EU Adopts Rules on One-Hour Takedowns for Terrorist Content (techcrunch.com) 52
The European Parliament approved a new law on terrorist content takedowns yesterday, paving the way for one-hour removals to become the legal standard across the EU. From a report: The regulation "addressing the dissemination of terrorist content online" will come into force shortly after publication in the EU's Official Journal -- and start applying 12 months after that. The incoming regime means providers serving users in the region must act on terrorist content removal notices from Member State authorities within one hour of receipt, or else provide an explanation why they have been unable to do so. There are exceptions for educational, research, artistic and journalistic work -- with lawmakers aiming to target terrorism propaganda being spread on online platforms like social media sites.
The types of content they want speedily removed under this regime includes material that incites, solicits or contributes to terrorist offences; provides instructions for such offences; or solicits people to participate in a terrorist group. Material posted online that provides guidance on how to make and use explosives, firearms or other weapons for terrorist purposes is also in scope. However concerns have been raised over the impact on online freedom of expression -- including if platforms use content filters to shrink their risk, given the tight turnaround times required for removals.
The types of content they want speedily removed under this regime includes material that incites, solicits or contributes to terrorist offences; provides instructions for such offences; or solicits people to participate in a terrorist group. Material posted online that provides guidance on how to make and use explosives, firearms or other weapons for terrorist purposes is also in scope. However concerns have been raised over the impact on online freedom of expression -- including if platforms use content filters to shrink their risk, given the tight turnaround times required for removals.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
In ye olden days, even in the US, coordinating, planning and even encouraging insurrections, treason, or domestic attacks would end you up at the long end of a noose. Just because "on the Internet" is a thing doesn't mean that civil society, even where free speech is honored and protected, must let its internal and external enemies get away with it because they posted it on Facebook.
The only thing that saved people like Jefferson Davis from the gallows was Lincoln's desire for Reconciliation and a general c
Re:Oh yeah, baby (Score:5, Insightful)
In ye olden days, even in the US, coordinating, planning and even encouraging insurrections, treason, or domestic attacks would end you up at the long end of a noose.
Sure, there was a time when America sent people to prison for opposing military conscription by handing out pamphlets [wikipedia.org]. Obviously, that was treason. Right?
The problem with laws against "terrorism" and "treason" is that they quickly get twisted by politicians to target their opponents. We regularly have Democrats and Republicans shouting "Treason!!!" at each other.
Just because "on the Internet" is a thing doesn't mean that civil society, even where free speech is honored and protected, must let its internal and external enemies get away with it
Yes, it does. Free speech means free speech. Anything short of the "imminent lawless action" standard of Brandenburg v. Ohio [wikipedia.org] is constitutionally protected speech.
What the EU is doing is wrong, and America should not follow their example.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Your notion of free speech is not one that has ever been supported by jurisprudence. There is no such thing is an absolute liberty, because the possession of one would mean that someone else must lose liberty. For instance, defamation laws are not unconstitutional, they do not violate the First Amendment. if I take out bill boards declaring you're a child molester, you have every right to seek redress for the libel. The First Amendment does not bequeath me the right to defame you, nor does it protect someon
Re:Oh yeah, baby (Score:5, Insightful)
Your notion of free speech is not one that has ever been supported by jurisprudence.
Except, of course, for the US Supreme Court in Brandenberg v. Ohio [wikipedia.org].
There is no such thing is an absolute liberty
"There is no such thing as absolute liberty ... so, therefore, my opponents are traitors and must be arrested." -- Every authoritarian ever.
The phrase "shouting fire in a theater" was used by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes to rationalize sending draft protestors to prison.
For instance, defamation laws are not unconstitutional, they do not violate the First Amendment.
Defamation laws are constitutional because they neither criminalize nor prohibit defamation. They can't be used to suppress speech.
The First Amendment does not bequeath me the right to defame you
Yes it does. I may have legal redress, but I don't have the right to silence you.
Re: (Score:2)
Your notion of free speech is not one that has ever been supported by jurisprudence.
The comment you are replying to linked you to the case law.
There is no such thing is an absolute liberty, because the possession of one would mean that someone else must lose liberty
Abstract words should not be tossed around without first taking care to define them.
While my operating definition of "liberty" may not be the same as others, it's one that I like because it preemptively has a response to your claim.
Liberty is an environment in which the rights of individuals are protected by the rule of law. This means that the element of force is removed from civil existence so that all relations are consensual.
Rights cannot contra
Re: (Score:2)
Private definitions serve only one purpose, to allow an interlocutor to imagine victory where none was gained. Partake in a plot of treason or criminal enterprise, and see how that works for you in a courtroom.
Re: (Score:3)
Private definitions serve only one purpose
Garret's definition is broadly accepted by many people. It is the only workable definition unless you believe that individual liberty is all relative and doesn't really matter.
Partake in a plot of treason or criminal enterprise, and see how that works for you in a courtroom.
You may want to read the Constitution. A conviction for treason requires an overt act, not just "plotting'.
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses
Re: (Score:2)
What the EU is doing is wrong, and America should not follow their example.
Says the country where literal Nazis have made their home.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with laws against "terrorism" and "treason" is that they quickly get twisted by politicians to target their opponents. We regularly have Democrats and Republicans shouting "Treason!!!" at each other.
Well you know there is a very easy solution to that.
They can sort it out like gentlemen, out the back, muzzle loaded pistols, 10 paces and may the best aim win.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Oh yeah, baby (Score:2, Interesting)
The thing is though: There is no distinguishing what you just called it from what you do to topple a evil dictatorship: You organize an uprising.
And I'm sorry, but you can wish it away all you want, it will become violent outside of your control. If only because the enemy will inject agents provocateurs, and because the limits of information distribution leads to ignorance that leads to hate and anger and that leads to violence too.
So: What if the government is evil and harmful to you?
Or worse: If it is evi
Re: (Score:2)
> But Ukraine has many Russians whose ancestors settled there.
Displacement by immigration is also considered genocide.
Those Russians didn't just wander into Ukraine.
Re: (Score:3)
Good to know that the EU will be following due process, with grand juries, charges, open trials, legal representation, verdicts - all before ordering the takedowns.
Re: (Score:2)
The also introduced Pardons so imprisoning your opponents would only last as long as the government.
Now it frees drug dealers and undesirables the President happens to like.
Capability (Score:5, Insightful)
That means by law everything posted should be monitored so that for whatever reason we come up with later it can be taken down within the hour. In the short run the argument is terrorism but the central part is capability. It becomes possible to block any form of unwelcome mobilisation , any form of unwelcome viral news instantly.
Re:Capability (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I hadn't even thought of that. I agree. Maybe there are loopholes but it does raise the cost of running a public forum.
Re: (Score:2)
The idea that the threat of "terrorism" comes from
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
This is also why companies like Google and Facebook support these types of regulations. Any government regulation that requires a large expense or lots of lawyers to comply with creates a barrier of entry and creates defacto monopolies. While the cost of business might get a bit more expensive, the government protecting your turf for you and making it near impossible for any startup to even challenge you all without having to worry about taking any actions that might be construed as anti-competitive is a
Re: (Score:2)
Why?
If they ask me to take down something, and I can't make the hour, I can explain it. "was sleeping, I'm a one-man show."
There's a lot of shit in European politics, I'll be the first to admit that. But there's also reason still alive, especially when things go to court (can't count anymore the times the courts called the government to order and told them that they fucked up).
Re: (Score:1)
There is an easy balance in the law. The takedown must accompany a prosecution, it must in fact be proven as illegal content in court, post takedown is not as good as pretakedown but still acceptable. For the government to claim the content is illegal, they must prove it illegal in court and prosecute where possible the person who put it up. Otherwise it would be considered an illegal take down, failure to prosecute the content in court (to later pursue the individual who put it up). There must be a penalty
Re: (Score:2)
No it doesn't. This is a take down system, like the DMCA.
And this is why (Score:2, Insightful)
The EUSSR is at it, again. This is nothing more than an attempt to further create the police state they so wish to have. And nobody voted for them in the first place.
my guess... (Score:3)
my guess for the next 'logical' step is for companies, in their desire to reduce liability, will just give gov't agencies the magic button to remove it themselves; no notifying/compliance issues anymore and the companies can say their hands are clean... it's the gov't all the way
scary stuff
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Short-Term limits. (Score:2)
This gives about one hour to storm the capital.
archive.org (Score:1)
Is "terrorist" defined anywhere? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or are they just leaving it at the usual "whatever our gut feels like on that day and will get us the most power and votes"?
Like when Pakistan got money from the US to "fight terrorism", and promptly gave it to the northern Pakistani terror camps ... yes, precisely those camps... because by their definition, the USA were the terrorists and those camps were the freedom fighters... Definition is everything.
(Fun fact: We found out. Yet we [well, the CIA] gave them money again. And again the same thing happened. Sorry, at that point it is not an accident anymore.)
And here too, the EU themselves do much of that terrorism too... if you define it in a fair manner that just looks at the harm and not at "sides" or ideologies.
So... Yay, free censorship of everything! China style! All hail big brother! Terror in the name of terror!
And the besr part: Obviously, this will just hide it from good people. Those who are seeking it out will still share it Just now well-hidden from the rest of us. Congratulations! Again, since they would know this, at this point, it would not be an accident anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
'Terrorist' will never be precisely defined. EU learned this from Twitter and Facebook, and their TOS. This is by design so disagreeable people or ideas can be censored. Days later they will blame a glitch.
Re: (Score:2)
Terrorist is defined in law, yes. Certain crimes are described as acts of terrorism or in support of terrorism.
Where it potentially gets tricky is that the definition varies from country to country within the EU. There is a legal process for sorting this stuff out.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That's more to do with you not understanding the law than it not being applied evenly.
Blowback... (Score:2, Interesting)
This is only going to result in blowback. I'm reminded when spammers were tracked by IP and blocked... they decentralized and went after any SMTP server or compromised account. Similar when Napster and Audiogalaxy were shut down, it created decentralized protocols that couldn't really be stopped.
If this keeps up, I wouldn't be surprised to see a decentralized social network, something that it like TOR, but has persistence, perhaps using cryptocurrency microtransactions as payment for people's posts, or ev
Re: (Score:3)
Push too hard on this stuff, and things go dark, making it far harder for LEOs in the end.
A number of the recent terrorist attacks in Europe were done by people with no direct affiliation with islamic groups, but idiots with brain damage and too much religion in their head who found exactly this kind of propaganda online, bought into it hook, line and sinker, and went on to do to infidels what the Koran says you should do.
Laws like this don't stop organized terrorism. But they will go a long way to make it more difficult for the every-muslim-is-a-sleeper-cell terrorism that ISIS went on to promo
Re: (Score:2)
who found exactly this kind of propaganda online
Mosques aren't online.
they will go a long way to make it more difficult for the every-muslim-is-a-sleeper-cell terrorism
No, the Imams will now be telling their foot soldiers "look, they're scared of Allah's work, this is why it's important" and "They try to hide the truth from you, they must be punished".
If you want to stop Islamic terrorism close all the fucking mosques.
Re: (Score:2)
Mosques aren't online.
Agree, there is also the radicalisation that happens in the mosques. That is another factor here. That doesn't mean that making it more difficult for would-be-terrorists to be exposed to propaganda online isn't something that would help.
If you want to stop Islamic terrorism close all the fucking mosques.
I agree with you on that. Sadly (or maybe fortunately for the rest of the continent), neither of us is Emperor of Europe, and the current governments have some pesky laws about religious freedom to deal with. So that's not really an option.
Also: specific mosques do get close
Explanation for not complying in time (Score:2)
providers serving users in the region must act on terrorist content removal notices from Member State authorities within one hour of receipt, or else provide an explanation why they have been unable to do so
Explanation for not complying in time: greylisting [wikipedia.org] delayed the request for more than one hour.
Assange was called a terrorist.. (Score:1)
..for doing journalism that exposed US warcrimes and crimes against humanity.
What the absolute fuck is going on?
It's like various influential entities are trying their damnedest to shut down 'unauthorised information' and roll back civilisation to the 1950's.
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly you missed the part that stated "There are exceptions for [..] journalistic work"
A whole hour? AI would take at most a second :-) (Score:2)
Seriously, it would take the EU bureaucrats a month to decide something was "terrorist content", unless it concerned themselves. Add this to GDPR and the "right to be forgotten" and they're working towards a pretty totalitarian censorship mechanism.
An example of the infuriating stupidity of GDPR is you can no longer find out about the previous owners of a second hand car where GDPR applies (I guess until the police call to charge you with their crimes!). How's that protecting anybody's rights?