from all of its localized versions, including Google.com.
Do you think results should be removed all over the world or should it be limited to Europe? Let us know what you think.
Obviously this is a tricky subject since it leads to censorship of results in other countries with different laws.
The Google Advisory Council on the Right to be Forgotten weighed in on the subject in a report. This is who the council is made up of (you can click the image to be taken to the official site, where you can read each person’s bio):
The report looks at an overview of the ruling, the criteria for assessing delisting requests, and procedural elements. One section deals specificalliy with the geographic scope issue. Here’s what that part says:
A difficult question that arose throughout our meetings concerned the appropriate geographic scope for processing a delisting. Many search engines operate different versions that are targeted to users in a particular country, such as google.de for German users or google.fr for French users. The Ruling is not precise about which versions of search a delisting must be applied to. Google has chosen to implement these removals from all its European-directed search services, citing the CJEU’s authority across Europe as its guidance.
The Council understands that it is a general practice that users in Europe, when typing in www.google.com to their browser, are automatically redirected to a local version of Google’s search engine. Google has told us that over 95% of all queries originating in Europe are on local versions of the search engine. Given this background, we believe that delistings applied to the European versions of search will, as a general rule, protect the rights of the data subject adequately in the current state of affairs and technology.
In considering whether to apply a deslistng to versions of search targeted at users outside of Europe, including globally, we acknowledge that doing so may ensure more absolute protection of a data subject’s rights. However, it is the conclusion of the majority that there are competing interests that outweigh the additional protection afforded to the data subject. There is a competing interest on the part of users outside of Europe to access information via name-based search in accordance with the laws of their country, which may be in conflict with the deslistings afforded by this Ruling. These considerations are bolstered by the legal principle of proportionality and extraterritoriality in application of European law.
There is also a competing interest on the pat of users within Europe to access versions of search other than their own. The Council heard evidence about the technical possibility to prevent Internet users in Europe from accessing search results that have been delisted under European law. The Council has concerns about the precedent set by such measures, particularly if repressive regimes point to such a precedent in an effort to ‘lock’ their users into heavily censored versions of search results. It is also unclear whether such measures would be meaningfully more effective than Google’s existing model, given the widespread availability of tools to circumvent such blocks.
The Council supports effective measures to protect the rights of data subjects. Given concerns of proportionality and practical effectiveness, it concludes that removal from nationally directed versions of Google’s search services within the EU is the appropriate means to implement the Ruling at this stage.
In other words, with the overwhelming majority of Google users in Europe using localized versions of Google, it wouldn’t really be all that more effective in hiding results in question by removing them from other versions of Google outside of Europe. By doing so, search results would be unnecessarily censored in parts of the world (like the U.S.) where laws cater to open access of public information and media reports.
Here’s the full report:
Do you agree with the Council that the right to be forgotten should only apply to the European-based versions of Google and other search engines or do you think results should be removed from search engines on a global basis? Let us know in the comments.
