Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Facebook
Twitter
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Law Firm Events
Law Firm Deadlines
TCLA TV
Members
Leaderboards
Premium Database
Premium Chat
Commercial Awareness
Future Trainee Advice
Forums
Aspiring Lawyers - Interviews & Vacation Schemes
Commercial Awareness Discussion
Commercial Awareness Update - April 2019!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Abstruser" data-source="post: 10865" data-attributes="member: 260"><p>Hi everyone,</p><p></p><p>The topics covered this week are:</p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">UK Online Harms White Paper by [USER=157]@kitk[/USER]</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Arrest of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange by [USER=260]@Abstruser[/USER]</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Recent French court decision against Bayer Monsanto by [USER=1643]@Moni[/USER]</li> </ol><p></p><p><strong><u>1. UK Online Harms White Paper by [USER=157]@kitk[/USER]</u></strong></p><p></p><p><strong>The story: </strong></p><p></p><p>Last week, the UK government’s Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and Home Office jointly released the Online Harms white paper. This proposes new laws which are to be interpreted and enforced by an independent regulator.</p><p></p><p>According to the white paper, there would be a new statutory duty of care imposed on companies that allow “users to share or discover user-generated content or interact with each other online”, such as social media platforms and search engines. These companies could be punished for failing to take “reasonable and proportionate action” to tackle content like child abuse, terrorism and revenge pornography, and conduct such as cyberbullying, spreading disinformation and encouraging self-harm.</p><p></p><p>The white paper proposes the following penalties for the breach of this duty of care: imposing fines on the companies, forcing internet service providers to block offenders, forcing third parties to disrupt their activities by, for instance, removing them from search results, and imposing fines on senior management of the relevant companies.</p><p></p><p>The government will set out its formal legislative plans after a consultation on these proposals, which ends on 1 July 2019.</p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>Impact on businesses and law firms: </strong></p><p></p><p>The white paper’s proposals are likely to increase the obligations imposed on the relevant technology companies. This would be both in terms of policing the user-generated content on these companies’ platforms and in funding the regulator of these new proposals. As there is no “carve-out” for the type of companies to which the proposed regulations apply, there are concerns that this could be unduly burdensome and expensive for smaller companies. This can impede the growth and innovation of such companies and, in turn, result in greater market dominance of Big Tech.</p><p></p><p>There is also legal uncertainty as to the scope of content and conduct to which these proposals apply. It is difficult to define the level and likelihood of harm posed by certain content or conduct, as well as determine how harmful the content or conduct must be to warrant action being taken against it and what type of action is deemed “reasonable” in tackling such content. For example, in the context of “disinformation”, there is an issue of who defines or how what is “fake news” and whether it is relevant to consider if the people spreading it are doing so unintentionally.</p><p></p><p><strong> </strong></p><p><strong><u>2. WikiLeaks founder faces possible extradition to the US (by [USER=260]@Abstruser[/USER])</u></strong></p><p></p><p><strong>The story:</strong></p><p></p><p>Last Thursday, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was arrested at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he had spent the last 7 years in political asylum. WikiLeaks is a non-profit organization that facilitates anonymous publishing of secret information. Notably, in 2010, WikiLeaks released hundreds of thousands of classified documents, leaked by former US Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning, revealing the true extent of civilian deaths incurred during the US intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq.</p><p></p><p>Assange first sought asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy in 2012 after losing an appeal in the UK Supreme Court against extradition to Sweden, where he had faced a number of sexual harassment charges. He later explained that he had sought asylum to avoid the possibility of being extradited from Sweden to the US, where he was potentially wanted for espionage, a charge which carries the death penalty. The sexual harassment charges were dropped by Sweden in 2017, but Assange remained liable in the UK for breaching the terms of his original bail in 2012.</p><p></p><p>On Thursday morning, Ecuador withdrew its asylum, citing Assange’s “breach of international treaties” and “discourteous and aggressive behaviour”. British police promptly entered the embassy and arrested Assange for breach of bail conditions in 2012. At the police station, Assange was ‘further’ arrested under a second extradition warrant “on behalf of the United States authorities”. A US federal court has ‘indicted’ (i.e. charged) Assange for conspiring with Chelsea Manning to commit computer intrusion and access classified documents.</p><p></p><p>At the House of Commons, Theresa May stated that the arrest “goes to show in the UK, no one is above the law”. The Westminster Magistrates’ Court has since found Assange guilty of breaking his 2012 bail conditions. However, it remains to be seen whether the UK will allow Assange to be extradited to the US. He is scheduled to appear for extradition hearings in May.</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Impact on businesses and law firms:</strong></p><p></p><p>There is much concern that the charges against Julian Assange could have profound effects on press freedom and journalism worldwide, an issue which directly impacts businesses such as media and news outlets, and their ability to disseminate information to their consumers. Although Assange has been charged with “conspiracy to commit computer intrusion”, an activity that seems to have little to do with traditional journalism, Harvard law professor Yochai Benckler has stated that “sections of the indictment are vastly overbroad and could have a significant chilling effect”. For example, the indictment states that “it was part of the conspiracy that Assange encouraged Manning to provide information and records from departments and agencies of the United States”. The Committee to Protect Journalists has voiced concern that targeting the relationship between a publisher and its source in this manner could have “deeply troubling” consequences for investigative journalism. Further, as the Center for Constitutional Rights pointed out, the indictment “is a worrying step on the slippery slope to punishing any journalist the Trump administration chooses to deride as ‘fake news’”.</p><p></p><p>Apart from the US indictment, the extradition hearings scheduled in May could also raise interesting legal issues about international human rights, which may be of note to law firms practicing in this area. Many have noted that the US’s persistence in prosecuting Assange raises questions of political motivation, and concerns of whether Assange would be given a fair trial should he be extradited to the US. The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture has stated that extraditing Assange to the US would put him at a “real risk of serious violations of his human rights”, such as his right to a fair trial, freedom of expression, and freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment. It remains to be seen whether the UK will allow Assange to be extradited to the US.</p><p></p><p><em>For those that may be interested, the indictment and official press release issued by the US Department of Justice are available to read here: <a href="https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/wikileaks-founder-charged-computer-hacking-conspiracy" target="_blank">https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/wikileaks-founder-charged-computer-hacking-conspiracy</a></em></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Abstruser, post: 10865, member: 260"] Hi everyone, The topics covered this week are: [LIST=1] [*]UK Online Harms White Paper by [USER=157]@kitk[/USER] [*]Arrest of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange by [USER=260]@Abstruser[/USER] [*]Recent French court decision against Bayer Monsanto by [USER=1643]@Moni[/USER] [/LIST] [B][U]1. UK Online Harms White Paper by [USER=157]@kitk[/USER][/U][/B] [B]The story: [/B] Last week, the UK government’s Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and Home Office jointly released the Online Harms white paper. This proposes new laws which are to be interpreted and enforced by an independent regulator. According to the white paper, there would be a new statutory duty of care imposed on companies that allow “users to share or discover user-generated content or interact with each other online”, such as social media platforms and search engines. These companies could be punished for failing to take “reasonable and proportionate action” to tackle content like child abuse, terrorism and revenge pornography, and conduct such as cyberbullying, spreading disinformation and encouraging self-harm. The white paper proposes the following penalties for the breach of this duty of care: imposing fines on the companies, forcing internet service providers to block offenders, forcing third parties to disrupt their activities by, for instance, removing them from search results, and imposing fines on senior management of the relevant companies. The government will set out its formal legislative plans after a consultation on these proposals, which ends on 1 July 2019. [B] Impact on businesses and law firms: [/B] The white paper’s proposals are likely to increase the obligations imposed on the relevant technology companies. This would be both in terms of policing the user-generated content on these companies’ platforms and in funding the regulator of these new proposals. As there is no “carve-out” for the type of companies to which the proposed regulations apply, there are concerns that this could be unduly burdensome and expensive for smaller companies. This can impede the growth and innovation of such companies and, in turn, result in greater market dominance of Big Tech. There is also legal uncertainty as to the scope of content and conduct to which these proposals apply. It is difficult to define the level and likelihood of harm posed by certain content or conduct, as well as determine how harmful the content or conduct must be to warrant action being taken against it and what type of action is deemed “reasonable” in tackling such content. For example, in the context of “disinformation”, there is an issue of who defines or how what is “fake news” and whether it is relevant to consider if the people spreading it are doing so unintentionally. [B] [U]2. WikiLeaks founder faces possible extradition to the US (by [USER=260]@Abstruser[/USER])[/U][/B] [B]The story:[/B] Last Thursday, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was arrested at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he had spent the last 7 years in political asylum. WikiLeaks is a non-profit organization that facilitates anonymous publishing of secret information. Notably, in 2010, WikiLeaks released hundreds of thousands of classified documents, leaked by former US Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning, revealing the true extent of civilian deaths incurred during the US intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq. Assange first sought asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy in 2012 after losing an appeal in the UK Supreme Court against extradition to Sweden, where he had faced a number of sexual harassment charges. He later explained that he had sought asylum to avoid the possibility of being extradited from Sweden to the US, where he was potentially wanted for espionage, a charge which carries the death penalty. The sexual harassment charges were dropped by Sweden in 2017, but Assange remained liable in the UK for breaching the terms of his original bail in 2012. On Thursday morning, Ecuador withdrew its asylum, citing Assange’s “breach of international treaties” and “discourteous and aggressive behaviour”. British police promptly entered the embassy and arrested Assange for breach of bail conditions in 2012. At the police station, Assange was ‘further’ arrested under a second extradition warrant “on behalf of the United States authorities”. A US federal court has ‘indicted’ (i.e. charged) Assange for conspiring with Chelsea Manning to commit computer intrusion and access classified documents. At the House of Commons, Theresa May stated that the arrest “goes to show in the UK, no one is above the law”. The Westminster Magistrates’ Court has since found Assange guilty of breaking his 2012 bail conditions. However, it remains to be seen whether the UK will allow Assange to be extradited to the US. He is scheduled to appear for extradition hearings in May. [B]Impact on businesses and law firms:[/B] There is much concern that the charges against Julian Assange could have profound effects on press freedom and journalism worldwide, an issue which directly impacts businesses such as media and news outlets, and their ability to disseminate information to their consumers. Although Assange has been charged with “conspiracy to commit computer intrusion”, an activity that seems to have little to do with traditional journalism, Harvard law professor Yochai Benckler has stated that “sections of the indictment are vastly overbroad and could have a significant chilling effect”. For example, the indictment states that “it was part of the conspiracy that Assange encouraged Manning to provide information and records from departments and agencies of the United States”. The Committee to Protect Journalists has voiced concern that targeting the relationship between a publisher and its source in this manner could have “deeply troubling” consequences for investigative journalism. Further, as the Center for Constitutional Rights pointed out, the indictment “is a worrying step on the slippery slope to punishing any journalist the Trump administration chooses to deride as ‘fake news’”. Apart from the US indictment, the extradition hearings scheduled in May could also raise interesting legal issues about international human rights, which may be of note to law firms practicing in this area. Many have noted that the US’s persistence in prosecuting Assange raises questions of political motivation, and concerns of whether Assange would be given a fair trial should he be extradited to the US. The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture has stated that extraditing Assange to the US would put him at a “real risk of serious violations of his human rights”, such as his right to a fair trial, freedom of expression, and freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment. It remains to be seen whether the UK will allow Assange to be extradited to the US. [I]For those that may be interested, the indictment and official press release issued by the US Department of Justice are available to read here: [URL]https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/wikileaks-founder-charged-computer-hacking-conspiracy[/URL][/I] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Our company is called, "The Corporate ___ Academy". What is the missing word here?
Post reply
Forums
Aspiring Lawyers - Interviews & Vacation Schemes
Commercial Awareness Discussion
Commercial Awareness Update - April 2019!
Top
Bottom
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…