Welcome:
Login
|
Sign Up
|
About CircleID
Follow:
|
|
|
Trust & Safety Consultant and Internet Policy Expert
Joined on September 20, 2006
Total Post Views: 148,153
| About |
Jeremy Malcolm is a Trust & Safety consultant, with experience advising Internet platforms of over 10m users each. From 2018-2021 he was Executive Director of Prostasia Foundation, a child protection nonprofit. Prior to that he was Senior Global Policy Analyst at Electronic Frontier Foundation, where he worked on technology policy and human rights issues. Previously he worked at Consumers International coordinating its global program Consumers in the Digital Age. Jeremy graduated with degrees in Law (with Honours) and Commerce in 1995 from Murdoch University, and completed his PhD thesis at the same University in 2008 on the topic of Internet governance. Jeremy’s background is as an information technology and intellectual property lawyer and IT consultant. He is admitted to the bars of the Supreme Court of Western Australia (1995), High Court of Australia (1996) and Appellate Division of New York (2009).
Except where otherwise noted, all postings by Jeremy Malcolm on CircleID are licensed under a Creative Commons License.
The EARN IT Act was reintroduced into Congress last Monday, with the promise that it would end Internet platforms' "blanket immunity" for "tens of millions of photos and videos" of child sexual abuse that they allow to circulate online. With the bill already scheduled for hearing in committee, it's on track to be passed quickly. And why shouldn't it be, if its sponsors' claims about it are true? Perhaps because they're not true. more
Like much of how the Internet is governed, the way we detect and remove child abuse material online began as an ad hoc set of private practices. In 1996, an early online child protection society posted to the Usenet newsgroup alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.children (yes, such a thing really existed) to try to discourage people from posting such "erotica" on the assumption that the Internet couldn't be censored. more
The battle to purge child abuse images from the Internet has been lost. That doesn't mean that we can't or shouldn't continue to work towards the elimination of image-based abuse. But it is widely acknowledged by law enforcement, reporting hotlines, and prevention groups alike that this can't be achieved merely by censoring images from the Internet and by criminalizing those who access or share them – which are the only strategies that society has focused on until now. more
Last month INHOPE, a global trade association of child abuse reporting hotlines, rejected a joint call from Prostasia Foundation, the National Coalition Against Censorship, Article 19, and the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, that its members should stop treating cartoons as if they were images of child sexual abuse. As our joint letter pointed out, INHOPE's conflation of offensive artwork with actual abuse images has resulted in the misdirection of police resources against artists and fans... more
This week United States Attorney-General William Barr cited the need to address child exploitation as one of the factors motivating a mooted review of law called CDA 230, which provides that Internet companies aren't responsible for what their users say or do online. There are many dimensions to the problem of child exploitation, ranging from inappropriate comments on Instagram photos to child grooming on Fortnite... more
Just over one week ago, the New York Times published a major investigation into the intractable problem of illegal sexual images of minors being exchanged online. Despite flaws in the story and its companion pieces, the main take-away that Internet companies have failed to adequately address the problem has resonated widely. Prostasia Foundation too has been critical of some of the Internet platforms called out in the article. But at the same time, we need to be realistic about how much responsibility we can (or should) place on tech firms to solve this problem. more
Users scored an exciting victory over copyright-based censorship last month, when the Domain Name Association (DNA) and the Public Interest Registry (PIR), in response to criticism from EFF, both abruptly withdrew their proposals for a new compulsory arbitration system to confiscate domain names of websites accused of copyright infringement. But copyright enforcement was only one limb of the the DNA's set of Registry/Registrar Healthy Practices. more
All civil society organisations and other self-identified public interest representatives in the regime of Internet governance and related areas of information and communications policy are invited to complete a survey titled Public interest representation in the information society. This survey contributes towards the development of a map of Internet governance... more
The recent publication of leaked United States diplomatic cables by Wikileaks has produced an extremist reaction by some governments, provoking them and compliant large corporations to strike out at the organisation's Web site, its financial base, and the person of its founder, Julian Assange. For the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC), this highlights the need for cross-border Internet governance issues to be made subject to a due process of law, informed by sound political frameworks, including those of human rights. more
The principle that Internet governance "is a joint effort which requires cooperation and partnership among all stakeholders" (Geneva Declaration of Principles, para 20) has become axiomatic since it was first agreed at WSIS, and is fundamental to the IGF as a "new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue" (Tunis Agenda, para 72). However at the same time as this principle has been universally embraced, some of its implications, that would require the four stakeholder groups identified in the Tunis Agenda to collaborate on the development of joint policy recommendations (Tunis Agenda para 72(g)) have met with resistance. That the strongest resistance has come from those stakeholders with the greatest investment in the existing Internet governance regime... more
As Antonios Broumas has correctly observed, the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) begins life in Athens next week without the means for its participants to agree upon any substantive documents such as resolutions or declarations. Indeed, according to Nitin Desai, the Chairman of its Advisory Group, it is impossible for the IGF to make any decisions, as it "is not a decision-making body. We have no members so we have no power to make decision."... more
Two new sites for commentary on the Internet Governance Forum have launched ahead of its inaugural meeting in Athens which is due to take place from 30 October to 2 November 2006. The first is an official forum, at which the only topic presently available for discussion is the important one of how to best enable remote participation in the IGF's deliberations... more
A World-Renowned Source for Internet Developments. Serving Since 2002.