Institute for technology and society and parliament of Italy-Internet Bill
of Rights: Enforcement and Impact

>> Hello there.  Good afternoon.  If I take to you take your seats.  We are
going to begin.  We have some little delays and I apologize for that since
we are finishing up the last workshop.  So good afternoon to you all.  It's
a pleasure to host this discussion this afternoon.  My name is Carlos
Alphonso.  I am director from the Institute on Technology and Society in
Rio de Janeiro.  We have Bill of rights and impact which is a follow up to
a discussion that's begun in the last IGF when we managed to get on the
same table.  Some comparisons between the Brazilian Bill of rights that's
been approved in 2014.  For those of you that have been attending IGF for a
long time, you might be familiar with the Brazilian internet Bill of rights
initiative.  And the idea for this discussion is to not only compare the
experiences between the two things, but especially to understand challenges
with interpretation, enforcement of those so-called internet Bill of
rights.  The idea that will apply is that it's an old idea since the very
beginning of IGF with Dynamic Coalition that used to be called internet
Bill of rights and it is really interesting to see how this idea of coming
up with the Bill of rightses that prospered in the last decade.  So, we are
taking the time on these events today to discuss things and to understand
the changes that were approved and how they can be enforced. So, for that,
we have two speakers to join and image -- may remind you that it is a
natural conversation.  So feel free to jump in.  This is going to have two
interventions from Stefano TROPL53 and from the Brazilian Internet
committee.  Right after that, we open up for discussions some debate around
those two initiatives.  We really want to keep it as informative as
possible.  So let's have it as a natural conversation between ourselves and
take the most of our time.  Without much further delays, I would like to
pass it on to Stefano.  The floor is yours.  Let me see if I can handle
this.

>> Stefano:  Thank you to everybody.  Don't confuse me with Trump.
[Laughter] So I tell you briefly the history and then it is better to wait
for questions rather than making it a longer presentation.  So first of
all, let me say that the Italian government and the Internet society of
Italy where we were among the founders of the Internet Bill of rights
Dynamic Coalition that was started in Athens in 2006.  And then we have
even joined the Brazilian government with the Italian government in 2007
meeting in Rio de Janeiro.  And then we had a post because of change of
government and so on and they were not so keen on insisting on these
problems, but the attention has been continuing and the Professor Ratar has
been our leader, but he could not go here.  Then in 2014 in July, the
chamber of Italian government then set up a group of commission to
elaborate the declaration of internet.  This was important because this
group is parliament tearian group and has a special status, let's say.
Also considering the declarations from Internet rights, we count in
different organizations that there are at least 50 or 60 very well known
declarations by different bodies.  One year later in July 2015, last year,
we delivered the declaration that was then known also outside of Italy and
we had joined the declaration together with France and then we made last
year a presentation date 0 of the IGF and (inaudible) in Brazil.  And then
after this, the parliament also approved that with a majority degree where
they ask the government to do and to apply this inside of Italian system,
but not only that also to promote added parliaments and added official
sides to collaborate and to go ahead with that.  And recently concerning
the part that is regarding the Italian side, there was a joint agreement
with the ministry of education to first of all spread not only our
declaration, but also a book that has been written in order to be more
deduct to explain all 14 clauses of this declaration.  Because we think
that the question of education for the young people is so important because
then it is -- the way to let all the young generations to understand and to
be active in order to try to push for let's say approval from one side, but
also suggest solutions for the problem that we have.  One of the
initiatives that was important in this last month is the so called cyber
bullies.  That is something that in Italy is very well understood and also
is a problem.  So, while on the international side, not so much happened in
this also because we had a lot of priorities in the parliament that you
might have known concerning Italy from this week.  We have no government
and we will have a new government, but in any case, we think that this
action and this promotion is very important because we have to involve all
the size of the society.  Okay.  I'll finish here for the moment.
[APPLAUSE]

>> Thank you, Stefano.  That's -- Brazil has approved a hard law, a federal
law and the Italian opted for a more soft law such to say approach.  It is
very interesting that they have this joint agreement with the ministry of
education because it links the text with education and how to get key
(inaudible) aware of the rights online.  That links that cyber bully is
another issue.  So with that, I will pass the mic to Flavia from the
Brazilian Internet Steering Committee.

>> Flavia:  Good afternoon for everyone.  Thank you very Carlos Alphonso
for the invite and I'm from protest.  It's conassumers association that has
2,030 members in our country.  And I'm also one of four representatives in
Internet Steering Committee of the city society.  I'm very pleased to be
here and to be able to join you to talk about the important viewing process
of building the internet and also about the current and critical political
scenario in Brazil and the implications on the application and
interpretation of the law in Brazil. It is a result of a process broadly
and Democratic par participatory process that had as a main objective to
insure that the Internet regulation would not be based on a criminalization
bias.  The law has a dem Chrisization and freedom of expression, protection
of personal data and privacy. And this process was based on the principles
enacted by CGIBR in 2009 in a contest of multi-stakeholder governance.
After the law approval in 2014 with commemoration especially of civil
society, we went to the second stage of the confrontation with the interest
of large private economic international groups with police and criminal
investigation authorities and with conservative and authoritarian political
forces.  In view, the addition of the decry that regulated the Internet and
enacted in June of this year and the create .771 which reaffirmd and made
clear the rights established in the law.  Today we have more than 200 draft
tributes proposing to change the Internet in order to weaken fundamentals
principles and rights such as neutrality, no liability for Internet
providers, personal data protection and privacy.  Behind this proposal
amendment to the law, we have the heavy lobby of the corporate industry.
We have also seen judicial decisions that have applications block like,
what's up for example.  When the company refuses provide data and content
about investigating persons by the police or investigational authorities
justifying the refusal in technical impossibility because the quick
photography used.  On this issue, the Brazilians supreme court will decide
various lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of search judicial
decisions.  It is important to highlight that the decrease established a
system of control and oversight over the rights and obligations of the max
internet involving public agents like ANAteo communication agents, a
consumer protection and competition protection, which should be guided by
guidelines.  Despite the mandate and the central rule that CGIER has a view
and after the decry, we are still discussing the decision making process to
beaut consensus on sensitive and conflicting issues such as zero rating,
data kept and Internet.org. There are different interests in conflicts.  As
a consumer representative, I don't believe that could be possible to reach
a consensus on those issues with the Internet providers.  That's why I am
rating that CGIBR need to address the lack of reasonable decision make
process when we don't have consensus. Due to this difficulty, now CGIBR is
working to define a decision framework with rules that guide the cases when
we don't have consensus and the decisions take place by majority.  As a way
to make achievable the moot stakeholder governance as established.  On the
other hand, no associations or activities joint.  On the coalition rights
network, dozens of consumers and freedom of expression and communication
dem crattization will be severely affected by the setbacks that are
represented.  They are preparing and publishing papers and working with the
national congress to avoid the loss of important achievements that came
with the democracy building the internet.  Before the law, it is just the
words to conquest rights.  The second stage is disputes over the
applications and interpretation of the law in the courts and in the
reaction against change in the national congress facing the economic power
of large multi-national companies.  Thank you. [APPLAUSE]

>> Carlos:  Before I open up for questions and comments, just two very
brief comments on the Brazilian Bill of rights, in addition to the comments
that Flavia made.  I totally agree that the idea that the work is far from
done.  So the approval of the law was a first phase and the section one is
proving to be even more challenging than the first one.  One of the reasons
that motivated us to have in event in this IGF is because in the last year,
the Brazilian Bill of Rights had been featured in the news because of the
blockings of what's up in Brazil.  We had four blockings. They were ordered
and some of them end up coding or referring to the Brazilian Internet Bill
of Rights as the source or the reasoning for the blocking to take place.
And, of course, this puts not only Brazil, but the Brazil Internet Bill of
Rights in a very bad light.  It looks like this one law that was supposed
to protect bib liberties was being used to block this one application and,
of course, coding Brazil together in some other countries that has the
blocking of Internet applications as a habit which is definitely not the
case of Brazil.  So, one quick mention of the Brazilian Internet that I
would like to make is that a couple of decisions that end up coding the
Markus review in order to order this blocking had end up interpreting and
ended up applying one provision of the mark, which is article 12 that it
does and has a provision that says applications may suffer some sanctions
such as a warning of some sort, suspension of services and even prohibition
of some services, but not the entire services of this one act or this one
platform.  The suspension and the prohibition that you might find in
article 12 because if you are the suspension and prohibition of the
activities mentioned in article 11.  I know it might sound abstract because
I'm talking about articles and you don't have the wording in front of you,
but it is just to make the point clear that when the review mentions sis
pension and -- suspension and prohibition of the activities of the article
11 of the review, article 11 deals with the activities of collection and
treatment of personal data.  So, by the end of today, when article 12 says
that application providers might suffer sanctions and severe sanctions such
as the suspension and the prohibition of the activities of article 11, it's
not the suspension or the prohibition of the entire platform or the entire
application.  Just the acatives related to the collection and treatment of
private data.  This is just one clarification that can support in dimension
and it was really interesting that we had in the last blocking order that
we had in Brazil, the justice from the Brazillian supreme court end up
reversing the judicial order for the blocking is stating that the Markus
review, the Brazilian Bill of rights would be the reason alone for the
blocking not to occur, for the blocking not to happen.  So, in this last
blocking situation that we had in Brazil, it ends up serving as the reason
for the blocking the first place and then in an injunction issued by the
supreme court, the Mark was the reason for the blocking to be relieved to
be terminated.  So, I believe it is very important to highlight that.
Especially some of you that are not Brazilian, you have read the markings
in Brazil.  I could go over on some other issues, but I will save that for
-- go ahead.  Stefano.

>> Stefano:  I would like to add something about our relations with friends
Brazilian.  Actually, the Italian government in parliament avoid just as a
first step to enter into specific provisions, into comparable (inaudible).
And you also have been present in Rome invited by the parliament just
explain (inaudible) that has been an exploitation of the 12 principles that
you had approved very short principles, but that they have to be covered in
the stone.  In Italy, we did art is something.  The 14 points that we
established have also some comments and also left a few points outside the
I. length proper.  Just to mention something that is important in the
Internet, but it is harder to simplify in the description.  So, we made
something intermediate and more close to the 12 principles rather than
establishing a law that is explaining all the possible solutions and so on.
Also, we have to consider that in Europe, we have a lot of legal
establishment by Europe or by European union.  Also, just to mention a
couple of arguments that could be then exploitedd a little bit is the right
to be forgotten on one side and another point that we put on the 14th,
principle has been to establish in Italy mull-stakeholder committee to rund
Internet in Italy that this is close to what you did with CGI in Brazil.
And this explains the vicinities of our intent, at least.

>> Carlos:  I think it's time for us to open up for comments and questions.

>> So my name is Christian SUPEI.  I am working at the moment with the
association of China.  We want to learn from each others experience on
digital regulation and approaches and policies.  My question is more
related to Brazil in the sense that I'm wondering whether you will correct
me whether this Marco sevill is a legislation by the rich for the rich
because at the end what people are caring and the population is to have
access to the Internet. So you may increase the obligations and make it
less attractive to invest in the Internet.  For example, if a company wants
to get data, big data, they could sponsor free access to the Internet, but
then there are lots of legislation on the privacy, on what you can do with
data.  So why would you invest?  So, the question is:  Don't we have is to
choose between internet for all or very secure internet for the rich and on
which side are you?

>> so very quickly.  You put up provisions on how Internet rights can be
put up.  It has a very strong language.  But the law itself would not
magically get people online and included.  So I think it's important to
explain here and thanks for your question because it gives us the
opportunity to make it clear that our regulation, a law will never solve
all the problems.  It has by the end of today this aim of trying to solve
some of the disputes we might have concerning issues such as privacy, net
neutrality or liability of intermediaries, but it will not make people in
poor areas of Brazil connected just because we have this one legislation.
So that's why it is important to have the government aware that the mission
is far from done simply because you have a federal law saying that to have
access to the internet is a fundamental right.  It's there in the wording
of the review including saying something that if you do not have free
speech and privacy, you don't have a full access to the Internet.  And so
you have very strong language on digital inclusion, but, of course, the law
will not solve this problem and it's important for the government to have
policies that deals with digital inclusion especially in Brazil, which is a
country in which almost half of the population is not on the Internet.  So
we need to take extra care of those south part of the Brazil.

>> I will try to explain, but introduce clearly the universalization
principle and the obligation of the public, the government to adopt
policies, public policies due to guarantee the right of digital inclusion.
And I agree with Carlos Alfonzo.  You can't have the internet if you don't
have freedom of expression, net neutrality, with the two principles forever
example.  I don't know if we can talk in Internet properly.

>> Just a quick comment on the data privacy and data protection issue.  In
Brazil, there's no data protection law.  Although, the rest is privacy and
protection provisions.  They have been discussing data protection view,
draft view and data protection view since last year.  There are two things
in the parliament and I have to say that the feedback from the confidence
that there is support in the views and support in there because they need
more legal certainties.  So sometimes regulators is not a good thing, but
in some specific areas where you have most of the time different laws and
different places and you have to comply with different rules, it is easy
for them to follow clear legal standards and clearly requirements and
that's the case you are facing in Brazil.  I think the views participated
in parliament from the IT industry and so on and so on, they face Google
and they have data protection law regulates not only the I.y in.  If you
see, it was supposed to be part of a package of different laws and the law
regulated the use of the web and a data protection law.  So applying to
different areas, but it didn't come at that time.  They had to include some
provisions.  Sometimes they conflict for the rules and they make some
processes of data difficult because democracy requires consent of the data
sent in the process of the web.  So creates a bit of legal uncertainties
and that's why they're promoting the idea of having a more horizontal data
protection law and more, of course, that's the approach we had there.  More
inspired by European data protection law and now data protection
ruggualation which we enforced next year.  So, I think the answer to your
question to be more direct to the point, straight to the point is they're
looking for legislation in our case because they made more certainty.  The
Brazilian course is more known having been products. They would be made by
different decisions and applying different rules in a way in many parts.
So you create more certainty for the companies.

>> It is on article 7, that I was referring to. There was a debate of on.
In and opt out.  What I understand is the Brazillian Michael SEVIL is opt
in.  And that's why myself question was not at the expense of the
population who wouldn't care and would accept.  They have first to accept.

>> That's why the viewing in the parliament is supposed to deal with these
issues.  Sensitivity data there would be an opting approach, but then for
the data we follow, the known express consent.  So, it's not so clear if
there would be an opt out or if it would be an opt in.  But maybe we have
more flex more approach for allowing to just opting, clicking like a
private policy or something like that.  But from now at this moment, I
would say that's not.  It is very clear, but really stated that you will
allow the process of your data.

>> We have in Brazil the law of consumer protection.  They have to be
interpreted together to the Internet and according to the law of consumer
protection.  The opt out is right clear.

>> A quick follow up on the scenario just understands because you're
focusing on article 7. Article 7 was an article that was changed right
after this known revelations and I think it's important to put this
political scenario on like a white the way the article looks like it does.
The Brazilian government decided to have it as one of the responses to the
spice candles.  Because of that, the privacy and data protection became
stronger in the view.  But then again, it is not a general data protection
law.  So you end up having this one result which is you have some very
strong language in issues such as the consent, which is the opt in and opt
out debate, but you don't have the exceptions that you would expect in a
general data protection law.  This is one of the points in which there is
criticism on the techs the wording of the view and that's where the draft
of the views of law on the protection are being discussed in the national
congress play in because you end up amending or changing the wording of the
view.

>> Excuse me.  If it's possible.  And the question is this, but for
example, data protection in Europe, it is introducing a new legislation.
With Brazil, we will change again the legislation to follow the new
European legislation.  Another more fundamental question to our Brazilian
friend and to my Italian friend.  When the debate in Italy started was
under the Obama Administration.  Many countries follow the U.S. in the
discussion and so it's been reflected in those in Brazil.  Now that we have
a Trump administration, maybe, we don't know what will happen.  U.S. could
change completely their policy. What Brazil and Europe and Italy will do,
you think it will be an impact?

>> We have to take to consider this fact. Internet is transnational by
nature.  So it is always important to see what happens outside of the
country, of course.  And then our role normally is sympathizing this
sentence.  Think globally, act locally.  If something happens that modifies
some of the real of the Internet concerning private, concerning anti-
terrorism or things like that and cyber bullies, then it could imply that
when trying to regulate in a way or another in the country because Markus
SEVIL has been made for Brazil and it's not something that should be
applied in other countries.  In Italy, we did -- let me finish.  We didn't
start such activities let's say.  But in order to progress since the
commission is still in operation, then we ask the commission and the
chamber of deputies.  We want to you have something like that and please
involve us because we have the knowledge of the whole Internet and of the
problems around.  And then we can try to apply something that is valid for
Italy.

>>D Italian model is very different from the Brazilian.  We have a new law
that is just on principle because there is a risk internally.  If you do a
law because of the changes, because of the technology, then you need to
legislate again and again.

>> We are going to activate other comments.  But in Italy, we have a
European union.  And then we have in some way oblige to follow and to try
to confront different ideas of countries inside the European union and then
we have a coverage also of legal activities concerning the Internet and
where we have to confront and to do something specifically for our country.

>> As you see, we're having a hard time to turn on the mic, but very, very
quickly just to address her question.  Markus review was a federal law, but
it is a principle based law.  It tries to be as abstract and focused more
on principles rather than going to details on one specific technology
because that will end up for the law to be amended or changed very quickly
even by following a principles based approach.  Of course, nothing stops
one parliamentary, one congressman or woman to propose, to suggest
amendments to the law.  And I believe that's the most challenging part of
the approach that the Brazilian has fall, which is we have a law that is
directly applied by judges.  So once it is approved, the judge can view and
enforce it right from the beginning.  Right now we're seeing it being
applied by superior courts, which is part of the growing of the law itself,
but, of course, it can change.  Most of the challenging activity of us
having involved with the law from the very beginning is to see that the law
has changed for the worst. It's good progress in a way of which the topics
are discussed.  You mentioned Trump and Europe and how Brazil faces the old
discussion.  I don't want to go in here, but we will see what happens in
the near future.  As a country located in the so-called global self, it is
interesting to see how movements in policy and regulation in the U.S. and
Europe might serve as an inspiration for what happens down there in Brazil.
Just to give you an example, I was thinking about this what we got earlier
today.  It is really striking to see that after May 2014, only in the court
of appeals in the state of Sao Paulo, you have 46 decisions on the light we
have forgotten and the Internet that end up referring the decision that it
was made in Europe in the COSTEJA case. Some arguments and reasoning that
you have in European decisions.  So, this just serves in a very practical
example that influence inspiration that might happen.  Of course, we don't
know what is going to come up with Trump and the administration. If I had
to choose, I would love to stick with Trump administration in a single day.
Let's go back to you.  Any further comments, remarks, questions to our
panelists?  If not, I will go to one second topic that I think is important
for us to address which is the way in which the intermediary liability
provisions are portrayed or presented in the text. One thing that I would
like just to mention to you all is that one of the areas in which the
Brazilian Bill of rights has been applied the most is the issue of
internet, intermediaries liability.  So, is Google, Facebook or your
favorite intermediary responsible or liable for the content that is posted
by one of its users and before the review, Brazil has established very
strong case law on a notice and take down regime that would turn the
providers, the application providers liable for the content of its users.
If it receives a notification, it can be even like a private notification
and it ends up not doing anything or not removing the content.  So one
social network provider can be held by a provider posted by its user.  If
it receives that by a private party, hey, this content is illegal or it is
causing me damage and it fails to remove this one content following a
notice to take down reenvironment that is more I would say close to the
regime that you have in the U.S. on the DMCA for copy right materials.  The
review changed the way in which this system works and if you take a look in
the booklet that we have distributed, you have a provision that says that
application provided can only be held liable if it fails to comply with a
judicial order.  That, of course, commands this one content to be taken
down, to be striked down.  This is quite interesting because that created
-- some people reading this provision got the idea that one specific
content could only be removed from the Brazilian Internet with a judicial
order, which is not quite the case.  If you look at the wording of 19, the
provider can only be held liable if it fails to comply for judicial order.
But there is no where in this provision that says that only a judicial
order could be like the condition for some photo or video to be removed
from the Brazilian Internet. But this provision is quite important because
not only it changed the way in which the notice and steakdown system has
been applied in Brazil and right now we are seeing some cases that are
reaching the higher courts of Brazil in this provision that's being applied
including the superior court of justice in Brazil applying this ARTICLE 19
of the review.  I think it is important to mention because there are two
exceptions to this rule of ARTICLE 19. One is related to intimate content
and revenge porn or order materials that expose the representatives
necessary of a person including adult material. That's article 21.  And you
have one second exception which is copy right because the reason going copy
right reform in our legislation in Brazil and the Internet bill of rights
deifer to the reform of the copy right law the solution to the issue of
copy rights violation on the internet.  But I understand that this is
important to mention because it means that the general rule for
intermediary, Brazilian Internet intermediary is not held liable by the
user except from the moment in which there is a judicial order requesting
-- sorry -- commanding the contents be taken down.  But there is exception
to issues of adult material involving nudity, sex tapes and such.  This is
important because it Connects to the whole discussion about cyber bullyism
in Italy as well.  As I understand, it is one of the biggest discussions
that you're having in Italy right now.  So, if you want to make a quick
comment on how the situation stands now a days in Italy.

>> Okay.  For this aspect of server bullyism, their is a proposal of law
that not yet approved. It is contested by the community because this could
introduce some to change data or some infringement of freedom of expression
let's say because maybe the law has not been so well articulated and this
is the reason why also parliament teariarians have a problem because they
see negative effects.  Apparently, anyone that is indicating some cases
that a single person ask for selling information or things like that
without any support of any legal let's say sentence.  This is one of the
problems that is not only in this case because we have a similar problem.
So for questions regarding interlength or property rights.  And the fact
and also we have some things on the reg universitiors in Italy that is able
to ask to conceal data while the legal people they say that for any
provision to consider data should be approved with a legal sentence.  But
this is just to understand for you the fact that maybe there are so many
cases that justice let's say could be (inaudible) by a number of cases that
should be avoided.  So, this is one of the problems that we face in
defending Internet rights.  I think that I would like to say just because
there is about the same problem is concerning the right to be forgotten,
that we discussed a lot about that and the point is that the case was
activated by a case with Google and in this case of the Spanish user. And
thens real problem is that selling of this link of century information is
something that is decided by the company, by Google.  And there is not a
way in a single way out to contest from the legal point of view something
that Google may either in positive case concealing certain information or
refusing to concern.  So this let you understand the fact that even to
defend rights, there are so many problems that bring to the legislation
even of the Internet -- I am exaggerating a little bit -- but then we
started to discuss we can concern the data for the right to be forgotten
only referring to search engine Google and what about the others.  And what
about information that is registered not in Europe or the United States or
in Brazil.  So there are a lot of contrasting points that demonstrate this
ability to make some rights that are equally defendd in all the states
considering that Internet is transnational organization.  (whispering)

>> I have just one comment.  I agree with you because I think what you are
saying we need transnational agreement because the point is if each country
does its own, then we have different treatment and different rights.

>> Just to be as informative as possible for the audience, the right we
have forgotten is article 11 of the Italian declaration of Internet rights
and the article 11 of the current declaration item 2 reads like this.  The
right we have forgotten cannot restrict the freedom of search and the right
of the public to be informed, which are necessary conditions for the
functioning of the democratic society.  This right may be exercised by
public figures or those who hold public functions only if the data
concerning them are irrelLantz with regard to their activities or the
public functions they perform.  And I think this is a very interesting
point to make about the Italian declaration in comparing to the Brazilian
Bill of rights because we do not have the right we have fogotten provision
in our law.  As mentioned, we do have some views of law.  They're trying to
amend the Brazilian Bill of Rights to have a language on the rights to be
forgotten and one typical discussion that is happening mostly in Europe
about the removal not only in 1 country, but globally, I believe most you
are aware of the discussion about the so-called global removals in which
the French regulator is pushing for a removal that happens not only this
France and not only in European union, but globally and this very
discussion has started in Brazil as well.  So even though we don't have a
provision on the right we have forgotten, we have already in the case law
in our cases that are being decided by the courts a huge discussion on if a
person asks Google to remove from Google.com, but also from Google.com.ER,
should a Brazilian judge grant to not only take the Brazilian search
engine, but also in the international search engine.  It's really
interesting to see how decisions in the court of appeals in the state of
Sao Paulo are being split up and I recall one decision from one month ago
that a judge was saying I as a Brazilian judge don't feel comfortable to
decide that this one content might be removed not only from Brazil, which
is something that I can't exercise my jurisdiction, but this content might
be erased from Germany or Colombia and the judge mentioned those two
countries.  I think it's interesting because it shows that the discussion
that you have in Europe is a discussion that is happening in the Brazilian
courts even though the standards might be different because we don't have
this language that you have in the declaration.  This is just a personal
note.  I think the whole idea of the right we have forgotten is the idea
that maybe it would not be the time for the Brazilian to dig late it as it
is especially because I believe the courts in Brazil right now are going
through a moment in which is free speech is crucially to take a higher
stand especially in the supreme court and I will conclude here saying that
as you know, Brazil is going through a very difficult political moment in
the political turmoil in Brazil with impeachments of the former presidents
and the bunch of congressmen being involved with corruption Scandals.  Of
course, we know that politician my Ws from a right to be forgotten
especially if you don't have a strong language.  So that's why I think it's
important to make this comparison between Brazil and Italy.

>> Very, very good.  Let me say something that is very important especially
for young people going to school and so on.  The right to be forgotten is a
wrong title because it is clear that the next don't forget about you.
Never.  And then possibly, you can convince, you can oblige Google or other
-- even other search engines to forget the link, but in your enemies made a
copy, then they publish what is inside of that and then you don't have any
legal provision unless you succeed in asking a lawyer or so on to prosecute
those that made the copy.  But then you don't know who made the copy.  So,
in practice to be forgotten is something impossible. But we have to define
very well what are the protection that you can get.  Simply not be searched
with the country.

>> Do we have any comments or questions from the audience on the right we
have forgotten or issues of liability?  Do we?  Go ahead.

>> I am also from Brazil and I am part of IGF. And I think the right to be
forgoaten has a lot of relation with cyber bullying.  Something that might
look really different, but something that we do not see now is a lot of
children who are involved in cyber bullying and talking a lot about their
personal life or having colleagues from school.  In the future, they might
have a lot of problems with that even to get jobs or something like that
because we are all exposed online and on the internet.  So I think that
even if we all understood the view ever the Internet is a general and we're
trying to constrict that in Brazil and we cannot be too specific.  I think
it's really important to try to plan and to find next steps because we talk
about making public policies that are going to make education and universal
in the Internet.  It is great to talk about it, but I think we might start
to think how to make this effective because I was born in Brazil and it is
a very hard place to have internet and to other things.  So, people that
even, you know, even did not have much access to the Internet, it is really
important to try to make education.  When I talk education, I talk public
schools and universities and get involved on that. I understand how
important it is to use Internet as a technology of education and to
understand how to but yourself online or Internet.  And I would like to ask
about the next steps that you guys are thinking of how Brazilian pal ticks
are talking about it and make this really effective and how you can help
it.  We have a lot of actions like volunteer or groups who are trying to
talk about that and all of us who are IGF.  We are here because we worry
about this issue.  So I think it would be real important to get involved to
try to make this affection of the education of talking about that and make
this real.  By taking this small actions and give them more power and
empower people to really become part of the change.  So thank you.

>> Do you have any other case?  So let's get -- okay.  So let's get three
questions.  In the back.

>> Lieuwise Bennett.  We did a lot of work trying to persuade the
Eourselves to change the wording in many things in the general protection
regulation including the right to be forgotten because it is open if you
choose the wrong word and you don't define your -- what you're saying very
accurately, you will have enormous numbers of legal challenges as you have
already been said -- been talking about. The right to be forgotten should
have been, in our opinion, written as the right to request the listing,
which is all that you can actually do and what came out of the case law for
Google and it -- if you say the right to be forgotten, you are going to
have many, many challenges because it is actually impossible and if you
said the right to be delisted, then it would have been quite clear that it
was specific and limiting thing that was possible and was reasonable.  And
I think one of the big problems with much of the legislation in these areas
and it sounds as if you had it with your two Bills of Rights is the
question of not defining your terms properly and not saying things that are
actually possible to do.

>> My name is Pedro from Brazil.  I would like to make two requests.  If I
can't have both, you can pick whichever one you want to answer.  I would
like to hear a full argument about ARTICLE 19 that is usually alleged in
Brazil concerning consumer legislation.  I would like to hear more from you
about that.  How you answer that issue.  And the other one is if you
understand judicial notice and take down system that has been implemented
through SEVIL as planes of furthering and strengthening an ocean of digital
due process when you take the decision of choosing whether the content
stays on or off from a private party to a judge.

>> Okay.  So thanks for that.  Thanks for those questions.  It's my
pleasure to inform you that we are going to stay here for the next three
hours in order to respond properly to those questions.  But thanks.  I
think great questions that put us and gave us an opportunity to have a lot
of topics. Stefano, you want to begin?  You want to begin with the other
questions?

>> Stefano:  Okay.  So concerning the intervention of the lady there.
What's your name? Lieuwise, okay.  I fully agree.  You have been more
precise than I did.  It is all very important.  But they connected to also
legal difficulties in correcting the things that should be addressed.  And
also another point that is discussed a lot in Italy is generally speaking
is privacy.  Privacy is something that that is not only connected to the
search engines, but the net knows a lot of any one of us interest we don't
know what they -- what the net already knows.  So we can go around and
search about this difficulty in protecting the rights of the single persons
in the Internet.  So when we consider all the provisions anti-terrorism and
then we have the preoccupation of users to be spyd and he don't know.  So,
this is -- and then if we consider the law enforcement agencies, some
transparency might be obliged or requested, but when we go with the
intelligence, who can we do?  And, of course, these are areas where the
difficulty to protect the single individuals legally is something very,
very difficult even to explain with appropriate words.  I insist always
with the word transparency, but transparency is not visible 100%.  For the
rest, I fully agree.  I know about the question concerning specifically
ARTICLE 19.

>> Okay.

>> You can ask.

>> Thanks, Stefano.  Just one quick comment the right.  We couldn't agree
more that the right to be forgotten is a tricky name.  No judicial order
could make you forget something.  To forget is the result of something
else.  So what we're talking about is a lawsuit that we request a removal
or a delisting, but it can never request someone to forgoat something.  The
judge is not -- doesn't have a man in black device that will put you in
face and then we'll forget what you have seen before.  So, definitely we're
talking about the listing and definitely not forgotten.  And the question
regarding how you could have engaged in the discussions of the view and
since we're talking about the right we have fogotten and cyber bullyism,
first of all, let me thank the presence of the guys and girls of IGF here.
It's so good to see you all come down together about the discussion of the
Bill of Rights and the comparison with the Italian experience since as I
would imagine most of you are from Brazil.  I think it's really good to
have this conversation going with our foreign friends and to help to reach
the conversation between different countries.  Specifically on right we
have forgotten and EU engagement, the Brazilian Bill of Rights is not an
abstract law in the sense it doesn't Connect to the way that you end up
leaving your life online. So when we're talking about privacy, we've
talking about your daily activities on the Internet.  We're not talking
about neutrality.  We're talking about the future of the Internet that you
are going to use in the next 10 years or such.  We're talking about how to
come up with a system of intermediary liability.  We are trying to design a
way in which free speech is a value that is enshrined and enforced in
Brazil and, of course, in the Brazilian internet.  Crucial, crucial
decisions.  So I believe you have lots of areas in which you could have a
good impact on the way that the view is moving forward.  I would say -- I'm
not sure if all of you are studying law.  So I would definitely avoid the
legal terms here.  But I think it's important to mention that because it's
the law, it is not exclusively to lawyers and people trained in law to
understand and to provide feedbacks on how this law is going to be received
by society, how it is going to affect business models, how it is going to
change the way in which technology is offered and presented in a number of
applications in Brazil.  I know this is very obvious, but I would like to
resource this idea of the law of the horse that we have four horses that
are really competing among themselves to decide who is going to decide how
you do what you do.  So one of them is law, which is the choice between
something that's legal or illegal.  The of the one is the market or
economic forces that will tell you that you're going to do something
because it is going to cost you less or more.  The other horse is a society
which is I'm going to do this because it is accepted by society or not that
much accepted and finally technology that will make easier or harder for
you to do somebody.  So I think it's a good image that puts law on its
place as a result to 1/4th of the diagram.  And just to conclude very
quickly.  Pedro has very tough questions on the interpretation of the view.
You said I could choose.  So I will try very briefly to address the two of
them.  So first of all, is the ARTICLE 19 unconstitutional?  I really don't
think so.  ARTICLE 19 comes up with system for liability of intermediaries.
It is not an article on removal of contents and if people end up arguing
that it's not the system that the consumer protection code has established
back then in the '90s, I think you can come up with a solution that the
view was a specific law concerning Internet and it balances different
rights and come up with a regime that is not new in Brazil.  If you look on
how that brokers might be held liable for -- I'm sorry if I am
mistranslating this from Portuguese to English, but when you are in that
star and then your came is sent out to a data broker, the way in which this
data broker can be responsible for wrongly claiming that the name of this
one person is the name of Adistanter or someone who is not paying their
debts is the very same way in which the Markus deview is doing that
application.  I don't think it is unconstitutional. That's for sure.  And
then you talk about digital due process.  I believe there's a huge area to
work on because if one -- on one hand, the Mark esdeview does not require a
judicial order for a content to be removed, of course that leaves some
space for companies and providers to create their terms of services and
agreements and we each contents might be removed from the internet and
that's where we need transparency and that's where we need the community
guidelines are transparent and applied as they are written there.  But I
believe that there's a huge area to work on due process and it's important
not to look half of the coin and half of the glass here thinking that if we
have ARTICLE 19, our problems solved.  Quite the opposite.  We still need
to do web process.  If they are or not compliance with the groups that
providers themselves have stated they are going to follow.  This is just
very quick comments.  Go ahead.

>> I want to launch a last idea that these proposals of something that is
discussed in this Bill about the storm networks Facebook in particular, but
not only.  And that was connected also to some idea that came one in United
States during the campaign of the last elections.  Some -- from one side to
hate speech and then to the source of the information.  So, Facebook is
studying under pressure of some government that alga rhythm in order to
verify if certain information that is spread in social networks are false
or not.  You can imagine the difficulty to do it with the alga rhythm and
then to judge this search is going always in the right direction.  In is a
real preoccupation. Talking about democracy at the time of the Internet.
There should be some help for the users not to confuse any false
information with the right information.  And this is something that it will
come and will be some argument in order to verify because the conflict of
possible legal problems are already there.  And then maybe there should be
some human help in order to verify if the alga rhythm has made the right
choice.  This is something very, very important and this is right.  The
normal internet user is confused because you find if you search some
information such an enormous amount of information that then and help how
to select the information that is not so wrong.  It is an important right.

>> Flavia, you want to have some find remarks before we close?

>> I just like to highlight because the question of the representative of
China.  The relationship between digital inclusion and neutrality and how
it's important this concept became clear when we analyzed practices like
zero rating plains, data kept plains with blocks in the end of the volumes
of data.  In Brazil now, Anatel is the national agency in
telecommunications and CGI and the courts are working over this discussion
not to reach the better interpretation with the focus digital inclusion.
Not neutrality has a relationship directly -- directly a relationship with
inclusion, digital inclusion and universalization.  This is very important
for the is thes of Brazil now.

>> So, thanks to Flavia, marrow and Stefano for putting up this discussion
comparison -- doing some comparison between the two and going through some
of the now topics that are emerging.  Just to let you know, we can go over
doing comparison on a lot of other topics.  The declaration has anonymity,
which is different from what we had in Brazil.  Thanks for attending this
conversation.  I hope it was informative and our panelists will be here
right after the panel to discuss with you any further questions or comments
that you might have.  I would like to send a shout out to counselor
Alphonso that is not me, but he is watching you from the streaming right
now and has been putting all sorts of comments here in the live tweets of
this panel.  So, counselor Alphonso, you were supposed to be here, but I am
glad you watched us through the streaming. Guys, thanks for attending and
let's keep on with this conversation during this IGF.  So see you in the
next workshop or panel.  Okay?  So see you all. Bye-bye. [APPLAUSE]
Copyright © 2016