tv The Communicators Online speech EU digital issues CSPAN April 13, 2019 6:30pm-7:01pm EDT
relevant today than ever. no government money supports. it is nonpartisan coverage of washington funded by a public service by your cable or satellite provider. on television, online, c-span is your unfiltered view of government so you can make up your own mind. >> this week on the communicators, more of our interviews from the state of the net conference held in washington, d.c. joining us is daphne keller of stanford university law school. what is it you do at stanford? >> i am the director of intermediary liability. nobody knows what that means. it means i work on when it is a platform like youtube or twitter has to take down information the
users put out. >> you don't have any official role with youtube or twitter, do you? >> i have no official role, although i did work for google for many years. i have the experience of being on the inside of one of these companies. one of the things you learn, people write in with all kinds of allegations saying you need to take this out of search results. lots of the time, they are wrong about the law, they are trying to silence their competitors or critics. it is hard on the inside. >> at stanford, what is your role? are you part of the teaching profession? >> i do do some teaching. the center for internet and society is a public interest institution. we do public interest work. research and advocacy and teaching at the intersection of technology and policy and law.
>> what kind of work were you doing at google? >> i was the lead counsel for different products at different times. google chrome. google video. toward the end, i headed up the legal team that ran web search. >> what was the focus of your seminar? >> i was in a seminar that was about platforms and amplification and online speech. >> what should the rules be? >> the u.s. has a pretty good law in place, a set of laws in place that have been there since the 1990's and are a lot of the reason we have the internet sector we do today. >> is this the decency act?
>> that is one of the big ones. section 230. it has gotten a lot of criticism. there is section 230 that covers most kinds of speech -- dell digital millennium copyright act. anything that is a federal crime, platforms don't have any special immunity. the big example is child sexual abuse material. they have the same obligations as anyone else. >> you said the u.s. has a good patchwork of laws. is it different in the eu or asia? >> it is very different. the eu is the easiest example. they have a framework. it is the process of may be changing. what they have had since the
year 2000, the e-commerce direct. it says platforms to find them a little differently than we do but they do not become liable unless they know about it. which sounds pretty reasonable on the face of it. because of this problem of false accusations and platforms not knowing for sure what is illegal, it leads to a problem where to be safe, you air on the side of caution. take down more than the law would require you to take down. sometimes let yourself be trolled by people trying to silence their competitors or critics. >> a censorship issue. >> it is a censorship issue for sure. >> what other issues are affected by this? >> by calling it a censorship issue, we have covered the first amendment.
it is affecting your ability and my ability to speak online without potentially being silenced. one of the big issues is an economic issue. it is much easier to get investors to support you to start a platform like youtube here or yelp. or instagram, any of the big success stories because there is not this big risk of liability looming over you. there is a disparate impact issue. particularly with platforms being pressured to take down so-called terrorist content in the eu and to do so very quickly and with little time to look into what this video and kurdish or whatever it is, there's going
to be a lot of over removals. it is going to hit people speaking arabic, talking about islam, immigration policy. there is in a quality issue that does not get enough attention. >> is there a due process issue? >> there is. brother, is there a due process issue. there is a lot of interesting work being done on this because as we have taken decisions about what speech is legal or illegal out of the courts and put them with private companies to decide, or just enforcement of private terms of service, more people notice they do not do a good job. they are not equipped to do a good job. there's something called the santa clara principles which is a set of demands from civil society organizations saying you have to make your rules clear.
the person who hears the appeals cannot be the same person who decided to take it down in the first place. there have to be a way for them to find out and say, i was wrongly accused. there is a lot more that could be done. >> you are on the inside at google. how much focus are these issues inside a company like that? >> they are a substantial focus. >> did you spend a lot of time looking at these? >> i find it really interesting. when we talk about these laws, it is very easy to talk about platforms, we are picturing facebook and youtube. companies that can hire 10-20,000 moderators. that can build tools that can detect illegal speech.
really, when lawmakers make a law based on thinking about facebook and then they apply it to anybody who is hosting third-party content online including little tiny companies, maybe nonprofit organizations, that becomes a problem. those companies do not have the bandwidth to think about this all the time and have lots of lawyers like me and employers who work on it. we make a lot of policy mistakes by doing that. >> censorship in china. where does that fit? or anywhere? >> this is a hot button issue for google. there are stories about dragonfly and the possibility of going back into china with a chinese system. realistically, the continuum of what governments want platforms to do, china is kind of over
here but then there is russia. the european union, for example, has a proposed law, the terrorist content regulation which is really scary. it applies to any platform hosting third-party content no matter how small as long as they are offering services in europe. when they are notified something is terrorist, they have to take it down within one hour. the authorities are not courts. they are local authorities who may just be police. once they have taken it down, they have to build a filter, a way to proactively detect this prohibited speech. then they are in a reporting relationship with these local authorities. they say, this is how i'm doing it. is it good enough?
the local authorities say yes or no. you are risking 4% of your penalties for getting it wrong in your compliance. there are a lot of laws out there. >> how should they be approached? >> they should be approached in an evidence-based manner. one thing to look at is what i mentioned before. over removal with badly designed platforms. another huge gap, the security question. is this going to make things safer. most legal systems well except some harm to free expression in exchange for security and a turning violence. the evidence on whether this is going to deter violence or decrease radicalization is dubious.
our security researchers are looking at how radicalization happens. many of whom, half of whom think this doesn't actually work. this does not make us safer. >> that is a pretty american attitude. making it an evidence-based system, allowing free speech up until we find out x. >> i would hope evidence-based lawmaking is a value in a democracy. >> that is badly phrased. the whole approaches, we can do it until we can't. >> airing on the side of protecting speech until it is proven there are other problem, we balance these things differently. every society has free expression protections. we have things where we prohibit
expression and we balance them somehow. i don't think the differences are as great as we sometimes say they are. >> do critique google for wanting to be back in a market like china? >> probably but it is a hard call. any time a company goes into a country that is like a lucrative market and is going to have leverage over the platform, you are running the risk that country is going to tell you to censor things. to invade your users privacy, turn over data to the police. that happens with countries all over the world, it is not unique to china. two cases coming up to the highest court of the eu about whether european laws can be a basis for taking down search
results globally or facebook posts. a case out of austria involving a green party politician. the idea that financially powerful markets will enforce laws elsewhere, not consistent with the balance of rights other countries have struck, that is kind of universal. >> are these the type of issues you discuss with students? >> she is the director of intermediary liability at the center for internet and society. once again, what is it exactly you do? >> platforms and speech. when these companies have to
stop hosting your speech. when they might have to host your speech. >> she has been our guest on the communicators. >> thank you. >> now on the communicators, we want to introduce you to peter. he is with the delegation of the european union to the u.s. where he serves as a minister counselor looking into digital economy policy. that was a lot of words. what is it you do and who do you represent? >> i work for the european union. i have been based in brussels. what i do is digital economy policy. that is probably everything you can imagine. issues that are slightly more technical in nature. we have recently done some good
work on artificial intelligence. i represent our point of view on issues like privacy, cyber security. trendy topics which underpin our internet economy and society. >> how large is the so-called internet economy of the eu? >> it is about 4% of the gdp and growing fast. europe is a group of very modern countries. the internet has penetrated. you should trait is extremely high today. >> how would you'd define the philosophy of the eu in its approach to internet regulation as opposed to the u.s.? >> it is very interesting. probably the first time i learned about the notion of a harm-based approach.
as a consequence is exposed to regulation only one harm occurs, action is taken if necessary. that is perhaps slightly different in europe. a lot more interest to think forward, long-term. the european commission is elected for five years. they generally publish policy papers. you see a lot of forward-looking thinking. there is expertise to carry out that work. experts from research. to see what are the issues down the road which are going to hit our society. artificial intelligence is a good example. we have spent a lot of time and thinking the last 12-15 months to see how will that implicate
when we as citizens, workers, entrepreneurs, government officials, how do we see this from a broader nature? >> the u.s. will go into ai and we will try to tackle it while the eu is saying, how was it going to affect our lives in the next five years? is that a fair assessment? >> most of these issues are not kind of this or that. this is a little bit but we are trying to do here. all that thinking comes along with solid investment at the same time. perhaps it comes with certain guidance. what to expect as a society to get out of this? it may be similar in other
areas. it is a balance of how can we make those investments most useful for society? >> what has been the impact of gdpr? >> it entered in on 25th of may. we have seen anecdotal evidence. a number of cases with the protection authorities. we have seen google has been fined from the french data authorities. for an assessment, we would probably need more time. my colleagues are starting to look into what could be a one-year report. what change means for the companies. it will take a lot more time to see those cases going through the data protection authority, being challenged in court.
there is a natural process taking a number of years which should not be surprising. the european data protection regulation almost took 10 years to come to life. there is the time necessary to see how it affects in a positive and negative way. >> how much of your time is spent thinking about brexit? >> from the european union perspective, clearly my precedent has impressed a few times, this is not what we see. it is a necessary step in our process. right after the referendum, the european union has been setting up of the process is to deal with it.
together with the u.k., we have delivered an agreement in november. it is up to the u.k. to see how to ratify that agreement. see that as the best possible option. it is probably going to hurt both economies in both countries. >> every few weeks come other seems to be a headline in our papers here in the states. google has been fined for some infraction. i don't mean to play light. we have almost become immune to this. there seem to be so many of them. is google not a favored company in europe? >> google is a favorite company.
>> do consumers enjoy using it? obviously, it is popular. >> usage. record high. that company enjoys a tremendous reputation with consumers. the office of google is one of those which is savvy and articulate in what they are doing. one thing you see with market leaders, you may lead in your market but also other aspects. i would not necessarily see that as a negative element. a selective reading everybody has. you only notice what you want to notice. competition authorities, data protection authorities, they are independent organizations. the fine or act upon information they receive from all sides.
european ones as well as where the companies come from. we have recently published, we have recently published fines related to competition cases. they go all over the place in all sorts of sizes. google is no exception. >> what is the eu's approach to 5g? where are you? >> many people portrayed it as a race. i think we could split that conversation a little bit. do we talk about 5g which brings faster rates to your phone? are we talking about 5g which connects smart vices which underpins this internet of things? that is probably the more
interesting thing. technology which can help us. a wide array of diet vices. it could be cars. this is the interesting stuff. in europe, we have approved a number of corridors ofor autonomous driving using 5g. infrastructure is being built out right now. when cars pass through, they can use and enjoy that infrastructure. you see a lot of that happening. you see clearly, european telecom companies are investing heavily in rolling out 5g. the metropolitan areas, the business case is backed up. we would prefer full coverage europewide. when is a question i cannot answer at this stage but it is a
core technology, we have players who are very strong. >> how many of these issues is their cooperation on both sides of the atlantic? we talk about them as if they are in silos. i would presume there is a lot of back-and-forth across the atlantic. >> to me, this relationship looks like a relationship between brothers. we are brothers in the same family. we may disagree on many things joanwe may disagree on many things but we are still brothers. it doesn't matter whether i talked about privacy, artificial intelligence. there is no difference in terms of values. the value perception is similar.
which brings us to principles. they are exactly the same we are using in europe. when it comes to legislation, how do you turn that into rulemaking? yes, there are differences. should that be the point dividing us? or should we look at common values? are we looking at a picture of the united states and europe cooperate in a global relationship? >> we heard a few calls from davos for an international body to regulate data commerce. >> i presume you are referring to the announcement of president g20in the context of the like holding and he would
that as one of his topics as tenure of chair. what i find interesting is he is separating personal data from nonpersonal data. he is more interested in data governance of nonpersonal data, business data, scientific data, health data. this very often gets forgotten in our conversation. we always focus on personal data. how can we deliver more to society and the economy? open data, is tremendously important building services around transportation, health. connecting different silos of service. if we can find here norms, standards, which help us exchange this data, this free flow of data, that is tremendous good.
he is receiving the full support of the european union. >> peter is minister counselor in the european union delegation to the u.s., looking at digital economy policy. thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> once, tv was simply three giant networks and a government supported service called pbs. then in 1979, a small network with an unusual name rolled out a big idea. let viewers decide all on their own what was important to them. c-span open the doors to policymaking for all to see.bringing you unfiltered congress content and beyond. on the age of the power to the people, this was true people power. in the 40 years, the landscape has clearly changed. no monolithic media. youtube stars are a thing. but, c-span's big ideas more
relevant today than ever. no government money supports c-span. its nonpartisan coverage is funded as a public service by your cable or satellite provider. online, c-spanr is your unfiltered view of government so you can make up with your own mind. >> hollywood writer and producer rob long was the executive producer of "cheers" and founded the conservative political website ricochet.com. he spoke with the liberty for a of silicon valley about being a conservative in hollywood. >> they say it is bad being a republican in hollywood, but the good news is one out of three becomes president of the united states. at one point, you will be the president or meet the president. when i voted in santa monica in my first, in california before they had open primaries -- i was living in santa monica at the
time. people's republic of santa monica they called it. i was voting in the primary. i showed up in the morning. it was an old lifeguard shack on the beach. kind of cool. it is like "baywatch." i told the lady my name, show my id. i don't think i had to guess just told my name. she's like, oh, rob long. we have been waiting for you. she calls up the other older ladies. this is rob long. so great to see you. wait right there. they go and turn around and there are ballots on the back table. you are stacks of democratic, democratic-socialist, green, angry green. tons of parties. and then there is one that has my name on it. she's lkike here. she was not
they were thrilled to give me a limit bar. announcer: more on being a hollywood conservative tonight at 9:30 on c-span. you can listen on our free radio app. education secretary betsy devos on testing standards and opportunity zones. she spoke during a legislative conference. this is 30 minutes. molly: thank you. my colleagues, i don't usually get a full introduction. it is just coming here is molly.