Benjamin Matthew Farrand

Networked Governance and the Regulation of Expression on the Internet: The Blurring of the Role of Public and Private Actors as Content Regulators

ABSTRACT This editorial provides an overview of the themes of network governance and content regulation that are expanded upon in the subsequent articles, identifying key issues and concerns that are prevalent in the literature in this field. In particular, this text considers governance not as an Internet-specific phenomenon, but as a global phenomenon, identifying and discussing literature pertaining to governance both online and offline, and providing examples of theories that seek to explain these forms of governance. Focusing on the interaction between public and private actors in content regulation, this editorial highlights that content regulation is a complex and contested issue that cannot be separated from its social and cultural contexts, and provides an overview of the articles contained.

The digital agenda for Europe, the economy and its impact upon the development of EU copyright policy

This chapter discusses the digital agenda for Europe, the economy and its impact upon the development of EU copyright policy.

Regulatory capitalism, decentered enforcement, and its legal consequences for digital expression: the use of copyright law to restrict freedom of speech online

ABSTRACT Copyright, as currently understood, is justified by the belief that the protection it grants to creators incentivizes the continued creation of works deemed culturally beneficial to society. However, its use can be less altruistic, as a means of suppressing embarrassing or controversial information. The ability to disseminate sensitive material quickly through the Internet concerns both state and non-state actors, and there are indications that, through the use of private intermediaries, copyright can be used to suppress speech. This article seeks to explain how the current neoliberal system of governance blurs the line between public and private actors, creating a diffused and decentralized system of copyright enforcement that allows for the suppression of speech in a way that avoids discussion of censorship.

The Governance of Online Expression in a Networked World

In recent years, we have witnessed the mushrooming of pro- democracy and protest movements not only in the Arab world, but also within Europe and the Americas. Such movements have ranged from popular upheavals, like in Tunisia and Egypt, to the organization of large-scale demonstrations against unpopular policies, as in Spain, Greece and Poland. What connects these different events are not only their democratic aspirations, but also their innovative forms of communication and organization through online means, which are sometimes considered to be outside of the State’s control. At the same time, however, it has become more and more apparent that countries are attempting to increase their understanding of, and control over, their citizens’ actions in the digital sphere. This involves striving to develop surveillance instruments, control mechanisms and processes engineered to dominate the digital public sphere, which necessitates the assistance and support of private actors such as Internet intermediaries. Examples include the growing use of Internet surveillance technology with which online data traffic is analysed, and the extensive monitoring of social networks. Despite increased media attention, academic debate on the ambivalence of these technologies, mechanisms and techniques remains relatively limited, as is discussion of the involvement of corporate actors. The purpose of this edited volume is to reflect on how Internet-related technologies, mechanisms and techniques may be used as a means to enable expression, but also to restrict speech, manipulate public debate and govern global populaces.

Cyber crime as a fragmented policy field in the context of the area of freedom, security and justice

Cyber crime has recently become one of the most important internal security priorities for the European Union (EU), second only to the disruption of international organized crime networks and the prevention of terrorism (European Commission 2010). It is considered as an ever-growing threat to the lives of citizens, the political systems and economic infrastructures in the EU (European Commission 2015c): ‘The threat is very much a real one. The number of cyber attacks in the world is on the rise and the cost of cybercrime is skyrocketing’ (Malmstrom 2011: 1). The understanding of this phenomenon as having become exacerbated has been the result not only of the perceived risks associated with the increased technological dependency of Europe, and indeed the proliferation of new technologies such as smartphones, which create new vulnerabilities and opportunities for criminal activity, but also of a societal pressure to take swift action in this field. After all, as the saying goes, ‘something must be done’. In recent years, the number of objects and processes that have incorporated advanced computerized elements has grown exponentially, to include not only laptops, tablets and smartphones, but also cars, fridges, toys, classrooms and musical instruments. In 2012 there were 8.7 billion devices connected to the Internet, a figure that had grown by 2014 to 10 billion (Europol 2014a), and is projected to increase to 50 billion by 2020 (Europol 2014b). The ‘digital revolution’ has led to dramatic changes in the way we live our personal lives, interact with others, conduct business and learn in school. Although predominantly portrayed in a very positive light through having brought significant economic development and improved quality of life, these technologies are also understood as vulnerable, insecure and easily taken advantage of by criminals (European Commission 2015c). The idea that technology, and more specifically cyberspace-related activities, are susceptible to attacks has also become widespread among the European population, which has expressed concern over the frequency and severity of cyber crime risks and the existence of insufficient measures. According to the 2015 security Eurobarometer, 63 percent of the population believes that cyber crime will continue to increase, with 20 percent of the population believing that it is the most important security threat the EU currently faces (European Commission 2015b). In addition, only 28 percent of the global population feels that law enforcement has the adequate tools to respond to this problem (PWC Global 2016). Such societal pressure has contributed considerably to the development of a range of ‘anti-cyber crime’ measures as part of the EU’s cyber security strategy. Although the field of cyber crime is a fairly recent policy development, 1 the EU has already invested heavily in preventive programs, enhancing law enforcement capabilities, fostering awareness and developing institutional coordination mechanisms.