IGF 2016 - Day 0 - Room 7 - Institute for Technology and Society of Italy


The following are the outputs of the real-time captioning taken during the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Jalisco, Mexico, from 5 to 9 December 2016. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the event, but should not be treated as an authoritative record. 


>> CARLOS ALFONSO:  Hello there.  Good afternoon.  If I take you to take your seats.  We are going to begin.  We have some little delays and I apologize for that since we are finishing up the last workshop.  So good afternoon to you all.  It's a pleasure to host this discussion this afternoon.  My name is Carlos Alfonso.  I am director from the Institute on Technology and Society in Rio de Janeiro.  We have Bill of rights and impact which is a follow up to a discussion that's begun in the last IGF when we managed to get on the same table.  Some comparisons between the Brazilian Bill of rights that's been approved in 2014.  For those of you that have been attending IGF for a long time, you might be familiar with the Brazilian internet Bill of rights initiative.  And the idea for this discussion is to not only compare the experiences between the two things, but especially to understand challenges with interpretation, enforcement of those so‑called internet Bill of rights.  The idea that will apply is that it's an old idea since the very beginning of IGF with Dynamic Coalition that used to be called internet Bill of rights and it is really interesting to see how this idea of coming up with the Bill of rights that prospered in the last decade.  So, we are taking the time on these events today to discuss things and to understand the changes that were approved and how they can be enforced.

So, for that, we have two speakers to join and image ‑‑ may remind you that it is a natural conversation.  So feel free to jump in.  This is going to have two interventions from Stefano Trompe and from the Brazilian Internet committee.  Right after that, we open up for discussions some debate around those two initiatives.  We really want to keep it as informative as possible.  So let's have it as a natural conversation between ourselves and take the most of our time.  Without much further delays, I would like to pass it on to Stefano.  The floor is yours.  Let me see if I can handle this.

>> Stefano:  Thank you to everybody.  Don't confuse me with Trump.


So I tell you briefly the history and then it is better to wait for questions rather than making it a longer presentation.  So first of all, let me say that the Italian government and the Internet society of Italy where we were among the founders of the Internet Bill of rights Dynamic Coalition that was started in Athens in 2006.  And then we have even joined the Brazilian government with the Italian government in 2007 meeting in Rio de Janeiro.  And then we had a post because of change of government and so on and they were not so keen on insisting on these problems, but the attention has been continuing and the Professor Ratar has been our leader, but he could not go here. 

Then in 2014 in July, the chamber of Italian government then set up a group of commission to elaborate the declaration of internet.  This was important because this group is parliamentarian group and has a special status, let's say.  Also considering the declarations from Internet rights, we count in different organizations that there are at least 50 or 60 very well known declarations by different bodies.  One year later in July 2015, last year, we delivered the declaration that was then known also outside of Italy and we had joined the declaration together with France and then we made last year a presentation date 0 of the IGF and (inaudible) in Brazil. 

And then after this, the parliament also approved that with a majority degree where they ask the government to do and to apply this inside of Italian system, but not only that also to promote added parliaments and added official sides to collaborate and to go ahead with that.  And recently concerning the part that is regarding the Italian side, there was a joint agreement with the ministry of education to first of all spread not only our declaration, but also a book that has been written in order to be more able to explain all 14 clauses of this declaration.  Because we think that the question of education for the young people is so important because then it is ‑‑ the way to let all the young generations to understand and to be active in order to try to push for let's say approval from one side, but also suggest solutions for the problem that we have. 

One of the initiatives that was important in this last month is the so called cyber bullies.  That is something that in Italy is very well understood and also is a problem.  So, while on the international side, not so much happened in this also because we had a lot of priorities in the parliament that you might have known concerning Italy from this week.  We have no government and we will have a new government, but in any case, we think that this action and this promotion is very important because we have to involve all the size of the society.  Okay.  I'll finish here for the moment.


>> Thank you, Stefano.  That's ‑‑ Brazil has approved a hard law, a federal law and the Italian opted for a more soft law such to say approach.  It is very interesting that they have this joint agreement with the ministry of education because it links the text with education and how to get key (inaudible) aware of the rights online.  That links that cyber bully is another issue.  So with that, I will pass the mic to Flavia from the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee.

>> FLAVIA:  Good afternoon for everyone.  Thank you very Carlos Alfonso for the invite and I'm from protest.  It's consumers association that has 2,030 members in our country.  And I'm also one of four representatives in Internet Steering Committee of the city society.  I'm very pleased to be here and to be able to join you to talk about the important viewing process of building the internet and also about the current and critical political scenario in Brazil and the implications on the application and interpretation of the law in Brazil.  It is a result of a process broadly and Democratic par participatory process that had as a main objective to insure that the Internet regulation would not be based on a criminalization bias.  The law has a democratization and freedom of expression, protection of personal data and privacy.  And this process was based on the principles enacted by CGIBR in 2009 in a contest of multi‑stakeholder governance.

After the law approval in 2014 with commemoration especially of civil society, we went to the second stage of the confrontation with the interest of large private economic international groups with police and criminal investigation authorities and with conservative and authoritarian political forces.  In view, the addition of the decry that regulated the Internet and enacted in June of this year and the create .771 which reaffirmed and made clear the rights established in the law.  Today we have more than 200 draft tributes proposing to change the Internet in order to weaken fundamentals principles and rights such as neutrality, no liability for Internet providers, personal data protection and privacy.  Behind this proposal amendment to the law, we have the heavy lobby of the corporate industry. 

We have also seen judicial decisions that have applications block like, what's up for example.  When the company refuses provide data and content about investigating persons by the police or investigational authorities justifying the refusal in technical impossibility because the quick photography used.  On this issue, the Brazilians supreme court will decide various lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of search judicial decisions. 

It is important to highlight that the decrease established a system of control and oversight over the rights and obligations of the max internet involving public agents like Anateo communication agents, a consumer protection and competition protection, which should be guided by guidelines.  Despite the mandate and the central rule that CGIER has a view and after the decry, we are still discussing the decision making process to beaut consensus on sensitive and conflicting issues such as zero rating, data kept and Internet.org.  There are different interests in conflicts.  As a consumer representative, I don't believe that could be possible to reach a consensus on those issues with the Internet providers.  That's why I am rating that CGIBR need to address the lack of reasonable decision make process when we don't have consensus. 

Due to this difficulty, now CGIBR is working to define a decision framework with rules that guide the cases when we don't have consensus and the decisions take place by majority.  As a way to make achievable the moot stakeholder governance as established.  On the other hand, no associations or activities joint.  On the coalition rights network, dozens of consumers and freedom of expression and communication democratization will be severely affected by the setbacks that are represented.  They are preparing and publishing papers and working with the national congress to avoid the loss of important achievements that came with the democracy building the internet.  Before the law, it is just the words to conquest rights.  The second stage is disputes over the applications and interpretation of the law in the courts and in the reaction against change in the national congress facing the economic power of large multi‑national companies.  Thank you.


>> CARLOS:  Before I open up for questions and comments, just two very brief comments on the Brazilian Bill of rights, in addition to the comments that Flavia made.  I totally agree that the idea that the work is far from done.  So the approval of the law was a first phase and the section one is proving to be even more challenging than the first one.  One of the reasons that motivated us to have in event in this IGF is because in the last year, the Brazilian Bill of Rights had been featured in the news because of the blockings of what's up in Brazil.  We had four blockings.  They were ordered and some of them end up coding or referring to the Brazilian Internet Bill of Rights as the source or the reasoning for the blocking to take place.  And, of course, this puts not only Brazil, but the Brazil Internet Bill of Rights in a very bad light.  It looks like this one law that was supposed to protect bib liberties was being used to block this one application and, of course, coding Brazil together in some other countries that has the blocking of Internet applications as a habit which is definitely not the case of Brazil. 

So, one quick mention of the Brazilian Internet that I would like to make is that a couple of decisions that end up coding the Marcus review in order to order this blocking had end up interpreting and ended up applying one provision of the mark, which is article 12 that it does and has a provision that says applications may suffer some sanctions such as a warning of some sort, suspension of services and even prohibition of some services, but not the entire services of this one act or this one platform.  The suspension and the prohibition that you might find in article 12 because if you are the suspension and prohibition of the activities mentioned in article 11.  I know it might sound abstract because I'm talking about articles and you don't have the wording in front of you, but it is just to make the point clear that when the review mentions sis pension and ‑‑ suspension and prohibition of the activities of the article 11 of the review, article 11 deals with the activities of collection and treatment of personal data. 

So, by the end of today, when article 12 says that application providers might suffer sanctions and severe sanctions such as the suspension and the prohibition of the activities of article 11, it's not the suspension or the prohibition of the entire platform or the entire application.  Just the activities related to the collection and treatment of private data.  This is just one clarification that can support in dimension and it was really interesting that we had in the last blocking order that we had in Brazil, the justice from the Brazilian supreme court end up reversing the judicial order for the blocking is stating that the Marcus review, the Brazilian Bill of rights would be the reason alone for the blocking not to occur, for the blocking not to happen. 

So, in this last blocking situation that we had in Brazil, it ends up serving as the reason for the blocking the first place and then in an injunction issued by the supreme court, the Mark was the reason for the blocking to be relieved to be terminated.  So, I believe it is very important to highlight that.  Especially some of you that are not Brazilian, you have read the markings in Brazil.  I could go over on some other issues, but I will save that for ‑‑ go ahead.  Stefano.

>> STEFANO:  I would like to add something about our relations with friends Brazilian.  Actually, the Italian government in parliament avoid just as a first step to enter into specific provisions, into comparable (inaudible).  And you also have been present in Rome invited by the parliament just explain (inaudible) that has been an exploitation of the 12 principles that you had approved very short principles, but that they have to be covered in the stone.  In Italy, we did art is something.  The 14 points that we established have also some comments and also left a few points outside the intellect proper.  Just to mention something that is important in the Internet, but it is harder to simplify in the description. 

So, we made something intermediate and more close to the 12 principles rather than establishing a law that is explaining all the possible solutions and so on.  Also, we have to consider that in Europe, we have a lot of legal establishment by Europe or by European Union. 

Also, just to mention a couple of arguments that could be then exploited a little bit is the right to be forgotten on one side and another point that we put on the 14th, principle has been to establish in Italy mull‑stakeholder committee to run the Internet in Italy that this is close to what you did with CGI in Brazil.  And this explains the vicinities of our intent, at least.

>> CARLOS:  I think it's time for us to open up for comments and questions.

>> CHRISTIAN SUPEI:  So my name is Christian Supei.  I am working at the moment with the Association of China.  We want to learn from each others experience on digital regulation and approaches and policies.  My question is more related to Brazil in the sense that I'm wondering whether you will correct me whether this Marco Sevill is a legislation by the rich for the rich because at the end what people are caring and the population is to have access to the Internet.  So you may increase the obligations and make it less attractive to invest in the Internet. 

For example, if a company wants to get data, big data, they could sponsor free access to the Internet, but then there are lots of legislation on the privacy, on what you can do with data.  So why would you invest?  So, the question is:  Don't we have is to choose between internet for all or very secure internet for the rich and on which side are you?

>> so very quickly.  You put up provisions on how Internet rights can be put up.  It has a very strong language.  But the law itself would not magically get people online and included.  So I think it's important to explain here and thanks for your question because it gives us the opportunity to make it clear that our regulation, a law will never solve all the problems.  It has by the end of today this aim of trying to solve some of the disputes we might have concerning issues such as privacy, net neutrality or liability of intermediaries, but it will not make people in poor areas of Brazil connected just because we have this one legislation.  So that's why it is important to have the government aware that the mission is far from done simply because you have a federal law saying that to have access to the internet is a fundamental right.  It's there in the wording of the review including saying something that if you do not have free speech and privacy, you don't have a full access to the Internet. 

And so you have very strong language on digital inclusion, but, of course, the law will not solve this problem and it's important for the government to have policies that deals with digital inclusion especially in Brazil, which is a country in which almost half of the population is not on the Internet.  So we need to take extra care of those south part of the Brazil.

>> I will try to explain, but introduce clearly the universalization principle and the obligation of the public, the government to adopt policies, public policies due to guarantee the right of digital inclusion.  And I agree with Carlos Alfonso.  You can't have the internet if you don't have freedom of expression, net neutrality, with the two principles forever example.  I don't know if we can talk in Internet properly.

>> Just a quick comment on the data privacy and data protection issue.  In Brazil, there's no data protection law.  Although, the rest is privacy and protection provisions.  They have been discussing data protection view, draft view and data protection view since last year.  There are two things in the parliament and I have to say that the feedback from the confidence that there is support in the views and support in there because they need more legal certainties.  So sometimes regulators is not a good thing, but in some specific areas where you have most of the time different laws and different places and you have to comply with different rules, it is easy for them to follow clear legal standards and clearly requirements and that's the case you are facing in Brazil. 

I think the views participated in parliament from the IT industry and so on and so on, they face Google and they have data protection law regulates not only the internet.  If you see, it was supposed to be part of a package of different laws and the law regulated the use of the web and a data protection law.  So applying to different areas, but it didn't come at that time.  They had to include some provisions.  Sometimes they conflict for the rules and they make some processes of data difficult because democracy requires consent of the data sent in the process of the web.  So creates a bit of legal uncertainties and that's why they're promoting the idea of having a more horizontal data protection law and more, of course, that's the approach we had there.  More inspired by European data protection law and now data protection regulation which we enforced next year. 

So, I think the answer to your question to be more direct to the point, straight to the point is they're looking for legislation in our case because they made more certainty.  The Brazilian course is more known having been products.  They would be made by different decisions and applying different rules in a way in many parts.  So you create more certainty for the companies.

>> It is on article 7, that I was referring to.  There was a debate of on.

In and opt out.  What I understand is the Brazilian Michael Sevil is opt in.  And that's why myself question was not at the expense of the population who wouldn't care and would accept.  They have first to accept.

>> That's why the viewing in the parliament is supposed to deal with these issues.  Sensitivity data there would be an opting approach, but then for the data we follow, the known express consent.  So, it's not so clear if there would be an opt out or if it would be an opt in.  But maybe we have more flex more approach for allowing to just opting, clicking like a private policy or something like that.  But from now at this moment, I would say that's not.  It is very clear, but really stated that you will allow the process of your data.

>> We have in Brazil the law of consumer protection.  They have to be interpreted together to the Internet and according to the law of consumer protection.  The opt out is right clear.

>> A quick follow up on the scenario just understands because you're focusing on article 7.  Article 7 was an article that was changed right after this known revelations and I think it's important to put this political scenario on like a white the way the article looks like it does.  The Brazilian government decided to have it as one of the responses to the spice candles.  Because of that, the privacy and data protection became stronger in the view.  But then again, it is not a general data protection law.  So you end up having this one result which is you have some very strong language in issues such as the consent, which is the opt in and opt out debate, but you don't have the exceptions that you would expect in a general data protection law.  This is one of the points in which there is criticism on the techs the wording of the view and that's where the draft of the views of law on the protection are being discussed in the national congress play in because you end up amending or changing the wording of the view.

>> Excuse me.  If it's possible.  And the question is this, but for example, data protection in Europe, it is introducing a new legislation.  With Brazil, we will change again the legislation to follow the new European legislation.  Another more fundamental question to our Brazilian friend and to my Italian friend.  When the debate in Italy started was under the Obama Administration.  Many countries follow the U.S. in the discussion and so it's been reflected in those in Brazil.  Now that we have a Trump administration, maybe, we don't know what will happen.  U.S. could change completely their policy.  What Brazil and Europe and Italy will do, you think it will be an impact?

>> We have to take to consider this fact.  Internet is transnational by nature.  So it is always important to see what happens outside of the country, of course.  And then our role normally is sympathizing this sentence.  Think globally, act locally.  If something happens that modifies some of the real of the Internet concerning private, concerning anti‑terrorism or things like that and cyber bullies, then it could imply that when trying to regulate in a way or another in the country because Marcus Sevil has been made for Brazil and it's not something that should be applied in other countries.  In Italy, we did ‑‑ let me finish.  We didn't start such activities let's say.  But in order to progress since the commission is still in operation, then we ask the commission and the chamber of deputies.  We want to you have something like that and please involve us because we have the knowledge of the whole Internet and of the problems around.  And then we can try to apply something that is valid for Italy.

>> The Italian model is very different from the Brazilian.  We have a new law that is just on principle because there is a risk internally.  If you do a law because of the changes, because of the technology, then you need to legislate again and again.

>> We are going to activate other comments.  But in Italy, we have a European Union.  And then we have in some way oblige to follow and to try to confront different ideas of countries inside the European Union and then we have a coverage also of legal activities concerning the Internet and where we have to confront and to do something specifically for our country.

>> As you see, we're having a hard time to turn on the mic, but very, very quickly just to address her question.  Marcus review was a federal law, but it is a principle based law.  It tries to be as abstract and focused more on principles rather than going to details on one specific technology because that will end up for the law to be amended or changed very quickly even by following a principles based approach.  Of course, nothing stops one parliamentary, one congressman or woman to propose, to suggest amendments to the law.  And I believe that's the most challenging part of the approach that the Brazilian has fall, which is we have a law that is directly applied by judges.  So once it is approved, the judge can view and enforce it right from the beginning.  Right now we're seeing it being applied by superior courts, which is part of the growing of the law itself, but, of course, it can change.  Most of the challenging activity of us having involved with the law from the very beginning is to see that the law has changed for the worst.  It's good progress in a way of which the topics are discussed. 

You mentioned Trump and Europe and how Brazil faces the old discussion.  I don't want to go in here, but we will see what happens in the near future.  As a country located in the so‑called global self, it is interesting to see how movements in policy and regulation in the U.S. and Europe might serve as an inspiration for what happens down there in Brazil.  Just to give you an example, I was thinking about this what we got earlier today.  It is really striking to see that after May 2014, only in the court of appeals in the state of Sao Paulo, you have 46 decisions on the light we have forgotten and the Internet that end up referring the decision that it was made in Europe in the Costeja case.  Some arguments and reasoning that you have in European decisions. 

So, this just serves in a very practical example that influence inspiration that might happen.  Of course, we don't know what is going to come up with Trump and the administration.  If I had to choose, I would love to stick with Trump administration in a single day.  Let's go back to you.  Any further comments, remarks, questions to our panelists?  If not, I will go to one second topic that I think is important for us to address which is the way in which the intermediary liability provisions are portrayed or presented in the text.  One thing that I would like just to mention to you all is that one of the areas in which the Brazilian Bill of rights has been applied the most is the issue of internet, intermediaries liability. 

So, is Google, Facebook or your favorite intermediary responsible or liable for the content that is posted by one of its users and before the review, Brazil has established very strong case law on a notice and take down regime that would turn the providers, the application providers liable for the content of its users.  If it receives a notification, it can be even like a private notification and it ends up not doing anything or not removing the content.  So one social network provider can be held by a provider posted by its user.  If it receives that by a private party, hey, this content is illegal or it is causing me damage and it fails to remove this one content following a notice to take down re-environment, that is more I would say close to the regime that you have in the U.S. on the DMCA for copyright materials.  The review changed the way in which this system works and if you take a look in the booklet that we have distributed, you have a provision that says that application provided can only be held liable if it fails to comply with a judicial order.  That, of course, commands this one content to be taken down, to be striked down. 

This is quite interesting because that created ‑‑ some people reading this provision got the idea that one specific content could only be removed from the Brazilian Internet with a judicial order, which is not quite the case.  If you look at the wording of 19, the provider can only be held liable if it fails to comply for judicial order.  But there is nowhere in this provision that says that only a judicial order could be like the condition for some photo or video to be removed from the Brazilian Internet.  But this provision is quite important because not only it changed the way in which the notice and takedown system has been applied in Brazil and right now we are seeing some cases that are reaching the higher courts of Brazil in this provision that's being applied including the superior court of justice in Brazil applying this ARTICLE 19 of the review.  I think it is important to mention because there are two exceptions to this rule of ARTICLE 19.  One is related to intimate content and revenge porn or order materials that expose the representatives necessary of a person including adult material.  That's article 21.  And you have one second exception which is copy right because the reason going copy right reform in our legislation in Brazil and the Internet bill of rights defer to the reform of the copy right law the solution to the issue of copy rights violation on the internet. 

But I understand that this is important to mention because it means that the general rule for intermediary, Brazilian Internet intermediary is not held liable by the user except from the moment in which there is a judicial order requesting ‑‑ sorry ‑‑ commanding the contents be taken down.  But there is exception to issues of adult material involving nudity, sex tapes and such.  This is important because it Connects to the whole discussion about cyber bullyism in Italy as well.  As I understand, it is one of the biggest discussions that you're having in Italy right now.  So, if you want to make a quick comment on how the situation stands now a days in Italy.

>> Okay.  For this aspect of server bullyism, their is a proposal of law that not yet approved.  It is contested by the community because this could introduce some to change data or some infringement of freedom of expression let's say because maybe the law has not been so well articulated and this is the reason why also parliamentarians have a problem because they see negative effects.  Apparently, anyone that is indicating some cases that a single person ask for selling information or things like that without any support of any legal let's say sentence.  This is one of the problems that is not only in this case because we have a similar problem, so for questions regarding intellect or property rights.  And the fact and also we have some things on the regulators in Italy that is able to ask to conceal data while the legal people they say that for any provision to consider data should be approved with a legal sentence.  But this is just to understand for you the fact that maybe there are so many cases that justice let's say could be (inaudible) by a number of cases that should be avoided.  So, this is one of the problems that we face in defending Internet rights.  I think that I would like to say just because there is about the same problem is concerning the right to be forgotten, that we discussed a lot about that and the point is that the case was activated by a case with Google and in this case of the Spanish user. 

And then a real problem is that selling of this link of century information is something that is decided by the company, by Google.  And there is not a way in a single way out to contest from the legal point of view something that Google may either in positive case concealing certain information or refusing to concern.  So this let you understand the fact that even to defend rights, there are so many problems that bring to the legislation even of the Internet ‑‑ I am exaggerating a little bit ‑‑ but then we started to discuss we can concern the data for the right to be forgotten only referring to search engine Google and what about the others.  And what about information that is registered not in Europe or the United States or in Brazil.  So there are a lot of contrasting points that demonstrate this ability to make some rights that are equally defended in all the states considering that Internet is transnational organization.  (whispering)

>> I have just one comment.  I agree with you because I think what you are saying we need transnational agreement because the point is if each country does its own, then we have different treatment and different rights.

>> Just to be as informative as possible for the audience, the right we have forgotten is article 11 of the Italian declaration of Internet rights and the article 11 of the current declaration item 2 reads like this.  The right we have forgotten cannot restrict the freedom of search and the right of the public to be informed, which are necessary conditions for the functioning of the democratic society.  This right may be exercised by public figures or those who hold public functions only if the data concerning them are irrelevant with regard to their activities or the public functions they perform.  And I think this is a very interesting point to make about the Italian declaration in comparing to the Brazilian Bill of rights because we do not have the right we have forgotten provision in our law. 

As mentioned, we do have some views of law.  They're trying to amend the Brazilian Bill of Rights to have a language on the rights to be forgotten and one typical discussion that is happening mostly in Europe about the removal not only in 1 country, but globally, I believe most you are aware of the discussion about the so‑called global removals in which the French regulator is pushing for a removal that happens not only this France and not only in European Union, but globally and this very discussion has started in Brazil as well.  So even though we don't have a provision on the right we have forgotten, we have already in the case law in our cases that are being decided by the courts a huge discussion on if a person asks Google to remove from Google.com, but also from Google.com.ER, should a Brazilian judge grant to not only take the Brazilian search engine, but also in the international search engine. 

It's really interesting to see how decisions in the court of appeals in the state of Sao Paulo are being split up and I recall one decision from one month ago that a judge was saying I as a Brazilian judge don't feel comfortable to decide that this one content might be removed not only from Brazil, which is something that I can't exercise my jurisdiction, but this content might be erased from Germany or Colombia and the judge mentioned those two countries.  I think it's interesting because it shows that the discussion that you have in Europe is a discussion that is happening in the Brazilian courts even though the standards might be different because we don't have this language that you have in the declaration.  This is just a personal note. 

I think the whole idea of the right we have forgotten is the idea that maybe it would not be the time for the Brazilian to dig late it as it is especially because I believe the courts in Brazil right now are going through a moment in which is free speech is crucially to take a higher stand especially in the supreme court and I will conclude here saying that as you know, Brazil is going through a very difficult political moment in the political turmoil in Brazil with impeachments of the former presidents and the bunch of congressmen being involved with corruption Scandals.  Of course, we know that politician my Ws from a right to be forgotten especially if you don't have a strong language.  So that's why I think it's important to make this comparison between Brazil and Italy.

>> Very, very good.  Let me say something that is very important especially for young people going to school and so on.  The right to be forgotten is a wrong title because it is clear that the next don't forget about you.  Never.  And then possibly, you can convince, you can oblige Google or other ‑‑ even other search engines to forget the link, but in your enemies made a copy, then they publish what is inside of that and then you don't have any legal provision unless you succeed in asking a lawyer or so on to prosecute those that made the copy.  But then you don't know who made the copy.  So, in practice to be forgotten is something impossible.  But we have to define very well what are the protection that you can get.  Simply not be searched with the country.

>> Do we have any comments or questions from the audience on the right we have forgotten or issues of liability?  Do we?  Go ahead.

>> I am also from Brazil and I am part of IGF.  And I think the right to be forgotten has a lot of relation with cyber bullying.  Something that might look really different, but something that we do not see now is a lot of children who are involved in cyber bullying and talking a lot about their personal life or having colleagues from school.  In the future, they might have a lot of problems with that even to get jobs or something like that because we are all exposed online and on the internet.  So I think that even if we all understood the view ever the Internet is a general and we're trying to constrict that in Brazil and we cannot be too specific.  I think it's really important to try to plan and to find next steps because we talk about making public policies that are going to make education and universal in the Internet.  It is great to talk about it, but I think we might start to think how to make this effective because I was born in Brazil and it is a very hard place to have internet and to other things.  So, people that even, you know, even did not have much access to the Internet, it is really important to try to make education. 

When I talk education, I talk public schools and universities and get involved on that.  I understand how important it is to use Internet as a technology of education and to understand how to but yourself online or Internet.  And I would like to ask about the next steps that you guys are thinking of how Brazilian pal ticks are talking about it and make this really effective and how you can help it.  We have a lot of actions like volunteer or groups who are trying to talk about that and all of us who are IGF.  We are here because we worry about this issue.  So I think it would be real important to get involved to try to make this affection of the education of talking about that and make this real.  By taking this small actions and give them more power and empower people to really become part of the change.  So thank you.

>> Do you have any other case?  So let's get ‑‑ okay.  So let's get three questions.  In the back.

>> Louise Bennett.  We did a lot of work trying to persuade the EU to change the wording in many things in the general protection regulation including the right to be forgotten because it is open if you choose the wrong word and you don't define your ‑‑ what you're saying very accurately, you will have enormous numbers of legal challenges as you have already been said ‑‑ been talking about.  The right to be forgotten should have been, in our opinion, written as the right to request the listing, which is all that you can actually do and what came out of the case law for Google and it ‑‑ if you say the right to be forgotten, you are going to have many, many challenges because it is actually impossible and if you said the right to be delisted, then it would have been quite clear that it was specific and limiting thing that was possible and was reasonable.  And I think one of the big problems with much of the legislation in these areas and it sounds as if you had it with your two Bills of Rights is the question of not defining your terms properly and not saying things that are actually possible to do.

>> My name is Pedro from Brazil.  I would like to make two requests.  If I can't have both, you can pick whichever one you want to answer.  I would like to hear a full argument about ARTICLE 19 that is usually alleged in Brazil concerning consumer legislation.  I would like to hear more from you about that.  How you answer that issue.  And the other one is if you understand judicial notice and take down system that has been implemented through Sevil as planes of furthering and strengthening an ocean of digital due process when you take the decision of choosing whether the content stays on or off from a private party to a judge.

>> Okay.  So thanks for that.  Thanks for those questions.  It's my pleasure to inform you that we are going to stay here for the next three hours in order to respond properly to those questions.  But thanks.  I think great questions that put us and gave us an opportunity to have a lot of topics.  Stefano, you want to begin?  You want to begin with the other questions?

>> Stefano:  Okay.  So concerning the intervention of the lady there.  What's your name?  Louies, okay.  I fully agree.  You have been more precise than I did.  It is all very important.  But they connected to also legal difficulties in correcting the things that should be addressed.  And also another point that is discussed a lot in Italy is generally speaking is privacy.  Privacy is something that that is not only connected to the search engines, but the net knows a lot of any one of us interest we don't know what they ‑‑ what the net already knows.  So we can go around and search about this difficulty in protecting the rights of the single persons in the Internet.  So when we consider all the provisions anti‑terrorism and then we have the preoccupation of users to be spied and he don't know.  So, this is ‑‑ and then if we consider the law enforcement agencies, some transparency might be obliged or requested, but when we go with the intelligence, who can we do?  And, of course, these are areas where the difficulty to protect the single individuals legally is something very, very difficult even to explain with appropriate words.  I insist always with the word transparency, but transparency is not visible 100%.  For the rest, I fully agree.  I know about the question concerning specifically ARTICLE 19.

>> Okay.

>> You can ask.

>> Thanks, Stefano.  Just one quick comment the right.  We couldn't agree more that the right to be forgotten is a tricky name.  No judicial order could make you forget something.  To forget is the result of something else.  So what we're talking about is a lawsuit that we request a removal or a delisting, but it can never request someone to forgot something.  The judge is not ‑‑ doesn't have a man in black device that will put you in face and then we'll forget what you have seen before.  So, definitely we're talking about the listing and definitely not forgotten. 

And the question regarding how you could have engaged in the discussions of the view and since we're talking about the right we have forgotten and cyber bullyism, first of all, let me thank the presence of the guys and girls of IGF here.  It's so good to see you all come down together about the discussion of the Bill of Rights and the comparison with the Italian experience since as I would imagine most of you are from Brazil.  I think it's really good to have this conversation going with our foreign friends and to help to reach the conversation between different countries.  Specifically on right we have forgotten and EU engagement, the Brazilian Bill of Rights is not an abstract law in the sense it doesn't Connect to the way that you end up leaving your life online.  So when we're talking about privacy, we've talking about your daily activities on the Internet.  We're not talking about neutrality.  We're talking about the future of the Internet that you are going to use in the next 10 years or such.  We're talking about how to come up with a system of intermediary liability.  We are trying to design a way in which free speech is a value that is enshrined and enforced in Brazil and, of course, in the Brazilian internet.  Crucial, crucial decisions. 

So I believe you have lots of areas in which you could have a good impact on the way that the view is moving forward.  I would say ‑‑ I'm not sure if all of you are studying law.  So I would definitely avoid the legal terms here.  But I think it's important to mention that because it's the law, it is not exclusively to lawyers and people trained in law to understand and to provide feedbacks on how this law is going to be received by society, how it is going to affect business models, how it is going to change the way in which technology is offered and presented in a number of applications in Brazil.  I know this is very obvious, but I would like to resource this idea of the law of the horse that we have four horses that are really competing among themselves to decide who is going to decide how you do what you do. 

So one of them is law, which is the choice between something that's legal or illegal.  One is the market or economic forces that will tell you that you're going to do something because it is going to cost you less or more.  The other horse is a society which is I'm going to do this because it is accepted by society or not that much accepted and finally technology that will make easier or harder for you to do somebody.  So I think it's a good image that puts law on its place as a result to 1/4th of the diagram.  And just to conclude very quickly.  Pedro has very tough questions on the interpretation of the view.  You said I could choose.  So I will try very briefly to address the two of them. 

So, first of all, is the ARTICLE 19 unconstitutional?  I really don't think so.  ARTICLE 19 comes up with system for liability of intermediaries.  It is not an article on removal of contents and if people end up arguing that it's not the system that the consumer protection code has established back then in the '90s, I think you can come up with a solution that the view was a specific law concerning Internet and it balances different rights and come up with a regime that is not new in Brazil.  If you look on how that brokers might be held liable for ‑‑ I'm sorry if I am mistranslating this from Portuguese to English, but when you are in that star and then your came is sent out to a data broker, the way in which this data broker can be responsible for wrongly claiming that the name of this one person is the name of adapter or someone who is not paying their debts is the very same way in which the Marcus Sevill is doing that application.  I don't think it is unconstitutional.  That's for sure.  And then you talk about digital due process.  I believe there's a huge area to work on because if one ‑‑ on one hand, the Mark Sevill does not require a judicial order for a content to be removed, of course that leaves some space for companies and providers to create their terms of services and agreements and we each contents might be removed from the internet and that's where we need transparency and that's where we need the community guidelines are transparent and applied as they are written there.  But I believe that there's a huge area to work on due process and it's important not to look half of the coin and half of the glass here thinking that if we have ARTICLE 19, our problems solved.  Quite the opposite.  We still need to do web process.  If they are or not compliance with the groups that providers themselves have stated they are going to follow.  This is just very quick comments.  Go ahead.

>> I want to launch a last idea that these proposals of something that is discussed in this Bill about the storm networks Facebook in particular, but not only.  And that was connected also to some idea that came one in United States during the campaign of the last elections.  Some ‑‑ from one side to hate speech and then to the source of the information.  So, Facebook is studying under pressure of some government that alga rhythm in order to verify if certain information that is spread in social networks are false or not.  You can imagine the difficulty to do it with the alga rhythm and then to judge this search is going always in the right direction.  This is a real preoccupation, talking about democracy at the time of the Internet.  There should be some help for the users not to confuse any false information with the right information.  And this is something that it will come and will be some argument in order to verify because the conflict of possible legal problems are already there.  And then maybe there should be some human help in order to verify if the alga rhythm has made the right choice.  This is something very, very important and this is right. 

The normal internet user is confused because you find if you search some information such an enormous amount of information that then and help how to select the information that is not so wrong.  It is an important right.

>> Flavia, you want to have some find remarks before we close?

>> I just like to highlight because the question of the representative of China.  The relationship between digital inclusion and neutrality and how it's important this concept became clear when we analyzed practices like zero rating plains, data kept plains with blocks in the end of the volumes of data.  In Brazil now, Anatel is the national agency in telecommunications and CGI and the courts are working over this discussion not to reach the better interpretation with the focus digital inclusion.  Not neutrality has a relationship directly ‑‑ directly a relationship with inclusion, digital inclusion and universalization.  This is very important for the system of Brazil now.

>> So, thanks to Flavia, marrow and Stefano for putting up this discussion comparison ‑‑ doing some comparison between the two and going through some of the now topics that are emerging.  Just to let you know, we can go over doing comparison on a lot of other topics.  The declaration has anonymity, which is different from what we had in Brazil.  Thanks for attending this conversation.  I hope it was informative and our panelists will be here right after the panel to discuss with you any further questions or comments that you might have.  I would like to send a shout out to counselor Alfonso that is not me, but he is watching you from the streaming right now and has been putting all sorts of comments here in the live tweets of this panel.  So, counselor Alfonso, you were supposed to be here, but I am glad you watched us through the streaming.  Guys, thanks for attending and let's keep on with this conversation during this IGF.  So see you in the next workshop or panel.  Okay?  So see you all.  Bye‑bye.