Australia Threatens Social Media Laws That Could Jail Tech Execs (cnet.com) 158
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNET: Following the livestreamed New Zealand mosque shooting that left 50 dead in Christchurch, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison is looking to crack down on extremist content on social media. Morrison will on Tuesday meet with Australian executives of Facebook, Twitter and Google to discuss extremist content legislation that would punish these companies' executives with jail time, the Australian Financial Review reports. Local internet service providers will also be present at the meeting.
Details of the proposed legislation aren't yet known. However, Europe's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which applies to any company operating in the continent, showed that tech companies can change their global practices to appease local legislation. News of Morrison's meeting with tech executives comes on the same day that his government announced increased punishment for companies misusing user information. Maximum penalties for misuse of private data was raised from AU$2.1 million to AU$10 million -- or 10 percent of the company's domestic revenue, or three times the value gained from that misuse of data.
Details of the proposed legislation aren't yet known. However, Europe's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which applies to any company operating in the continent, showed that tech companies can change their global practices to appease local legislation. News of Morrison's meeting with tech executives comes on the same day that his government announced increased punishment for companies misusing user information. Maximum penalties for misuse of private data was raised from AU$2.1 million to AU$10 million -- or 10 percent of the company's domestic revenue, or three times the value gained from that misuse of data.
tech will just take an ausexit then (Score:3, Interesting)
tech will just take an ausexit then
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly, but unlikely. It is still a lucrative market, the only difference being that the margins get somewhat smaller.
On the other hand, if the big players left it would create a valuable vacuum allowing startups to compete. And a Twitter or Facebook without the information stealing scheme would be a real threat to the big guys if it ever managed to gain traction (such as grabbing 100% of the Australian market).
So for our sake, I hope you're right.
Re: (Score:2)
tech will just take an ausexit then
And what exactly will they be removing from Australia?
This would be like Iran threatening to leave the Mars... They haven't got anything there to leave.
Size matters (Score:4, Insightful)
Whilst GDPR shows that tech companies can change their global practices to appease local legislation - Australia is tiny compared to Europe, so I suggest the big tech companies show the Australian Government the finger, stop providing all services into Australia, and then wait for the inevitable citizen uprising which will force the Government to retract from their stupidity.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Size matters (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Size matters (Score:5, Interesting)
Read up on the East India Tea Company. Was very much an international corporation with a standing army and navy and successfully subjugated empires on its own.
Sort of. Mercantilism is hard to understand in a modern context. The East India Company was far more in bed with the government than any modern corporation, and its only because of that that it was allowed it's own armed forces. The British government saw it as a free British army/navy, and there was enormous overlap between ownership in the EIC and power in the government.
Much economics of the time was of the form "you pay the government for a monopoly (or earn it by supporting the government militarily), you make whatever money you can" and while the EIC was a bit abstracted from that, it wasn't far. While it wasn't "Lord Soandso has the salt monopoly as part of his domain granted by the Queen" it was "the EIC is granted a charter by the Queen, and Lord Soandso owns a big chunk".
Re: (Score:1)
Found the chink
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is also a limit to how much they will bend to local laws. Tech companies, like any company will take the path of least resistance whatever it may be. For GDPR it was simple arithmetic. Beyond a certain size it made financial sense to follow the regulation to keep doing business in the EU. For smaller companies however, often times single person or mom and pop affairs, it was impossible to take on the overhead so they stopped selling to the EU. Stuff like this makes me wonder what the path of least res
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What was the point of that diatribe? Yeah, I get it, you secretly hope the US will fail, and sit around at home eating donuts and running out fantasy scenarios in your head.
But if the US should "Loose" , then trust me: that one will reverberate. and you WON'T be better off.
Any major player in the global economy, if they failed, would cause hardships.
Say China, tomorrow, disappeared. Would the rest of the world continue on as normal? of course not.
Anybody remember freedom of speech? (Score:3, Insightful)
That was awesome. Too bad freedom of speech is dead now. Ah well, it had a good run.
Re: Anybody remember freedom of speech? (Score:1)
Pepperidge Farm remembers!
Re: (Score:3)
But Pepperidge Farm ain't just gonna keep to Pepperidge Farm's self free of charge. Maybe you go out and buy yourself some of these distinctive Milano cookies, maybe this whole thing disappears.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
If you host a site that encourages people to kill other people, be ready to take to the consequences of this.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Old joke:
In Communist Poland we have freedom of speech. In Imperialist America you have freedom after speech.
Re: (Score:3)
Freedom of speech has never been absolute, at least not in the US.
It very nearly is. Speech that will provoke clear and immediate violence is not protected, but this very rarely comes up, That's really about it, other than the blatantly unconstitutional obscenity laws (and even then, most of those are restrictions on business rather than speech per se), and arguably some bits of the DMCA.
Most of the examples people like to trot out are not criminal, but instead torts.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
What 'freedom of speech' are you talking about? The freedom to air your political views without being jailed by the government? You still have that. Or are you a conservative and this is more about you wanting a free pass to spread hate without consequences?
Re: Anybody remember freedom of speech? (Score:1, Insightful)
The two are not mutually exclusive. Your leftist brethren, and you if your post is indicative of your rhetoric, spread hate, as you just did, by categorizing everyone on the right as a hatemonger. Think before you post hypocritical statements.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So many people forget this, that people are complicated, deep creatures. There are many people in the world generally good with one ( or more) tragic flaws, for whatever reason. We judge them based on the balance of their flaws. Good points can outweigh the bad.
Re: (Score:1)
As long as the crypto holds.
Re: (Score:1)
Freedom of speech is dead on the internet. I don't care if you're in the USA or not. The internet, as we knew it, is on death's doorstep. It's a few years away from being a cable TV package (ahem, youtube tv). In the US, they don't even bother to ban sites. They just run a perpetual propaganda campaign and flood the forums with corrupt moderators, trolls and shills. You can't have a real conversation with your countrymen like that. And, having a verifiable ID (which, believe me, will be pushed as a solution
Re: (Score:3)
Live-streaming murder is illegal. They're simply telling the execs that run these businesses, "You sure look like you don't give a fuck about the results of what you're putting out in the world. You should give a fuck, or you'll be taken away from the world and put into a cage."
Re: (Score:2)
Live-streaming murder is illegal.
Why not just make murder illegal, whether it is live-streamed or not?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You surely understand that terrorism is far more effective when the terrorist himself is able to speak directly, right?
Yeah, price of freedom. Everyone has the right to speak, even assholes. Do not give the government the power to decide who's a terrorist and who's a protestor, or you effectively end legal protest against the government (this is not hypothetical, it's the status quo in China). Would you really be in favor of jailing a journalist who showed a terrorists video?
We have laws against making money from criminal acts, and those are fine. Not that any advertiser would want to be shown along side such content in
Re: (Score:2)
You surely understand that terrorism is far more effective when the terrorist himself is able to speak directly, right? You do understand that those who deliberately amplify, or ignore that they're amplifying, the words of terrorists are ultimately complicit?
You surely understand that opposition to the government is far more effective when the opposant himself is able to speak directly, right? You do understand that those who deliberately amplify, or ignore that they're amplifying, the words of opposition members are ultimately complicit?
You surely understand that opposition to apartheid is far more effective when the opposant himself is able to speak directly, right? You do understand that those who deliberately amplify, or ignore that they're amplifying, the
Re: (Score:2)
So you're against YouTube taking down ISIS beheading videos?
Re: (Score:2)
So you're against YouTube taking down ISIS beheading videos?
No. But I am against the government requiring them to take down the videos.
Censorship is a FAR greater danger to our freedom than terrorism.
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom only functions for those that do what they should do. I really wonder why someone would want to watch a murder happen. If you find some air of interest in watching murder, then I feel like you should maybe go see a psychologist.
In a movie it's one thing - you know it's not real. But to watch it happen for real, and to have the ability to disregard the fact that the murdered is losing their very life, and that they have loved ones that will miss them... the words "narcissist" and "sociopath" come
Re: (Score:3)
Freedom only functions for those that do what they should do.
Used to be, people were free to do whatever laws didn't specifically forbid. You seem to advocate that people should only be free to do what the laws specifically allow. That's not freedom. That's a cage.
the words "narcissist" and "sociopath" come to mind
Yes, people who behave in non-approved ways clearly have psychiatric problems and, for the good of society, need to be treated - preferably in isolated places where they don't risk to infect the general populace with their madness. There are some great precedents [wikipedia.org] too.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to advocate that people should only be free to do what the laws specifically allow.
In what way?
Yes, people who behave in non-approved ways clearly have psychiatric problems and, for the good of society, need to be treated - preferably in isolated places where they don't risk to infect the general populace with their madness. There are some great precedents [wikipedia.org] too.
Let me wipe the sarcasm off my eyes...
You're comparing: "me saying that people that like to watch murder should go have a mental eval" to "Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union". Why?
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to advocate that people should only be free to do what the laws specifically allow.
In what way?
Your statement was "Freedom only functions for those that do what they should do". My statement would be "freedom functions for everybody who doesn't do what they are forbidden to do by laws".
Suppose somebody comes up with some new thing. In your case they're forbidden to do it by default - until some new law comes around that explicitly permits it. In my case, they're free to do it; if proven detrimental to society, then laws explicitly forbidding it may be written.
You're comparing: "me saying that people that like to watch murder should go have a mental eval" to "Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union". Why?
Because it's the same thing, albeit at a
Re: (Score:2)
I apologize for the double reply - I thought a bit and I believe I have a better formulation for the idea I'm trying to convey:
Your statement seems to imply that freedom is something you gain: people start in a state of non-freedom, and obtain freedom by "doing what they should do".
My opinion is the opposite. I think that in a free society freedom is something to lose. All people are born in a state of freedom. They can only lose this state by doing what they're not supposed to do - that is, what is explici
Re: (Score:2)
I see what's wrong here. You and I are talking about 2 different things. You're correct in what you're saying. Man's laws are, in effect, a rule list whereby the default is to allow things, unless they're illegal. I agree.
But yeah, those that like to watch murder happen are bonkers. However I'm not trying to express that the single act alone, of watching a murder happen, should be illegal, nor should being bonkers be illegal (and I think this is the difference between your take, and mine on the soviet
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
In context, you sound like you're reminiscing for the good old days when we could all film ourselves murdering people and no one would object. This is not a freedom that you or anyon
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad freedom of speech is dead now.
Freedom of speech never existed in Australia or in many countries in the world.
Nobody reads the titles (Score:5, Insightful)
This doesn't make any sense to me.
Being from the US it's tempting to make a "freedom of speech" argument, however since this is Australia I won't even go down that path. Looking at it from a purely logistical standpoint - how on Earth is a company supposed to suppress LIVESTREAMS of "extremist content". Even a human reviewer won't know what's going on until sometime specific happens.
The best they could ever hope for would be to just have a really good user reporting system but even with that you're not going to stop the first group of people from seeing it. All this will do is enforced is basically to make tech companies simply not allow livestreaming. And heck even outside of livestreaming for something like Youtube they can't possibly human review all uploaded content to know if it's against the rules.
To me, whether there's nefarious motive behind it or sincerely good intentions, this seems like a governmental push to get us back to the 1950's era of curated content only coming from official sources, rather than people actually sharing information among themselves.
Re: Nobody reads the titles (Score:3, Insightful)
^^ Parent has hit the nail on the head.
Govts HATE the loss of media control and will jump on any excuse to seize it back.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook shot themselves in the foot by introducing censorship on their platform. They automatically detect nudity, and it doesn't even need to have an embedded watermark.
Re: (Score:3)
So basically, don't allow live content anymore, right?
You realize that for this to be effective, you would also basically have to outlaw skype or any form of group chat that has video as well, don't you?
Re: (Score:2)
And even if you did that, how many human reviewers are you going to require that companies hire? Let's say that Facebook wants to protect against someone livestreaming extremist content so they implement this. There are reportedly about 1.7 billion Facebook users. If even 0.1% of them livestreamed, this would be 1,700,000 livestreams to check. Is Facebook going to hire a a million people to check livestreams?
Re: (Score:2)
Your vision of the service would cost at least $1 per minute considering the expertise that would be required of the human reviewers. There is no AI that can reliably detect violence and extremism in a general fashion. Actually, $1 / minute could be really low for humans to agree to a job that guarantees jail time if you screw up or simply don't have the same opinion of what is violent or extremist as every possible randomly chosen jury of peers.
At the least, you'd be turning the clock back to the days when
Re: (Score:3)
They could detect gunshots, that technology exists. As someone above said, they started the censorship with automatically blocking keywords and people that indicated a non-leftist political perspective. Now they have to endure the race to the leftist bottom, where nobody is allowed to speak freely.
And yes, I know that free speech also allows for the most vile disruptive people to have a platform. The founders of the US knew that, everybody that advocates free speech knows that and that's the price we are wi
Re: (Score:3)
Gunshots don't imply extremist content. It could be someone reporting on a situation. It could be shooting a gun at a gun range for target practice. Or it could even be a loud car exhaust (see video below where some guys get descended upon by the local SWAT team who thought their car exhaust was a machine gun).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
They could detect gunshots, that technology exists.
You do realize that a big chunk of livestreaming on the internet is video games, right? And that a big chunk of those feature gunshots?
As someone above said, they started the censorship with automatically blocking keywords and people that indicated a non-leftist political perspective. Now they have to endure the race to the leftist bottom, where nobody is allowed to speak freely.
Oh, I'm totally happy with Facebook being forced to choose between being a publisher or a common carrier, but imposing the restrictions of both seems rather impractical.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you're arguing from the wrong perspective. It's not the government's job to protect anyone's business model, particularly if that model is facilitating serious crime. Facebook and Google built video entertainment businesses that they can't effectively manage. That's their problem, not Australia's.
People may not remember 20 years ago, but we were able to share information prior to Facebook and Google. They did not invent video sharing, free speech, or message boards.
Re: (Score:2)
I was around 20 years ago - and on the internet then. I also remember that it was a much smaller and quieter place back then. The average person wasn't using the internet. That has changed dramatically.
Aside from the business model angle, this isn't trying to artificially maintain a business model that is dying, but rather trying to artificially kill a business . . . because it facilitates people being able to freely communicate with each other, which is something the government is afraid of.
Far enough b
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't a binary succeed/fail thing. A single failure does not indicate there is a problem with the system. This is actually the same problem as Boeing self-testing some of the FAA requirements. Or how every individual files their own income tax returns, and the IRS only spot-auditing a random few to keep people honest.
Self-regulation is done as a cost-saving measure. If the I
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Nobody reads the titles (Score:4, Insightful)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".
I don't buy into the "maybe we don't need livestreams" argument. The free and open exchange of information and ideas is paramount to a free society. Restricting that speech is a crime far greater than any terrorist could hope to achieve.
Re:Nobody reads the titles (Score:4, Insightful)
Remember, you can still setup your own server and host your own livestream
Up until your hosting providers cuts you off. Or until you are de-indexed. Or your payment processor cuts you off. Or your bank refuses your business.
What we have learned is that it doesn't matter if it is "your own ". Harpies will form a mob until that person/entity/idea is gone from the internet and destitute in meat space.
At what point is it of similar burden to create your own phone network to make a phone call to your neighbor than it is to air a controversial opinion online? Why is it acceptable for "nazi's" to speak hate speech on a phone line and not the internet?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This doesn't make any sense to me.
Being from the US it's tempting to make a "freedom of speech" argument, however since this is Australia I won't even go down that path. Looking at it from a purely logistical standpoint - how on Earth is a company supposed to suppress LIVESTREAMS of "extremist content". Even a human reviewer won't know what's going on until sometime specific happens.
The best they could ever hope for would be to just have a really good user reporting system but even with that you're not going to stop the first group of people from seeing it. All this will do is enforced is basically to make tech companies simply not allow livestreaming. And heck even outside of livestreaming for something like Youtube they can't possibly human review all uploaded content to know if it's against the rules.
To me, whether there's nefarious motive behind it or sincerely good intentions, this seems like a governmental push to get us back to the 1950's era of curated content only coming from official sources, rather than people actually sharing information among themselves.
It doesn't make sense because you're thinking the current Australian government has any real credibility. They don't.
Have they even voted to make this a law or is it just some Member's brainfart that made it to the press?
In either case, it will be universally ignored. Both by tech companies and by judges who actually enforce the law. In Australia the courts hold most of the power to determine which laws and what parts of laws are actually enforced.
However there is a federal election in Australia t
Re: (Score:2)
With livestreams someone else is broadcasting, there is no such infrastructure in place.
Re: (Score:2)
Each TV broadcaster has a single stream to worry about. It's literally a "YOU HAD ONE JOB!" scenario. Do you have any idea how many livestreams are going on at any given time on Facebook, Twitch, and/or Youtube? It is not logistically possible, let alone financially, to review all those streams.
Re: (Score:2)
Stupid politicians (Score:4, Insightful)
Yay, another politician looking to make a name for themselves by regulating something they have no understanding of. What could go wrong?
How about a two month cool down period? (Score:3)
Politicians should not be allowed to suggest any new laws and regulation until they have calmed down. Tragic as it is, clearly you need it, overreacting does not help.
Re: (Score:2)
Politicians never calm down. Have you seen the media?
Re: (Score:1)
Not the staff who have to face their own gov demand for censorship, IP logs, CC numbers, their nations assistance to police.
US trade agreements are not full diplomatic immunity for all big brand workers.
Invest in another nation and face its theocracy with blasphemy laws.
Spain and its all about tracking anything to do with Catalonia.
China on Taiwan, Tiananmen square, Communist party history, bear cartoons and...
Germany
Re: (Score:2)
well sure (Score:5, Insightful)
They want all the advantages of large company (Score:1)
I understand the problem of moderating live content on such a large global platform is difficult, but technological limits should not be the argument for bending around legal boundaries and compliance expectations.
And li
Thankfully. (Score:1)
Thankfully in America I am free to watch and share the livestream of NZ as much as I please. I should print some screen grabs for my local mosque.
The US needs to follow ... (Score:2)
... the EU and Australia.
Data whoring is getting out of hand.
Terrorism (Score:2)
Fines from Global revenue (Score:3)
"Maximum penalties for misuse of private data was raised from AU$2.1 million to AU$10 million -- or 10 percent of the company's domestic revenue,..."
That's where the Aussies are going wrong.
The EU is feared because they fine based on global revenues. It's not just a few dollars of Aussie revenue at stake, it's billions at stake for companies who do wrong in the EU.
This also stops games like claiming revenues are low in one country because the money paid by the consumer in that country are sent to a different country to "provide services".
By this logic... (Score:2)
Maybe we should go back to blaming the guys pulling the trigger, whether it's on the gun or the video camera.
Does this mean? (Score:1)
Never let a crisis go to waste... (Score:2)
So, we have a tragedy in New Zealand. And the politicians are jumping all over it, with attempts to increase governmental power. It would be sad, if it weren't so damned stupid.
Guns are useful tools. Outlawing tools is not a solution. The internet is the greatest information-sharing tool ever invented. Censoring it is not a solution. A perfectly safe world is not a world anyone would want to live in: freedom would not exist, we would all be locked into individual rubber rooms. How else could mommy-governmen
Zuckerberg needs prison (Score:2)
Too bad they won't do that.
if they can objectively predefine it, go for it (Score:2)
If the government can define an algorithm with less than 0.001 percent false positives and 99 percent extremism detection rate that can be used to judge what content is extremist with no input other than the content after the moment the content first appears, go for it. I'm even OK if the algorithm can't be executed by an existing computer as long as the only criteria used are unchanging, concise, provably remove all subjectivity, and can be executed by someone of intelligence higher than about a standard d
I like the idea (Score:1)
But our government knows nothing about IT as demonstrated by their new broadband network, their stupid encryption laws and the fact that government online services seem to be constantly off-line.
Oh, and of course they'll make sure they're exempt as per normal
How about we punish the politicians and media... (Score:1)
.. that are stirring up hatred?
if anyone deserves jailtime, it's the asshats creating the environment of hate.
Who will look after the 'moderators'? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This.
These guys are taking away your rights*. And threatening jail time for anyone who doesn't support their pogrom. Sounds pretty extremist to me. ISPs need to band together and block these guys from the Internet. Better safe than sorry until someone actually comes up with a definitive list.
*Whatever these might actually be in Aus.