Insight

Issue

Content Types

Amicus Brief in AirBNB and Homeaway vs. San Francisco

CDT joined EFF and other Section 230 experts in an amicus brief in Airbnb’s challenge to the San Francisco homesharing ordinance. The brief emphasizes that laws forcing intermediaries to ensure that users’ listings comply with content specifications contravene Section 230 of the Communications Act, a federal statutory shield protecting online content hosts against liability for their users’ speech.

Read More Read More

Coalition Letter on Copyright Reforms in the EU

A coalition of advocacy groups issues a letter in support of copyright reforms that creates an online environment that promotes innovation, serves consumers and supports creators. They oppose some of the proposed reforms including the creation of a new ancillary right for publishers and any effort to undermine the safe harbour and no-general monitoring obligations of the e-commerce Directive.

Read More Read More

Content ‘responsibility:’ The looming cloud of uncertainty for internet intermediaries

This paper, written by Dr. Monica Horten, addresses the topic of intermediary liability in the context of new European Union policy proposals. These proposals introduce a new notion of ‘content responsibility’. The paper seeks to understand this notion and its consequences by analysing the policy proposals that have been tabled in 2016, as well as national and European case law.

Read More Read More

Comments to DHS on Proposal to Ask Visa Waiver Applicants for Social Media Identifiers

The Department of Homeland Security proposes to request disclosure of social media identifiers and other online account information from Visa Waiver Program applicants. CDT is deeply concerned that this proposal would invade the privacy and chill the freedom of expression of visitors to the United States and United States citizens.

Read More Read More

Third party intervention in the Bureau of Investigative Journalism case

On July 8th, CDT submitted a third party intervention (amicus brief) to the European Court of Human Rights in the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and Alice Ross v. United Kingdom case. The journalist applicants challenged the United Kingdom’s Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, Tempora program, and surveillance practices generally. They argued that blanket surveillance had a chilling effect on their profession, and did not satisfy the Court’s standards for compatibility with Articles 8 (privacy) and 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights. CDT drew attention to similarities to US surveillance practices, which undoubtedly fail to satisfy the Court’s standards, and argued that the receipt of US intelligence alone makes the UK’s practices incompatible with the Convention.

Read More Read More