Salut la liste !
This month we were active on addressing age-verification requirements for
online platforms and talking about liability for free software. We also got
some good news on open access.
=== Age-Verification ===
France: The French legislature is discussing a law [1] that would require
online platforms, defined as “social networks”, to check their users’ age
before allowing them to access the service. The proposed definitions would
cover Wikipedia and its sister projects. For Wikimedia projects it would be
more than just a nuisance to age-gate content. Most of the proposed systems
would require gathering user data or working with third parties who do so.
It would also decrease the availability and accessibility of our projects.
—
Wikimédia France reached out to Senators, who last week debated and voted
on the proposal. An amendment was tabled that excludes “not for profit
online encyclopaedias and not for profit educational and scientific
repositories”. [2] It was supported by the rapporteur, the French
government (the Minister of Digital Transition and Telecommunications was
present) and Senators from the the left, right and centrist groups. It was
adopted by a solid majority. We have a video of the short exchange. [3]
—
UK: France is not the only country where mandatory age-gating provisions
for online platforms are currently being considered. The UK’s Online Safety
Bill would introduce such requirements. Wikimedia UK and the Wikimedia
Foundation are working intensively on advocating for various amendments to
the law. [4]
—
Brussels: The topic is also being considered at the EU level. The Digital
Services Act has a provision that requires very large online services to
protect minors, but leaves it (for now) largely up to the platforms how
they want to achieve this.
—
Another process that is expected to start in Brussels is a “special group
on the EU Code of conduct on age-appropriate design” [5], which Wikimedia
Europe has applied to be a member of. The group is supposed to come up with
best practice solutions on several issues, including age-verification. The
chosen participants are expected to be announced “any day now”.
=== CSAM ===
The proposal to tackle child sexual abuse material online (CSAM) [6]
foresees the possibility of "detection orders" that can be issued by courts
or relevant authorities against providers of "interpersonal communication
services" - for example, messaging apps. This is the most contentious
provision in the draft legislation, as such orders would effectively
eliminate end-to-end encrypted communications.
—
Last month, an opinion by the Council Legal Services [7] was leaked that
argues that the proposal would allow generalised access to the content of
interpersonal communications and thus fail to meet the proportionality
requirement inherent to fundamental rights. Meanwhile the European
Commission continues to argue (see a note circulated in the Council on 16
May [8]) that the proposed system of detection orders is proportionate,
because providers would be able to choose between “(i) abandoning effective
end-to-end encryption or (ii) introducing some form of 'back-door' to
access encrypted content or (iii) accessing the content on the device of
the user before it is encrypted (so-called 'client-side scanning')."
—
The Wikimedia Foundation has positioned itself on the proposal. [9]
Wikimedia already takes measures with regards to such content on its
projects and cooperates with law enforcement wherever appropriate. While
Wikimedia doesn’t operate interpersonal communication services, we worry
about putting an end to secure and private communications that can’t be
read by governments. We also worry that some anti-grooming provisions might
end up hurting already marginalised groups.
=== Liability on Free Software ===
The Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) sets out cybersecurity requirements for a
range of software products placed on the EU market. The instrument of
choice is to impose liability on developers and deployers of software. Our
main worry is how the new obligations would hinder developers, especially
volunteers, of free software. We are coordinating our position [10] and
actions with the FSFE and EDRi.
—
The Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) committee in the European
Parliament has the lead and MEPs have tabled their amendments, which will
now be discussed in the coming weeks (see Documentation Gateway in [11]).
The good news is that most political groups are thinking about the specific
needs of free software. The challenge is that the lawmakers, including the
ones in Council, seem to be lacking a coherent vision of what a liability
system should look like. We appear to be stuck considering patches and
carve-outs. We are now going through an initial assessment of amendments
[12] and will coordinate with our allies before contacting lawmakers.
=== Open Access ===
Good news on Open Access! Under the Swedish Presidency, the
Competitiveness Council adopted conclusions on the ‘high quality,
transparent, open, trustworthy and equitable scholarly publishing’, calling
for immediate and unrestricted open access to be the norm in publishing
research involving public funds. [13] The Council calls on the European
Commission and Member States to support policies towards a scholarly
publishing model that is not-for-profit, open access and multi-format, with
no costs for authors or readers. (H/T to C4C)
===
[1]https://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/dyn/16/textes/l16b0739_proposition-loi
[2]https://www.senat.fr/amendements/2022-2023/588/Amdt_16.html
[3]https://twitter.com/juliettedlrx/status/1661280743362789379
[4]
https://diff.wikimedia.org/2023/05/11/good-intentions-bad-effects-wikimedia…
[5]
https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/apply-become-member-commissio…
[6]
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2022%3A209%3AFIN
[7]
https://www.statewatch.org/media/3901/eu-council-cls-opinion-csam-proposal-…
[8]
https://www.statewatch.org/media/3900/eu-com-csam-regulation-proportionalit…
[9]
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/1…
[10]https://wikimedia.brussels/who-should-be-liable-for-free-software/
[11]
https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?refere…
[12]
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-9G5h-PYFgtzriuPtqgnRboe_IrDuH16kvq…
[13]https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-8827-2023-INIT/en/pdf
--
Wikimedia Europe ivzw
Dear digital rights and free knowledge supporters,
I'm delighted to share that Wikimedians will once again be showing up in style at RightsCon, including many on this list like Eric Luth, Anna Torres, Patricia Díaz Rubio, Douglas Scott, Valentina Vera-Quiroz, Amalia Toledo, and more.
This RightsCon will be the first hybrid version of the event, taking place both online and in-person in San José, Costa Rica, from 5–8 June 2023. Online participation is free and you can still register.
You can read about the sessions in this Diff blog post [1] and also register for free to watch some of them online [2].
Wikimedians' sessions will illustrate how vital the work of the movement is not only to developing online technology and spaces that enable access and participation in free knowledge, but also to using these to achieve sociotechnical goals—whether helping a country remember and prevent a violent history, learning about labor issues from the perspectives of Black and Indigenous peoples, or uplifting decentralized technologies as tools to carve out civic spaces online.
We hope to see you there!
Ziski & the WMF Global Advocacy team
____
[1] https://diff.wikimedia.org/2023/05/25/wikimedians-will-be-at-rightscon-2023…
[2] https://www.rightscon.org/participate/
I don't know if this is a little off-topic for the Movement, but please
consider if the Foundation or any Affiliates (especially WMUK to WMEU)
might like to sign on to this Open letter?
In pride and solidarity,
Owen
--
Owen Blacker, London GB
@owenblacker <http://twitter.com/owenblacker>, he/him
@owenblacker@dataare.cool <https://dataare.cool/@owenblacker>
User:OwenBlacker (meta <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User%3AOwenBlacker>
, enwiki <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:OwenBlacker>, frwiki
<https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:OwenBlacker>)
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Monica Horten <monica(a)openrightsgroup.org>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2023 at 10:57
Subject: [ORG-advisory] [ REQUEST FOR SIGNATURE] Open letter to UK
government - safeguarding privacy and end-to-end encryption
To: ORG Advisory Council discussion list <
org-advisory(a)lists.openrightsgroup.org>
*RE: Sign on to civil society open letter to the UK government: we urge UK
to protect global digital security and safeguard private communication*
*Dear Advisory Council members, *
A gentle reminder about our letter, and thank you to those who have already
signed! You may sign as an individual or an organisation.
We have been made aware that occasionally the sign-on form has not worked
properly. It should provide a confirmation page. If you experience any
issues with it, please let me know, and you can sign manually.
*European Digital Rights (EDRi) and Open Rights Group have drafted an open
letter to the UK government, calling for the deletion of chat control
measures in the Online Safety Bill. *
*The Online Safety Bill is a deeply troubling legislative proposal
containing measures that threaten fundamental rights online. It is
currently being debated in the UK Parliament, and could be passed into law
as soon as mid-July this year. *
*Of special concern for us is the way it puts at risk messaging services
that use end-to-end encryption. The Bill will give Ofcom, the regulator,
extraordinary powers to enforce this – powers that are said to be greater
than those of GCHQ. The UK government has indicated its intention for
providers to use client-side scanning, although it has not confirmed this
publicly. *
*If passed in its present form, the UK could become the first liberal
democracy to require the routine scanning of people’s private chat
messages, including chats that are secured by end-to-end encryption. *
*The letter expresses our concerns and calls on the UK government to drop
the proposal. It urges the UK remove end-to-end encrypted services from the
scope of the Bill and to uphold the privacy of people’s confidential
communications. *
*The full text of the letter is here: *
https://cloud.edri.org/index.php/s/8EXtTDwLfya4Rq8
*We would like to let the UK government know the strength of feeling in
civil society around the world that encrypted messaging platforms are there
to protect us all and should not be weakened. *
We invite you to sign the letter via this sign-on form:
https://cloud.edri.org/index.php/apps/forms/s/ab7o7RK6FENJrAntSpZYnH3X
You may sign as an organisation or as an individual. The cut-off time for
signatures is 8am BST / 9am CEST Wednesday 31 May.
Please note that the system does not provide an automated confirmation of
your signature.
Thank you for your support!
Regards,
Ella Jakubowska - EDRi
Dr Monica Horten – Open Rights Group *Dr Monica Horten*
Policy Manager - Freedom of Expression
*Pronouns*: She/her
*Working days: *Monday-Thursday
*Tel / Signal:* +447787512887
*PGP Key: *keys.openpgp.org
<https://keys.openpgp.org/vks/v1/by-fingerprint/84B0D0A6AFB19BA4028DA4944CF6…>
*Matrix:* <https://matrix.to/#/@monica:openrightsgroup.org>@monica:
<https://matrix.to/#/@aislinn:openrightsgroup.org>openrightsgroup.org
@Iptegrity <https://twitter.com/Iptegrity> *|* Bio
<https://www.openrightsgroup.org/who-we-are/monica-horten/>
*Open Rights Group | *www.openrightsgroup.org/join
See our latest updates on Twitter <https://twitter.com/OpenRightsGroup>,
Facebook
<https://www.facebook.com/openrightsgroup/?hc_ref=ARQg4oMoyIAyPoqDwJOBB7wE_r…>
and Mastodon <https://mastodon.social/@openrightsgroup>. Open Rights Group
is a non-profit company limited by guarantee registered in England and
Wales (05581537 <http://data.companieshouse.gov.uk/doc/company/05581537>).
This email is intended only for the named addressee(s) and may contain
confidential and/or privileged material. If you have received this email in
error, please notify Open Rights Group immediately by emailing
info(a)openrightsgroup.org and deleting this message.
_______________________________________________
ORG-advisory mailing list
ORG-advisory(a)lists.openrightsgroup.org
https://lists.openrightsgroup.org/listinfo/org-advisory
Hello to everyone,
I'm very happy to announce my arrival in the
Wikimedia France team this month.
I will be working on advocacy issues
after several experiences in education and culture but also in the
parliamentary field in the French Senate. I am passionate about
political news and access to knowledge!
I'm looking forward to working
with you to make Wikimedia's voice heard by public authorities and
decision makers, so do not hesitate to ask me if you need help.
Have a
good day and a good week,
Juliette
--
JULIETTE DELORIEUX
_CHARGÉE
DE PLAIDOYER_
_+33 1 42 36 26 24_ [1]
_+33 6 09 36 10 59_ [2]
_-------------------------------------------------------------------------_
WIKIMEDIA FRANCE
Association pour le libre partage de la
connaissance
_WWW.WIKIMEDIA.FR [3]_
_28 rue de Londres, 75009 PARIS_
[4]
Links:
------
[1] tel:+33142362624
[2] tel:+33784379103
[3]
http://www.wikimedia.fr/
[4]
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1234174880
Can we have a "San Francisco Tea Party" telling the UK government that
Wikimedia projects would rather block access to the United Kingdom
than comply with their misguided requirements?
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: <fputz(a)wikimedia.org>
> Date: Mon, May 15, 2023, 2:56 AM
> Subject: [Publicpolicy] How the UK Online Safety Bill might impact Wikimedia
> To: <publicpolicy(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> Some of you may be following the developments of the UK Online Safety Bill, others may have heard of it a year ago and ignored it since. Wherever you fall on the spectrum, you may be interested in a new blog post titled "Good intentions, bad effects: Wikimedia projects and the UK’s draft Online Safety Bill." [1]
>
> In this piece, Lucy Crompton-Reid, Chief Executive of Wikimedia UK, and Phil Bradley-Schmieg, Lead Counsel at the Wikimedia Foundation, detail how elements of the bill may require significant changes to how Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects operate. Particular attention is given to the proposed “under-18 exclusion” rule since it has been the subject of a number of UK headlines.
>
> If you are interested in the actions that Wikimedia UK and the Foundation have taken related to the OSB, I recommend that you read Lucy's e-mail to the Wikimedia UK mailing list from April 23, 2023 [2]. I have copied her message below the line and links of this email. You can learn more about the UK OSB by reading our 'deep dive' from November 2022 [3] or 'early impressions' post from March 2022 [4].
>
> Phil and Lucy are both members of this mailing list. Your feedback is welcome; we're always keen to learn from others on this mailing list, answer questions, and to discuss how best to protect the free knowledge movement in the midst of national legislative developments.
>
> Enjoy the read!
>
> Ziski
> - - -
> [1] https://diff.wikimedia.org/2023/05/11/good-intentions-bad-effects-wikimedia…
> [2] https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikimediauk-l.lists.wikimedia.o…
> [3] https://medium.com/wikimedia-policy/deep-dive-the-united-kingdoms-online-sa…
> [4] https://medium.com/wikimedia-policy/early-impressions-of-the-uk-online-safe…
> _________________________________________________
>
> Lucy Crompton-Reid via lists.wikimedia.org
> Apr 23, 2023, 10:24 AM
> to UK
>
> Dear all
>
> As I know many of you will be aware, the long heralded Online Safety Bill is now making its way through Parliament and is currently at the Committee stage in the House of Lords. The Bill will establish a new regulatory framework for online services, with Ofcom becoming the regulator. As it currently stands, the requirements of the Bill in terms of content moderation, age gating and user verification are incompatible with Wikipedia’s model, and the Wikimedia Foundation has stated that they will not be age gating the platform.
>
> Wikimedia UK has been highlighting concerns about the proposed new legislation since the Online Harms White Paper, published four years ago. We have responded to various consultations, run by Ofcom as well as the government, and met with staff from both. One of the key issues highlighted by Wikimedia UK and the Wikimedia Foundation - as well as many organisations in the civil society sector - was the requirement to remove content that was “legal but harmful”. This was fortunately dropped from the Bill as it moved through the House of Commons at the end of last year. However, there remains much cause for concern.
>
> Working closely with the Wikimedia Foundation, I have been in touch with a number of peers (members of the House of Lords) over the past few months to highlight the unintended consequences of the proposed legislation on Wikimedia, and to advocate for changes to the Bill to protect our movement and safeguard open knowledge. The Lord Moylan has tabled a series of amendments on our behalf which address some of these issues, including a proposed exemption for small, community moderated and/or public benefit websites that are currently within the scope of the Bill. It’s likely that these amendments will be debated in the House of Lords on Tuesday or Thursday next week. Today, I will be sending a written briefing (attached for your information) urging support for these amendments to a target list of peers, and Jimmy will be giving an in person briefing at Parliament on Monday.
>
> We are envisaging further advocacy activities before and during the Report Stage in the House of Lords, which is when amendments that have made it to that point will be voted on. If you are interested in supporting these advocacy efforts, please let me know.
>
> All best
>
> Lucy
> _______________________________________________
> Publicpolicy mailing list -- publicpolicy(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to publicpolicy-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Dear all,
Some of you may be following the developments of the UK Online Safety Bill, others may have heard of it a year ago and ignored it since. Wherever you fall on the spectrum, you may be interested in a new blog post titled "Good intentions, bad effects: Wikimedia projects and the UK’s draft Online Safety Bill." [1]
In this piece, Lucy Crompton-Reid, Chief Executive of Wikimedia UK, and Phil Bradley-Schmieg, Lead Counsel at the Wikimedia Foundation, detail how elements of the bill may require significant changes to how Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects operate. Particular attention is given to the proposed “under-18 exclusion” rule since it has been the subject of a number of UK headlines.
If you are interested in the actions that Wikimedia UK and the Foundation have taken related to the OSB, I recommend that you read Lucy's e-mail to the Wikimedia UK mailing list from April 23, 2023 [2]. I have copied her message below the line and links of this email. You can learn more about the UK OSB by reading our 'deep dive' from November 2022 [3] or 'early impressions' post from March 2022 [4].
Phil and Lucy are both members of this mailing list. Your feedback is welcome; we're always keen to learn from others on this mailing list, answer questions, and to discuss how best to protect the free knowledge movement in the midst of national legislative developments.
Enjoy the read!
Ziski
- - -
[1] https://diff.wikimedia.org/2023/05/11/good-intentions-bad-effects-wikimedia…
[2] https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikimediauk-l.lists.wikimedia.o…
[3] https://medium.com/wikimedia-policy/deep-dive-the-united-kingdoms-online-sa…
[4] https://medium.com/wikimedia-policy/early-impressions-of-the-uk-online-safe…
_________________________________________________
Lucy Crompton-Reid via lists.wikimedia.org
Apr 23, 2023, 10:24 AM
to UK
Dear all
As I know many of you will be aware, the long heralded Online Safety Bill is now making its way through Parliament and is currently at the Committee stage in the House of Lords. The Bill will establish a new regulatory framework for online services, with Ofcom becoming the regulator. As it currently stands, the requirements of the Bill in terms of content moderation, age gating and user verification are incompatible with Wikipedia’s model, and the Wikimedia Foundation has stated that they will not be age gating the platform.
Wikimedia UK has been highlighting concerns about the proposed new legislation since the Online Harms White Paper, published four years ago. We have responded to various consultations, run by Ofcom as well as the government, and met with staff from both. One of the key issues highlighted by Wikimedia UK and the Wikimedia Foundation - as well as many organisations in the civil society sector - was the requirement to remove content that was “legal but harmful”. This was fortunately dropped from the Bill as it moved through the House of Commons at the end of last year. However, there remains much cause for concern.
Working closely with the Wikimedia Foundation, I have been in touch with a number of peers (members of the House of Lords) over the past few months to highlight the unintended consequences of the proposed legislation on Wikimedia, and to advocate for changes to the Bill to protect our movement and safeguard open knowledge. The Lord Moylan has tabled a series of amendments on our behalf which address some of these issues, including a proposed exemption for small, community moderated and/or public benefit websites that are currently within the scope of the Bill. It’s likely that these amendments will be debated in the House of Lords on Tuesday or Thursday next week. Today, I will be sending a written briefing (attached for your information) urging support for these amendments to a target list of peers, and Jimmy will be giving an in person briefing at Parliament on Monday.
We are envisaging further advocacy activities before and during the Report Stage in the House of Lords, which is when amendments that have made it to that point will be voted on. If you are interested in supporting these advocacy efforts, please let me know.
All best
Lucy
Dear digital rights friends, fans and VLOP watchers,
The WMF Global Advocacy team has released our "Don't Blink" monthly
retrospective for March. Every month we share developments from around the world that shape people’s ability to participate in the free knowledge movement. In case you blinked this month, here are the most important public policy advocacy topics that have kept the Wikimedia Foundation busy:
<https://diff.wikimedia.org/2023/04/27/dont-blink-public-policy-snapshot-for…>
Highlights include:
* Constitutional Court of Colombia Ruling Protects Wikipedia Model
* Wikimedians @ UN Commission on the Status of Women, UNESCO, UN Global Digital Compact, and UNHRC.
* Articles on Copyright and ChatGPT, as well as Digital Public Infrastructure in the EU
If you want more information about any of these initiatives, or wish to share something of your own, get in touch. We hope you enjoy the read!
Ziski & The Global Advocacy Team
Hello everyone!
Many things are happening in Brussels and across Europe, but first things
first: We have a new colleague! Michele Failla has been working with the
Brussels team since last week. His last gig was at the Conseil Supérieur de
l’Audiovisuel (CSA), the French language media regulator in Belgium. During
his time there he worked on EU level media regulation and was participating
in the European Regulators Group for Audiovisual Media Services. Before
that he was working for a MEP on a diverse set of files in the Legal
Affairs committee. Our paths had actually crossed in the past during the EU
copyright reform process. Please welcome him warmly, he is on this list but
can also be reached at michele.failla(a)wikimedia-europe.eu.
=== Digital Services Act ===
WE ARE VLOP. Officially. [1] For those less acquainted with EU terminology:
Wikipedia has been designated as a Very Large Online Platform by the
European Commission, which means that the WMF will have to comply with the
strictest obligations under the Digital Services Act, including regular
risk assessments for systemic risks (including things like public health,
kids’ safety and freedom of expression), publishing mitigation measures
based on them, and then undergoing an external audit. Wikipedia is the only
not-for-profit service that has been designated as a VLOP; the other 18 are
for-profit.
—
This is a chance for Wikimedia to demonstrate that compliance with such
rules can be done in a manner that respects user rights and keeps
communities - not the platform operator - in the driving seat. The
Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) is working on compliance and dedicating
significant resources to this. The challenges are serious too. If
regulators cannot be convinced that Wikipedia is properly addressing
“systemic risks”, like election manipulation, then WMF and the community
will be challenged to find additional responses to that. There’s also
substantial “bureaucracy”: VLOP designation means that the WMF needs to
appoint a legal representative in the EU. It needs to adjust internal
processes so they are in line with the new “notice & action” framework, it
has to set up a process on how to conduct risk assessments and mitigation
reports (annually, and before making significant changes to things), and to
find an appropriate auditor who will grill it on all of these things.
—
VLOPs are also expected to contribute to the European Commission’s
moderation decision database (though whether and how such a database can
comply with EU privacy laws, remains to be seen). Plus, there remains the
not inconsequential task of ensuring all of the other Wikimedia projects -
such as Commons - comply with the DSA’s more general rules. That’s a lot
of work - and so is convincing the regulators to not forget our model when
they’re writing the guidance and implementing rules - and it is handled by
very lean teams (as openly and collaboratively as they can manage - witness
the TOU update
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Legal_department/2023_…>).
Bon courage !
=== CSAM ===
The Regulation to Prevent and Combat Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM)
online is a proposal that targets providers of hosting services, providers
of interpersonal communications services, and internet service providers,
hence also Wikimedia projects. [2] Each EU Member State will designate a
national authority that may ask a court or independent authority to issue
orders to providers. These orders may be for detecting CSAM (based on a
hash database provided by a new EU Centre in The Hague), for removal of
identified CSAM or for reporting if the provider has become aware of CSAM.
ISP may also be asked to block CSAM based on URLs.
—
It is the encrypted communication services that are causing the most
controversy in this debate, as it would be impossible to maintain
end-to-end encryption and also comply with detection orders, since
messaging apps would need to scan through all conversations as per
proposal. In this regard the lead MEP, Javier Zarzalejos (EPP ES), has
published his draft report with several amendment proposals. On encrypted
messaging services he is suggesting that apps like WhatsApp and Signal
could only be faced with orders to “use and process metadata”, but not the
actual messages. [3] Meanwhile the Council negotiations seem to be skirting
this central issue. [4]
—
While the Wikimedia Foundation is not a provider of interpersonal
communications services, Wikimedia still has a position [5] and is
following the file. We are worried about some onerous compliance
timeframes, which would be a challenge. We want to make sure that
age-verification doesn’t require platforms to collect additional user data.
We are strongly concerned by the proposed scanning and algorithmic
evaluation of interpersonal communication.
=== Liability on Free Software ===
The Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) sets out cybersecurity requirements for a
range of hardware and software products placed on the EU market, including
operating systems and software products. Part of its obligations are aimed
at ensuring maintenance and security updates. The instrument of choice is
to impose liability on developers and deployers of software. [6]
—
Our main worry is what sorts of obligations would hit developers of free
software. The CRA has a recital seemingly excluding free software “outside
the course of a commercial activity”, but the language chosen would fail
to address a large part of software that will not be covered but is
deployed.
—
Together with the Free Software Foundation Europe and EDRi we have come to
an agreement to ask lawmakers to improve the carve-out by replacing the
concept of “commercial activity” with an approach that focuses on
deployment and significant financial benefit. To achieve this, the
regulation should be targeted at those deploying software on the market,
instead of covering developers. We also need an exclusion of non-profit
entities and microenterprises that publish or deploy free and open source
software should be introduced as an article (instead of a recital).[7]
=== Net Neutrality ===
There is an internal struggle within the European Commission on whether to
propose a principle where the largest generators of online traffic would
have to pay an additional fee to telecoms. ETNO, the telecommunications
lobby group, is the central stakeholder asking for this and French
Commissioner Thierry Breton is pushing it. Wikimedia has a public position
[8].
—
The European Commission is running an “exploratory” public consultation on
the topic with a potential legislative proposal expected by year’s end. The
opposition is also strong, from parts of the Commission, to French rural
municipalities to conservative lawmakers (who claim that if Netflix pays
more money to Orange they would spend less money on producing European
films and series).
—
We plan on only answering some of the questions of this very biassed
consultation. If you want to have a look at our draft and edit it a little,
have fun here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yvStvjxRvWx_xosGpJqmPQMBDPRI7_3OYJFGpVv…
=== Data Act ===
The trilogue negotiations on the Data Act have picked up quickly, with the
ambition to get it wrapped up in weeks rather than months.
—
The Data Act is a proposed regulation that wants to boost data sharing
in-between businesses and between businesses and governments. Plus it wants
to ensure switching users and business can seamlessly switch between cloud
services. As such it touches a couple of thorny issues, such as data
sharing rules and the sui generis database right (SGDR).[9]
—
Wikimeida shared its position with negotiators ahead of the trilogues. We
support the Parliament's position on Article 35, which will de facto
abolish the SGDR on machine generated data for the purpose of re-use by
users. The Council supports this, but has stricter conditionalities.
Another aspect we addressed is Chapter V, which gives governments the right
to request data from businesses in emergency situations, but is too vaguely
framed.
===
[1]https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_2413
[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_to_Prevent_and_Combat_Child_Sexual…
[3]
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xzKAl58sOhVBe9pTlXNmCdG2KnRvW8nG/view?usp=…
[4]
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1j-7rQDPpNqmQ20vMfgUikSdzw_3GSgi7/view?usp=…
[5]
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1j-7rQDPpNqmQ20vMfgUikSdzw_3GSgi7/view?usp=…
[6]https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/cyber-resilience-act
[7]https://wikimedia.brussels/who-should-be-liable-for-free-software/
[8]https://wikimedia.brussels/net-neutrality-the-fair-share-debate/
[9]https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52022PC0068
--
Wikimedia Europe ivzw