Politics in the era of Networks
Daniel Innerarity, lecturer in philosophy at the Universidad de Zaragoza, researcher at Ikerbasque and director at the Democratic Governance Institute.

A democratic tension

When we speak about politics and social networking sites, we’re used to speak about David vs. Goliath: common people fighting against the powerful.

For the first time in many years, we are not facing a strong political power, but a weak political power. A political power disconcerted by the markets, globalization, a smart society. But, is that society that smart? Is it true that the digital revolution has had an impact on politics (and political parties and governments) and not on common people? Why should be common people be spared from that impact?

It is only natural that the political system and what happens out of it (unions, nonprofits, civil associations, etc.) advance in parallel and, in their confrontation, consensus and solutions emerge. This means that it is interaction what makes society advance, and not that it is society that is right despite the opposition of the political system.

Indeed, we do need an articulated civil society, as articulated as political parties and governments. Not a chaotic or disorganized one. Only an organized civic society can face a disorganized, weak political power. But there is a deep difficulty to articulate a general purpose strategy, especially when populisms leverage the fact that no-one seems to be accountable for their decisions.

The utopia of dis-intermediation

We are witnessing times were intermediation is toughly fought against: there seem to be no need for politicians, journalists, teachers, distributing industries, etc.

While there may be a positive side of dis-intermediation (lesser costs, a more straightforward access, increased availability of knowledge, etc.) there is also a dark side of it. The expert becomes a contested institution while the cult of the amateur becomes the norm.

The huge challenge is how to rebuild new mediators, more flexible, more participative, and not getting rid of them. Democracy is about commitment and engagement, and oftentimes this can only be achieved through representation.

Ballot boxes and dreams

A mature democracy is not about setting highest ideals, but about identifying what is the second best and being able to tell whether it is acceptable. If the second best is too far from ideals, society won’t progress; if the second best is too close to ideals, fanaticism takes place.

Our society is deeply de-politicized: not only technocrats are taking the power, but “tea parties” are stepping in the centre of the political debate. Those are parties or groups of people, without second best options, and that fight within the party for it not to agree with anything with the “enemy”. This breaks party-to-party and party-to-society communication. In many senses, the hardcore of the political blogsphere is made of “tea parties”, extremist partisans that radicalise the debate.

Paradoxes of democratic self-determination

Echo chambers (Sunstein) and the Daily Me (Negroponte) have been side effects of democratic self-determination, with the result that the quality of democracy is impoverished. People that thinks different from us protects us from insanity and fanaticism.

We certainly need to keep a certain distance from reality to see other opinions. And representation is just about this, about seeing the whole picture.

Untangling an illusion

The Internet implies a high degree of empowerment for the citizenry. And, historically, every new technology has come along with a utopia: technology will bring a social change or revolution. But, will it?

There is a common believe that a new technology appears in the void, in no social or economic context. But it does. And that is why the same (new) technology has different effects in different places, or “unexpected” or “undesired” changes instead of what we dreamt of.

There is a common believe that social media decentralizes and democratizes power. But the nature of power is not so: there are gatekeepers and mediators in the Internet. The Internet does not removes the relationships of power, but transforms them. E.g. in the top 40 political blogs in the US, there is also one woman, two hispanics, and no afroamericans. The top 40 political blogs in the US are made up by WASPs… as US politics.

Censorship, for instance, is not any more about governments censoring, but about crowds doing it willingly. Search engines are not really neutral, as they redirect traffic, etc.

We have to acknowledge that democracy is about design: social and power hierarchies have their mirror in the online world. Imperialism is not anymore about culture, but about protocols: we are living the imperialism of protocols.

There is a common believe that criticising (or demanding accountability) and building is the same thing, and it is not. Democracy is not only about winning elections, but about governing; or about reporting injustices, but about coming up with a better social design to avoid/correct them.

Digital revolutions have been more focused on accountability and reporting than on building.

The Internet is based on easiness and trust, and that is, precisely, its weakest point.

Discussion

Q: is it possible that the Internet stops us from a critical thinking? Innerarity: It depends. We sometimes need some things to just happen, without us having to think about how their work; but we sometimes need to stop and think. What we are in need of is to be able to turn the switch on or off, so that we are able to stop and think about a given aspect, and without, in the meantime, being dragged around because of the speed of times. Politics has lost its ability to set up, to propose: it’s reactive and not propositive, thinks short term instead of long term.

Q: are we confusing mobilization with engagement? Innerarity: organization is fundamental to perform deep and lasting changes. What organization? Whatever, but organization.

Q: has the Internet been able to engage more participants in politics? Innerarity: the network has sometimes provided an illusory activism, where the activist believes that they are having a deep impact and the truth they are having not.

Antoni Gutiérrez-Rubí: so, the Internet is a menace for politicians and they should fight against it? Innerarity: it definitely is not, the Internet can help in doing better politics. The problem with politics and the Internet is usually on the politicians’ side.

Ismael Peña-López: what will be easier: to transform the actual institutions (parliaments, parties, schools and universities, etc.) or to substitute the with brand new ones? Innerarity: renewal is a must, that is out of question. Or parliaments become spaces for reflection, or they will legislate about the past, about past problems. But we’d rather update the institutions we have than try and substitute them with new ones: the cost might be higher and no one says traditional institutions could not be transformed.

More information

• Resum i impressions de “La política a l’era de les xarxes socials” amb Daniel Innerarity, by Roc Fernández.
• Brief interview to Daniel Innerarity:

• Online Entertainment and its implications in fields such as, among others, the legal framework of audiovisual communications, the liability of intermediaries, legal aspects of videogames and online gambling, social networking sites, behavioural advertising, privacy, data protection, defamation, protection of minors, intellectual property, new models of content distribution, user generated contents, illicit and harmful contents, net neutrality, new generation networks, antitrust.

Papers may also focus on:

• Legal issues relevant to the current status and future perspectives of the Internet, such as, among others, online privacy, data protection, intellectual property, ISP liability, freedom of expression, cybercrime, e-commerce.
• Issues regarding electronic government, such as, among others, open data, reuse of public sector information, political participation online, e-procurement, Internet governance.

Interested participants should first submit an abstract (a 300-word outline) of their paper by 20 December, 2011, indicating clearly its subject and scope, and including a provisional title. There is no need to use a template for submitting the abstract. The abstracts received will be peer-reviewed and authors will be notified of the outcome by 10 January, 2012.

Authors of accepted abstracts will be required to send the full paper by 26 March, 2012. Full papers should not exceed 8,000 words in length, including notes and references. For the full paper authors should use the conference template that will be available to download from the web. The full papers will be peer-reviewed as well. The outcome will be notified by 16 April, 2012. Final version of the paper (camera ready) should be sent by 30 April, 2012. All papers accepted will be included in the electronic proceedings of the Conference, which will hold an ISBN number. Accepted papers may also be selected for oral presentation at the Conference.

Important dates

• Abstract submission: please submit a 300-word outline by 20 December, 2011.
• Notification of acceptance of abstracts: 10 January, 2012.
• Full paper submission: please submit the full paper by 26 March, 2012.
• Notification of full paper’s acceptance: 16 April, 2012.
• Final version (camera ready): 30 April, 2012.

Please send all submissions by electronic mail in a .DOC or .ODT document to: uoc.idp2012@gmail.com

In a democracy, we are traditionally faced with two different options: we either can vote a policy or a decision (direct democracy), or we cannot vote and then our representatives (usually selected after an electoral process) vote for us (representative democracy). Indeed, the latter is the most usual, while increasingly more people would rather the former.

[click to enlarge]

Some of the criticisms to representative democracy — and that are usually used to legitimate and claim for more direct democracy — are that:

• We sometimes know better than our representatives what it is good for us.
• We are almost always forced to vote a “pack” of ideas/policies, of which we only partly agree with. Thus, we are not fully represented by our representatives.
• Representative democracy was efficient in an analogue world. In a digital world, that efficiency is, to say the least, questioned, as digital voting comes marginally at zero cost.

Some of the criticisms to direct democracy — and that are usually used to dis-encourage and stop any claim for more direct democracy — are that:

• We sometimes do not master the topic that is voted. Thus, we would incur in insurmountable personal costs if wanting to cast an informed vote for each and every collective decision.
• There are people that do not care, have no time or have no means to be actively involved in politics/voting. Direct democracy then fosters plutocracy.

So, it would be great to be able to have a way to keep the best of both worlds: when we can vote, we’d do it; when we don’t, we’d delegate our vote on our representatives… or on the ones we trust for a specific subject.

Let us imagine a system where direct and representative democracies can live together. Actually, this is what most democracies do have right now. But let us imagine that each and every decision can be taken both ways simultaneously: if no citizen votes, the process takes the form of pure representative democracy; if each and every citizen votes, the process takes the form of pure direct democracy; is some citizens vote, the elected representatives vote only on behalf of the citizens that did not vote, and the final result is calculated by taking into account the individual citizens’ votes and the votes of the representatives, these weighting us much as the aggregate of votes of the ones they represent and that did not vote.

Technologically speaking, the preceding system is a “simple” one to implement: all citizens decide, first place, what is their preferred party and inform the system with their preferences. Once a consultation is scheduled, citizens log in and vote. If they do not vote, the vote goes to the representative that was initially informed in the system. Blank voting is one of the given options and abstention happens when the voter neither votes nor informs a representative in the initial setup of the system. If needed or desired, territorial weighting, district distribution, etc. can be informed and applied during the final counting of votes.

An intermediate layer can be added to this system: the expert on whom we delegate our vote. A citizen may not want their representative to vote for them: e.g. imagine a right wing, pro-environment and atheist citizen deciding whether their preferred liberal party (known for its bounds with the energy industry) should represent them in a referendum on nuclear power. The citizen has concerns or irresolvable doubts on nuclear power and would like their “green engineer” friend to vote for them (but right now cannot ask for direct advice). Same for a referendum on abortion: that citizen cannot decide, but knows the liberal party will vote against based on religious beliefs that they do not share: they’d rather ask their physicist friend working on genomics.

With a hybrid system, the citizen has now three options: voting directly; not voting and letting the elected representative to vote for them; delegating their vote on an expert or a trusted friend or the leader of the local community.

The workings of the system would be as follows:

[click to enlarge]

Note that there are, actually, five options, three of them ending up in the representative democracy as usual. Bear in mind that voting “blank” should be an option of the system. As many others have pointed before, electronic voting systems don’t usually allow for “null” votes (some even include the option in the system, a solution that I do not really fancy):

1. The citizen votes directly and their vote is counted up individually against all other votes (weighted by district if necessary).
2. The citizen delegates their vote, and the delegate (friend, expert, etc.) decides to vote directly. In that case, the delegate is voting per two people (or as much as people delegate on them).
3. The citizen neither votes nor delegates, and their is aggregated to the votes of the elected representative.
4. The citizen delegates the vote, but the delegate is not voting, so the citizen’s vote “comes back” to them and, by default, to the elected representative.
5. The citizen delegates their vote, but the delegate just happened to delegate their vote back to the initial voter: the loop is solved by sending both votes “up” to their respective elected representatives.

There is the possibility that a citizen delegates their vote, and the delegate does it too on a third person. In that case, it is just a matter of iterating the system until it gets to a case between the ones listed above.

There are two questions left open and that have to be solved arbitrarily, though solved before the system begins to work, as the results of the system we have just described can vary depending on how those questions are addressed.

The first one is whether a citizen can change in the system their (a) elected representatives and (b) the people on whom they delegate.

Our opinion is that representatives can only be chosen once every political cycle begins (e.g. once every four years and just after the elections — indeed, setting up the system defaults would be the elections), but delegates should be free to choose for each and every consultation scheduled.

The second one is whether (a) elected representatives know how many votes they have and (b) delegates know it too.

In our opinion, elected representatives should be able to know how many people chose them as default. That would gave them an idea of the potential support they more or less have at any given time, though they have to keep in mind that while citizens can vote directly vote or delegate, data from the initial election of representatives is just an approximation. Indeed, there would be huge incentives in being faithful to the original programme and electoral promises to avoid people to “vote for themselves” and trust their vote to them instead.

On the other hand, there are two reasons for which delegates knowing how many voting power they have got is a not very much convincing idea: the first one is a technical one, as the citizen should either be able to vote at the last minute or change their vote many times before the poll closes. The second one is that it would probably be an open gate to corruption and unfair lobbying, vote selling and other similar practices.

I would be very interested in contributing to an actual implementation of this system, maybe within a social networking site, maybe as an open government website being fed by parliamentary data with which compare with the experiment’s citizen decisions. If you have the possibility to make it happen, please drop me a line.

Conclusions for day 2
Javier de la Cueva, Lawyer.

All the debate around Net Neutrality and the right to be forgotten is about a new container — the Internet and all new technologies at large — and a new container — digital content and services.

And what this container is asking us is to feed is for ourselves, for free and providing personal data in exchange.

And not only are these data consciously provided, by uploading content, of befriending people on 3rd parties’ platforms, but also in a hidden form, by means of cookies, scripts or other devices.

There still is an unanswered question and it is whether technology as an ideology. And the Law should deal with this issue explicitly and bravely. This includes code, that in some aspects is becoming a derivative or procedural law.

And not only whether technology conforms an ideology, but also whether it conforms a new 4th generation of human rights.

An interesting question to explore in the future is whether we can proceed with the concept of habeas data.

We are now fighting the inefficacy of Law, that always arrives late at regulating and, when it does, there are hackers and crackers (conceptually very different) that make many laws irrelevant in practice. Thus, we need global solutions, founded on the Philosophy of Law and Law Theory, so to provide solid and long-lasting frameworks.

More information

• Relato del VII Congreso Internacional sobre Internet, Derecho y Política: Neutralidad de la red y derecho al olvido, by Javier de la Cueva

Track on e-government and e-democracy
Chairs: Ismael Peña-López, Lecturer, School of Law and Political Science (UOC)

Lorenzo Cotino Hueso
The European electronic citizen initiative

The new European normative makes it possible that with the addition of 1,000,000 signatures, the political debate on a certain topic can be initiated in the European Parliament. And one of the good things about this new normative is that it has been designed for the XXIst century, as online participation (i.e. signing) is considered in equal terms as offline participation.

The procedure is the usual one, where an initiative is registered and then signatures are collected within the member states. Once the European Commission validates the firms (the person signing is a European citizen, has not signed more than one time, etc.), then a new legislative process can begin.

Another asset is that the European Commission must provide free software platforms for the collection of signatures in any website. These platforms will work with digital signature, whatever its kind: certificates, tokens, smartphones, etc.

The initiative can be started at any member state and, once the platform is validated, the process of gathering support can begin.

The regulation is written as if it was about data protection, as that is the major issue when providing a (electronic) vote supplying personal data, but the regulation to be applied will be the one of any member state.

Daniel Guagnin; Carla Ilten
Self-Governed Socio-technical Infrastructures. Autonomy and Cooperation through Free Software and Community Wireless Networks

Net Neutrality is the freedom to use a communication infrastructure in all possible ways without constrains. And free software is a matter of liberty, not price, it is about free as in free speech (not as in free beer).

Technology is society made durable: social “programmes” are inscribed in any technology. In expert systems rules are disembedded from the realm of use, and defined by experts. Free software opens up the experitse to laypeople, why proprietary software stays opaque.

Copyleft is a general method for making a program or other work freely available and with the compulsory condition that any other work based on it will also be available in the same way.

Community Wireless Networks are based on free software and DIY hardware. They use wireless peer-to-peer mesh network architecture and have collectively organized and owned communication infrastructures.

An example can be the Chicago Wireless Community Networks [in Spain we have the very interesting initiative Guifi.net.]. Chicago Wireless Community Networks is a non-profit project to serve disadvantaged neighborhoods, in cooperation with CUWIN open source programmers. It’s community building through network set-up and maintenance. The Pico Peering Agreement acts as a constitution for peer networking.

That is certainly a new approach to Net Neutrality, as Net Neutrality is, all in all, a battle about the control over infrastructures.

Mayo Fuster Morell
An introductory historical contextualization of online creation communities for the building of digital commons: The emergence of a free culture movement

Online creation communities (OCCs) are a set of individuals that communicate and collaborate mainly via a platform hosted on the Internet with the purpose to create a final outcome of the joint work.

These communities are deeply rooted in the movements of the 1950s like hacking culture, hippies contraculture, action-participation methodologies and popular education, etc.

If the free software projects imply the appearance of OCCs, there is a shift from free software to free culture with the change of millennium with movements like the Creative Commons, the Wikipedia, alternative news media (e.g. Indymedia), peer-to-peer file sharing, open access of scientific research, etc. The explosion of the web 2.0 is greatly powered and fostering at the same time the concept of OCCs.

Infrasctructure conditions:

• Level of freedom and autonomy of the content generators in regard to the infrastructure.
• Level representation of the interests of the community of creators in the infrastructure provision decision-making and provision transparency.

Two main types:

• Autonomy + open = commons logic; they reinforce more collaborative communities.
• Close + dependency = corporate logic. Tend to generate larger communities.

The free culture and digital rights movement has 4 main goals: preserve the digital commons, to make important information available to the public, promote creators, remove barriers to distribution of knowledge and goods.

Lately, the movement has been shifting from free culture to meta-politics. This can be seen in the Change Congress initiative in the US (2008) or the #nolesvotes and #15M movements in Spain.

Georgia Foteinou
Institutional Trust and e-Government Adoption in the EU: a Cross-National Analysis

Why citizens that are used to e-commerce appear sceptic when it comes to using e-government websites? Normally, it is attributed to the poor quality of services, few available services, insufficient infrastructure… but evidence shows that is none of the above, at least not as a strong determinant not to be using those services. In fact, e-government usage is higher than e-commerce in most European countries, even if it has a decline of -4.5% (of all Internet users) over the period 2005-2010. On the other hand, in aggregate, e-government is growing at 30% (accesses) while e-commerce is growing at 75%.

It seems that the digitally reluctant could not be trusting the government, but not of a specific agent, but in government as a whole. This is what data seem to be telling at statistically significant levels.

Jorge Luis Salcedo
Conflicts about the regulation of intellectual property in Internet: comparing the issue networks in UK and Spain

In the issue of the conflicts about the regulation of intellectual property, how is media visibility distributed between the stakeholders in this conflict? What actors have more visibility? This is crucially relevant in mass-mediated democracies.

A first hypothesis is that the regulation supporters (Copyrights coalition and governments) will achieve a greater visibility level on the news channel.

A second hypothesis is that the Digital Rights Activists (DRA) will have a higher visibility on non traditional media (blogs, websites) than the CRC.

3r hypothesis: DRA will have a higher visibility in specific web channels, but not on the entire web.

4th hypothesis: The most visible agents on the news channels are going to get the most visibility as a whole, especially in search engines.

It is very interesting to see how in Spain, DRA have huge coverage in online platforms, in the UK they are even with CRC and both of them having less visibility than the government’s official position. In search engines, though, both UK and Spanish DRA seem to be having the same impact.

The differences may come from different resources from the different stakeholders, a more lax regulation in the UK in downloading matters, the worst reputation that the coalition has in Spain in comparison to the UK’s, including the dynamics of politics in the different countries.

Track on the Right to be forgotten, data protection and privacy
Chairs: Mònica Vilasau Solana, Lecturer, School of Law and Political Science (UOC)

Pere Simon Castellano
The constitutional regime of the right to oblivion in the Internet

It is the principle of consent the one that gives us the legitimacy to claim for a right to privacy or data protection.

Especially related to search engines (though not only) is the legality of a given content another important factor when claiming for our privacy rights or the right to be forgotten.

Jelena Burnik
Behavioural advertising in electronic communications. A benefit to electronic communication development and an intrusion of individual’s right to privacy and data protection

Behavioural advertising tracks Internet users’ activities online and delivers only relevant advertisements, based on the data collected and analysed over a given period of time. It is normally enabled by cookies, that are placed by websites or advertisements on websites.

Behavioural advertising is defended in the name of relevance of advertisements, enhanced user experience, precise segmentation and less money spent on non-relevant audiences, support to free Internet content and a driver of innovation.

But it is a controversial practice that requires a fair balance between the interests of the industry and the rights of individuals. As cookies assign a unique ID with an IP address, there can be concerns on data protection. On the other hand, cookies are normally placed in the computer by default, while maybe a debate on opt-in vs. opt-out of cookie placing and cookie-based tracking should be considered.

A new “cookie” European directive should aim at shifting from an opt-out principle to an opt-in one, and cookies being placed only under explicit user’s concern. But how is the technological solution for an opt-in cookie principle?

In the US, though, what seems to be more acknowledged is an enhanced opt-out model.

But only true opt-in provides for transparency, and self-regulation of the industry will not suffice.

María Concepción Torres Diaz
Privacy and tracking cookies. A constitutional approach.

It is worth noting the difference between privacy, intimacy and personal data. And cookies can harm privacy. So, users should get all necessary information on cookies and tracking so they can decide whether a specific behaviour puts at stake their privacy. In case the user decides to go on, explicit consent should be provided to the service to perform its tracking activity.

We have to acknowledge that new technologies will bring with them new rights and new threats to old rights. Thus, we should be aware of the new technologies so that the law does not fall behind.

Philipp E. Fischer; Rafael Ferraz Vazquez
Data transfer from Germany or Spain to third countries – Questions of civil liability for privacy rights infringement

There are data transfers at the international level continuously. If those data got “lost”, the operator might have incurred in privacy rights infringement.

The European Directive on data transmission, it has been established that there can be data transmission within the European Union (nationally or internationally) or with 3rd countries with adequate level of data protection. There still are some issues with the US and there are other countries which are simply banned from data transmission between them and member states.

Faye Fangfei Wang
Legal Feasibility for Statistical Methods on Internet as a Source of Data Gathering in the EU

Privacy protection steps: suitable safeguards, duty to inform prior to obtaining consent (transparency), consent, and enforcement. Request for concern should be looked at as a very important step towards privacy protection. Consent must be freely given and informed.

There is an exemption clause in the UK legislation, to be used when gathering some data is strictly necessary for a service to run, or for scientific purposes, etc. But the exception clause must be used legally.

Ricardo Morte Ferrer
The ADAMS database of the Anti Doping World Agency. Data protection problems

The ADAMS database stores whereabouts, reporting where a sportsman is during 3 months, for a daily time span from 6:00 to 23:00 and including a full daily 1h detailed report of their whereabouts. Instead of presuming innocence, this database kind of presumes guiltiness.

That is a lot of information and, being the holder an international agency based in Canada, a threat on data protection as it implies a continuous traffic of personal data internationally.

Inmaculada López-Barajas Perea
Privacy in the Internet and penal research: challenges in justice in a globalized society

The possibility that personal information of citizens can be retrieved, remotely, by law enforcement institutions, is it just the digital version of the usual (and completely legal) surveillance methodologies, or is it something new and something that threatens citizens’ privacy?

More information

• Tracking without cookies, by Smári McCarthy.

Panel: Internet Privacy and the Right to Be Forgotten
Chairs: Esther Mitjans, Director of the Catalan Data Protection Authority and Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Barcelona

Norberto Nuno Gomes de Andrade, Scientific Officer at the European Commission, working at the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS, Spain)
The Right to be Forgotten. An Identity Perspective

The right to be forgotten should be anchored to the right to identity.

The data protection – data privacy – identity triangle: the data protection directive presents and apparently harmonious and coherent articulation of the concepts of data protection, privacy and identity. Data protection protects the righ to privacy by relying upon the notion of personal identity. This assumed harmonious connection is flawed and problematic. In reality, it is much more complex and dynamic.

Data protection should be procedural right, while data privacy and identity should be substantial rights. Substantial rights are a social interest, while procedural rights set the rules, methods and conditions through which those substantive rights are effectively enforced and protected.

Right to identity is the right to be unique, the persons’ definite and inalienable interest in the uniqueness of their being. The right to identity is infringed if person A makes use of person B’s identity in a way contrary to how that person B perceives his or her identity.

Right to privacy protects the personal condition of live characterized by seclusion from, and therefore, absence of acquaintance by the public. Right to privacy is only infringed if true private facts related to a person are revealed to the public.

The right to be forgotten can be seen from an identity perspective. Reinforces the anti-essentialism view of Ientity (a narrative identity): a process of negotiation, social construct, a matter of choices; corresponds to the ever-expanding manner in which law is allowing the individual to infuence aspecte of their identity; and matches the rational of the right to identity: the right not to have one’s identity miss represented, right to new beginning, right to be different Unot only from others, but also from one self).

The right to be forgotten from an identity angle also coves the facts that are already in the public domain, public factas, and covers also the not-necessarily truthful or decontextualized information, the one that is out-dated.

Milagros Pérez Oliva, Ombudsman of El País

It is worth noting that the information that appears on a newspaper is very different from the one that appears on a social networking site. In principle, all the information published in newspapers is public interest, and thus, that information should be publicly available. The problem is when (a) newspapers upload all their archives to the Internet and (b) finding out information (oftentimes serendipitously) is now easy and cheap and quick.

Historical archives cannot be modified and must be public. Period. Of course, that is not the final solution in the case of information vs. privacy, but the beginning of all problems. A first recommendation is to write new information according to some cautionary rules: avoid names (just initials) if the person is not a public celebrity, avoid contextual information that can lead to their identification, etc.

The problem comes with already published information. The suggestion could be to put out of the search engines’ reach some obsolete information. The problem comes, again, with defining what is obsolete information, or what has become non-relevant information.

Yet another problem, added to obsolete information or non-relevant, is incomplete information or plain wrong information. Those are pieces of news that were discontinued (e.g. trials) or never corrected and that pose a problem, as there are thousands of pieces of news within this category.

There is a need for a collective decision on how to add or link new information to an already published piece of news.

María González Ordóñez, Head of Legal for Spain, Portugal & Israel, Google Spain

Google’s policy is to not delete personal data from their cache if the original source has not also deleted those data. In this sense, Google is very respectful with what instructions a webmaster gives to Google (usually via robots.txt) in relationship with indexing and caching.

This policy is based in the fact that Google wants to provide what is available in the Internet. If Google erases information that still is on the net, the search engine will lose transparency and neutrality. On the other hand, there is also the fact that Google can do the very same claims of newspapers concerning the right to information and freedom of expression.

Ricard Martínez Martínez. Professor of Constitutional Law, Universitat de València

We have a dire need to balance the different rights put at stake with the digitization of our lives.

And as citizens usually cannot control their profile on the net, the responsibility to take action relies, on the one hand, on the legislator to design a legal framework, and on the other hand, on the online service and content providers.

We could try and have new tools to “prune” our public information. And those tools should be developed by the industry itself.

More information

• El olvido: El derecho a ser diferente… de uno mismo. Una reconsideración del derecho a ser olvidado, by Norberto Nuno Gomes de Andrade.
• ¿Tenemos derecho a ser olvidados en Internet? (IDP 2011), by Cristina Aced

Introduction by Esther Mitjans, Director of the Catalan Data Protection Authority and Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Barcelona.

Three reasons why the right to forget is not already in the Law:

• We could not know.
• We did not know we were to lose all control on our own data,.
• We could not have known that segmented marketing would highly value personal data.

We face a trade-off between economic profits from data exploitation and privacy and security.

Cécile de Terwangne, Professor, Centre de recherche informatique et droit
Internet Privacy and the Right to Be Forgotten

Privacy does not mean intimacy or secrecy, but individual autonomy. In the context of the internet, it is informational self-determination, the control over one’s personal information. This personal information is made up by confidential data, but also by professional data, commercial data, published data, photos, films, sound…

In Europe, this “informational self-determination” has been recognized and protected by several norms, and the right to oblivion of the judicial/criminal past has been recognized by case law in several countries, based on the right to privacy or on personality rights.

The justification for the right to oblivion is justified by faith in human beings’ capacity of improving, the conviction that man should not be reduced to their past, the idea that once you have paid what was due, society must offer the possibility to rehabilitate.

But the right to oblivion conflicts with the right to information.

The criterion to resolve the conflict should be time:

• If there is newsworthiness, the right to information should prevail.
• If the information is no more newsworthy, then the right to oblivion should prevail.

What do we do, though, with digital newspapers archives and case law databases, which are clearly breaking the balance that we had reached?

Related to case law databases, the solution that has been proposed is anonymization, with respect of the purpose principle — by which only relevant data in relation with the purpose may be processed — and the proportionality principle — by which no excessive data may be processed.

Related to newspapers, one thing is to restrict the dissemination of old personal data, a different one is a right to delete those data. Deleting data out of “chronicles” is tempering on one’s own history.

On the other hand, there is of course a conflict with freedom of the press, a conflict that becomes a dilemma as there is not an a priori hierarchy amongst personal rights freedom of the press or the right to information.

In general, though, legislation shows that too many definitions/thresholds are subjectively defined, like “data won’t be kept longer than necessary” or some conditions under which it is possible to anonymize or delete data.

With the pervasiveness of the Web 2.0 and cloud services, there is a claim for a new right to oblivion, due to the problem of long lasting records kept by certain Internet actors of traces unconsciously left when surfing the web. But, again, as some economic models heavily rely on those data basis, there is a trade-off between personal and corporate rights.

A first solution is having the possibility to stablish a right to have information deleted and not only rendered inaccessible.

Another solution could be based on basing the right to be forgotten on a right based on the no-collection of personal data and established by default, that is, privacy by design.

More information

• Privacidad en Internet y el derecho a ser olvidado/derecho al olvido, by Cécile de Terwangne.
• ¿Tenemos derecho a ser olvidados en Internet? (IDP 2011), by Cristina Aced

Conclusions for day 1
Javier de la Cueva, Lawyer.

First of all, it is worth noting the role of Philosophy when talking about Net Neutrality. We are indeed building a new world, and this new world is not about machines, but about people. And the question is not about Net Neutrality, but about what will be the new 4th generation fundamental rights that we want for our future.

Another important issue is the definition of jurisdiction. And this jurisdiction is not only geographical, but can also be understood all along the value chain Internet provided content and services. We can speak about the different layers that make the Internet up, of about the different ends of the service, etc. But the truth is that there are many actors on the Internet and many of them belong to different legal, technical or factual jurisdictions.

A missing point during the Congress is the asymmetry of download and upload speeds. This asymmetry makes it more difficult peer-to-peer sharing, and makes it more difficult to become a real prosumer.

Again, the important thing is what do we want. In matters of Net Neutrality, do we want Net Neutrality as a right, as a principle or as a goal.

In some way, the absence of net neutrality is like adding a layer of obscurity and unfairness amongst two layers of freedom: the layer of free software, the free code that runs the Internet; and the layer of free content, the one that is freely created by the contributing users.

Of course, we have to be aware that with great power comes great responsibility: we have to acknowledge that a lot of work has still to be done in issues like privacy, reputation and honour, security, etc. Part of the solution comes, evidently, with lawyers and policy-makers learning much more on how the Internet and technology in general work.

More information

• Relato del VII Congreso Internacional sobre Internet, Derecho y Política: Neutralidad de la red y derecho al olvido, by Javier de la Cueva

Track on fundamental rights, freedoms and liability on the Internet
Chairs: Clara Marsan Raventós. Lecturer, School of Law and Political Science (UOC)

Patricia Escribano Tortajada
Right to honour vs. freedom of expression in the Net

Defamation on the Internet has become quite an extended practice. What are the limits to freedom of expression vs. the right to honour? And what are the limits of the right to honour vs. freedom of expression?

There is a difference between illicit content — which is against the law — and harmful content, which may damage your reputation while being completely legal.

Some elements are aggravating the problem of harming one’s honour: the high volume of digital content, anonymity and trolling, advertising in websites (i.e. not requiring login for being able to post content), who can access the content, etc.

What are websites doing? Requiring authentication (at least via e-mail), terms of use, ability to edit comments, report inappropriate comments, etc. Some of them, though, are actually a potential threat against freedom of expression.

Most of the law is aimed at protecting the ISP while the citizen remains unprotected. There should be an effort in trying to define better the limits of the right to honour and freedom of expression, when and how regulation applies and, most especially, how do we protect the individual.

Primavera De Filippi, Smári McCarthy
Cloud Computing: Legal Issues in Centralized Architectures

Cloud computing has had a side effect in personal communications: when most of them used to be peer-to-peer through a decentralized service (most times a desktop and one’s own server), now many communications have shifted to public and into centralized services.

Most users do not know how to read the terms of service or would just not read them. Thus, they think they are getting services for free while they are giving away many of their rights.

Another side effect is the lock-in that happens once you’ve got your data and content out in the cloud, and can but just manage it remotely, not massively and with serious concerns whether this content still is your property.

We cannot only rely on national law when it comes to the Internet, but international agreements do not seem to do better. So, what should be done?

Anne W. Salisbury
Anonymity, Trash Talk and Cyber-Smearing on the Internet

The first thing that one has to demonstrate defamation is that the statement made is opinion and not fact, and that is has been exaggerated.

But on the Internet it also depends on other aspects. For instance, the blog were the statement is made and the use of the language (i.e. some words do not any more refer to the original definition of that word, but have become slang with different meanings).

So, many supposed libels or defamations are not such when looked under a different glass.

Indeed, disclosing the anonymity of the “defamators” can sometimes be much more harming that the supposed defamation they committed.

Mª Dolores Palacios González
The stress between impunity in the Net and limiting freedom of expression

There are many examples where anonymous contributors to blogs or forums insult third parties, including individuals, governments and firms. ISPs usually have the safe harbour that most Internet laws provide according to which they have no liability on such harmful comments and statements in general. Though the problem still exist: there are harmful comments on many websites.

But some exceptions should be made, or at least some issues taken into consideration.

For instance, if there is comment moderation, the act of editing and/or approving the comment with defaming statements should not be protected with the safe harbour for ISPs.

Alicia Chicharro
The space of freedom, security and justice and cybercrime in the European Union

The Lisboa treaty shifts “upwards” many of the decisions related to crime and cyberlaw, resulting in a top-down approach to penal law in the member states. There is, though, the right to veto a directive, and also the principle of subsidiarity. Cybercrime is included within this new framework.

Track on Intellectual Property Rights on the Internet
Chairs: Blanca Torrubia Chalmeta. Lecturer, School of Law and Political Science (UOC)

Monica Horten
Copyright at a Policy Cross-Roads – Online Enforcement, the Telecoms Package and the Digital Economy Act

What is copyright enforcement? Enforcement is about punishment, about forcing people to do things under penalty of being punished otherwise. That is usually done through courts, and can be written down in obligations (law, regulations, etc.) or even contracts (e.g. contractsthat users sign with service providers).

Sometimes enforcement will also imply a diminution of certain levels of privacy.

What the ‘Telecoms Package’ and the ‘Digital Directive’ tell us is that the fight to enforce copyright law is directly affecting mostly privacy issues and other fundamental rights.

Evi Werkers
Intermediaries in the eye of the copyright storm: A comparative analysis of the three strike approach within the European Union

File sharing still is increasing and becoming pervasive in all activities and strata of the society. And most measures to fight ‘piracy’ have failed. The safe harbour that was build for ISPs is, nevertheless, not unlimited.

Indeed, the enormous complexity of services provided by some operators have made it more difficult to tell whether an ISP is such, whether it is a content or a service provider, etc.

And we are still to find failures in terms of legality (of laws), proportionality, respect to fundamental rights, exemption of liability, etc. There is also a concern on how active preventive measures can still be neutral, or how traffic can be (fairly) managed.

Qian Tao
“Neutrality” Test on web 2.0 Platform for its intermediary liability in China and in Europe

The Tort Liability Law 2010 and the Regulation for the Protectoin of Information Network Dissemination rights are the framework for Internet regulation in China. They provide, like other laws, the safe harbour for web 2.0 service providers.

In order to harmonize different opinions in different courts, the Higher Court of Beijing issued a guide to help the courts take the correct decisions. For instance, the “No direct financial benefit” guideline: even if there are ads, if there are no charges to download/see the video, there is no infringement.

Those guidelines, though, are just guidelines, thus are not compulsory and only apply for the Beijing region.

Benjamin Farrand
‘Piracy. It’s a Crime.’ – The criminalisation process of digital copyright infringement

The criminal enforcement directive seemed to be dead, but the Pirate Bay case sort of brought it back to life. Piracy is increasingly linked to theft, to organised crime, to terrorism. Notwithstanding, research shows that online piracy is not likely to be linked with organised crime or terrorism. We cannot even find what is the methodology used to calculate the (real) losses for the industry of counterfeit material or how damaging is piracy in general.

There is a need for re-assessment, and law-making on the basis of empirical evidence and concrete studies – not industry lobbying. The Hargreaves Review (2011) states that in the case of copyright policy, there is no doubt that the persuasive powers of celebrities and important UK creative companies have distorted policy outcomes.

Track on Net Neutrality
Chairs: Rodolfo Tesone Mendizabal, President of the SDTIC (Information and Communication Technology Law Section at the Barcelona Bar Association)

Helena Nadal Sánchez
Without Net Neutrality, where then the universal logic of innovation?

Postmodernism is based on neo-liberal ideologies that do not acknowledge the lockean concept of (necessary, public) control, or the habermassian concept of the agora, the place to meet and share insights and knowledge.

A sustainable development of the Internet should be agreed. Knowledge societies cannot be built if knowledge does not flow freely. The basis of innovation is not only talent, but the exchange of knowledge.

David Arjones Giráldez
Net Neutrality from the perspective of its layer-based architecture: from public carriers to content managers?

The layer-approach to define the Internet is based on splitting it in different layers, at least three: physical layer, logic layer, content and services layer. There are three principles:

• Each layer must be fully regulated in its own.

An agent in a layer must not operate in any other layer.

• Regulation must be layer-aimed. A specific rule can apply to many of them, but they should not be designed with this goal in mind.

Within this framework, the problem of Net Neutrality can be approached different than usual.

For instance, if operators are tampering on content or services, they are going against the rule where agents cannot operate in but one layer.

Thus, the saturation of the network can be solved with a layer-based new pricing model, but without altering the rest of the layers.

Cristina Cullell March
Net Neutrality and freedoms in the telecommunications reform in the European Union: are they present in whole Europe?

The La Rue report (PDF, 140Kb) for the United Nations (May, 2011) states that access to the Internet should be as a fundamental right. How is Europe treating this right?

Key aspects of Net Neutrality that the EU has already include in their directives:

• Freedom of choice.
• Transparency.
• Quality of service.

European institutions before Net Neutrality:

• The European Commission thinks an open Internet is a major concern. Indeed, it guarantees the “freedoms on the Internet” of the European citizens, and informs the Council and the Parliament.
• European Parliament links Net Neutrality with Digital Rights.
• ORECE: member states are responsible for guaranteeing the neutrality in their territories. Guarantees the normative coherence and harmonization in the European Union. It publicizes good practices.

Does the EU require a complementary regulation on Net Neutrality? Surely we have to work harder on defining transparency and in setting a minimum threshold for quality of service.

José Manuel Pérez Marzabal
Open Internet, Net Neutrality and defence of the competence

There is some overlapping, a symmetry between antitrust regulation and the telcos regulation. And even if maybe the debate around Net Neutrality is not be a debate on the telecommunications’ market competition, more market competition undoubtedly favours major degrees of neutrality.

Clara Marsan Raventós
The Net as a public space: Is Net-neutrality necessary to preserve on-line freedom of expression?

It’s increasingly difficult to think about things one cannot do on the Internet. As a space, people are used to meet in that “space” regardless on who is actually providing the technological platform, only aiming at not being banned or filtered on that public space.

So, as a public space, the Internet becomes more important and the management of the information that populates is becomes a crucial aspect for the society.

Of course there are limits operating on the Internet, as public morality… as anything that already operates in the physical world. The problem being that while the Internet is truly global, such a thing as public morality is exclusively local, cultural, social.

The, which are the actors that can control the Internet and who can say whether public morality should or should not be an issue in the Internet?

There already is a vast array of tools that can be used for censoring content on the Net. And worst of all, those are tools that are decentralized and can be applied at different levels of the chain of content transmission. As tools are widespread, so are the different actors that can apply them in their processes.

Negotiation must then be a multistakeholder one.

Panel: The Net Neutrality debate: Stakeholders’ perspective
Chairs: Miquel Peguera. Senior Lecturer, School of Law and Political Science (UOC)

Maite Arcos. General Director of RedTel (Spanish Association of Telecommunications Operators)

The Internet is a complex ecosystem: there are content providers (e.g. digital newspapers), service providers (e.g. Google), facilitating services (e.g. PayPal), connectivity providers (telecoms), user interfaces (e.g. Windows) and the users. Most of these actors are interconnected, but content and service providers are (usually) not connected with telecoms, which has caused several problems between them, amongst which who pays for the intensity of usage of the networks and whether content and services should be served on a neutral basis.

And there is an increasing pressure on telecoms as traffic increases at highest rates year after year… while Internet access charges have been diminishing in real trends. Content and service providers have no incentives on providing “light” services (there is no “price” on the bytes they transfer). It ends up with operators not being able to catch up with investment needs to maintain a quality service.

Possibilities:

1. Stop investments, while degrading the service.
2. Increase Internet access fees.
3. Product and service differentiation.
4. New negotiation with service and application providers to look for new and more balanced agreements.

Telcos do not thing #1 and #2 are an actual possibility, so we should be exploring #3 and #4.

Andreu Teixidor. Director de estrategia editorial de BUBOK

The printing press did not change the way to publish writings, but changed the world, as the Internet is doing to ours. The Internet is changing how works are published, but also how will democracy be transformed, the way we feel, etc. So, neutrality is not about an industry, it is about how we share our future.

Ofelia Tejerina. Lawyer. Asociación de Internautas

A first problem, dire problem, when it comes to network regulation is that policy makers usually do not understand the new nature of a digital society.

There are prior stages to net regulation that have not been satisfied as transparency or accountability of telcom practices.

And this transparency and accountability has to be guaranteed by the Judiciary branch, not the Government and of course not the private sector. And it is the Legislative branch that has to find out how to update the laws that we are using and that are completely obsolete.

One of the most important reflections has to be around pricing:

• What are we really paying? Infrastructures? Content? Services? At what cost?
• Who should be paying? Should any prosumer pay when they upload (and not only download) content?

Discussion

Ismael Peña-López: why don’t we nationalize the infrastructures? Wouldn’t that be solving many problems at once? Arcos: the problem would then be who pays for the infrastructure, would it be taxes? fees paid by the operators?

Antoni Elias: another problem would be how innovation on infrastructures would be triggered by public initiative. Most innovation comes from competing infrastructures, which would cease to be if they were to be merged under a single public infrastructure. [own short comment on the latter is reminding what happened with innovation in railroads in the UK once privatized or in electricity suppliers in the US]

Chris Marsden: it is not true that most infrastructures are paid by private money, as many last milers already know, having to pay Internet access from their own money or being supplied by the government as part of their universal access policy. On the other hand, the investment is nothing compared with the insvestments in railroads in the XIXth and XXth centuries, while benefits would most probably be way higher. Concerning competition amongst networks, what is more common is that telcos do share networks and just rarely compete on that issue.

Javier de la Cueva: why is it that the OCED states that we have the most expensive broadband services? Arcos: Spain is one of the few countries where there is a real choice where to get your broadband service. Besides, quality standards in Spain are very high, but this is not taken into account in the measurements performed by the OECD.

Panel: The Net Neutrality debate: The Policy Options
Chairs: Miquel Peguera, Senior Lecturer, School of Law and Political Science (UOC).

Antoni Elias, Professor at ETS d’Enginyeria de Telecomunicació de Barcelona, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (Telecommunication Engineering School at UPC)
The debate on net neutrality: regulation-based policy options

Four stages that stress the Internet:

• Technical complexity
• Legal complexity
• Economic complexity
• A social engine

For all these reasons there are arguments enough to have a supranational structure to regulate the Internet. There is no solution on the issue of net neutrality without this supranational regulatory institution, as the Internet knows no borders. Especially when most communications run over what we generally call the Internet: and IP-based protocol with a name system regulated by the IANA/ICANN.

Telecomms used to charge by access to the service (line rent) and for each use of the service (e.g. minutes called). With DSL, the paying system changes and operators tend to be paid through flat rates. This change implies that the growth of usage is not (directly) associated with a parallel increase in income. Does this scale or is this sustainable?

If we compare the Internet with the printing press, what we might be facing now is how the Internet opens up a new enlightenment as the press did in the XVIII century. But, for this new enlightenment to happen, like the printing press, the Internet must be free from control.

Innovation and investment in networks are as important as the new applications, services, contents or devices. And, of course, traffic must be managed and users and services must be managed too. But managing is not discirminating: discriminating is treating different what is not, not treating different what is different.

Joan Barata, Professor of Communication Law and Vice Dean for International Relations and Quality at Blanquerna Communications School, Universitat Ramon Llull

Net neutrality is not (only) about technology.

There is a big difference between hetero-regulation and self-regulation. And self-regulation might not be enough, so external regulation may apply.

And it is not (only) about discriminating traffic, but also, for instance, about the design and functioning of search engines: how do they search, how do they show the results, etc.

The problem is that if we add a regulatory burden to the carrier, we are also adding to it the possibility to open and peak on the packets that it is carrying. So, we may have a trade-off between free competition and privacy or even security.

‘Reasonable’ discrimination is also a complex issue. It is not ‘reasonable’ to discriminate on a monopolistic basis, to avoid competition. On the other hand, it is not ‘reasonable’ to discriminate on a politics basis, banning specific ideologies. But, would it be ‘reasonable’ to discriminate if the user wants so? The FCC acknowledges that whenever the user has control over the discrimination, that is ‘reasonable’.

But the discrimination based on what you pay is not ‘reasonable’.

So, when we speak about regulations — and regulators — it may be a good idea not to design it to regulate networks, but also with the aim to regulate content, as net neutrality is a matter of both worlds: technology and society.

Ángel León, State Department for Telecommunications and Information Society
Net Neutrality: a critical vision of the normative approach

Why are we speaking about Net Neutrality when al the goals seem to be the traditional ones that applied to the regulation of telecommunications as we used to know them?

A first difference is using Net Neutrality and its regulation as a unifier of different problems or open topics on telecomm regulation. A second one is that Net Neutrality only applies to a specific kind of networks: the Internet. And a third one is that the regulation will apply regardless of the size or market power of the operator.

Most of the regulation on Net Neutrality focus on the quality of the service. But some obligations we impose on the operators just do not allow them to provide this quality service.

On the other hand, there are some practices that circumvent any kind of restriction, like being able to control the presence of the user at a given time, where is the user, knowing their capabilities to connect, being able to stablish different pricing systems, etc.

The usual Net Neutrality approach favours a layered model, with a neutral point of access, but a discriminating service. Indeed, it does not allow for priorities, or different treatment for different cases.

Internet represents a new paradigm which does not allow for traditional regulatory approaches. It’s value change has become so broad, that regulating only access or some specific checkpoints is almost useless.

Discussion

Chris T. Marsden: wouldn’t it be possible to try and sync Europe with the US? León: the problem is that laws and rules (norms, regulation in general) are two different things. And in the case of Europe, Laws are really behind providing an appropriate framework within which rules and norms can be designed. That is not the case of the US, where the FCC can act powerfully with a Law scheme drawn in 1996.

Miquel Peguera: what is the future like? Barata: one of the most important things will be being able to put the correct questions and being able to explain them to the population at large. Elias: the collapse of the network is not something that one can envision, but it is nevertheless a powerful argument against Net Neutrality. Indeed, it is the chaos and anarchy of the Internet what made it the rich space that it is. León: the citizenry wants an open Internet and governments should provide the framework for that to be possible. The question is how Net Neutrality can enter laws: as a right, a regulatory principle or a goal. And each one requires a very different approach.

More information

• El concepto de net neutrality y la tensión entre regulación pública y autorregulación privada de las redes, by Joan Barata.

Christopher T. Marsden, Communications Law Prof, University of Essex, UK
Network Neutrality: European Law?

Common carriage is fair reasonable and non-discriminatory treatment of content whatever its nature. Eli M. Noam predicted in 1994 the end of common carriage, though the debate is much older. Every time there has been a debate on monopolies on the “carrying” nature of some specific infrastructures, the debate on common carriage has rised: inns and boats, railways, telegraphs, then modern networks, etc.

Network neutrality debate began as we know it in 1999 due to mergers of cable TV and broadband companies, and sparkled by Lessig and Lemley FCC submission The end of End-to-End.

Internet, as an open network, was regulated by common carriage, and some general rights were granted to it to avoid discrimination:

• Interoperability
• Interconnection
• Privacy
• Interception

There actually are a number of actual and considered practices that are about to — or already have — cross the red line of net neutrality, like different tariffs according to usage, different speeds, etc.

So far we have a Net Neutrality ‘lite’, with some decisions in Canada, the US or Europe, with ‘non-discrimination’ presumption subject to national security, law enforcement, public safety, etc. and a ‘reasonable network management’. And we will negotiate Net Neutrality ‘heavy’ about different speed rates, special and managed services, etc.

The problem with the many backdoors that the exceptions add to ISP regulation imply, in practical terms, that there are many possibilities for ISPs not to be neutral at all.

Presently, Chile (2010), Finland (2010) and the Netherlands (2011) have issued Net Neutrality specific laws, while Canada and Norway are on their way to it.

In Europe, we had a declaration to protect Net Neutrality and no will to implement nothing but just delaying it forever (despite officially being a debate and a formal proposal for a directive).

Discussion

Q: What can policy-makers do? A: The ECOSOC is actually doing research on Net Neutrality. Civil society is also working hard, as it did at the OECD high-level meeting on net neutrality. There has to be a serious negotiation, especially in matters as censorship and what is the acceptable level of censorship that we want.

More information

• Neutralidad de la Red: Historia, regulación y futuro, by Christopher Thomas Marsden.