WebProNews

Tag: European Union

  • Google Antitrust Probe Finally Over?

    Google Antitrust Probe Finally Over?

    Google has reached a settlement with the European Union to end a three-year antitrust investigation. The EU announced this morning that it has obtained “an improved commitments proposal” from the company.

    In the proposal, Google guarantees that whenever it promotes its own specialized search services (products, hotels, restaurants, etc.), the services of three rivals “selected through an objective method” will also be displayed in “a way that is clearly visible to users and comparable to the way in which Google displays its own services”. This will apply to existing search features as well as any future ones.

    Here are some before/after examples:

    Before

    After

    Before

    After

    “My mission is to protect competition to the benefit of consumers, not competitors,” said EU competition chief Joaquin Almunia. “I believe that the new proposal obtained from Google after long and difficult talks can now address the Commission’s concerns. Without preventing Google from improving its own services, it provides users with real choice between competing services presented in a comparable way; it is then up to them to choose the best alternative. This way, both Google and its rivals will be able and encouraged to innovate and improve their offerings. Turning this proposal into a legally binding obligation for Google would ensure that competitive conditions are both restored quickly and maintained over the next years.”

    By ending this probe with a settlement, Google avoids having to pay a $5 billion fine.

    As the EU notes, Google had already made “significant” concessions regarding other concerns, like giving content providers an opt-out from the use of their content in Google’s specialized search services without being penalized by the search engine, removing exclusivity requirements related to ads, and removing restrictions on the ability for search ad campaigns to be run on competing platforms.

    The commitments are to be supervised by an independent monitoring trustee for five years.

    Still, it doesn’t appear that competitors are pleased with the outcome. We haven’t seen an official statement from the FairSearch Coalition regarding the news yet, but it has been tweeting some things indicating it’s less than enthusiastic about the settlement:

    FairSearch had previously urged the EU to conduct a market test of the latest proposal, like it had done with previous incarnations.

    It would appear that the EU is finally satisfied. The proposal offers a lot more than what competitors are getting here in the U.S., and will surely lead to plenty more traffic for rivals like Yelp.

    The Commission says it will be informing complainants of the reasons it believes Google’s offer is sound. They’ll then have a chance to make their views known before it makes a final decision on whether or not the commitments are legally binding.

    Update: FairSearch has now put out a statement, and as you might have guessed, they’re not happy with the news. In fact, they’re even saying the proposal is worse than doing nothing at all. Here’s the full statement from Thomas Vinje, FairSearch Europe Legal Counsel:

    The European Commission has tentatively accepted a proposal by Google which is worse than doing nothing. These proposed commitments have not been subjected to any form of consultation, although it was thanks to market testing of industry participants that the Commission had condemned two previous packages of proposed commitments as fatally flawed.

    FairSearch Europe needs to examine this proposal in detail, but our concern is that the proposed commitments lock in discrimination and raise rivals’ costs instead of solving the problem of Google’s anti-competitive practices.

    Google now holds a 95 percent market share of search across the European Union and gives preferential treatment to its own services, which damages competition and gives consumers less choice.

    The Google proposal requires rivals to pay Google for placement similar to that of Google’s own material, undercutting the ability of other to compete and provide consumer choice. This will be done through an auction mechanism that requires participating companies to hand the vast majority of their profits to Google.

    FairSearch’s position is that given the broad impact of such a settlement on consumers, competitors, innovation and Europe’s digital economy, it is vital that the latest package of Google’s proposed commitments be subject to a broad a consultation of stakeholders. Sadly, this does not seem to be the case.

    It was thanks to such market testing that the two previous series of Google proposed commitments were demonstrated to be fatally flawed as mechanisms to restore competition to search.

    Representing the diverse components of the search market, FairSearch is committed to working with the Commission in any way possible to identify effective solutions that restore competition to the search markets. In the two previous consultations, FairSearch and its members provided concrete evidence that Google’s proposed commitments did not deliver the improvements in competition that they were theoretically designed to achieve. That evidence was gained through actual testing of the proposals, and this third package should be subject to the same broad and concrete vetting by those who understand the industry by participating in it.

    Images via EU

  • Ukrainian Rally Draws Massive Anti-Government Crowd

    Even after violent confrontations with police this past week, Ukrainian anti-government protesters have shown they will not be deterred. Well over 200,000 disgruntled citizens packed into Independence Square in Kiev. They marched through ultra cold temperatures in a bid to make clear their dissatisfaction with the current administration.

    Protests began on November 21st when current president, Viktor Yanukovych, made the startling decision to abandon talks with the European Union and instead embrace closer ties with Russia. This move is in stark contrast to the direction that the citizens in central and western Ukraine were anticipating. This part of the country enjoys a stronger connection to European neighbors than the eastern rural half. In eastern Ukraine, Yanukovych’s actions have been highly approved.

    Overall, the country seemed to have finally thawed out after a lengthy period of frigid Russian control. Some now fear this is a move by Yanukovych to push Ukraine towards helping to revive the Soviet Union.

    The increasing size and scope of the Ukranian protests looked to be forcing Yanukovych’s hand. This week it was announced that Ukraine would be renewing talks with the European Union. However, this did not pan out.

    EU Enlargement Commissioner Stefan Fule tweeted that the trade talks would be halted:

    It’s likely the lack of clear commitment Fule is referring to has to do with the upcoming meeting between Yanukovych and Vladimir Putin in Moscow. A pact with Russia would mean for many protesters a widening gulf between the struggling Ukraine and the rest of Europe.

    Anti-government protesters have vowed to stage a major rally at the same time as the meeting in Russia. They hope their voices are enough to convince the president to not sign any agreements with Putin.

    Image: Reuters Youtube

  • European Commission Approves Microsoft Nokia Deal

    The European Commission announced today that it has approved Microsoft’s acquisition of Nokia’s mobile device business.

    The deal was first announced in September, and gained shareholder approval last month.

    The Commission said, “The Commission concluded that the transaction would not raise any competition concerns, in particular because there are only modest overlaps between the parties’ activities and the links between Microsoft’s mobile operating systems, mobile applications and enterprise mail server software with Nokia’s smart mobile devices are unlikely to lead to competitors being shut out from the market.”

    “In 2012, almost 700 million smartphones and 162 million tablets were sold worldwide,” it added. “The Commission assessed the effects of the acquisition on competition in the field of smart mobile devices (including smartphones and tablets). The Commission found that the overlap of the two companies’ activities in this area is minimal and several strong rivals, such as Samsung and Apple will continue to compete with the merged entity.”

    Probably not many arguments there.

    Some think Microsoft’s Windows Phone could find growth in the enterprise.

    “There was a lot of excitement with the release of iOS 7, especially in the enterprise where Apple included features enterprises were longing for,” Jason McNicol, senior analyst at ABI, recently said. “Some of those features, however, were not terribly innovative when compared to the services offered by the EMM/MDM market, while other enhancements have relatively limited functionality. Despite the positive market buzz, iOS7 enterprise features are unlikely to increase its enterprise presence. Plenty of market opportunity remains, especially for a company like Microsoft.”

    The commission investigated several vertical relationships between Microsoft/Nokia and the downstream market for mobile devices, as well as Microsoft’s upstream activities in mobile operating systems, apps and enterprise mail server software. It found that the company is unlikely to restrict supply of its operating systems or apps, and wouldn’t have the ability to restrict interoperability of competing smart phones with Exchange Server because of contractual terms of current licenses.

    You can read the Commission’s full announcement here.

    Image: European Commission

  • Germany Elections: Can Angela Merkel Save Aging, Dying Europe?

    Chancellor Angela Merkel’s political party won Germany’s national elections on Sunday and was poised to register close to a majority in German parliament.

    Merkel, therefore, is slated to be only the third German leader since World-War II to win a third straight term. The other two leaders to win three terms in a row were Konrad Adenauer and Helmut Kohl, who presided over the unification of East and West Germany and witnessed the dissolution of Soviet Empire.

    The final tally and behind the scenes political maneuvering will determine which smaller parties end up in parliament, and which ones will enter into marriage with Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union to form a “grand coalition”.

    While Germany and other European countries have gone through the democratic motions, Europe’s debt and demographic crisis has seen no signs of abatement, let alone a healthy reversal.

    As the largest economy of Europe and its most populous entity, which way Germany is nudged by the international banking community in order to handle Europe’s debt crisis will determine whether Europeans will be demographically viable or extinct at the end of 21st century.

    “This is a super result…I see the next four years in front of me and I can promise that we will face many tasks, at home, in Europe and in the world,” Merkel said, during a closely monitored televised appearance with other party functionaries.

    Aware that Merkel may not eventually gain absolute majority, her defeated center-left challenger and ex-Finance Minister Peer Steinbrueck, who railed against Keynesian economics during the 2008 financial crisis, said, “The ball is in Merkel’s court…She has to get herself a majority.”

    While some within Germany have insisted on austerity and retrenchment, the international banking community led by Bank for International Settlements has been spearheading the charge for more inflationary monetary policies to “boost” growth.

    Growth, however, has become a forbidden territory, as Europe is dying out. While native-European deaths far outpace births, immigrant populations arriving by the millions every year from West Asia and Africa are making their presence felt, resulting in a demographic transformation unprecedented since the Mongol Empire under Genghis Khan and Kublai Khan.

    Merkel’s electoral coalition won ~42% of the vote, up more than 8% from 2009 elections, based on exit polls and incomplete counts. But it is not clear what exactly are Merkel’s conservatives conserving when German population is well on its way to extinction due to ultra-low annual births and skyrocketing deaths.

    Nevertheless, according to Merkel, “We will do everything together in the next four years to make them successful years for Germany.” Well, what about the next 100 years? Has long term thinking and vision completely vanished from Merkel’s mind?

    Steinbrueck’s SPD party trailed well behind Merkel’s CDU party at 26.5% of votes, while the Left Party garnered 8.5%. The Left Party includes elements of former East Germany’s political class and staunchly opposes costly NATO military belligerence and bail-outs for bankrupt PIGS (Portugal-Italy-Greece-Spain).

    While Merkel touted her second term as “the most successful government since reunification,” most of Europe including Germany is sinking in a tsunami of debt, unemployment and low fertility.

    So what are we to make of the German elections and Merkel’s coming third term? Not much, as the crisis that faces Europe goes beyond fiscal gymnastics, monetary heroin and tax adjustments.

    It is a civilizational crisis, where the two fundamental life-giving institutions, family and religiosity, are exiting from society, leaving Europe a land facing interesting times.

    [images from wikipedia and US census]

  • Pirate Attack Fought Off By EU Navy

    The European Union Naval Force this week fended off Somali pirates, saving 14 Indian sailors.

    According to the EU Navy, an Indian cargo ship sent out a distress call on the morning of June 5. Twelve pirates had attacked the ship and taken control of the vessel.

    The Royal Swedish Navy warship HSwMS Carlskrona and the Dutch warship HNLMS Van Speijk responded to the distress call, and arrived to counter the attack. Using a helicopter launched from a Carlskrona, the EU forces pressured the pirates to release their Indian hostages as the ship moved closer to the Somali coast. By late night, EU naval forces received word from the Indian commander of the cargo ship that the pirates had abandoned the vessel in the dead of night. None of the crew was injured in the incident.

    The thwarted pirate attack is part of Operation Atalanta, the EU’s counter-piracy mission that has been active since early April.

    “What is important is that fourteen Indian sailors are now safe and able to return to their families, after what must have been a terrifying ordeal,” said Rear Admiral Bob Tarrant, operation commander of the EU Naval Force. “This latest attack once again shows that the threat from piracy is real. We must all remain vigilant.”

  • Google’s Competition Proposals Not Good Enough For EU

    Last month, the EU finally released a public document discussing Google’s proposal to end a lengthy antitrust investigation. With the document, the Commission began seeking feedback on the commitments Google offered to address concerns. Unsurprisingly, the feedback has included demands from some that Google do more.

    Here is the list of Google’s proposals, as shared in the EU’s announcement:

    Google offers for a period of 5 years to:

    (i) – label promoted links to its own specialised search services so that users can distinguish them from natural web search results,

    – clearly separate these promoted links from other web search results by clear graphical features (such as a frame), and

    – display links to three rival specialised search services close to its own services, in a place that is clearly visible to users,

    (ii) – offer all websites the option to opt-out from the use of all their content in Google’s specialised search services, while ensuring that any opt-out does not unduly affect the ranking of those web sites in Google’s general web search results,

    – offer all specialised search web sites that focus on product search or local search the option to mark certain categories of information in such a way that such information is not indexed or used by Google,

    – provide newspaper publishers with a mechanism allowing them to control on a web page per web page basis the display of their content in Google News,

    (iii) no longer include in its agreements with publishers any written or unwritten obligations that would require them to source online search advertisements exclusively from Google, and

    (iv) no longer impose obligations that would prevent advertisers from managing search advertising campaigns across competing advertising platforms.

    A third party would be required to monitor Google’s implementation of its commitments.

    It was clear from the beginning that competitors did not think these went far enough, though they did go further than Google’s actions settling a similar investigation in the U.S.

    Reuters now reports that EU Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia said the commission will press Google for further concessions, though the report does not get into specifics. It does say that Almunia said “Google would almost certainly be asked to improve its proposals.” Foo Yun Chee writes:

    The EU competition authority initially gave complainants until May 26 to comment, but later extended the deadline to June 27 following pressure from the companies.

    “After, we will analyse the responses we have received… almost 100 percent we will ask Google: you should improve your proposals,” Almunia told lawmakers during a Tuesday hearing at the European Parliament.

    Meanwhile, reports have recently emerged that the U.S. Federal Trade Commission has been mulling opening up a new probe, this time into Google’s display advertising business.

  • EU Hits Microsoft With $731 Million Antitrust Fine

    In July of last year, Microsoft was found to be in violation of an agreement it had made with EU regulators over a Web browser choice screen that was to be installed on every Windows PC sold in the region. There were talks of a fine for the past few months, but nothing had been done until now.

    Reuters reports that the EU has hit Microsoft with a massive $731 million fine for violating the browser choice agreement of 2009. The regulators estimated that Microsoft’s violation left up to 15 million users without a choice in which browser they choose.

    The fine, while pretty drastic, could have been even worse. A report from last year found that the EU could have fined Microsoft up to 10 percent of its turnover, or $7 billion. The actual fine is still pretty formidable, however, and the EU’s competition commission hopes that it deters other companies from violating their commitments.

    “If companies agree to offer commitments which then become legally binding, they must do what they have committed to do or face the consequences,” said Joaquin Almunia, the EU’s competition commissioner. “I hope this decision will make companies think twice before they even think of intentionally breaching their obligations or even of neglecting their duty to ensure strict compliance.”

    Microsoft can appeal the decision, but it looks like the company will not do so. The company did say, however, that it has “taken steps to strengthen [their] software development and other processes to help avoid this mistake – or anything similar – in the future.”

    Now that Microsoft is out of the way, the EU can focus its efforts on Google. The search giant got away without a fine from the FTC over allegations of antitrust practices in its search results. Now the company is under the same scrutiny in the EU, but we won’t know the commission’s decision until after summer.

  • Google Fights For ‘Free Expression’ In European Court

    Google is battling data protection authorities in Spain over whether or not search engines can be ordered to block search results that link to legal content on Spanish newspaper and government sites.

    Google has a post on its Europe Blog today discussing the matter. William Echikson, Head of Free Expression, EMEA at Google writes:

    In the case before the CJEU today – one that is representative of around 180 similar Spanish cases – Google declined to comply with an order from the Spanish Data Protection Authority. We were asked to remove links from our search results that point to a legal notice published in a newspaper. The notice, announcing houses being auctioned off as part of a legal proceeding, is required under Spanish law and includes factually correct information that is still publicly available on the newspaper’s website.

    There are clear societal reasons why this kind of information should be publicly available. People shouldn’t be prevented from learning that a politician was convicted of taking a bribe, or that a doctor was convicted of malpractice. The substantive question before the Court today is whether search engines should be obliged to remove links to valid legal material that still exists online.

    We believe the answer to that question is “no”. Search engines point to information that is published online – and in this case to information that had to be made public, by law. In our view, only the original publisher can take the the decision to remove such content. Once removed from the source webpage, content will disappear from a search engine’s index.

    This has pretty much been the way Google has always operated. Here’s an explanation from Matt Cutts about why Google won’t remove pages about you.

    Google is also facing antitrust issues in Europe, but according to a recent report, the European Commission will not reach a decision on that until at least August.

  • No Google Antitrust Decision Until After Summer Break [Report]

    It’s looking like this Google antitrust thing won’t be resolved anytime soon in Europe. Reuters is reporting that EU antitrust chief Joaquin Almunia said that the European Commission can reach an agreement after the summer break.

    “We can envisage this as a possible deadline,” he’s quoted as saying. As Reuters notes, the Commission is closed for summer break throughout most of August, so it sounds like we won’t be seeing any resolution before then.

    Several weeks ago, Almunia said Google had submitted its settlement proposal. The details of this have not been made public. At the time, Bloomberg reported:

    Google sent a “detailed proposal,” said Antoine Colombani, a spokesman for Almunia. He said he couldn’t anticipate if the offer was sufficient to allay antitrust concerns or whether it would be sent to rivals and customers for comments. If this market test is successful, the EU can make the commitments legally binding. Such a settlement would avoid possible fines against the Mountain View, California-based company.

    Google, of course, settled its antitrust issues in the U.S., ending a lengthy probe by the FTC, which found that Google’s search business was not anticompetitive. Google did make a couple voluntary concessions.

  • CleanIT Gets Rid Of Browser Surveillance, Opts For Terrorism Button In Browsers

    In September of last year, we brought you word that the European Union was working on a proposal called CleanIT to stop the spread of terroristic content online. The plan called for a number of outlandish proposals such as browser-level surveillance and requiring all Internet users to go by their real names when using online services. Since then, the plan has gone through some changes, including the removal of the more worrisome proposals.

    Ars Technica reports that the final CleanIT report has been published ahead of its final conference on Wednesday. The report discusses methods in which the government, private companies and individuals can help reduce the proliferation of terroristic content on the Internet. The report suggests that EU member states work together to decrease the amount of terroristic content online, while Internet companies should “state clearly in their terms and conditions that they will not tolerate terrorist use of the Internet on their platforms.”

    So, you’ve seen what the government wants itself and companies to do, but what should you, the model EU citizen, do? The report calls for a reporting mechanism to be built into Web browsers so citizens can flag terrorist content:

    Challenge:
    While content portals (like social networks, image or video portals) can offer ‘flagging’ opportunities, other platforms (like hosted websites) often lack such a mechanism. Moreover, there is not one international, user-friendly reporting mechanism available to all Internet users, irrespective of which part of the Internet they are using at the moment they notice what they think is terrorist use of the Internet.

    Best practice:
    A browser-based reporting mechanism could be developed to allow end users to report terrorist use of the Internet.

    In essence, the CleanIT group wants to put a little panic button at the top right of your browser that’s for terrorist reporting. If you see a terrorist Web site, you click the button and the URL is sent away to the Internet police. What could possibly go wrong?

    As Ars Technica puts it, “plenty” could go wrong. The main concern is that nobody can agree on what constitutes terroristic content. Is it a blog post of somebody using violent rhetoric? Is it the Twitter account of a known terrorist cell? Does anybody even have the right to remove such content, or does it fall under free speech protections? Can people abuse the reporting system to have content removed without due process? These are questions that the group will have to answer at its conference on Wednesday.

    The proposals will also face some serious scrutiny at the conference as it has already been reportedly criticized by lawyers, civil rights groups, and even the peer reviewers that evaluated the final report. One of the peer reviewers criticized the CleanIT report saying that it “does not clearly explain how the objective is to be reached… Therefore I have substantial doubts if it possible to achieve the desired objective this way.”

    As the peer reviewer points out, stopping the flow of terroristic content on the Web, or any content for that matter, is incredibly difficult. The U.S’s Bipartisan Policy Center said just as much in a report it published last year about terroristic content online. The report said that the best chance of stopping terrorism online is to reduce the supply and demand for such content. Drawing attention to it, which CleanIT’s proposal may very well do, is only going to further the cause of those who use the Internet to recruit and communicate with other terrorists and ne’er-do-wells.

  • ACTA Is Officially Dead In Europe

    ACTA Is Officially Dead In Europe

    There was much rejoicing in the streets earlier this year when the European Parliament rejected ACTA, a multinational trade agreement that many felt would hurt online innovation in profound ways. There was one sliver of hope for ACTA’s continued existence, however, as the European Commission submitted the treaty to the European Court of Justice for review. Now that last avenue of validation is gone.

    The Register reports that the European Commission has pulled its request for the European Court of Justice to review ACTA. After pulling it, the commission stated that there was “no realistic chance” of the treaty ever gaining ground in Europe. The statement marks the official end of a fight against a treaty that Europeans fought tooth and nail against.

    Although ACTA may be dead in Europe, the treaty lives in other nations around the world. The U.S. has claimed ACTA is a “sole executive agreement” that is binding after President Obama signed the treaty in late 2011 despite only Congress having the power to approve treaties. The treaty has not taken effect, however, and its death in Europe pretty much kills it in the U.S.

    The treaty has, however, been ratified in one country. Back in September, Japan’s House of Representatives ratified the treaty in the middle of the night so there would be no blowback from the country’s citizens that are already prone to protests. The new conservative government that was just elected, however, may revisit the ratification.

    Despite all of this, the ghost of ACTA still lingers in some parts of the world. Some of the worst parts of ACTA have made their way into CETA, or the Canada-European Trade Agreement. The treaty has faced little resistance, and it looks like it may pass by year’s end.

  • Microsoft Being Investigated In The EU For Potential Privacy Violations

    Microsoft hasn’t had the best of luck in the EU in 2012. The company was previously under investigation for potential antitrust issues, and now its privacy policy is under fire.

    Bloomberg reports that Microsoft’s recent service agreement update to its online services has caught the eye of data privacy watchdogs in the EU. The data protection commission, led by Luxembourg and France, sent a letter to Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer detailing the investigation.

    The letter warns Microsoft that “changes in [their] Services Agreement and the linked Privacy Policy may affect many individuals in most or all of the EU member states.” The investigation will “check the possible consequences for the protection of the personal data of these individuals.” For its part, Microsoft told Bloomberg that the recent services agreement change did not change the company’s privacy policy.

    This isn’t the first time that Microsoft has run into trouble in the EU this year. Back in September, Microsoft was accused of antitrust violations after a browser choice selection screen was not found on new Windows 7 PCs shipped to the region. Microsoft previously agreed to add the browser selection screen to new Windows 7 PCs instead of paying out a large cash fine. Now the company is threatened with another fine if the EU finds Microsoft in violation of its previous agreement.

    As for the current investigation, there’s not been any formal findings yet. The privacy commission is just starting to look over Microsoft’s new services agreement so it might be a while before we hear anything from it. Even then, Microsoft had better hope that the the commission doesn’t find anything. The company, and Steve Ballmer’s career, doesn’t need another fight with the EU.

  • Google Reportedly Facing Privacy Policy Issues In Europe

    This year, Google changed its privacy policies, consolidating policies for various products into a more unified policy encompassing most Google products. This was announced back in January, and was implemented in March.

    Google faced a fair amount of criticism over the move at the time, but for the most part, the concern had evaporated from the headlines. Now, however, it’s back, as The Guardian reports, citing unnamed sources, that the change is expected to “come under fire from European data protection commissioners within days.”

    The group of 30 data protection commissioners from across the European Union, The Guardian reports, “are believed to have determined that Google has breached EU privacy laws.”

    Essentially, what Google’s privacy policy does is allow the company to use data from its various products in its other products, which it maintains will only improve the user experience. For example, it could make recommendations on YouTube videos based on things you’ve searched for on Google. It can better target advertisers, and it can personalize search results.

    Since Google launched Google+, it has, for all intents and purposes, tried to unify its various products into one central Google product. Those various products are basically features of the bigger product. This is further highlighted by the top navigation bar that appears across Google products. The privacy policy changes simply enable Google to treat user data as such.

    Consider Facebook for comparison. Google+ is like Facebook’s news feed. Picasa Web Albums (or perhaps Google+ photos) are like Facebook’s photos. Google.com is like Facebook’s search feature. Google Docs is like Facebook’s Notes feature. And so forth. Such a comparison could only become more substantiated as Facebook launches its recently discussed search offering.

    This is the way the competitive landscape is progressing for Google (at least one of the paths), and the company has made these changes accordingly.

    It will be interesting to see if any action is taken against Google by the EU, and what competitive ramifications that might have for Google in Europe (and how that might affect how Google’s policies are viewed in other regions, for that matter). Interestingly enough, Google also faces competition-related scrutiny in Europe as well.

  • Leaked Clean IT Document Is Frightening

    Europe can not catch a break. Somebody in government is constantly trying to push some kind of law or treaty to regulate the Internet. The technology has those in power running scared and they need something to convince the general public that they should be allowed to control it. After ACTA failed, they’re now going for the terrorist angle.

    EDRI got their hands on a leaked copy of the Clean IT project. It’s a proposed European Commission project that would turn the European Internet into a gigantic surveillance system. There’s more to it, but it would be appropriate to say that somebody’s been reading up on their Orwell recently.

    So, what’s the goal of Clean IT? The government wants to stop terrorism, and they think that terrorists are using the Internet to coordinate attacks. The goal, according to the official Web site, is to prevent terrorists from using the Internet. The official draft document also says that “any action taken to reduce the terrorist use of the Internet, will respect fundamental rights and freedoms, including access to the Internet, freedoms of assembly and expression, privacy and data protection.”

    That all sounds pretty good, but policy makers are known masters of spin. Now, let’s take a look at the proposed policies that are present in the leaked version of Clean IT. Here’s the major talking points from EDRI:

    Removal of any legislation preventing filtering/surveillance of employees’ Internet connections

    Law enforcement authorities should be able to have content removed “without following the more labour-intensive and formal procedures for ‘notice and action’”

    “Knowingly” providing links to “terrorist content” (the draft does not refer to content which has been ruled to be illegal by a court, but undefined “terrorist content” in general) will be an offence “just like” the terrorist

    Legal underpinning of “real name” rules to prevent anonymous use of online services
    ISPs to be held liable for not making “reasonable” efforts to use technological surveillance to identify (undefined) “terrorist” use of the Internet

    Companies providing end-user filtering systems and their customers should be liable for failing to report “illegal” activity identified by the filter

    Customers should also be held liable for “knowingly” sending a report of content which is not illegal

    Governments should use the helpfulness of ISPs as a criterion for awarding public contracts

    The proposal on blocking lists contradict each other, on the one hand providing comprehensive details for each piece of illegal content and judicial references, but then saying that the owner can appeal (although if there was already a judicial ruling, the legal process would already have been at an end) and that filtering such be based on the “output” of the proposed content regulation body, the “European Advisory Foundation”

    Blocking or “warning” systems should be implemented by social media platforms – somehow it will be both illegal to provide (undefined) “Internet services” to “terrorist persons” and legal to knowingly provide access to illegal content, while “warning” the end-user that they are accessing illegal content

    The anonymity of individuals reporting (possibly) illegal content must be preserved… yet their IP address must be logged to permit them to be prosecuted if it is suspected that they are reporting legal content deliberately and to permit reliable informants’ reports to be processed more quickly

    Companies should implement upload filters to monitor uploaded content to make sure that content that is removed – or content that is similar to what is removed – is not re-uploaded

    It proposes that content should not be removed in all cases but “blocked” (i.e. make inaccessible by the hosting provider – not “blocked” in the access provider sense) and, in other cases, left available online but with the domain name removed.

    In essence, Clean IT wants to punish you for using the Internet as it was intended. It would require you to use your real name in all online communication. It would punish you for linking to “terrorist content” (whatever that means), and it makes no distinction between linking for educational or malicious purposes.

    Clean IT has proven itself to be bad. What does it mean for Europe though? Nothing yet, but that could change. Europe has proven to be more accommodating to sweeping surveillance programs, but the Internet community may surprise us with another continent wide protest. They were able to successfully kill ACTA, and they may just be able to kill Clean IT as well.

    Beyond that, the biggest obstacle to Clean IT’s passage is the Internet itself. All these programs require ISPs and social media networks to take on the duties of surveillance. Such programs cost too much and those running ISPs tend to have something resembling moral fiber when it comes to privacy. Facebook and Twitter would obviously reject having their services turn into surveillance systems as well.

    Since the original publication of EDRI’s report, the Clean It project has published a conversation between the project’s manager, But Klaasen, and tech writer, Glyn Moody. Klaasen says that the leaked document are just suggestions, but never really clarifies beyond that. He does invite Moody and any other interested parties to attend meetings on the matter. It’s encouraging, but Moody nails it by saying that it’s worrying that the ideas present were even considered.

    We’ll continue to watch the progress of Clean IT. If it does prove to be successful, you can bet a similar program will be proposed for the U.S. It’s already rumored that the NSA and other agencies collect civilian communications, but a Clean IT-like project would allow them to work in the open.

    Here’s a copy of the draft Clean IT project, courtesy of TechDirt:

    cleanIT_sept2012

  • Galaxy Tab 7.7 Banned From Being Sold In 27 European Countries

    The Samsung Galaxy Tab 7.7 has been banned from being sold in Europe, following a ruling in a German court. That’s certainly not good news for Samsung, nor is it good news for Google, who is trying to gain ground in the tablet market with its Android operating system.

    Apple announced yesterday that it sold 17 million iPads last quarter.

    The ruling came as the result of an Apple win in a patent battle with Samsung. CNET shares a statement from Samsung, saying it’s “disappointed with the court’s ruling” and it “will continue…to protect our intellectual property rights and defend against Apple’s claims to ensure our products remain available to consumers throughout the European Union”.

    Slate put together this video report about the ordeal:

    The ban applies to all 27 member states of the European Union, and marks a very significant blow for the product, and for Android. Apparently the Galaxy Tab 10.1 can still be sold, as its design is different enough from the iPad to avoid such a ban. The court just didn’t feel the same way about the Galaxy Tab 7.7.

    It’s certainly a bigger blow to Samsung that it is to Google, as Android is available on plenty of other tablets, but having more choices for Android is what has gotten the operating system where it is today. Not having to rely one specific device, and being available for a multitude of feature sets and price ranges has been key for Android’s increased market share.

    Samsung touts the Galaxy Tab 7.7 as the world’s first tablet to feature “the brilliant Super AMOLED Plus display”.

  • Microsoft Admits That 28 Million PCs In Europe Don’t Offer Choice Of Web Browser

    On every PC sold in the U.S., Internet Explorer is the default Web browser. There’s nothing wrong with that since most of us have the decency to shove it to the side and download Firefox, Chrome or Opera instead. The European Commission obviously thinks there was something wrong with it as they’ve been forcing Microsoft to display a “Browser Choice Screen” on every copy of Windows that has Internet Explorer set to default. Microsoft’s dedication to BCS has been unfaltering until now.

    Microsoft announced today that they heard word that the BCS wasn’t showing up on some computers. They were able to pinpoint the problem on a goof within Windows 7 SP1. Those on regular Windows 7, Vista and XP should still be getting the BCS when Internet Explorer is set as your default browser. So what is Microsoft going to do so they don’t end up paying more fines to the EU?

    First up, Microsoft developed a quick fix and pushed it on July 3 to all Windows PCs running Windows 7 SP1. They also made sure that the BCS was available on all new Windows PCs shipping with Windows 7 SP1. BCS should be on every Windows PC by the end of the week.

    To prove just how serious they are about fixing this problem, Microsoft also hired an outside investigation company to interview Microsoft employees about the problem. They will get to the bottom of this compliance issue and report their findings to the European Commission. With any luck, they will be able to avoid a fine.

    Microsoft really doesn’t want to get fined again so they are also extending the time in which they must display the BCS by 15 months for all PC users. The company hopes its enough to quell the watchful eye of the European Commission, but they understand if the Comission were to “impose other sanctions” (i.e. fines).

    Microsoft blames the problem on engineers not knowing they had to update the BCS code for Windows 7 SP1. The Next Web reports that the European Commission is investigating the issue nonetheless. If Microsoft is found that they intentionally didn’t add the BCS, they could face up to $7 billion in fines. It wouldn’t be the first time that Microsoft was caught red-handed in an anti-trust probe, but it would be nice if Microsoft was telling the truth on this one.

  • Guess Who’s Back? SOPA And ACTA Are Sneaking Into Law Behind Your Back

    Guess Who’s Back? SOPA And ACTA Are Sneaking Into Law Behind Your Back

    The Internet has won the fight. SOPA and ACTA are both dead after having been eviscerated by the combined powers of the world coming together to fight for what they believe in – basic digital human rights. We can now rest easy knowing that the war has come to an end. Politicians would never think to bring them back, even under the guise of innocuous trade agreements and IP bills, right? Right?

    Unfortunately, the war is not won and it’s looking like the war will never end. SOPA and ACTA are both back in new forms that are even harder to kill than before. I can understand SOPA being back as it’s been dead for a while, but are they really trying to push through ACTA right after it was defeated in the European Parliament? The answer is an astounding yes and the tactics that politicians are employing to regulate the Internet are pretty terrifying.

    Does the return of SOPA and ACTA surprise you in the least? Will we ever end the war against Internet legislation? Let us know in the comments.

    Let’s start with the return of SOPA. It’s important to point out now that SOPA is not returning in full just yet. I don’t think that Rep. Lamar Smith would be foolish enough to propose SOPA again after such a big defeat in January. So what part of the bill is he trying to push through? The IP attaches part that expands the power of the U.S. copyright diplomats. These people, according to techdirt, go around the world forcing other countries to make their IP laws just as ruthless and unforgiving as they are in the West.

    Well, that doesn’t sound so bad. I mean, at least it doesn’t affect the Internet in any major way. You forget that IP protection now affects the Internet in a very big way. The U.S. is pushing for some of the strongest regulations against online piracy with a six-strike rule to be implemented this month by major ISPs. By forcing foreign countries to follow these same draconian laws, it prevents us from being able to work together on a compromise that protects artists and the freedom that the Internet provides. The current plan only protects rights holders and the big wigs running the show.

    As we reported on yesterday, the worst part about the new Intellectual Property Attache Act is that it expands the role of the IP attaches into their own agency. They are currently housed under the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Being let loose on their own with no oversight could have damaging implications in the fight for fair IP laws.

    Another worrying factor is that Rep. Darrell Issa, opponent of SOPA, has signed on as a co-sponsor of the IP Attache Act. His spokesman told TechCrunch that he supports the bill because it protects American interests in foreign countries. He does, however, say that he will work to amend the bill before it goes before the committee to include protections like fair use. Whether he accomplishes that remains to be seen, but don’t get too optimistic.

    Does the IP Attaches Act sound like SOPA to you? Are people getting worried for no reason? Let us know in the comments.

    SOPA being forced through the legislature is bad, but it’s nowhere near as bad as the secret ACTA alternative that’s currently being pushed through as another treaty. We were recently made aware of CETA (Canada-EU Trade Agreement) through a leak and it contains all the rotten parts of ACTA that we all thought were killed when the European Parliament voted it down.

    Before ACTA died, EU Commissioner, Karel De Gucht, promised that the treaty would be passed one way or another. His main goal is to bring the treaty before the European Court of Justice to see if the treaty infringes upon any basic human rights protected by the European Union. De Gucht doesn’t want to wait for a court ruling, so he’s going to use Canada to get what he wants.

    The tactic, according to Michael Geist, is that the EU will pass CETA with Canada and then claim that ACTA was perfectly acceptable the whole time. I mean, Canada likes the provisions that are in CETA and so why do you hate it? It’s a clever tactic and one that might work. That’s the scary part as all the worst parts of ACTA are present in CETA. Even if ACTA doesn’t get brought up again, the EU and Canada would be bound by a treaty that contains all that nastiness.

    Fortunately, the outcry against CETA has moved the European Commission to remove some of the more inflammatory parts of the bill. The provisions in CETA that would require ISPs to remove content and disclose subscriber’s personal information have been removed according to a Tweet from the European Commission’s John Clancy.

    Unfortunately, those are just two of the numerous provisions from ACTA that are still in CETA. The fact that the EU or Canada will not release the current text of the bill is also a bad sign. It’s been a trend to hide controversial or damaging bills until they’re ready to pass, but leaks like this help the public to become aware of the issues at stake. Geist suggests that the EU reveal the current draft to allow input from the citizenry. I agree, but it would be even better if countries were left to their own devices on how best to approach IP laws instead of trying to create a universal standard that only works for the top of the chain.

    Do you think that these new bills present a threat to the Internet? Does CETA herald the return of ACTA? Let us know in the comments.

    [Image Credit]

  • You Will Be Able To Resell Your Steam Games… In Europe

    One of the major problems I find myself in after a Steam sale is that I bought a lot of games that I just don’t really want. I partially blame myself, but some of those games have achievements which I can use to win other games. It would be a bit better if I could offload some of those digital games, but unfortunately the law is not on my side in the U.S.

    Fortunately, our friends across the pond in Europe are no longer held back by EULAs that state users can’t resell their digitally downloaded software, whether that be games or other software like Photoshop. In a recent ruling, the European Court of Justice did away with companies’ ability to stop people from selling used software.

    Here’s the lowdown on the case: Oracle was a tad bit angry that a company called UsedSoft was selling used licenses for Oracle software. They took UsedSoft to court seeking the termination of their activities. The crux of the case was whether or not a company still held exclusive distribution rights to software after they sold a digital download to a user. Here’s the court’s ruling:

    Where the copyright holder makes available to his customer a copy – tangible or intangible – and at the same time concludes, in return form payment of a fee, a licence agreement granting the customer the right to use that copy for an unlimited period, that right holder sells the copy to the customer and thus exhausts his exclusive distribution right. Such a transaction involves a transfer of the right of ownership of the copy. Therefore, even if the licence agreement prohibits a further transfer, the rightholder can no longer oppose the resale of that copy.

    The ruling will obviously make software developers mad. The companies that put out this kind of software, including game developers, see digital distribution as the future since people can’t resell those purchases. The EULA in software strictly states that you do not own the software, you merely own a license that allows you to use the software.

    The ruling from the EU Court of Justice flies in the face of those EULAs by saying that the consumer owns the copy they have on their hard drive and they can do with it as they please. Sure, the case deals with the idea of selling used digital copies of software, but it has massive ramifications for digital software everywhere.

    Those same EULAs said that due to the consumer only having the license, they couldn’t crack or modify the software in any way. Now that the court says that consumers own said software, they can do whatever they want with it.

    There are some caveats to be had in this ruling though. You still can’t make copies of software, including games, and distribute them among your friends. If you want to resell a copy of a digitally downloaded game, you have to remove it from your computer first. The court said that keeping a copy for yourself after resale would violate the copyright holder’s exclusive right of reproduction.

    There are a few other wonderful tidbits in the bill as well. If a consumer buys used software from a digital reseller, the original creator of the software must provide the person who bought the used copy an avenue to download the latest version of the software they bought.

    It’s important to note that this ruling only affects Europe. Don’t expect anything like this to fly in the U.S. anytime soon. That being said, we have our own case involving the sale of digital items currently going through the courts. ReDigi is in a similar situation as they are being sued by EMI for copyright violations. The company runs a business that scans computers for legitimately acquired MP3s, transfers them to their servers and then deletes them off the source computer. The user can then resell these MP3s to other users.

    If ReDigi was in Europe, this court ruling would put them in the clear as they are doing the same thing that UsedSoft did. Of course, the court ruling applied to software, but who’s to say that it wouldn’t apply to digitally downloaded MP3s or movies as long as the original work is removed from the source computer during resale.

    This is an utterly fascinating twist in the world of online distribution. If people can sell their previously downloaded software to others, it would send a shockwave among the software developers who relied upon digital distribution to avoid used sales.

    Since I began the story with it, I’ll end it here as well – this ruling will have a major impact on gaming. Games are the driving force behind digital distribution adoption and being able to resell digital purchases will make a lot of publisher execs pretty sour.

    [h/t: Lo-Ping]

  • Microsoft European Commission Fine Upheld at $1.1 Billion

    The General Court of the European Union has held up a regulatory fine against Microsoft in the amount of €860 million ($1.07 billion). Microsoft had appealed the 2008 decision which levied the record-breaking fine against the company for failing to comply with the European Commission’s 2004 order to reveal proprietary software to competitors in Europe.

    The €860 million judgement is a slightly reduced amount from the original judgement of €899 million. According to the Associated Press (AP), the Court reduced the fine because of a letter sent to Microsoft by the European Commission in 2005 which stated that the company did not have to reveal code that was already freely available. In a statement to the AP, Microsoft said, “Although the General Court slightly reduced the fine, we are disappointed with the Court’s ruling.”

    Microsoft has also stated that it came to an agreement with the European Commission in 2009 about its anti-competitive practices. This means the company does not expect any more fines to come after this judgement. Including today’s judgement, the total fines levied against Microsoft by the Commission since 2004 total €1.64 billion ($2 billion).

    Microsoft is correct that it shouldn’t expect the European Commission to go after Microsoft any longer. The Commission has now set its sights on Google for promoting its own products through its search engine. In fact, Microsoft is part of the FairSearch coalition of companies that brought the Google anti-trust complaints to the European Commission. Judging by how long it took for the final Microsoft judgment to come down, perhaps eight years from now Google will have to pay out its own anti-competition fines to the European Commission.

    (via TIME)

  • ACTA Is Going To Be Passed Whether You Like It Or Not

    ACTA is almost dead. The treaty is heading towards the European Parliament next week where many people feel that it will be rejected after four committees rejected it as well. It will also receive a ruling from the European Court of Justice to see if ACTA was ever compatible with European law. It’s looking bad for the treaty that everybody hates, but one man won’t let it die.

    Techdirt has stumbled across some troubling news that EU Commissioner, Karel De Gucht, will not let ACTA die. This isn’t one of those veiled threats either. He is deadset on making sure ACTA becomes law and he will ignore any ruling from any party to get what he, and the multinational interests backing the bill, want.

    In a speech before parliament last week, De Gucht outlined his vision to get ACTA ratified. He’s still obviously trying to get the parliamentary vote, but that’s looking less likely every day. If it voted down, he will still keep on its case until a hearing comes from the European Court of Justice. Surely if the court strikes it down, he’ll just give up, right?

    Unfortunately, De Gucht’s only quality is his persistence. He says that he’ll push for “clarifications” to the treaty to maybe sway more members of parliament and the public to his way of thinking. These “clarifications” will not change the bill in any meaningful way. It’s more like a sheep in wolves clothing tactic of trying to explain away some of the more damaging provisions in the treaty as harmless.

    After our dear De Gucht has had time to buy convert more members of parliament over to his side, he will put ACTA before parliament again. He’s pushing this treaty like members of Congress push Internet bills in this country – keep pushing the same thing until it sticks.

    It’s important to note that De Gucht will have to wait a while if ACTA is defeated by both parliament and the European Court of Justice. A defeat here would allow the anti-ACTA forces to retaliate and push for even stronger protections against treaties like ACTA. Hopefully European citizens actually care about the Internet and keep on the offensive after only one victory unlike our own country’s utter apathy towards CISPA after getting all hot and bothered over SOPA/PIPA.

    The European Parliament is expected to make a decision on ACTA in the first week of July. We’ll keep you updated on any news. Just like the Euro Crisis, ACTA affects far more people than those in Europe. It will have massive ramifications on those of us in the U.S. since our own representatives decided to sign the treaty without asking permission from Congress first.

  • ACTA Now On Life Support, May Not Make It Through Vote

    Warriors of the Internet have good reason to be relieved today. ACTA got hit with a rejection so big that it may sway the vote in the Internet’s favor. It seems that people actually going outside and protesting on behalf of the Internet can get things done.

    RT is reporting that the International Trade Committee (INTA) of the European Parliament has rejected ACTA. Unfortunately, it wasn’t a unanimous decision as 19 voted against it and 12 voted for the controversial treaty. Still, the majority ruling against it should help set the stage for a rejection once it hits the European Parliament vote in early July.

    The rejection from the INTA today is just the latest in a string of rejections against the treaty. We reported two weeks ago that three committees within the European Parliament – Industry, Civil Liberties and the Legal Affairs Committees – all voted against it. Rejection from the INTA is the final nail in the coffin as far as committees go and a vote for it in the actual parliament would show not only contempt for the citizens, but for its own members as well.

    Unfortunately, ACTA still has a chance to survive and be voted through. It was found that ACTA supporters may resort to dirty tricks to get what they want either through delays or pro-copyright industry rhetoric. Neither of those are likely to work, but the final idea – a secret ballot – may be just the ticket. It would allow those who publicly rejected ACTA to vote for it and none of the citizens would be none the wiser.

    Regardless, the rejection from the INTA gives us hope that ACTA will be shot down and left to the books on failed treaties. It would be great if the rejection of ACTA had a ripple effect that would cause more countries in Southeast Asia to reject the equally awful TPP. It may even help the effort of getting our own government to shoot down CISPA. We can only hope.