STatewatch News Online: ECHR pre-paid mobile phones

STatewatch News Online: ECHR pre-paid mobile phones: "The European Commission criticised anonymity bans in 2011 as follows: "No evidence has been provided as to the effectiveness of those national measures. Potential limitations have been highlighted, for example, in cases of identity theft or where a SIM card is purchased by a third party or a user roams with a card purchased in a third country."[1] The Council of Europe warned that such measures "may not only threaten the privacy of subscribers and users in general, they may also inhibit their freedom of communication since they diminish the degree of anonymity which subscribers and users may wish to avail of when using the telephone by obliging them to reveal their identities".[2]
"Two thirds of all EU Member States prosecute crime successfully without a blanket ban on anonymity", comments complainant Jonas Breyer. "As prepaid cards can be passed on or bought anonymously abroad, criminal investigators generally find identification data to be useless. The Court should scrap those ineffective anonymity bans and re-establish our right to anonymous communications and anonymous speech."" 'via Blog this'

Twitter joke trial: Appeal Judgment Sees the Joke

Essex Internet Law LL.M.: "The Divisional Court has given judgment in the appeal of Paul Chambers against his conviction under the Communications Act 2003, s 127. The Court of Appeal gave judgment on 27 July in Chambers v DPP [2012] EWHC 2157 – the much publicised 'Twitter joke' case. The appeal against conviction was allowed on the basis that this 'tweet' did not constitute or include a message of a menacing character.
The full judgment can be downloaded." 'via Blog this'

Britain’s Half-Hearted Bid to Reform Libel Law

Britain’s Half-Hearted Bid to Reform Libel Law - NYTimes.com: "Perhaps the bill’s greatest weakness is its failure to provide a robust “public interest” defense, which has been a key demand of campaigners. In the United States, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) established an “actual malice” standard that the press has to meet to avoid action for defamation when reporting on public figures. The English bill however requires writers and journalists to demonstrate that they have been “responsible” in order to qualify for a public interest defense.
The bill includes a checklist of what is defined as “responsible publication,” ranging from the tone of the statement to the “importance” of what is being reported. But compliance with the list’s requirements is debatable and expensive. The uncertainty of this defense will continue to chill the efforts of investigative journalists, scientists and human rights groups from exposing corruption and wrongdoing." 'via Blog this'

Defamation Bill Published

Defamation Bill Published: "The web site operators' defence is much wider and more generous than I expected: no liability, provided that the person making the comment can be identified – even if we refused to remove the comment after acknowledging that it was untrue. That hardly seems right even if other remedies, such as an injunction, may be available to make an operator take the comment down. What am I missing? It is also worth noting that the proposed single publication rule is entirely without any qualification relating to requested corrections. Given the very short limitation period that applies in cases of defamation and the way that defamatory web content (in particular) can be beyond one's ken for long periods, this may create occasional injustice - especially where newspapers of record are concerned."'via Blog this'

EC statement on World Press Freedom Day

"The EU calls on all states to guarantee the safety of journalists and to allow them to carry out their vital role of reporting and commenting on events in an independent manner without fear of violence and recrimination.
Freedom of expression also extends to the internet and other media, and the EU is firmly opposed to any unjustified, disproportional restrictions of access to or use of these media."

'via Blog this'

Web freedom faces greatest threat ever, warns Google's Sergey Brin

Web freedom faces greatest threat ever, warns Google's Sergey Brin | Technology | guardian.co.uk: "If we could wave a magic wand and not be subject to US law, that would be great. If we could be in some magical jurisdiction that everyone in the world trusted, that would be great " 'via Blog this'

Recommendation CM/Rec(2012)3 Council of Europe on search engines and social media

| TechnoLlama: "In Recommendation CM/Rec(2012)3, the Committee has adopted a series of impressive-sounding policies that recognise the growing importance of search engines, and the need to make sure that these tools do not threaten fundamental freedoms. "

'via Blog this'