ILLEGAL AND HARMFUL CONTENT ON THE INTERNET Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Table of Contents with some excerpts (full text at http://www2.echo.lu/legal/en/internet/content/communic.html): 1. The opportunities of the Internet 2. How does the Internet work? 3. Illegal and harmful content on Internet It is crucial to differentiate between content which is illegal and other harmful content: A. Illegal content Protection of the public order (child pornography, racist hatred, terrorism, fraud), and rights of individuals (breach of copyright, libel, invasion of privacy or unlawful comparative advertising) B. Harmful content Material may offend the values and feelings; depends on cultural differences. 4. Identifying and combating illegal content on Internet A. Technical limits to law enforcement Control can really only occur at the entry and exit points to the Network. Thus additional international co-operation is required to avoid "safe havens" for documents contrary to general rules of criminal law. B. The role of Internet access providers and host service providers i) Legal responsibilities ii) Self-regulation iii) Removal of files from the servers iv) Blocking access at the level of access providers Singaporean model is inconceivable for Europe as it would severley interfere with the freedom of the individual. Practical feasibility remains open to question. An approach which involes requiring access providers to block access to illegal content on a case-by-case basis has been followed recently by law enforcement authorities in Germany. A number of anti-blocking tactics were also immediately put in place. At the latest count, the document is mirrored on 43 WWW sites and 2 newsgroups and is available from an e-mail listserver. Upstream blocking of sites may therefore present a number of significant shortcomings. It may not prevent, in particular, criminal users from "hopping" from one Internet mode to the other, i.e. from a Web page, to a Usenet newsgroup, to standard e-mail. C. Anonymous use of the Internet Users of the Internet are normally identified. This is desirable in accordance with the democratic principle that individuals, while free to express their thoughts and beliefs, should nevertheless be accountable for their actions. Law enforcement authorities have expressed concern at various techniques which allow anonymous use of the Internet. This may facilitate sending illegal content by making it difficult or impossible to identify the offender. The legitimate need for anonymity should be reconciled with the principles of legal traceability. The Safety Net proposals take the view that use of truly anonymous accounts is a danger, while use of traceable pseudonyms is not. They propose measures to close known loopholes and improve traceability and that anonymous remailers record details of identity. These details would be subject to data protection legislation. The question of legal traceability needs work both on technical issues and on global co-operation in order for measures to be effective. D. Judicial and police co-operation at EU and international level 5. Dealing with harmful content on Internet A. The principle of freedom of expression The right to freedom of expression, as affirmed by the European Convention on Human Rights, can be subject to some conditions, is not absolute and subject to important qualifications, for instance permitting licensing of broadcasting or cinema enterprises. Any regulatory action intended to protect minors should not take the form of an unconditional prohibition of using the Internet to distribute certain content that is available freely in other media. B. The legal framework of the Internet market The measures must be appropriate to achieve the pursued objective and may not exceed what is necessary to achieve their aim. C. Parental control software: empowering parents to protect minors Useful as a "line of defence" at the end-user level, filtering software can also be applied at various stages in the transmission process, for example by host service providers or access providers. D. PICS: a global industry standard E. The extent to which filtering can be used F. European rating systems G. Educating the public 6. Policy options/conclusions 1. Illegal content a) Co-operation between Member States b) Liability of access providers and host service providers Need for a common European framework to clarify the administrative rules and regulations which apply to access providers. c) Encourage self-regulation 2. Harmful content Encourage the use of filtering software such as PICS. 3. INTERNATIONAL ISSUES a) An International Conference At the Industry Council of 8 October 1996, the invitation by Germany to host an International Conference was accepted. This will involve representatives of law-enforcement authorities, together with representatives of providers and users: Discussion on the possibility of an international convention on illegal and harmful content. b) Extension of the dialogue 4. Support actions a) Transparency mechanism b) Information Web site