Motion on resolution on the Communication of the Commission regarding illegal or harmful contents on the Internet (COM(96)0487 - C4- 0592/96), resolution adopted on April 24th, 1997 by the European Parliament The undersigned organisations, directly concerned European members, and supporting non-European members, of the Global Internet Liberty Campaign (http://www.gilc.org),   Reaffirming their founding principles:   Prohibiting prior censorship of on-line communication.   Requiring that laws restricting the content of on-line speech distinguish between the liability of content providers and the liability of data carriers.   Insisting that on-line free expression not be restricted by indirect means such as excessively restrictive governmental or private controls over computer hardware or software, telecommunications infrastructure, or other essential components of the Internet.   Including citizens in the Global Information Infrastructure (GII) development process from countries that are currently unstable economically, have insufficient infrastructure, or lack sophisticated technology.   Prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.   Ensuring that personal information generated on the GII for one purpose is not used for an unrelated purpose or disclosed without the person's informed consent and enabling individuals to review personal information on the Internet and to correct inaccurate information.   Allowing on-line users to encrypt their communications and information without restriction.   Considering that many of these principles have been highlighted in the Communication about illegal or harmful contents on the Internet (COM(96)0487   C4-0592/96), the Commission's Green Book on the protection of minors and human dignity in audio-visual and information services, the DG XIII working group's report on illegal and offensive contents on the Internet, and the resolution of the council of Telecommunication ministers dated February 17th, 1997.   Considering these principles are largely reflected by the indents A to R of Communication resolution of the Commission regarding illegal or harmful contents on the Internet (COM(96)0487 - C4-0592/96), resolution adopted on April 24th, by the European Parliament. Strongly endorse, with the following reservations, the spirit of the European Parliament's resolution. The undersigned organisations: 1. Are concerned by the possibility of arbitrary interpretation allowed by certain formulations within the resolution.   Such as the whereas D, in so far as it mentions, with respect to child pornography, that written text may be deemed to constitute child abuse.   Such as the whereas J, which refers to "deviant pornography" without any further explanation.   Such as point 14, which refers to "misuse of a political and moral character"   Such as point 32, which uses the vague term "information in encoded form"   Such as point 35, which deals with "criminally unlawful content", whereas points 33 to 37 deal only with "harmful contents". 2. Warn against the dangers of unfounded allegations, as they also warn against the possible negative consequences of certain measures proposed by the resolution.   Such as point 7, which calls on the Commission "to draw up a European quality rating system for providers of Internet services and to support international coordination of such ratings [...]. Internet service providers would thus be encouraged to scrutinise and maintain the quality of the information content of their systems". Such a measure would turn service providers into censors and denunciators of their subscribers.   Such as point 21, which suggests that "easily accessible 'national' catalogues on illegal content or transactions via the Internet be established." With the identity of the content provider, these catalogues would affect data protection. Such a catalogue could also constitutes a supplementary sanction, because of its publication. In addition, point 21 is in contradiction with the 95/46/CE Directive of the European Parliament the European Council, dated October 24th 1995, on protection of individuals citizens against personnal data processing and free circulation of data, as well as with Articles 6 and 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.   Such as point 35, which seeks to "impose unique sender-recognition codes for all providers of data over the Internet": If such a measure can be justified regarding corporate and other commercial information providers, its application to individual citizens would deny them their rights to legitimate anonymity, specially considering that legitimate anonymity is pointed out in point 5 of the resolution: "the services of the Internet [...] can benefit large sections of the population, including women and notes that in several authoritarian and repressive states, Internet services, because of the possibility of anonymity, interactivity and speed, have played an important role in communication from persecuted persons and other victims to the rest of the world".   Such as the many references to the PICS technique, which, when used without restriction, can lead to a perverse misuse of content classifications, resulting in unfounded allegations and censorship. 3. Note on one hand that the Internet is a transnational network, and that on the other hand sociocultural differences between nations, including those within the European Union, should not be ignored, and that any forced attempt at harmonisation of these aspects will likely lead to failure.   Such as point 7, which fails to recognise differences in the recognition of the illegality of information, and even more of its harmful effects, as a function of the member state concerned.   Such as point 15, which fails to recognise the differences in practices and standards of public health between member states.   Such as, more generally, the many references to the PICS technique, whose utility is not questioned, but whose effectiveness relies entirely upon the content classifications which, without taking into account cultural differences, could lead to undesireable results. 4. Reaffirm the need to respect the proportionality principle and the principle of freedom of expression, the two principles towering above the decisions within the European Union, both because they appear in the European Convention on human rights, and because they were developed by the legislative council of the European Court of human rights.   Such as point 32, which asserts a need to "find solutions to the fact that it is technically simple to offer information in encoded form to a restricted group of users on the Internet": if the distribution, even when confidential, of pictures of a pedaphilic nature must be prohibited and punished this point, as written, could have a very serious bearing upon the right to private confidential correspondence in a larger context.   Such as point 35, which calls for measures to "impose unique sender-recognition codes for all providers of data over the Internet": if such codes, enabling the clear identification of the sender can legitimately be requested by judicial authorities, this point as written could deny the right of citizens to anonymity, the exercise of which is perfectly legitimate in most cases (serious illness, witness protection against sects, protection of political opinions, etc.). 5. Reaffirm that the Internet network is an infrastructure open to all, the services of which are used by citizens as well as non-governmental or institutional organisations, or even by commercial societies, and as such public communication cannot be ruled unilaterally by regulations or laws which apply to one or another of these parties.   Such as point 35, which calls for measures requiring that "in the case of non-criminal content, access and service providers must establish effective mechanisms of voluntary self-regulation." This point as written does not recognise that the Internet is not limited to professional communication of the kind that might be governed by the codes of ethics of various professions. A private citizen expressing himself on the Internet should not be subjected to such rules, and should only be limited in his public expression by national legislation that respects his constitutional rights. 6. Denounce the danger of equating the criminal liability of the content provider with that of the service provider, and foresee a danger of a loss of sovereignty of the judicial authority in favour of commercial professionals, a danger which would create unjust results.   Such as point 35, which calls for measures requiring that "in respect of any criminally unlawful content of third-party services provided by them, [access and service providers commit] to accept responsibility if they are expressly aware of the specific contents and if it is technically possible and reasonable for them to prevent their use". This point clearly positions the access provider as a judge, and as a censor, whereas such entity's role should be limited to that of carrier and automatic deliverer of information supplied by a content provider, who alone must assume responsibility for the information. It is vital for the survival of the business of service and access provider, as it is for the respect for free circulation of services, that the service or access provider be recognised as incapable to judge the illegality or harmful nature of the information, when it is supplied by a third party. It is equally crucial for preserving the state of justice that the adjudication of the illegal or harmful nature of information remains solely the prerogative of the judicial authority. 7. Call upon the European Parliament, the Council, the European Commission, the governments and Parliaments of the member states, as well as appropriate international organisations, to:   Take account of our strong concerns and reservations cited above,   Avoid the influence of present-day emotions that may negatively effect the founding principles of the European Union, and the fundamental principles of the protection of human rights and public freedoms: freedom of expression, access to public information, protection of privacy, as well as the principle of freedom of circulation of services and the principle of proportionality,   Consider that the undersigned organisations intend to pursue the establishment and the defence of their founding principles set forth above,   Consider that these organisations are available to respond to any request for information or expertise. May 23rd, 1997. First signatories: European members of GILC most directly concerned: (*) Association des Utilisateurs d'Internet (AUI) - France - http://www.aui.fr Associazione per la Libertý nella Comunicazione Elettronica Interattiva (ALCEI) - Italy - http://www.nexus.it/alcei Cyber-Rights & Cyber-Liberties (CR&CL;) - United Kingdom - http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/pgs/yaman/yaman.htm Foerderkreis Informationstechnik und Gesellschaft (FITUG) - Germany - http://www.fitug.de Fronteras Electronicas Espana (FrEE) - Spain - http://www.las.es/free/ Quintessenz E-zine - Austria - http://www.quintessenz.at (*) Xs4all Internet - The Netherlands - http://www.xs4all.nl/ (*) member of the DGXIII WG Non European Members of GILC, in solidarity: American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) - USA - http://www.aclu.org Bevcom Internet Technologies - USA - http://www.bevcom.org Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) - USA - http://www.cpsr.org Derechos Human Rights (DHR) - USA - http://www.derechos.org/ Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) - USA - http://www.eff.org Electronic Frontier Foundation Austin (EFF-Austin) - USA - http://www.eff-austin.org Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA) - Australia - http://www.efa.org.au Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) - USA - http://www.epic.org NetAction - USA - http://www.netaction.org Non members of GILC, in support of this motion: Digitale Burgerbeweging Nederland - (DB-NL) - The Netherlands - http://www.db.nl Gais et Lesbiennes BranchÈs (GLB) - France - http://fglb.qrd.org:8080/fqrd/staff/glb.html Intern@tif - France - http://www.internatif.org Nederlandse Internet Providers (NLIP) - The Netherlands - http://www.nlip.nl Contacts for information and signatures : Main contact (FRANCE): Meryem Marzouki, présidente Association des Utilisateurs d'Internet (AUI) 40 quai de Jemmapes, 75010 Paris, France Tel. : +33(0)476574686 - Fax. : +33(0)476473814 http://www.aui.fr - presidence@aui.fr Other national contacts : AUSTRALIA : Michael Baker Electronic Frontier Australia http://www.efa.org.au - mbaker@pobox.com AUSTRIA : Erich Moechel Quintessez E-zine http://www.quintessenz.at - erich-moechel@apanet.at GERMANY : Rigo Wenning Foerderkreis Informationstechnik und Gesellschaft (FITUG) c/o Prof. Jürgen Plate Fachhochschule München Dachauerstr. 98b 80335 Munich, Germany http://www.fitug.de - wenning2@rz.uni-sb.de ITALY : Giancarlo Livraghi Associazione per la Libertý nella Comunicazione Elettronica Interattiva (ALCEI) http://www.nexus.it/alcei - G.Livraghi@agora.stm.it THE NETHERLANDS : Felipe Rodriguez XS4ALL Internet http://www.xs4all.nl/ - felipe@xs4all.nl SPAIN : David Casacuberta Fronteras Electronicas Espana (FrEE) http://www.las.es/free/ - ilff3@cc.uab.es UNITED KINGDOM : Yaman Akdeniz Centre for Criminal Justice Studies, Law Faculty, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK Tel. : +44 (0) 113 - 2335033 Fax. : +44 (0) 113 - 2335056 http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/pgs/yaman/yaman.htm - lawya@leeds.ac.uk USA : Barry Steinhardt, Associate Director American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) 132 West 43 Street, NYC 10036, USA Tel. : +1 212 944-9800 ext 614 - Fax. : +1 212 354-5290 (fax) http://www.aclu.org - Barrys@aclu.org