marco civil – Techdirt (original) (raw)

Brazilian President Bans Social Media Companies From Removing Disinformation & Abuse

from the well-that-will-work-out-just-great dept

Ah, great. Just after Australia made it clear that media organizations are liable for comments on social media (demonstrating one aspect of a world without intermediary liability protections), Brazil’s President Jair Bolsonaro has announced new social media rules that effectively force social media sites to keep all content online (demonstrating the flipside to a world without intermediary liability protections). The two most important things that Section 230 does — limiting liability for 3rd party intermediaries and freeing websites of liability for moderation choices — each going away completely in two separate countries in the same week.

To be clear, the rule in Brazil can only stay on the books for 120 days — since it’s a “provisional measure” from the President — and if they’re not enacted into law by the Brazilian Congress by then, they’ll expire (and there’s at least some suggestion that the Brazilian Congress has no interest). But, still, these rules are dangerous.

Under the new policy, tech companies can remove posts only if they involve certain topics outlined in the measure, such as nudity, drugs and violence, or if they encourage crime or violate copyrights; to take down others, they must get a court order. That suggests that, in Brazil, tech companies could easily remove a nude photo, but not lies about the coronavirus. The pandemic has been a major topic of disinformation under Mr. Bolsonaro, with Facebook, Twitter and YouTube all having removed videos from him that pushed unproven drugs as coronavirus cures.

Imagine needing to get a court order to remove content? That’s ridiculous. Bolsonaro’s government put out a twitter thread (in English) claiming that this is the country “taking the global lead in defending free speech” when the reality is exactly the opposite. Compelled speech, which includes the compelled hosting of speech, is the exact opposite of “defending free speech.” Here’s what the government is saying about this dangerous proposal:

Brazilian government is taking the global lead in defending free speech on social networks and protecting the right of citizens to freedom of thought and expression.

As noted, compelled speech is not defending free speech. And freedom of expression does not mean you get to force someone else to let you speak on their property.

The Provisional Measure issued today by the Brazilian government forbids the removal of content that may result in any kind of “censorship of political, ideological, scientific, artistic or religious order”.

Hilariously, though, it does allow for the removal of copyright infringing material, which already undermines the idea that it does not allow for censorship of “artistic” works.

It is also guaranteed that the social network will have to justify the removal of content under the terms of Brazilian laws. Without a just cause, the social network will have to restore the removed content.

This may be the most pernicious part here, because (as we’ve discussed before), the most bad faith, abusive trolls are the ones who are most likely to demand justification — and then to act shocked and pretend to be offended at claims that they were acting as bad faith, abusive trolls. This provision just allows trolls to make an even bigger nuisance of themselves. Which seems to be exactly what Bolsonaro wants, knowing he has more bad faith, abusive trolls on his side.

This measure forbids selective deplatforming by requiring that social media provide a just cause for the suspension of services and restore access should the suspension be considered unlawful. This measure is based on precedent in Brazilian law and freedom of expression.

Compelled speech is never freedom of expression. As for “precedent,” Brazil once led the way in passing smart internet rules. This makes a mockery of them.

Attention: the law does not prevent the social network from removing content that violates Brazilian law, such as child pornography. The Brazilian government stands for both freedom and democracy!

That’s a pretty damn Orwellian statement right there.

This measure has been emitted as a result of ongoing concern with actions taken by social media groups that have been perceived as harmful to healthy debate and freedom of expression in Brazil, and hope it will serve to help restore online political dialogue in the country.

Basically, we’re doing this because our President is not doing well in the polls leading up to a national election, and has been taking a page from Trump’s playbook and talking about how he can only lose by election fraud — and we need to make sure that social media companies don’t actually stop our bullshit propaganda from spreading widely.

The real question now is how will the social media companies respond. According to the NY Times:

Facebook said that the ?measure significantly hinders our ability to limit abuse on our platforms? and that the company agrees ?with legal experts and specialists who view the measure as a violation of constitutional rights.?

Twitter said the policy transforms existing internet law in Brazil, ?as well as undermines the values and consensus it was built upon.?

YouTube said it was still analyzing the law before making any changes. ?We?ll continue to make clear the importance of our policies, and the risks for our users and creators if we can?t enforce them,? the company said.

There’s also this:

In July, YouTube removed 15 of Mr. Bolsonaro’s videos for spreading misinformation about the coronavirus. And late last month, YouTube said that, under orders from a Brazilian court, it had stopped payments to 14 pro-Bolsonaro channels that had spread false information about next year’s presidential elections.

Brazil’s Supreme Court has also been investigating disinformation operations in the country. Mr. Bolsonaro became a target of those investigations last month, and several of his allies have been questioned or detained.

Of course, it seems notable that it was just a few years ago that Brazil arrested a Facebook exec because the company refused to hand over information on WhatsApp users, and has, at times, blocked the entirety of WhatsApp in the country. So, it would be interesting to see what will happen if the companies refuse to follow these ridiculous rules.

But, between this and what happened in Australia, we’ll now get to see two examples of the dangerous situation that happens when you don’t have strong intermediary liability protections, including for the ability to moderate websites how best you see fit.

Filed Under: brazil, compelled speech, content moderation, election misinformation, free speech, jair bolsonaro, marco civil
Companies: facebook, twitter, youtube

Are Partial Liability Rules The Path Forward For Intermediary Liability Regimes? Lessons Learned From Brazil

from the marco-civil dept

The past year saw the Internet become a lifeline during the COVID-19 pandemic. But 2020 also saw increased scrutiny of online content moderation, regulation of platforms and their effects on society. While recent headlines have focused heavily on social media platforms, the conversation is much more complex: the future of the Internet as we know it depends on discussions and policies regarding intermediary liability — the legal rule that platforms should not be liable for the content posted by their users.

Section 230 reform in the U.S. and the proposed DSA and DMA in the European Union are driving a new era of intermediary liability rule-making, and other countries have followed suit: India recently updated guidelines applicable to intermediaries, and Mexico is discussing how to ensure freedom of expression in social media platforms. Instead of letting the U.S. and Europe influence these debates, governments around the world can learn important lessons from Brazil.

With approximately 145 million Internet users, Brazil has a large and growing digital economy. There are around 10,000 ISPs operating in the country, broadband Internet is available to almost 90% of the population, and the country’s Internet Exchange Point, IX.br, is one of the largest in the world. Brazil also has a strong tradition of Internet governance and policy. Since 1995, the country’s “Multistakeholder Internet Steering Committee” (CGI.br) has provided technology and policy recommendations to stakeholder groups to leverage the full potential of the Internet. In 2014, the country adopted an “Internet Bill of Rights,”which establishes rights and duties of individual and corporate users, businesses and the government.

Brazil has long been a pioneer in sound Internet policies and regulation and holds one of the most influential laws regarding intermediary liability not only in Latin America, but the world. The Brazilian “Marco Civil da Internet”, or Civil Rights Framework for the Internet, which was approved in 2014, introduced an intermediary liability regime built upon almost two decades of practice and jurisprudence in the U.S. around CDA’s Section 230.

However, Brazil decided to deviate from the path enshrined in the 1996 U.S. legal order. The Marco Civil law grants full immunity from liability to Internet access providers and clearly indicates that Internet infrastructure should not be affected by issues pertaining to the upper layers (i.e., applications layer) of the network. This law adopts a restricted and residual approach: Internet application providers are only held liable for third-party content in instances where they fail to comply with specific judicial orders to render certain content unavailable. As a general rule, private notice and take down notifications are not accepted as a means to trigger the liability system comprised in the Marco Civil. The rule however does not apply to non-consensual dissemination of intimate images and matters affecting intellectual property – the latter being subject to a specialized regime.

Perhaps the most important difference between Marco Civil and Section 230 is that Brazil has deliberately decided not to copy the “Good Samaritan” clause, meaning that the ‘protection’ provided by the Marco Civil in Article 19 does not grant any immunity to content moderation practices adopted by Internet application providers.

While the U.S. system encompasses ante-hoc immunity for liability from third-party content and also for a company’s own good-faith behavior vis-?-vis its users, the Brazilian system covers only third-party content. In Brazil, there is no ante-hoc immunity whatsoever for harms caused by the decisions and measures taken by Internet application providers. For instance, Google was recently forced to pay compensation for“authentic ante-hoc censorship” when it applied its terms of service to remove videos from a Civil Society organization’s YouTube channel. What in the U.S. would be solved by the application of the “Good Samaritan” clause, in Brazil had a different outcome.

Why should we care about Brazil’s Marco Civil and why now? Around 90% of Internet users are outside the U.S. and the narrow application of the Section 230, as well as the full immunities it grants, might no longer work to guide Internet policy development elsewhere (especially considering the complex and diverse discussions related to the scope of Freedom of Speech). Also, the various proposed reforms to Section 230 in the U.S. have spilled over to other countries in very dangerous ways, including in Brazil. In their fight against Big Tech, some politicians in Brazil -emulating the behavior of US politicians- have proposed to suppress immunities that do not really exist in our legal order (as our overarching liability regime already covers issues such as the wrongful suppression of content by application providers). So, in addition to being a waste of time, these attempts are counterproductive as the country could take steps backward in Internet policy and regulation. .

The partial intermediary liability adopted by the Brazilian Marco Civil created obstacles for extrajudicial requests for content removal that throughout the 2000s helped foster legal uncertainty and very little transparency and accountability from platforms. By granting Internet applications with immunity solely for third-party behavior and content (and not for their own behavior and practices), Marco Civil contributed to increased legal predictability and fostered innovation in Brazil, as shown in by a study commissioned by the Internet Society.

The current landscape of platform and intermediary liability rulemaking marks an ethos change from previous decades. In the past, it was imperative to avoid regulating or harming the Internet through overregulation. Today regulation is no longer a taboo. However, regulation must be wise, principled-based and aimed at the correct target in the complex digital ecosystem.

Regulators must resist adopting policies that penalize the behavior of social media platforms as they ultimately punish all users who post content on these platforms. Rules aimed at social media platforms will end up impacting other types of applications for the mere fact that they operate on the same layer of the Internet. Any regulation that forces Internet infrastructure providers to enter the business of content moderation would be dangerous. The consequences for freedom of expression, innovation and a dynamic digital economy would be significant.

How governments decide to address intermediary liability in the near future is critical for users and for the Internet. We face a critical juncture where we can either get this right or get it wrong. Learning from Brazil’s Marco Civil law is a step in the right direction.

Bruna Martins dos Santos is Advocacy Coordinator forData Privacy Brazil Research and Diego Canabarro is Senior Policy Manager for the Internet Society.

Filed Under: brazil, intermediary liability, marco civil

Internet Protections Enshrined In Brazil's Marco Civil Framework Under Threat From New Laws

from the this-is-why-we-can't-have-nice-things dept

A couple of years ago, Techdirt wrote about Brazil’s Marco Civil — variously called a “constitution for the Internet,” and a “Magna Carta for the Web.” Whatever you want to call it, the Marco Civil was a heartening example of the rights of Internet users being strengthened for a change. In June 2015, one year after it passed, an article on the Council on Foreign Relations site noted its wide-ranging impact:

> The Marco Civil has been instrumental in curbing the power of the Brazilian government from having undue influence over the net and its content. The law prevents the government from taking down or regulating content, or exercising any pressure on online platforms (e.g. the Twitters and YouTubes of the world) or Internet service providers. Only the courts, by means of due process, and limited by clear legal thresholds, can actually take action regarding online content when it infringes on other rights.

Of course, this was too good to last. As Andrew McLaughlin explains on Medium, the Marco Civil is in danger:

> Amid the tumult and chaos of Brazil’s current (and colossal) political crisis, the moment of counter-attack has arrived. Under the guise of fighting “cybercrime”, a group of Brazilian legislators, acting via a Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry, has introduced 8 bills that, to state it directly, would give the Brazilian government sweeping powers to censor and control the Internet.

The EFF has a summary of what those bills propose:

> Allowing police warrantless access to IP addresses; > > Requiring sites and apps to monitor content to prevent new sharing of materials already deemed offensive by court decision; > > Criminalizing improper computer system access that presents a “risk of misuse or disclosure” of data, even if no actual misuse or disclosure occurs — broad and vague terms that also apply to actions with no criminal intent, jeopardizing legitimate security research that might never be done if obtaining prior permission were a legal requirement; > > Allowing judges, in direct violation of net neutrality rules, to block sites and applications that are used for criminal purposes or that don?t comply with demands for user information.

Clearly, if these bills pass in their present form, they will nullify many of the safeguards found in the Marco Civil. The key vote is expected to take place on April 27, and the EFF has a page where you can ask Brazilian lawmakers to reject the proposals. There is also a joint statement to the Brazilian congress, which companies active in the country are invited to sign.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: brazil, civil liberties, internet, internet freedom, marco civil

Brazilian Court Freaks Out, Briefly Shuts Down All Of WhatsApp, For Failing To Reveal Info On Users

from the that's-one-approach dept

As you may have heard, earlier this week, a judge in Brazil ordered that WhatsApp, the insanely popular messaging app owned by Facebook should be blocked from all of Brazil for 48 hours, after it refused to reveal some details on some criminals who had used the app. Another judge overturned the ruling soon after, and the app started to reopen to people in Brazil. The GlobalVoices link above has the details about how this came to be:

Much information that could help answer this question is being withheld from the public. But it appears to be linked to a criminal investigation of a man accused of drug trafficking, armed robbery and association with Brazil’s largest criminal organization PCC. This investigation is being conducted in camera, or in secret, so no further details have been released.

In July and August 2015, Brazilian judiciary officials ordered WhatsApp to release personal data of users who were being investigated by the Federal Police. But WhatsApp, which is owned by Facebook, refused to release the data, according to the S?o Paulo Court of Appeals press release.

On December 16, the Brazilian Prosecutor’s Office responded by ordering telecommunications providers to block WhatsApp altogether, affecting what the company estimates to be 100 million users in Brazil.

This seems like a fairly extreme reaction — harming millions of users (a recent survey found that 93% of internet users in Brazil use WhatsApp) — just because the company won’t reveal info on one user. This is especially concerning because just last year we were happy to see Brazil pass a ground-breaking law, called the Marco Civil, to protect online rights (after years of debate over it).

However, the judge who agreed to block WhatsApp, Sandra Regine Nostre Marques, actually used a provision of the Marco Civil to justify the block:

The blocking motion was authorized by judge Sandra Regina Nostre Marques, who based her decision on a provision of Marco Civil, Brazil’s so-called ?Bill of Rights? for the Internet. The law establishes rules on network neutrality, privacy, data retention and intermediary liability, among other issues, and was approved by President Dilma Rousseff in April 2014.

The Marco Civil also allows state authorities to place sanctions on foreign Internet companies that refuse to comply with Brazilian legislation. As noted in Article 12 of the law, authorities can impose warnings, fines and temporary suspension of a company’s services or activities. These penalties can be implemented only with a judge’s approval.

The online human rights organization Access Now condemned the order and further argues that article 12 of the Marco Civil should be changed:

Even though it was temporarily overturned, the Sao Paulo court order is a troubling setback for Brazil since the country passed legislation known as the Marco Civil da Internet, a civil framework for the internet that gives legal status to a set of fundamental principles for digital rights for all Brazilians. One little-known clause in the Marco Civil ? article 12 ? permits penalties for companies that fail to respond to requests for data. Among the possible penalties, judges can apply warnings, temporary suspension of services, or even the prohibition to operate the service on the country. Judges can impose these penalties individually or jointly. We believe that article 12 is overbroad and disproportionate, violating a cornerstone of international law. The implementation of article 12 by the judiciary has drastic and unintended consequences that harm the ability to seek, receive, and impart information.

The decision by the higher court judge to issue a temporary injunction was based on the lack of proportionality between the wide scope block and the failure to comply with the July court order. But a temporary injunction does not serve as precedent for subsequent court cases under Brazilian law.

But, that may not happen as there’s a lot of pressure in Brazil to go the other way unfortunately, as Eduardo Cunha, a leading Brazilian politician, and opponent to the Marco Civil has been gaining power.

Cunha, a former telco lobbyist, was one of the biggest opponents of Marco Civil (particularly its net neutrality clause) before the legislation made its way to Dilma?s desk and into law.

But a year later, he controls a Congress dominated by evangelical extremists and military dictatorship apologists, and is authoring or advocating on behalf of a slate of proposed laws that would not only dismantle Marco Civil?s provisions for consumer privacy and freedom of expression, but would also effectively criminalize the use of social media.

PL 215/15, which opponents are nicknaming the Big Spy (?O Espi?o?), is a surveillance law that would require Brazilians to enter their tax ID, home address and phone number to access any website or app on the internet, and require companies like Facebook and Google to store that information for up to three years and provide access to police with a court order. An earlier draft said ?competent authorities? could request the data without a court order.

Another part of the law, authored by Cunha, would allow politicians to censor social media practically at will.

So, uh, yeah. It’s not looking good for the internet right now in Brazil, despite looking so promising just a year ago.

Filed Under: access, apps, bans, brazil, free speech, marco civil
Companies: facebook, whatsapp

Italian Parliament Publishes Draft Internet Bill Of Rights

from the who's-next? dept

For several years, Techdirt covered the twists and turns of the “Marco Civil” saga, Brazil’s bill of rights for the Internet, which finally passed back in March. Rather depressingly, this welcome move seemed to be something of a one-off, but now the Italian Parliament has announced its own draft bill of rights. Here’s the introduction (original in Italian — pdf):

> The Internet has contributed decisively to the redefinition of both the private and public space, to structure the relationships between people and between people and institutions. It has cancelled borders and built new means of production and the use of knowledge. It has expanded the possibilities for direct intervention in the public sphere by individuals. It has modified the organization of work. It has allowed the development of a more open and free society. The Internet should be considered as a global resource and one that meets the criterion of universality. > > The European Union is today the region of the world with the highest constitutional protection for personal data, explicitly recognized by Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is the point of reference for specifying principles concerning the operation of the Internet, even in a global context. > > This Statement of Rights on the Internet is based upon the full recognition of freedom, equality, dignity and diversity of each person. The guarantee of these rights is a necessary condition for ensuring the democratic functioning of institutions, and in order to avoid the dominance of public and private powers that could lead to a society of surveillance, control and social selection. > > The Internet is configured as an increasingly-important space for the self-organization of individuals and groups, and as a vital tool for promoting individual and collective participation in democratic processes and meaningful equality. > > The principles regarding the Internet also take account of its structure as an economic space that makes possible innovation, fair competition and growth in a democratic context. > > A Declaration of Rights for the Internet is an essential tool to provide a constitutional foundation for principles and rights at a supranational level.

There then follow 14 digital rights, including things like basic human rights; right to access the Net; Net neutrality; control of personal data online; protection against surveillance without the approval of a judge; right to online anonymity; and the right to be forgotten.

The present document is just a draft, and input will be gathered from many quarters, including the public, who can make comments and suggestions using an online system. That’s only in Italian, for understandable reasons, but it would be good if translations into other major languages were made to allow an even wider consultation [**Update**: English and French drafts of just the text are available.] After all, a bill of rights for the Internet is something that concerns everyone, not just citizens of enlightened nations like Brazil and Italy.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: bill of rights, brazil, internet, internet rights, italy, marco civil

Brazil's 'Marco Civil' Internet Civil Rights Law Finally Passes, With Key Protections Largely Intact

from the leading-the-world dept

We first wrote about Brazil’s ‘Marco Civil‘ back in October 2011, when we described it as a kind of “anti-ACTA”. That’s because it was designed to protect online rights, not diminish them, and was the product of a democratic and transparent process, not of secret corporate lobbying. As Global Voices explains:

> the bill was developed through a uniquely open public process. Over the course of several months in 2009 and 2010, citizens were invited to contribute suggestions and criticism to an early draft of the bill using an open online platform. Nearly 2,000 people participated in the process — the bill was substantially revised and re-shaped to reflect public concern. As one popular meme (below) put it, the Marco Civil “does not belong to a [political] party. It belongs to Brazilians.”

Precisely because it was not yet another corporate wishlist, but sought to enshrine fundamental user rights, it was fiercely attacked by an array of industries. In November 2012, it looked like Marco Civil had been killed off by the lobbyists, but in 2013 it showed signs of life again. Now comes the good news that it has finally passed a key vote in Brazil’s Chamber of Deputies; significantly, digital activism once more played a crucial role:

> #EuQueroMarcoCivil – “I want Marco Civil.” It was with this hashtag that Brazilians and supporters around the world pushed mightily yesterday for the passage of the Marco Civil da Internet, the unprecedented “Constitution” or “Bill of Rights for the Internet” that has been brought to Brazil’s Chamber of Deputies nine times since 2012. Late in evening, the Chamber approved the one-of-kind bill that ensures fundamental rights of free expression and privacy online. > > Throughout the day, Twitter users touted the bill’s many safeguards for fundamental user rights to free expression, privacy, and access to information using the #MarcoCivil and #EuQueroMarcoCivil hashtags. In Brasilia, the nation’s capital, supporters voiced their support using signs, t-shirts, and other creative methods.

As an article on infojustice.org notes, although not perfect, it’s a great result:

> Considering how terrible some of the proposed amendments to Marco Civil were, the approved text is largely positive. It is definitely not the ideal version of law. But it is a much better one than expected, and probably the best possible outcome given the existing political limitations.

Here’s infojustice.org’s summary of the Marco Civil’s main features:

> Data retention > > Brazil was dangerously close to establishing a period of 5 years of mandatory data retention before discussions on Marco Civil began. Unfortunately, the bill still has provisions to that effect, but the period is much shorter for ISPs providing connectivity services (1 year). > > … > > Net neutralityBrazil has taken a major step forward in preserving net neutrality, following the example set by countries such as Chile and the Netherlands. Marco Civil establishes the general principle that net neutrality should be guaranteed, and further regulated by a presidential decree, with inputs from both the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br) and ANATEL, the national telecommunications agency. > > Intermediary liabilityOne of the main provisions of Marco Civil deals with the difficult subject of intermediary liability due to content uploaded by third parties. The system in Marco Civil establishes that intermediaries can only be held liable if they do not comply with a court order explicitly demanding content to be removed. This regime, however, is not applicable to copyright infringement, which will be dealt with by the forthcoming copyright reform bill. > > PrivacyAfter the Snowden leaks, a small number of privacy provisions were included in Marco Civil (the main privacy and data protection bill under development has yet to be sent to Congress). The main proposal was extremely controversial: forcing Internet companies to host data pertaining to Brazilian nations within Brazilian territory. Broadly rejected by civil society, engineers, companies, and several legislators, the proposal was dropped by the government so that voting could take place. > > Rights and principlesMarco Civil establishes a strong, forward-looking assertion of rights and principles for Internet regulation in Brazil: freedom of expression, interoperability, the use of open standards and technology, protection of personal data, accessibility, multistakeholder governance, open government data.

Although it must still go to Brazil’s Federal Senate for consideration, before returning to the Chamber of Deputies and then being sent to the Brazilian President for her signature, the bill is essentially passed. As the above summary makes clear, the Marco Civil is an extremely wide-ranging law, and arguably the best of its kind anywhere in the world — an extraordinary achievement given its unusual origins and the lobbying firepower ranged against it. Global Voices comments:

> In a moment when censorship, surveillance, corporate greed and government corruption seem to dominate the world of digital rights, a victory like this one can bring hope to those working to improve user protections worldwide.

The people who made this happen are to be congratulated on the victory, gained thanks to their unstinting hard work over the last few years. If only more of us could look forward to the protections the Marco Civil will provide.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: brazil, internet, marco civil, open internet, user rights

Brazil's Marco Civil Not Dead Yet; Yahoo Voices Support

from the not-google-this-time dept

Techdirt has been following the story of Brazil’s innovative Marco Civil project, a civil-rights based framework for the Internet, for a while. Last time we wrote about it, it had been shelved following some aggressive work by lobbyists. As we noted then, it wasn’t clear whether it would be resuscitated or not, but here’s Kuek Yu-Chuang, Yahoo!’s Regional Public Policy Director, who seems to think it still stands a chance of being approved:

> I recently had the opportunity to travel to Brasilia with colleagues from Yahoo! representing our public policy, privacy, copyright, and communications teams. While in the Brazilian capital, we engaged with key officials to voice Yahoo!’s support for the Marco Civil da Internet (known as the Marco Civil), which some have described as Brazil’s “Constitution of the Internet.” The Marco Civil establishes the promotion of access to the internet as a right for all Brazilians. The draft bill also aims to provide safe harbors for Internet service providers, and allow free speech on the Internet. > > In an impressive effort to incorporate the ideas of Brazilian citizens, the drafters of the Marco Civil made the initial version of the bill open to the public for comments in late 2009. More than 1100 contributions were received from around the country. The Marco Civil is now with the House of Deputies in the Brazilian Congress and a vote is expected in coming months.

That’s unexpectedly good news; it’s also great that Yahoo! is publicly supporting the Marco Civil in this way, since that may help to counterbalance renewed lobbying from other quarters when the vote in the Brazilian Congress takes place.

The fact that on this occasion it’s not Google trying to bolster moves to make the laws governing the Internet more balanced is important. That means the law’s opponents won’t be able to paint the Marco Civil bill as something largely for the benefit of Google, as has happened elsewhere. Let’s hope that Yahoo! continues speaking out on the issues of net neutrality, privacy and maybe copyright modernization: that would be good for burnishing the company’s image, and good for Internet users.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: brazil, marco civil

As Feared, Brazil's 'Anti-ACTA' Marco Civil Killed Off By Lobbyists

from the such-a-waste dept

A couple of weeks ago, we worried that Brazil’s innovative “Marco Civil”, a civil-rights based framework for the Internet, was being gradually subverted as it passed through the legislative process. Sadly, it looks like that subtle attack has been taken to its logical conclusion, as Rick Falkvinge reports:

> Yesterday, the Brazilian parliament effectively killed the much-heralded Internet Bill of Rights, the Marco Civil, that had been praised by entrepreneurs and free-speech activists worldwide. This follows a ridiculous watering-down and dumbing-down of the bill, at the request of obsolete industry lobbies.

This is a salutary reminder of the power of lobbyists to attack and destroy even even the most carefully-prepared initiatives. As for the bill’s future, Falkvinge is pessimistic:

> Marco Civil was shelved indefinitely in yesterday’s voting session, unlikely to be revived ever again.

I think it’s probably too early to make any definitive pronouncements about what will happen next — maybe something more can be done, or parts of the text can be salvaged. But if it is indeed the case that the Marco Civil is dead, it will be a real tragedy given the amount of work that went into drafting it, and the widespread hopes that had been riding on it.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: brazil, civil rights, free speech, internet, marco civil

Will Brazil's 'Anti-ACTA' Marco Civil Be Subverted By Copyright Lobbyists At The Last Moment?

from the snatching-defeat-from-the-jaws-of-victory dept

Just over a year ago Techdirt wrote about Brazil’s Marco Civil — essentially a civil-rights based framework for the Internet. At the time, we dubbed it an “anti-ACTA”, since it seemed to protect many of the things that ACTA sought to attack. It all seemed a little too good to be true, and the post concluded by questioning whether it would survive in its present form.

Most of it has, remarkably, but a recent addition to one clause basically guts protection for ISPs and other online intermediaries. The EFF has a good explanation of the situation:

> A concerning last-minute change has chipped away at the Bill’s safe harbor provisions regarding copyright infringement. Article 15 of Marco Civil originally provided that ISPs are not responsible for infringing content by Third Parties unless they disobey a specific judicial order to take down said content. However, following a visit by the Minister of Culture to the legislator serving as rapporteur of Marco Civil, the rapporteur introduced a new paragraph into Article 15, saying that the article would not apply in cases of “copyright and neighborhood rights”.

If passed, this exception would inevitably exert a chilling effect on all Internet activity, as Brazilian ISPs and Web sites removed content perceived to be even vaguely risky. It will come as no surprise to discover who is behind the move:

> As expected, this change is an unenlightened consequence of the content industry lobby. Guilherme Varella, lawyer for the Brazilian Institute for Consumer Defense [IDEC], commented on the changes in this recent law article. He stated that this is the result of a clumsy intervention by the Ministry of Culture following constant pressure by the entertainment industry lobby, especially the Brazilian Association of Reprographic Rights (ABDR), the Brazilian Association of Phonographic Producers (ABPD) and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). Varella reports that the entertainment lobby has been camped outside the Ministry and the Congress for the past few weeks, pressuring the vote on the Bill to be postponed until they get what they want.

It’s truly extraordinary how once again the copyright industries seem to think they are uniquely entitled to trample on basic rights. And it’s particularly sad to see such a worthwhile effort to frame a basic level of protection for online users not just watered down but actively subverted in this way, precisely when it seemed on the point of coming to fruition.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: acta, anti-acta, brazil, copyright, lobbyists, marco civil