Hi all!
Brussels business picked up very, very quickly in September and it is full steam ahead for regulations on media freedom while the regulation on fighting sexual abuse material online is in a decisive phase. We are approaching the end of the legislative term, after all. Simultaneously, France is causing headaches for everyone. Zut !
Dimi & Michele
=== EMFA ===
The European Union is working on a law that is intended to boost media and journalistic freedom https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_5504 across the bloc. It is a bag of very versatile measures that are intended to help a pluralistic media landscape. Things like rules on government spending on public service announcements and enshrining the protection of sources at the EU level. For Wikimedia this law is relevant, because it also wants to limit how online platforms moderate content by media providers, who can be media outlets but also individuals, such as journalists.
—
We are talking about Article 17 of the proposed law, which would require online platforms to warn media providers ahead of moderating their content and to give them a fast-track channel to contest decisions. Some lawmakers even suggest that online platforms be prohibited from deleting content by media providers before the provider has had a chance to reply. All this is highly problematic, seeing that disinformation is sometimes produced bymedia providers. Luckily for us, Wikimedia projects are exempt from this provision in the Commission proposal and in the general approach taken by Council https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kjamCk9YTROvUH6AAbhJHPvsNqNJVs_9/view?usp=sharing .
—
The European Parliament, in one of its iterations of the text, edited the wording of the article in a way that would actually cover Wikimedia projects. Even worse; after reaching out to MEPs and explaining what had happened, a new Recital 35a explicitly recognises the role of online encyclopaedias and excludes them from the scope of the Article https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-9-2023-0264_EN.pdf (see page 47).
The Culture Committee adopted this in its report https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-9-2023-0264_EN.pdfthat now needs to be voted on in plenary (vote is scheduled for the 3rd of October).
—
We still prefer the versions of the Council and the Commission, as they target only online platforms that offer business to business services to media providers. With such a well targeted definition, there is no need for messy exceptions. We will support this during the trilogue negotiations. We expect negotiations to conclude in the first half of the next year.
—
Nota bene: We supported EDRi’s demands on Article 4 https://edri.org/our-work/open-letter-european-parliament-protect-journalists-ban-spyware-emfa/ (Rights of media service providers) that demands a ban for the deployment of spyware against media service providers. While such a provision would not directly interfere with Wikimedia projects, it spying on journalists would have negative consequences on freedom of expression and credible sources. So we decided to co-sign this in support of journalists’ unions.
===CSAM ===
The work on the regulation laying down rules to prevent and combat child sexual abuse material https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_to_Prevent_and_Combat_Child_Sexual_Abuse online has stalled somewhat. Wikimedia projects would be covered under this and the Wikimedia Foundation has provided https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12726-Fighting-child-sexual-abuse-detection-removal-and-reporting-of-illegal-content-online/F3338612_en constructive feedback, outlining some risks and challenges posed by the scanning technologies used. Wikimedia is also criticising the idea to scan direct, interpersonal communication in a general manner and without judicial oversight.
—
The direct communication articles are the major bone of contention surrounding this proposal. The Spanish Presidency failed to get an agreement for a negotiating position in the Council last week and will need to re-attempt a vote at the next meeting on 19 October. Member States that are currently blocking this decision include Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, Sweden and Poland.
—
Meanwhile the parliament has postponed its vote on a negotiating position from 9 to 26 October. The conundrum is that most MEPs want to allow at least some scanning of some personal communications, but not the general monitoring provision. Many, possibly a majority, also want to preserve end-to-end encryption. The rapporteur Javier Zarzalejos (EPP ES) is working on a compromise to allow scanning of specific communication and only after a judicial permission. However, with so many voices and strong opinions, such compromises take time.
=== France ===
French legislators are working on a bill aiming at securing and regulating the digital space (so called Loi SREN https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/dossierlegislatif/JORFDOLE000047533100/?wpmobileexternal=true). The proposal would introduce some provisions on data retention and user identification, in order to not allow already banned users to re-register. That would require the collection of heaps of data and the compulsory identification of all users. Wikimedia projects are squarely in the scope of this proposal.
—
Wikimédia France is working on this as we speak, assisted by the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Europe. The suggested amendments that would take our projects out of the fireline didn’t pass in committee and will now, hopefully, be discussed in plenary. It is noteworthy to highlight that the bill is undergoing an accelerated procedure and this makes it much more difficult to have a serious debate.
=== Italy ===
Italy adopted a decree https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/atto/serie_generale/caricaDettaglioAtto/originario?atto.dataPubblicazioneGazzetta=2023-09-15&atto.codiceRedazionale=23G00135&elenco30giorni=true by which has designated AGCOM, the Italian Media & Telecom Regulator, as its Digital Service Coordinator. In the same decree (dealing with protection of minors), Article 13 introduces an obligation for electronic communications service providers (i.e. providers of: 1. internet access services; 2. interpersonal communication services; 3. services consisting wholly or mainly in the conveyance of signals) to make parental control applications available for their customers.
publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org