The European Parliament’s website has been shut down
by hackers today, allegedly
in a denial-of-service attack from Anonymous in protest of imminent anti-piracy
legislation restricting internet freedom. But as the IT folks in parliament
scramble to fix the problem, the functionaries are sitting around scratching
their heads in confusion. Did we pass internet piracy legislation?
Their confusion is warranted. By all accounts the EU has been on the internet-freedom-lovers side during this debate. During the fallout from the Wikipedia ‘blackout’ last week, US politicians weren’t the only ones beating a path to the door to distance themselves from the now toxic SOPA legislation on internet piracy. On Friday the EU’s Digital Agenda Commissioner Neelie Kroes tweeted that she was “glad the tide is turning on #SOPA,” adding “speeding is illegal too: but you don't put speed bumps on the motorway”.
Home Affairs Commissioner Cecilia Malmström also tweeted against the US legislation, noting that ‘sopa’ in Swedish means garbage. Notably, no public statements about the US anti-piracy bills had been made before the blackout. It’s quite unusual for the EU to make comments about US legislation. But such was the effect of the Wikipedia blackout – which was, after all, global, that even politicians not involved in US lawmaking felt the need to make a statement about it.
Their confusion is warranted. By all accounts the EU has been on the internet-freedom-lovers side during this debate. During the fallout from the Wikipedia ‘blackout’ last week, US politicians weren’t the only ones beating a path to the door to distance themselves from the now toxic SOPA legislation on internet piracy. On Friday the EU’s Digital Agenda Commissioner Neelie Kroes tweeted that she was “glad the tide is turning on #SOPA,” adding “speeding is illegal too: but you don't put speed bumps on the motorway”.
Home Affairs Commissioner Cecilia Malmström also tweeted against the US legislation, noting that ‘sopa’ in Swedish means garbage. Notably, no public statements about the US anti-piracy bills had been made before the blackout. It’s quite unusual for the EU to make comments about US legislation. But such was the effect of the Wikipedia blackout – which was, after all, global, that even politicians not involved in US lawmaking felt the need to make a statement about it.
Kroes was eager to point out during the global protest that
there is no EU version of SOPA being considered. And she is right. But there is
an international treaty which internet
freedom advocates say is just as bad as SOPA, and it is heading toward a
speedy passage in the EU. It is called ACTA, or the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade
Agreement.
ACTA was originally forged between the United States and Japan, and other countries can join voluntarily. It seeks to create an international body outside the WTO or the World Intellectual Property Associaiton (WIPO) establishing a legal framework for copyright violations, including those that occur on the internet. So far it has been signed by the US, Japan, Australia, Canada, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore and South Korea.
Today the European Commission and all 27 member states signed the treaty. But in order for the EU to become a party to it, the European Parliament must now endorse it. Hence the denial-of-service attack on the Parliament today. Some are saying it’s a bit strange for anonymous to be going after the Parliament when it was the Commission and the Council who signed the treaty today, and perhaps it reflects a lack of knowledge from the hackers on how the EU works. It is unclear at this stage whether the hackers were confused and thought the EU parliament had just signed the treaty, or if they intend this as a warning to MEPs to vote against this treaty in June.
The European Parliament doesn’t get to play a pivotal role in European lawmaking all that often, so the fact that a decision over whether the world’s largest common market will sign up to this treaty is now up to them will likely be sending MEPs’ heads spinning with sudden feelings of consequentiality.
ACTA was originally forged between the United States and Japan, and other countries can join voluntarily. It seeks to create an international body outside the WTO or the World Intellectual Property Associaiton (WIPO) establishing a legal framework for copyright violations, including those that occur on the internet. So far it has been signed by the US, Japan, Australia, Canada, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore and South Korea.
Today the European Commission and all 27 member states signed the treaty. But in order for the EU to become a party to it, the European Parliament must now endorse it. Hence the denial-of-service attack on the Parliament today. Some are saying it’s a bit strange for anonymous to be going after the Parliament when it was the Commission and the Council who signed the treaty today, and perhaps it reflects a lack of knowledge from the hackers on how the EU works. It is unclear at this stage whether the hackers were confused and thought the EU parliament had just signed the treaty, or if they intend this as a warning to MEPs to vote against this treaty in June.
The European Parliament doesn’t get to play a pivotal role in European lawmaking all that often, so the fact that a decision over whether the world’s largest common market will sign up to this treaty is now up to them will likely be sending MEPs’ heads spinning with sudden feelings of consequentiality.
But MEPs cannot be swayed only be, as some have termed them,
“internet thugs”. They need to find out, is ACTA really as bad as the internet
freedom advocates are saying? I’m no expert, so here’s a summary of the criticism
of the treaty. From what I can gather the MEPs don’t seem to have paid a
lot of attention to this until now. But they did pass a resolution in 2010
during the early stages of ACTA negotiations saying that it must respect
freedom of expression and right to privacy. So they’ve already signalled they
will be a sceptical audience.
The Commission has apparently been desperate to avoid ACTA getting the SOPA treatment. Today’s attack will certainly alarm them – but I doubt it’s going to get enough media attention to get them really scared. It would take another Wikipedia blackout to really frighten them.
The Commission has been keen to portray itself as a protector of online privacy and internet freedom, as opposed to the US government. Just yesterday they proposed an overhaul of data protection rules that will force internet companies to allow users to opt out of data collection. It comes the same week that Google announced it will now force users to accept having their details stored across its sites.
Last week the Commission even released a Q&A about why ACTA is not SOPA. But if the heat gets too intense, they may back off of their support (for instance by not fighting a European Parliament rejection of the treaty). This Commission is keen to be seen as a champion of internet freedom, after all.
The Commission has apparently been desperate to avoid ACTA getting the SOPA treatment. Today’s attack will certainly alarm them – but I doubt it’s going to get enough media attention to get them really scared. It would take another Wikipedia blackout to really frighten them.
The Commission has been keen to portray itself as a protector of online privacy and internet freedom, as opposed to the US government. Just yesterday they proposed an overhaul of data protection rules that will force internet companies to allow users to opt out of data collection. It comes the same week that Google announced it will now force users to accept having their details stored across its sites.
Last week the Commission even released a Q&A about why ACTA is not SOPA. But if the heat gets too intense, they may back off of their support (for instance by not fighting a European Parliament rejection of the treaty). This Commission is keen to be seen as a champion of internet freedom, after all.