DOCSLIB.ORG

Internet & Jurisdiction and ECLAC Regional Status Report 2020

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Internet & Jurisdiction and ECLAC Regional Status Report 2020 2020 & INTERNET JURISDICTION AND ECLAC REGIONAL STATUS REPORT REGIONAL STATUS REPORT 2020 ECLAC AND INTERNET & JURISDICTION Thank you for your interest in this ECLAC publication ECLAC Publications Please register if you would like to receive information on our editorial products and activities. When you register, you may specify your particular areas of interest and you will gain access to our products in other formats. www.cepal.org/en/publications ublicaciones www.cepal.org/apps INTERNET & JURISDICTION AND ECLAC REGIONAL STATUS REPORT 2020 This report was commissioned by the Secretariat of the Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network (I&JPN) and the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), and was authored by Carlos Affonso Souza. The report represents the author’s best endeavour to map the current ecosystem and trends in Latin America and the Caribbean on the basis of desk research and stakeholder surveys and interviews. The completeness of the information cannot be guaranteed, however, as this report constitutes a first regional baseline with regard to the state of jurisdiction over the Internet. ECLAC and the I&JPN Secretariat are grateful for the financial and institutional support of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), acting on behalf of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), which enabled this report to be produced. The views expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the I&JPN Secretariat, ECLAC, I&JPN stakeholders or the financial supporters of the report. United Nations publication Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network publication LC/TS.2020/141 Copyright © Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network, 2020 Distribution: L All rights reserved Copyright © United Nations All rights reserved Printed at United Nations, Santiago S.19-01092 This publication should be cited as: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC)/Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network (I&JPN), Internet & Jurisdiction and ECLAC Regional Status Report 2020 (LC/TS.2020/141), Santiago, 2020. Applications for authorization to reproduce this work in whole or in part should be sent to the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), Publications and Web Services Division, [email protected], and Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network (I&JPN), [email protected]. Any entity interested in reproduction is requested to mention the source and to inform ECLAC and I&JPN of such reproduction. Member States and their governmental institutions may reproduce this work without prior authorization, but are requested to mention the source and to inform ECLAC of such reproduction. CONTENTS Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................................................................5 Preface .........................................................................................................................................................................................9 Presentation................................................................................................................................................................................11 Method ........................................................................................................................................................................................13 Executive summary .................................................................................................................................................................15 Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................................................21 CHAPTER I Overarching trends ............................................................................................................................................................29 A. Increased connectivity is necessary but can reinforce socioeconomic inequalities ................................... 31 B. A changing technological landscape ....................................................................................................................33 1. Swings in perceptions: from tech euphoria to techlash ..............................................................................33 2. Transnationalism is an emerging new dynamic ..........................................................................................34 3. Foreign multinationals are influential in the region ......................................................................................34 4. The business environment for start-ups in the region is variable .............................................................35 C. Foreign regulatory initiatives are inspiring regional and national proposals .................................................36 1. Policy initiatives have been proliferating as the appetite for regulating cyberspace increases ....... 37 2. Legislative and judicial inspiration: cross-fertilization or imitation?..........................................................38 D. Concerns over international influence and normative plurality .......................................................................39 1. Rules are set for (and by) large and well-established international actors ............................................39 2. The growing role of company norms: the “constitutional” status of terms of service ..........................39 E. The role of territoriality and the exercise of sovereignty are different in a global network...........................41 1. The increasing extraterritorial reach of national laws ..................................................................................41 2. Extraterritoriality brings enforceability challenges ......................................................................................42 F. Intermediaries are being expected to play new roles .........................................................................................43 1. Increasing responsibility is being placed on private operators ................................................................43 2. Intermediaries are increasingly being asked to provide data to support investigations ...................44 3. Transparency is essential to enhance trust, but implementation varies ................................................45 4. Growing attention is being paid to due process in content moderation activities ..............................46 INTERNET & JURISDICTION AND ECLAC REGIONAL STATUS REPORT 2020 3 CHAPTER II Major topical trends in Latin America and the Caribbean ................................................................................ 47 A. Expression ....................................................................................................................................................................49 1. Fake news and disinformation .........................................................................................................................49 2. Defamation ...........................................................................................................................................................51 3. Online bullying ......................................................................................................................................................53 4. Non-consensual distribution of sexually explicit media .............................................................................54 5. The “right to be forgotten” comes up against the region’s particular characteristics ..........................56 B. Security ..... .....................................................................................................................................................................58 1. Increased cybersecurity coordination is needed to deal with widespread incidents in the region .........58 2. Cross-border investigations and electronic evidence ................................................................................59 3. Surveillance ..........................................................................................................................................................62 4. Cybersecurity .......................................................................................................................................................66 C. Economy .. ..................................................................................................................................................................... 70 1. E-commerce: the aspiration of a digital single market ............................................................................... 70 3. The internet of things (iot) ................................................................................................................................. 77 4. Digital payments .................................................................................................................................................82 5. Blockchain and cryptocurrencies ....................................................................................................................86 6. International and regional data flows: data protection regimes ..............................................................88
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Data Localization the Unintended Consequences of Privacy Litigation
    American University Law Review Volume 67 | Issue 3 Article 6 2018 Data Localization The ninU tended Consequences Of Privacy Litigation H Jacqueline Brehmer American University Washington College of Law Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr Part of the Computer Law Commons, and the Privacy Law Commons Recommended Citation Brehmer, H Jacqueline (2018) "Data Localization The ninU tended Consequences Of Privacy Litigation," American University Law Review: Vol. 67 : Iss. 3 , Article 6. Available at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr/vol67/iss3/6 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in American University Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Data Localization The ninU tended Consequences Of Privacy Litigation Keywords cybersecurity threats, data localization, data privacy, Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Microsoft Ireland This comment is available in American University Law Review: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr/vol67/iss3/6 NOTE DATA LOCALIZATION: THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF PRIVACY LITIGATION H JACQUELINE BREHMER* This Note addresses a key unintended consequence of recent data privacy litigation before the European Court of Justice and the U.S. Supreme Court. Two cases—Data Protection Commissioner v. Schrems and United States v. Microsoft Corp.—contravene the principles upon which the internet was founded by removing legal and scalable mechanisms for cross-border data transfers. While these cases do not directly create data localization regimes, they highlight the irreconcilably different approaches to data privacy held by the United States and the European Union and eliminate valid options for transfer such that localization is the only remaining scalable solution.
    [Show full text]
  • Making the Cut? | SPECIAL REPORT | Sept
    DATA PRIVACY & SECURITY SPECIAL REPORT SEPT. 24, 2020 After EU judges struck down the Privacy Shield data-transfer agreement, what’s next for US tech Making giants, thousands of other companies and regulatory the Cut? regimes around the world? INSIGHT | COMMENTARY | ANALYSIS Editor’s Letter Lewis Crofts MLex Editor-in-Chief We have arranged it in three thematic sections to reflect the multiple moving parts of the topic: 1) the EU court’s decision and immediate effects on Facebook and other companies; 2) the scramble by the US and EU to work out what to do about replacing the binned agreement and making SCCs more robust; and headache. A bombshell. A seismic shift. 3) the concerns and responses by other affected However dramatic you might like your countries around the world — including the UK, A metaphors, there is little doubt that EU Japan and Australia. judges delivered an extraordinarily significant We trust you enjoy reading this report and ruling on July 16. In striking down Privacy Shield, find it a useful guide to a complex, evolving issue. the EU-US data-transfer framework, they instantly The reporting here is a brief example of the threw into doubt the operations of more than insight and predictive analysis that MLex brings 5,000 US companies that relied on it. subscribers to our data privacy and security The ruling — essentially based on the failure service every day. of the mechanism to protect EU citizens’ data The stories included were all published from US government snooping — doesn’t as events unfolded, bringing our subscribers prevent companies transferring data between unrivalled insight into the significance of the EU and other foreign countries under developments and the likely next steps in an issue “standard contractual clauses.” But these can’t that will affect the operations of many thousands protect data in countries, including the US, that of businesses around the world.
    [Show full text]
  • UNDERSTANDING TRADEMARK STRENGTH Timothy Denny Greene
    STANFORD TECHNOLOGY LAW REVIEW VOLUME 16, NUMBER 3 SPRING 2013 UNDERSTANDING TRADEMARK STRENGTH Timothy Denny Greene & Jeff Wilkerson* CITE AS: 16 STAN. TECH. L. REV. 535 (2013) http://stlr.stanford.edu/pdf/understandingtrademarkstrength.pdf ABSTRACT Trademark strength, properly understood, refers to the scope of protection afforded a trademark by courts based on that mark’s inherent and acquired: (1) tendency to signify to consumers a consistent source of the products to which the mark is affixed; and (2) ability to influence a consumer’s purchasing decisions. The stronger the mark, the more uses the mark’s owner may exclude from the marketplace through a trademark infringement or dilution action. We argue that the acquired strength prong is insufficiently theorized and lacking in analytical rigor, which results in inconsistent results as judges in each jurisdiction (and indeed, each judge within a jurisdiction) rely on their own peculiar heuristics for determining whether a trademark is strong or weak. Our goal in this Article is to develop a better understanding of what is at stake when judges and practitioners think about trademark strength and to provide analytical guideposts that judges and practitioners can use to improve outcomes. By describing mark strength in a more articulate, consistent manner we can work towards eliminating inconsistency across circuits, thereby promoting more uniform national application of the Lanham Act. And by predicting accurately how strong a court will hold a mark to be in litigation, practitioners and markholders can better calculate the risk of bringing suit against an alleged infringer (or diluter). * We thank Uli Widmaier and Chad Doellinger for providing vital comments and encouragement in early drafts of this Article.
    [Show full text]
  • Canadian Cross-Border Data: Your Data May Be Heading South Even When You Are Not
    Canada Institute | May 2019 Canadian Cross-Border Data: Your Data May Be Heading South Even When You Are Not By Jacqueline Orr Canadian data: what goes where? Canada is fast becoming a technology powerhouse with cities across the country such as Waterloo, Calgary, Toronto, Montreal, and Edmonton transforming into tech hubs. They promise that their research centers and internet companies are going to light the way for Canada’s innovation economy. But the state of Canada’s internet is increasingly becoming an oxymoron. While Canada’s internet economy might be self-sustaining, the Canadian internet itself is not. Issues of territoriality are fluid and unbound. This is because Canada’s network infrastructure relies on American networks to transfer and store data. But, when Canadian data enters the United States, it becomes foreign data and is not protected by the same privacy rights as those accorded to U.S. domestic data and its owners. CIRA, the Canadian Internet Registration Authority, states that three-quarters of the Canadian population spends three to four hours a day online.1 CIRA also reports 64 percent of Canadians are concerned about the security of their personal information when it is routed through the United States. Are these concerns justified? This Canada Institute briefing explores key questions about cross-border data travel to better understand the risks and opportunities facing Canadians in an increasingly inter-connected world. There is a glossary at the end of the document. Is it legal for the U.S. government to collect data from Canadians? Yes. U.S. government agencies may collect any foreign data that crosses into U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • A/74/130 General Assembly
    United Nations A/74/130 General Assembly Distr.: General 30 July 2019 Original: English Seventy-fourth session Item 109 of the provisional agenda* Countering the use of information and communications technologies for criminal purposes Countering the use of information and communications technologies for criminal purposes Report of the Secretary-General Summary The present report has been prepared pursuant to General Assembly resolution 73/187, entitled “Countering the use of information and communications technologies for criminal purposes”. In that resolution, the General Assembly requested the Secretary-General to seek the views of Member States on the challenges that they faced in countering the use of information and communications technologies for criminal purposes and to present a report based on those views for consideration by the General Assembly at its seventy-fourth session. The report contains information on the views of Member States submitted pursuant to the aforementioned resolution. __________________ * A/74/150. V.19-08182 (E) 190819 200819 *1908182* A/74/130 Contents Page I. Introduction ................................................................... 4 II. Replies received from Governments ............................................... 4 Argentina ..................................................................... 4 Armenia ...................................................................... 6 Australia ..................................................................... 8 Austria ......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Duane Morris Cannabis Trademark and Brand Protection at a Glance
    CANNABIS TRADEMARK AND BRAND PROTECTION With an increasing number of states coming “online” with respect to medicinal and adult-use cannabis products, and with the changes in the legality of cannabis extracts (namely CBD) following the 2018 Farm Bill, there is a strategic need for cannabis companies to brand their products and services. The branding of cannabis products and services—as with all products and services—is crucial for garnering consumer recognition, gaining and increasing market share, and attracting investment dollars. Cannabis companies that are developing and strengthening their brand equity now will be best-positioned for the market and legal changes that are sure to come in the future. Duane Morris attorneys work closely with clients operating or looking to operate in a wide array of verticals, and assist with developing brand strategies that make sense for their businesses from both practical and legal perspectives, and in the most cost-efficient manner possible. We’ve helped clients operating in both the medicinal and adult-use spaces in developing and implementing corporate structures that facilitate the growth and marketing of their brands. RANGE OF SERVICES 2018 Farm Bill Spurs Cannabis Trademark Clarification • Brand Clearance In response to the 2018 Farm Bill, the United States Patent • Trademark, Prosecution, Registration and Protection and Trademark Office (USPTO) released an examination • Product Licensing guide aimed at clarifying the procedure for trademarks used • Enforcement in connection with cannabis and cannabis-derived goods and • Trade Secret Protection services. • Intellectual Property Strategy • State, Federal and International Brand Protection Under these guidelines, applications filed before December 20, 2018, that identify goods and/or services encompassing • Advice on Marketability CBD or other cannabis products will be issued a refusal based on unlawful use or lack of bona fide intent to use in lawful LEADERS IN THE FIELD commerce under the CSA.
    [Show full text]
  • Data Transfers to the US Since the Schrems II
    Data transfers to the U.S. since the Schrems II judgement: An analysis seeking to integrate GAFAM and major providers in the E.U. enforcement strategy Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology and Society, Tilburg University LL.M. Law and Technology Janvier Parewyck SNR 2065486 June 2021 Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Eleni Kosta Second Reader: Dr. Irene Kamara Table of Content Chapter 1 – Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 4 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Problem Statement ........................................................................................................................ 8 1.3 Methodology and limitations ......................................................................................................... 8 1.4 Narrative structure ......................................................................................................................... 9 Chapter 2 – Lawfulness of data transfers in EU law up to the Schrems II judgement and the invalidation of the Privacy Shield ...................................................................................................... 10 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 10 2.2 The GDPR regime and the ‘accountability’ principle ................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • EU Digital Policy and International Trade
    EU Digital Policy and International Trade March 25, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R46732 SUMMARY R46732 EU Digital Policy and International Trade March 25, 2021 A “Europe fit for the digital age” is a top European Union (EU) priority and a key part of EU economic recovery efforts from the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Under the Rachel F. Fefer European Commission’s digital policy roadmap, “Shaping Europe’s Digital Future,” the EU aims Analyst in International to strengthen the EU economy and improve the region’s digital competitiveness, especially with Trade and Finance the United States and China. The EU initiative may raise several issues for Congress, such as the impact on U.S. firms doing business in the EU and U.S. leadership in setting global digital rules and standards. The initiative may also offer the potential for partnership between the United States and the EU to address areas of common concern. The EU has several digital efforts underway, including The draft “Digital Markets Act (DMA)” that aims to establish competition rules for large online platforms designated as “gatekeepers” and specify a list of “do’s and don’ts” among other requirements. The draft “Digital Services Act (DSA)” that seeks to modernize the 2000 E-Commerce Directive, which set the legal framework for online services in the EU, and set liability rules related to illegal online content and products, transparency, and other requirements for all online intermediary services. The enacted General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which took effect in 2018 and creates obligations on firms and rights for individuals regarding processing of personal data, including cross-border data flows.
    [Show full text]
  • Brand Protection Report
    Brand Protection Report Published May 2021 Table of Contents Introduction 3 Robust Proactive Controls 4 Powerful Tools for Brands 7 Holding Counterfeiters Accountable 13 Introduction Amazon strives to be Earth’s most customer-centric company, offering vast selection, low prices, and fast delivery. We deliver on that vision by creating shopping experiences that customers, sellers, and brands can trust. Today, we have more than 300 million active customer accounts and over 1.9 million selling partners worldwide. Many of these selling partners are small and medium-sized businesses, and they represent the majority of physical products sold in our stores. We are proud to help these small businesses thrive and create hundreds of thousands of new jobs in their local communities. In the face of COVID-19, we are grateful that Amazon could continue to serve our customers and selling partners. Customers were able to order and receive what they needed during a global pandemic and our selling partners, in many cases, grew their businesses as their physical storefronts saw decreased sales. The pandemic also attracted bad actors who tried to take advantage of the situation, and despite their attempts, we continued to make strong progress driving counterfeits to zero in our store. In 2020, Amazon invested over $700 million and employed more than 10,000 people to protect our store from fraud and abuse. As a result, the vast majority of our customers continued to only find authentic products in our store. We approach our anti-counterfeiting efforts through three strategies: 1. Robust proactive controls. We leverage a combination of advanced machine learning capabilities and expert human investigators to protect our store proactively from bad actors and bad products.
    [Show full text]
  • Data Localization and the Role of Infrastructure for Surveillance, Privacy, and Security
    International Journal of Communication 10(2016), 2221–2237 1932–8036/20160005 Data Localization and the Role of Infrastructure for Surveillance, Privacy, and Security TATEVIK SARGSYAN American University, USA Due to the increased awareness of the politics embedded in Internet technologies, there has been a growing tendency for state and nonstate actors around the world to leverage Internet infrastructure configurations to attain various political and economic objectives. Governments push for infrastructure modifications in pursuit of economic development, data privacy and security, and law enforcement and surveillance effectiveness. Information intermediaries set and enact their infrastructure to maximize revenue by enabling data collection and analytics, but have the capacity to implement tools for protecting privacy and limiting government surveillance. Relying on a conceptual framework of the politics of infrastructure, this article explores tensions and competing interests that emerge around intermediaries’ technical and policy infrastructure through analysis of (a) data localization strategies in a number of countries and (b) privacy and security undertakings by information intermediaries. Keywords: privacy, security, Internet infrastructure, surveillance, data localization The Politics of Infrastructure Governments across the world have come to recognize the importance of information intermediaries’ infrastructure for national security, public safety, and other political interests. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies are tasked with addressing various challenges, including the growth of terrorism, cyberattacks, cybercrime, fraud, and—in some regimes—political opposition and social movements. To pursue these goals, government agencies often need to access communications data that are beyond their immediate control, facilitated by a handful of information intermediaries. These companies mediate content by providing online services and communication platforms to global users.
    [Show full text]
  • Best Practices for Intellectual Property Protection in China
    Best Practices: Intellectual Property Protection in China ntellectual property (IP) is a longstanding, discovered. To protect their IP in China, companies critical concern for companies operating in should follow several steps: IChina . IP enforcement has consistently placed among the top handful of issues raised by US- Craft and Implement a Corporate China Business Council (USCBC) member IP Strategy in China companies every year in USCBC’s annual membership survey. Concern about IP • Conduct an initial audit of the company’s enforcement remains a major factor influencing China operations to determine IP assets, IP company strategies and operations in China. risks, and assign appropriate levels of China’s IP laws and regulations increasingly reflect protection to those assets based on the risk of international standards, and China has indeed infringement. made steady efforts to better protect and enforce IP • Review the company’s internal IP controls to rights. However, challenges remain, including determine whether they provide sufficient lingering issues with China’s IP legal framework in protection. Make adjustments based on the IP areas such as trade secrets, uneven enforcement, audit, and dedicate resources in alliance with and significant procedural barriers that frustrate the company’s IP protection goals. company efforts to protect IP in China. At the same time, counterfeiters and infringers in China are • Classify IP-relevant information according to increasingly sophisticated. They often exploit its level of sensitivity, and integrate that procedural loopholes, proactively seek to classification into information control and invalidate legitimate patents and trademarks, operational procedures. deploy advanced techniques such as reverse • Make IP protection a core responsibility of the engineering, and find new ways to infiltrate entire China management team, not merely a legitimate distribution networks and build their function of the legal or brand protection teams, own parallel networks.
    [Show full text]
  • 2001) (PDF, 395 KB, File Does Not Meet Accessibility Standards.
    Quality Control - International 12 – 14 February 2001 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 23rd GEISENHEIM MEETING 12. – 14. February 2001 International training course for quality inspectors for fruit, vegetables and ware potatoes ______________________________________________________________ Organizers: Regierungspräsidium Gießen Dezernat 29/114, Wetzlar Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung, Referat 323 - Qualitätskontrolle, Qualitätsnormen, Frankfurt am Main TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1 Standard Interpretation and Quality Control - Answers to questions asked by control services 20 Opening address 23 Regulation No. 2251/92: Goals and aims of the current reform 27 Quality Assurance System - The new controlling system of KCB 31 New Methods to Determine Fruit Quality 33 The Prospective Accession of Hungary to the EU seen by a Hungarian Producer Organisation 37 EC Quality EC-Marketing Standard for Onions 39 Results of Sample Assessment for Onions 40 Isotope Analysis as a means of tracing the origin of Onions and Potatoes 45 EC-Marketing Standard for Melons 50 Results of Sample Assessment for Melons 51 Melon Types of Importance in Spain 56 Melon Types of Importance in France 59 Melon Varieties in Israel 61 Melons from Turkey: Main Types and their Characteristics 69 List of Participants ____________________________________________________________________ Editors: Erik Schneider, BLE, Frankfurt am Main LD Gert Pingel, RP Gießen, Wetzlar Translation: Jutta Himmelreich, BLE, Frankfurt am Main Erik Schneider, BLE, Frankfurt am Main 1 Standard Interpretation and Quality Control - Answers to Questions asked by Control Services Bärbel Jacobs, David Holliday, Wilfried Staub 1. Tomatoes What is the minimum acceptable coloration for tomatoes? Both the EU quality standard and the OECD standard state that the development and condition of tomatoes must be such as to enable them: - to withstand transport and handling, and - to arrive in satisfactory condition at the place of destination.
    [Show full text]