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