<div dir="ltr">Dear colleagues,<div><br></div><div>I'd like to clarify that by sending the news about our effort to translate the bill I had no intention to associate the criticism in my message to ISOC's latest report or work covering the bill. Much to the contrary, I believe ISOC should be congratulated for managing to keep their analysis so up to date during what has been a truly hectic run of the draft through Congress so far. <br>We were just finishing a last revision of the translation when I received CA's email. I felt that replying to it would be useful to group together two messages about the bill while also allowing me to agree with his concern and draw more attention to it. <br><br>Best regards,</div><div>Ivar</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 9:36 PM Ivar A. M. Hartmann <<a href="mailto:ivarhartmann@gmail.com" target="_blank">ivarhartmann@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><span id="gmail-m_9042587439451435754gmail-m_5256156558124923387gmail-docs-internal-guid-fef388b8-7fff-c53b-0fbf-f9468c32473a"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Dear colleagues,</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Let me take Carlos' important message as an opportunity to share two concerns and make a contribution on behalf of the Center for Technology and Society at FGV Law School in Rio de Janeiro (CTS-FGV).</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">First, the bill was indeed rushed through the Senate and valuable discussion opportunities have been lost. Many Brazilian activists and scholars were being forced to go over new 60+ page reports published by the rapporteur every two days with new versions of the bill, sometimes containing drastic changes. Right now it seems this will repeat itself in the House of Representatives, as news outlets today reported that the House president has declared both his intent to have the bill go through the House in two or three weeks and his belief in the need for stark punishment - including criminal prosecution - of people responsible for disseminating fake news. Because any substantive changes to the bill at this point would require it to go back to the Senate, it is unlikely that we will see multiple versions of the bill being formalized every couple of days. This is good news given how little time civil society in Brazil will have to make its voice heard.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Second, most if not all previous versions of the bill contained appalling dispositions that urged Brazilians to sound the alert abroad and I am thankful that many foreign activists and scholars answered and weighed in. While there remain controversial and perhaps even unconstitutional dispositions in the version that emerged from the Senate, none compare in their predictable negative social impact as the previous version of article 7 that would have forced social networks to required picture IDs from any user upon registration, or dispositions that would have increased the jail time for online defamation or even the obligation of social networks to moderate 'disinformation'. </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">The attitude of many civil society groups that did not carefully go over the current version, however, remains one of rejection of the bill in its entirety. With the text changing rapidly, the Senate’s disregard for civil society input and elements of the bill lost in translation, many foreigners who have never had the opportunity to actually read the text of the bill seem to be under the impression that it still contains all of the worst aspects of each version that was circulated. </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">My concern results not only from the fact that this is not the case, but also from my opinion that there are dispositions in the bill that would create much needed guarantees to protect users from social networks. Articles 12 and 13 would enshrine in legislation safeguards that scholars have recommended for years. It is my opinion, therefore, that civil society should use its precious time and efforts to criticize and try to repel </span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-style:italic;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">specific dispositions</span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap"> (the proverbial bath water) and perhaps save articles 12 and 13, if nothing else - there are other dispositions that are very welcome, such as articles 14, 15 and 18, first paragraph. </span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Finally, the contribution of CTS-FGV is precisely to let all non-Portuguese-speaking stakeholders make up their own mind about the bill. We have hastily but carefully translated all of the text to English and made it available here: <a href="http://bit.ly/br_fakenewsbill" target="_blank">bit.ly/br_fakenewsbill</a>. While we wholeheartedly welcome suggestions to improve the final result, we hope that a translation manually curated by legal researchers will contribute to significantly enhance the international debate about the bill.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Best regards from Rio,</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Ivar </span></p></span><br></div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 4:15 PM Carlos Afonso via Governance <<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal">Dear people, as some of you probably know, the Brazilian
Congress is discussing a crucial bill of law on fake news. A
version of the bill has been approved by the Senate (where the
proposal originated) and is now under discussion in the Chamber of
Deputies. Below is a precise review of the situation, by the
Brazilian chapter of the Internet Society).<br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal">The text refers to the statement on the bill of law
published by the Brazilian chapter, which can be read here in
Portuguese and English:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal"><a href="https://isoc.org.br/noticia/capitulos-da-isoc-apoiam-nota-tecnica-da-isoc-brasil-contra-o-pl-das-fake-news" target="_blank">https://isoc.org.br/noticia/capitulos-da-isoc-apoiam-nota-tecnica-da-isoc-brasil-contra-o-pl-das-fake-news</a><br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal">fraternal regards</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal">--c.a.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal">=============================<br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal">This is a brief report on the recent developments in the
Brazilian Congress regarding the Bill on Fake News. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal">Despite strong opposition from civil society organizations
and tech companies, which asked for a postponing of the voting so
that a more informed discussion could take place, the Bill has
been voted and approved by the Senate on June 30. Voting result
was 45 in favor, 32 against the Bill (1 abstention + the
President), from a total of 89 senators.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;line-height:normal">The Bill now goes to the House of Representatives, where
it can be amended or even rejected. If amended, it must come back
to the Senate for another round of discussion and voting. <span style="color:rgb(34,34,34)">Forecast is that it might take up to 3
months for the matter to return to the Senate. <b>But recent press coverage
indicates that things might be expedited in the House in a
response to Bolsonaro's announced willingness to veto some
parts of the project that might affect "freedom of expression"<u>.</u></b>
</span>If finally approved by the Senate, it must be sanctioned by
the President, who can interpose his veto to specific parts of the
text. So we still have many opportunities to fight for a much
better version of the Bill.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt;line-height:normal">Some
important highlights on the version that has been approved, both
positive and negative ones:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 6pt 13.5pt;line-height:normal"><span><span><span></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 6pt 13.5pt;line-height:normal"> </p>
<ul>
<li><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34)">End-to-end encryption was
recognized as legal. But traceability through "forwarding
metadata" was kept, and this </span><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34)">was </span><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34)">the
hardest fight so far. Several organizations are threatening to
take the matter to the Supreme Court, because of the threat to
privacy.</span></li>
<li><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34)">Facial recognition was not
inserted as means to identify users</span><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34)"> (as promised by the Rapporteur the
weekend before the vote)</span><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34)">.
Providers are required to develop measures to "identify users"
accused of "inauthentic behavior". Collection of phone number</span><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34)">s</span><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34)"> is
not mandatory anymore. The Bill now states that "those apps
that rely on phone numbers to function are obliged to suspend
services to those phone lines that are cancelled by the
operator". </span></li>
<li>A last-minute c<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34)">opyright </span><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34)">rule</span> <span style="color:rgb(34,34,34)">was
suppressed from the Bill</span><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34)"> in
the final round of deliberations</span><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34)">.</span></li>
<li><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34)">Data localization was suppressed
from the Bill. A CLOUD Act-</span><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34)">inspired</span>
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34)">rule was adopted to oblige companies
to provide access from Brazil to data stored abroad.</span></li>
<li><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34)">Mandatory arbitration for Terms of
Service was suppressed.<b>
</b>The Intermediary Liability regime from the “Marco Civil”
stands untouched. But complicated rules related to
authorization for providers to remove content immediately
remain, in cases of "harmful consequences, information
security or user security, threats to the functionality of the
service, hate speech, child pornography, support to suicide
and self-mutilation", "defamation and slander" against
politicians, trademarks, individuals and legal entities, as
well as "content that lead to error or confusion, including
through deep fakes" (which is very broad). There is a need to
ensure that all those reached by the content are also reached
by a 'right of reply' in cases of defamation and slander.</span></li>
<li><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34)">The issue of TCP/IP ports in
CG-NATed connections still remains.</span></li>
</ul>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6pt;line-height:normal"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34)">We thank the support from other Chapters
to the statements we published. They were collected </span><a href="https://isoc.org.br/noticia/capitulos-da-isoc-apoiam-nota-tecnica-da-isoc-brasil-contra-o-pl-das-fake-news" target="_blank"><span style="color:blue">here</span></a><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34)"> and also resonated on Twitter.</span></p>
<p> for ISOC-BR</p>
<p>Flavio Wagner, chair</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</div>
-- <br>
Governance mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">Governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>