Current Policy Issues in Internet Intermediary Liability

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucas Logan
Keyword(s):  
Search Engines ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
The United States ◽  
Free Expression ◽  
Internet Service ◽  
Company Policy ◽  
Media Services ◽  
Intermediary Liability

Intermediary liability is at the center of the debate over free expression, free speech, and an open Internet. The underlying policies form network regulation that governs the extent that websites, search engines, and Internet service providers that host user content are legally responsible for what their users post or upload. Levels of intermediary liability are commonly categorized as providing broad immunity, limited liability, or strict liability. In the United States, intermediaries are given broad immunity through Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act. In practice, this means that search engines cannot be held liable for the speech of individuals appearing in search results, or a news site is not responsible for what people are typing in its comment section. Immunity is important to the existence of free expression because it ensures that intermediaries do not have incentives to censor content out of fear of the law. The millions of users continuously generating content through Facebook and YouTube, for instance, would not be able to do so if those intermediaries were fearful of legal consequences due to the actions of any given user. Privacy policy online is most evidently showcased by the European Union’s Right to be Forgotten policy, which forces search engines to delist an individual’s information that is deemed harmful to reputation. Hateful and harmful speech is also regulated online through intermediary liability, although social media services often decide when and how to remove this type of content based on company policy.

scholarly journals Incitement to riot: intermediary liability of ISP`S

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 111-118
Author(s):  
Murad Madzhumayev
Keyword(s):  
Information And Communication Technologies ◽  
Social Relations ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
Communication Technologies ◽  
Eastern Bloc ◽  
Internet Service ◽  
Information And Communication ◽  
Intermediary Liability ◽  
Technical Capacity ◽  
The Arab Spring

Collective actions, particularly organization, promotion, encouragement, and incitement to civil disturbances, are hard to imagine without use of information and communication technologies (ICTs). Recent events such as the Arab Spring, the colour revolutions (e.g. in former Eastern Bloc and the Balkan countries), the unrest in Minneapolis in 2020 which subsequently spread to other US cities, and the US Capitol riots 2021 present significant evidence in this regard. The dissemination of information online inciting to riots involves internet service providers (ISPs) alongside the author. The aim of the paper is to specify the actors in accordance with their functions and determine their eligibility to be prosecuted in cases of incitement to riots using ICTs. Formulated a conclusion about the onset of intermediary liability of ISPs, holding the organizational and technical capacity to influence the information social relations of their users at any time.

7. Defamation

2019 ◽  
pp. 160-204
Author(s):  
Andrew Murray
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Online Publication ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
Internet Service Providers ◽  
Traditional Media ◽  
Internet Service ◽  
Intermediary Liability

This chapter examines defamation cases arising from traditional media sites and user-generated media entries. It first provides an overview of the tort of defamation, and the issue of who is responsible and potentially liable for an online defamatory statement. It then looks at the Defamation Act 2013, considering when defences may be raised to a claim in defamation, and how online publication and republication may result in defamation. Four cases are analysed: Dow Jones v Gutnick, Loutchansky v Times Newspapers, King v Lewis, and Jameel v Dow Jones. The chapter explores intermediary liability, particularly the liability of UK internet service providers, by citing recent decisions on intermediary liability such as Tamiz v Google, Delfi v Estonia, and MTE v Hungary, as well as specific intermediary defences found in the Defamation Act 2013. The chapter concludes by discussing key social media cases such as McAlpine v Bercow and Monroe v Hopkins.

Introduction

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaani Riordan
Keyword(s):  
Social Networks ◽  
Search Engines ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Political Life ◽  
Internet Service Providers ◽  
Electronic Communications ◽  
Internet Service ◽  
Data Centres

Internet intermediaries are essential features of modern commerce, social and political life, and the dissemination of ideas. Some act as conduits through which our transmissions pass; others are custodians of our personal data and gatekeepers of the world’s knowledge. They supply the infrastructure and tools which make electronic communications possible. These services encompass a vast ecosystem of different entities: internet service providers, website operators, hosts, data centres, social networks, media platforms, search engines, app developers, marketplaces, app stores, and others—many of which are household names.

Internet Neutrality

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Löblich
Keyword(s):  
High Speed ◽  
Business Models ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Communication Studies ◽  
Net Neutrality ◽  
Internet Service Providers ◽  
Internet Service ◽  
Internet Neutrality

Internet neutrality—usually net(work) neutrality—encompasses the idea that all data packets that circulate on the Internet should be treated equally, without discriminating between users, types of content, platforms, sites, applications, equipment, or modes of communication. The debate about this normative principle revolves around the Internet as a set of distribution channels and how and by whom these channels can be used to control communication. The controversy was spurred by advancements in technology, the increased usage of bandwidth-intensive services, and changing economic interests of Internet service providers. Internet service providers are not only important technical but also central economic actors in the management of the Internet’s architecture. They seek to increase revenue, to recover sizable infrastructure upgrades, and expand their business model. This has consequences for the net neutrality principle, for individual users and corporate content providers. In the case of Internet service providers becoming content providers themselves, net neutrality proponents fear that providers may exclude competitor content, distribute it poorly and more slowly, and require competitors to pay for using high-speed networks. Net neutrality is not only a debate on infrastructure business models that is carried out in economic expert circles. On the contrary, and despite its technical character, it has become an issue in the public debate and an issue that is framed not only in economic but also in political and social terms. The main dividing line in the debate is whether net neutrality regulation is necessary or not and what scope net neutrality obligations should have. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the United States passed new net neutrality rules in 2015 and strengthened its legal underpinning regarding the regulation of Internet service providers (ISPs). With the Telecoms Single Market Regulation, for the first time there will be a European Union–wide legislation for net neutrality, but not recent dilution of requirements. From a communication studies perspective, Internet neutrality is an issue because it relates to a number of topics addressed in communication research, including communication rights, diversity of media ownership, media distribution, user control, and consumer protection. The connection between legal and economic bodies of research, dominating net neutrality literature, and communication studies is largely underexplored. The study of net neutrality would benefit from such a linkage.

scholarly journals Pushing Back on Stricter Copyright ISP Liability Rules

2021 ◽  
pp. 299
Author(s):  
Pamela Samuelson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
The United States ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Safe Harbor ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Internet Service ◽  
Liability Rules ◽  
Stakeholder Interests ◽  
Wide Range

For more than two decades, internet service providers (ISPs) in the United States, the European Union (EU), and many other countries have been shielded from copyright liability under “safe harbor” rules. These rules apply to ISPs who did not know about or participate in user-uploaded infringements and who take infringing content down after receiving notice from rights holders. Major copyright industry groups were never satisfied with these safe harbors, and their dissatisfaction has become more strident over time as online infringements have grown to scale. Responding to copyright industry complaints, the EU in 2019 adopted its Directive on Copyright and Related Rights in the Digital Single Market. In particular, the Directive’s Article 17 places much stricter obligations on for-profit ISPs that host large amounts of user contents. Article 17 is internally contradictory, deeply ambiguous, and harmful to small and medium-sized companies as well as to user freedoms of expression. Moreover, Article 17 may well violate the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. In the United States, Congress commenced a series of hearings in 2020 on the safe harbor rules now codified as 17 U.S.C. § 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). In May 2020, the U.S. Copyright Office issued its long-awaited study on Section 512, which recommended several significant changes to existing safe harbor rules. The Study’s almost exclusively pro–copyright industry stances on reform of virtually every aspect of the rules notably shortchanges other stakeholder interests. Congress should take a balanced approach in considering any changes to the DMCA safe harbor rules. Any meaningful reform of ISP liability rules should consider the interests of a wide range of stakeholders. This includes U.S.-based Internet platforms, smaller and medium-sized ISPs, startups, and the hundreds of millions of Internet users who create and enjoy user-generated content (UGC) uploaded to these platforms, as well as the interests of major copyright industries and individual creators who have been dissatisfied with the DMCA safe harbor rules.

scholarly journals HATE SPEECH ON SOCIAL NETWORK SITES: PERPETRATOR AND SERVICE PROVIDERS’ LIABILITY

Obiter ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Frans Marx
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Social Network ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
Social Network Sites ◽  
The United States ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Specific Reference ◽  
Internet Service

The article investigates the phenomenon of hate speech on social network sites and gives an overview of the national and international legal instruments which are available to combat hate speech. After an overview of the nature of hate speech andthe early international attempts to curb it, hate speech in South Africa is investigated. The question is posed whether statements of hatred made on the Internet, especially if published from sites such as Facebook which is external to South Africa, can leadto liability for perpetrators in South Africa. International responses to hate speech in cyberspace are then investigated with specific reference to the possible liability of Internet service providers for hate speech posted by third parties on their websites. Itis shown that, although service providers in the United States enjoy more protection than those in European Union, Canada and South Africa, hate speech on social network sites can be legally curbed. It is concluded that the myth that the Internet as a godless, lawless zone can and must be dismissed.

Net Neutrality Policies and Regulation in the United States

2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 151-173 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark A. Jamison
Keyword(s):  
Service Providers ◽  
The United States ◽  
Net Neutrality ◽  
Internet Service ◽  
Regulatory Issue ◽  
Technology Industry ◽  
The Us ◽  
Transmission Of Information ◽  
The Government ◽  
The One

Abstract The US debate about net neutrality has been unusually contentious for a telecommunications regulatory issue, most recently culminating in a 2017 reversal of a 2015 decision to apply traditional telephone regulations, written for a monopoly era, to internet service providers. This article reviews this history, beginning 1956 when the government first imposed an industry boundary between transmission of information on the one hand, and the creation and processing of information on the other. This regulatory legacy remains embedded in US law and has led to some of the muddle. This article also examines the academic literature relating to net neutrality. On this, the answers found in the literature vary depending on assumptions made about technology, industry structure, and industry practices. When the answer to the question of whether regulations are beneficial is “it depends,” and the scenarios that give different answers are realistic, it would seem that the policy approach should favor applying competition and consumer protection laws that address problems when they occur rather than ex ante regulations, which would be certain to harm at least in some situations.

E-Mail, Web Service and Cryptography

2011 ◽  
pp. 52-78
Author(s):  
Wasim A Al-Hamdani
Keyword(s):  
Web Service ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
The United States ◽  
Data Encryption ◽  
Internet Service ◽  
The Public ◽  
Ancient Times ◽  
Federal Information Processing Standard ◽  
High Level ◽  
E Mail

Cryptography is the study and practice of protecting information and has been used since ancient times in many different shapes and forms to protect messages from being intercepted. However, since 1976, when data encryption was selected as an official Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) for the United States, cryptography has gained large attention and a great amount of application and use. Furthermore, cryptography started to be part of protected public communication when e-mail became commonly used by the public. There are many electronic services. Some are based on web interaction and others are used as independent servers, called e-mail hosting services, which is an Internet hosting service that runs e-mail servers. Encrypting e-mail messages as they traverse the Internet is not the only reason to understand or use various cryptographic methods. Every time one checks his/her e-mail, the password is being sent over the wire. Many Internet service providers or corporate environments use no encryption on their mail servers and the passwords used to check mail are submitted to the network in clear text (with no encryption). When a password is put into clear text on a wire, it can easily be intercepted. Encrypting email will keep all but the most dedicated hackers from intercepting and reading a private communications. Using a personal email certificate one can digitally sign an email so that recipients can verify that it’s really from the sender as well as encrypt the messages so that only the intended recipients can view it. Web service is defined as “a software system designed to support interoperable machine-to-machine interaction over a network” and e-mail is “communicate electronically on the computer”. This chapter focus on introduce three topics: E-mail structure and organization, web service types, their organization and cryptography algorithms which integrated in the E-mail and web services to provide high level of security. The main issue in this article is to build the general foundation through Definitions, history, cryptography algorithms symmetric and asymmetric, hash algorithms, digital signature, suite B and general principle to introduce the use of cryptography in the E-mailand web service

scholarly journals Toward an Epistemology of ISP Secondary Liability

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dan Burk
Keyword(s):  
Service Providers ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Internet Service ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
Contributory Infringement ◽  
Corporate Entity ◽  
Sociotechnical Networks ◽  
The Common ◽  
Secondary Liability

At common law, contributory infringement for copyright infringement requires 'knowledge' of the infringing activity by a direct infringer before secondary liability can attach. In the United States, the 'safe harbor' provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, that shield Internet Service Providers (ISPs) from secondary copyright liability, are concomitantly available only to ISPs that lack the common law knowledge prerequisites for such liability. But this leads to the question of when a juridical corporate entity can be said to have 'knowledge' under the statute. Legal institutions have well-established processes for inferring the knowledge state of natural persons, but corporations are complex sociotechnical networks of human and non-human elements whose information state does not map well onto such inferential methods. This question is of course not unique to copyright liability; corporate entities may be responsible for 'knowing' actions under a variety of applicable legal provisions, and the question of corporate knowledge is generally under theorized. But consideration of ISP 'knowledge' in this context points the way to consideration of corporate epistemology that must be foundational to determining corporate responsibility in copyright protection.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document