Clean IT – Leak shows plans for large-scale, undemocratic surveillance of all communications
Clean IT – Leak shows plans for large-scale, undemocratic surveillance of all communications | EDRI
http://edri.org/cleanIT
Plans For Widespread Monitoring of Communication In Europe Revealed
"A leak from the Clean IT project reveals how it has been subverted from its original, much more innocuous, goals into a
surveillance horror story with democratic freedoms and personal rights being the victims."
The
leaked document in question. Gems include member states repealing anti-filtering laws and a mandate that ISPs be held liable for not reporting terrorist use of their networks. The Clean IT Project
counters that there's nothing to see here - amazingly, through a
series of tweets with a journalist.
http://slashdot.org/story/12/09/25/004252/plans-for-widespread-monitoring-of-communication-in-europe-revealed
----
Key measures being proposed:
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.