EU anti-terrorist internet guidelines 'a waste of money'

EU anti-terrorist internet guidelines 'a waste of money'

The EU project is so vague that no one will take it seriously, says the EDRi

Article comments

An EU project to draw up guidelines to reduce terrorist use of the internet has been described as a total waste of money by independent watchdog EDRi (European Digital Rights).

The Clean IT project published its final report at the start of the week, but the 30-page document "meanders directionlessly from the vague to the vacuous and back again," said EDRi coordinator Joe McNamee yesterday.

According to the Clean IT report: "The vast majority of internet use is legal and beneficial to its users. However, the internet is also used for illegal purposes." Such insights cost more than €325,000 (£275,000) to the European Commission, which McNamee said is money down the drain.

"On the other hand, as the policy behind the document is so bad, we should be happy that the whole project is so incompetent," he added.

The stated aim of the project, which started in 2011, was to draft a set of "general principles" and to identify "best practices".

One example of a best practice that the Clean IT document advocates is: "The legal framework to reduce the terrorist use of the internet should be clearly explained to users; service providers should explain to their users how flagging systems work; abuse of the flagging mechanism should be prevented as much as possible." It continues, "While in practice it is difficult to assess whether specific content or activity is actually terrorist, some activities on the Internet are not, such as political speech, reporting about terrorism in the media and research on terrorism for academic purposes."

The report also notes that "Not all internet companies state clearly in their terms and conditions that they will not tolerate terrorist use of the internet on their platforms, and how they define terrorism. This makes it more difficult to decide what to do when they are confronted with (potential) cases of terrorist incitement."

The document continues: "In general, blocking and filtering options are considered a "bad practice", especially if it is used at state level or if it is otherwise forced on internet users. Nevertheless, at a parental/end-user level individuals should not be limited in the possibilities to protect themselves or their children from what they believe is inappropriate."

Even the Commission's own independent evaluations of the initial proposal were highly critical, EDRi said, and commented that there was no clear path to the project's objectives and that methodology was lacking.

The project received financial support not only from the European Commission, but also government partners from Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom. Yet the end result is "drafted so badly that it is unlikely that anyone will take it too seriously," said McNamee.

Share:

Comments

Advertisement
Send to a friend

Email this article to a friend or colleague:


PLEASE NOTE: Your name is used only to let the recipient know who sent the story, and in case of transmission error. Both your name and the recipient's name and address will not be used for any other purpose.


We use cookies to provide you with a better experience. If you continue to use this site, we'll assume you're happy with this. Alternatively, click here to find out how to manage these cookies

hide cookie message

ComputerworldUK Knowledge Vault

ComputerworldUK
Share
x
Open
* *