A GLOBAL MULTI-STAKEHOLDER DIALOGUE PROCESS 20132012 IN RETROSPECT INTERNET & JURISDICTION PROJECT CASE COLLECTION VOLUME 2 I N T E R N E T & MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE JURISDICTION INTERNET & JURISDICTIONMore information PROJECT AT about OBSERVATORY www.internetjurisdiction.netthe Internet & Jurisdiction Project at: k eepin g trac k O f trends twitter:www.internetjurisdiction.net @IJurisdiction TO S TAY UP-TO-DATE ON THE INTERNET & JURISDICTION PROJECT AND THE LATEST TRENDS W I T H R E g A R D TO T H E TENSION BETWEEN THE CROSS-BORDER INTERNET AND NATIONAL JURISDICTIONS, SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER AT WWW.INTERNETJURISDICTION.NET A N D f OLLOW @IJURISDICTION ON TWITTER. 2013 IN RETROSPECT The Internet & Jurisdiction Project is an evidence- based global multi-stakeholder dialogue process. To inform its participants about emerging trends and high-level patterns, the Internet & Jurisdiction Project detected, curated and categorized over 460 cases around the world in a dedicated data- base between January and December 2013. They crowd-curation show the tension between the cross-border nature of the Internet with its transnational online spaces and the patchwork of geographically defined national jurisdictions. spotlIghT I & J DATABASE WITH The Internet & Jurisdiction Observatory supports CATEgORIZED CASES the Internet & Jurisdiction Project team in keeping track of the latest trends around the globe. This interdisciplinary network of selected international experts crowd-ranks every month all collected crowd-ranking cases in the Internet & Jurisdiction database via a progressive filtering process. The 20 most impor- tant cases are showcased in the monthly Internet & Jurisdiction Project newsletter Retrospect with retrospect concise summaries and links to relevant back- MONTHLY NEWSLETTER WITH TOP 20 CASES ground information. The case collection ”2013 in Retrospect“ is a com- pilation of 240 selected cases. It provides a review dialogue + analysis of crucial dynamics to stimulate discussions and trigger research. Synthesis REgULAR REPORTS ON LATEST TRENDS AND INSIgHTS FACILITATION TEAM ABOUT The Internet & Jurisdiction Project facili- tates a global multi-stakeholder dialogue process to address the tension between the cross-border nature of the Internet and Bertrand de geographically defined national jurisdic- LA CHAPELLE tions. It provides a neutral platform for Director international organizations, states, business [email protected] and civil society to discuss the elaboration of a transnational due process framework to handle the digital coexistence of diverse national laws in shared cross-border online spaces. Since its launch in January 2012, the Paul Internet & Jurisdiction Project has involved FEHLINGER more than 80 entities in its dialogue process. Manager [email protected] INTERNET & JURISDICTION OBSERVATORY 32 selected international Experts from 26 different institutions in 13 countries are part Of the internet & jurisdiction observatory. the interdisciplinary network is composed Of respected senior Experts while leaving room for emerging talents. Séverine Robert J. Michael ARSÈNE CURRIE GEIST French Center for Research on Dalhousie University, Law & University of Ottawa, Canada Contemporary China, Hong Kong Technology Institute, Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law, Canada @severinearsene @CdnTechLaw @mgeist Chinmayi William H. ARUN DUTTON Nicolas JONDET National Law University New University of Oxford, Delhi, Centre for Communication Oxford Internet Institute, UK University of Edinburgh, Governance, India Edinburgh Law School, UK @BiIIDutton @chinmayiarun @NicolasJondet Lilian Francis Augusto EDWARDS Matthias C. MEDEIROS KETTEMANN University of Strathclyde, Centre University of Oslo, Norwegian for Internet Law and Policy, UK University of Frankfurt/Main, Research Center for Computers Cluster of Excellence “The @lilianedwards and Law, Norway Formation of Normative Orders”, Germany @francisaugusto Giancarlo @MCKettemann FROSIO Ian Stanford University, Center BROWN Kathryn for Internet and Society, USA KLEIMAN Oxford University, @GCFrosio Oxford Internet Institute & Internet Counsel, Fletcher, Cyber Security Center, UK Heald & Hildreth PLC, USA @IanBrownOII Urs @KleimK GASSER Harvard University, Berkman Lee Wolfgang Center for Internet and Society & BYGRAVE KLEINWÄCHTER Harvard Law School, USA University of Oslo, Norwegian Department for Media and @ugasser Research Center for Computers Information Sciences, Unversity and Law, Norway of Aarhus, Denmark 4 OBSERVATORY Konstantinos Carlos Affonso Lachlan KOMAITIS PEREIRA DE SOUZA URQUHART Internet Society, Switzerland Rio de Janeiro Institute for University of Nottingham, Technology and Society & Rio de Mixed Reality Lab, UK @kkomaitis Janeiro State University, Brazil @mooseabyte @caffsouza Joanna KULESZA Joana Theresa VARON FERRAZ University of Lodz, Department SCASSA for International Law and Interna- Fundação Getúlio Vargas, Center tional Relations, Poland University of Ottawa, Canada for Technology and Society, Research Chair in Information Brazil @KuleszaJ Law, Canada @joana_varon @TeresaScassa Sarah LOGAN Rolf H. Thomas WEBER Australian National University, SCHULTZ School of International and Po- University of Zurich, Center for litical Studies, Australia Graduate Institute of Interna- Information and Communication tional and Development Studies, Law, Switzerland @circt International Law Department, Switzerland Tobias Bendert MAHLER ZEVENBERGEN Wolfgang Oxford University, Oxford University of Oslo, Norwegian SCHULZ Internet Institute, UK Research Center for Computers Humboldt Institute for and Law, Norway @benzevenbergen Internet and Society, Germany @tomahler @WWSchulz Nicolo Francesca ZINGALES Dan MUSIANI University of Tilburg, Department SVANTESSON of European and International Mines ParisTech, Center for the Bond University, Centre for Public Law, Netherlands Sociology of Innovation, France Commercial Law, Australia @TechJust @franmusiani Tatiana Nicolas TROPINA VON ZUR MÜHLEN Max Planck Institute for Foreign Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law, and International Criminal Law, Germany Germany @gap_the_mind 5 CONTENT JANUARY 8 FEBRUARY 13 MARCH 18 APRIL 23 MAY 28 JUNE 33 JULY 38 AUGUST 43 SEPTEMBER 48 OCTOBER 53 NOVEMBER 58 DECEMBER 63 7 JANUARY 1. European Parliament 2. Twitter ordered to reveal Committee endorses EU Data identity of authors of racist Protection Reform, demands tweets in French jurisdiction strict provisions On January 24, 2013 the Grand Instance Court of Paris One year after the European Commission published its ordered Twitter6 to help identifying the authors of racist proposed comprehensive data protection reform1, the tweets with the hashtag #unbonjuif that were a top trend- rapporteur of the European Parliament’s Committee on ing topic in France in October 2012. The court concluded7 Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs issued on January that the racist tweets violate hate speech provisions in 10, 2013 a first draft report.2 The document expresses the the French jurisdiction. Although Twitter removed some8 Committee’s support for the envisaged data governance concerned tweets, it rests unclear if the platform with framework and suggests a variety of amendments that headquarters in San Francisco will comply with the French might impact the way online platforms operate in the 27 order. The company has no offices in France and its rules EU jurisdictions. It will be the basis for further discussions stipulate that user identities can only be revealed with a in the European Parliament before a final vote in April valid US court order. French prosecutors have the pos- 2013. Among others, the report suggests extending the sibility of launching procedures in the US jurisdiction. The territorial scope to non-EU based entities to encompass French court moreover ordered Twitter to “set up, within “all collection and processing of personal data about the framework of its French platform, an easily accessible Union residents” (Amendment 13). Moreover, it empha- and visible system enabling anyone to bring to its atten- sizes the need for “explicit consent” for data processing tion illegal content, especially that which falls within (Amendment 17), stresses the “right to erasure and to the scope of the apology of crimes against humanity and be forgotten” (Amendment 34), and demands stricter incitement to racial hatred.” Twitter can be fined9 1.000 procedures for requests by foreign courts and authori- euros daily for non-compliance with the order. ties regarding personal data located in the EU jurisdiction (Amendment 259). Read further: ITWorld: Twitter ordered to identify racist tweeters in Read further: France10 Reuters: EU lawmakers seek to limit use of data by inter- France24: France orders Twitter to identify racist users11 net firms3 NPR: French Twitter lawsuit pits free speech against hate Hunton Privacy Blog: EU Parliament Committee Rapporteur speech12 issues Draft Report on Proposed Amendments to the EU Commission’s Draft General Data Protection Regulation4 New York Times: Data Protection laws, an ocean apart5 8 3. Access and server 5. Facebook, Google, location as basis to Expand Microsoft and Yahoo jurisdiction in US and Canada demand warrants for Two recent rulings in December 2012 in the US and Cana- LEA access to private dian jurisdiction revealed the tendency of extraterritorial communication extensions of sovereignty in Internet cases. A Canadian Four