NwHIN Governance Rules Shelved - What Now?

Earlier this month, the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) announced it was dropping plans to issue governance “rules of the road” for the Nationwide Health Information Network (NwHIN). Today in iHealthBeat, CDT writes about the significance of this decision on efforts to eliminate potential obstacles to digital health information exchange among providers and patients.

In “Establishing Trust and Interoperability in the Post-NwHIN Governance Era,” CDT acknowledges the limitations and potential drawbacks of the voluntary governance structure initially put forth for NwHIN by ONC in May 2012. However, we are concerned about the elimination of a potential policy tool for building a trusted virtual exchange network for providers and patients just as exchange requirements are about to be escalated under Stage 2.

In the absence of governance rules for NwHIN, HHS must use all of its existing authorities – including conditions for receipt of funds authorized by Congress in HITECH and its oversight over the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules – to ensure seamless and trusted exchange for patients and providers to improve individual and population health.

View the original article here

Internet Voter Registration Day

Today, CDT joins Fight for the Future and Personal Democracy Media in their project to "get more Internet users to vote than ever before."

The groups created a voter registration tool that also allows people to send reminders to their friends to register to vote. CDT supports this effort – unleashing the democratic potential of the Internet is core to our mission.

This year, Internet users showed what happens when they speak out against bad legislation. Going forward, the fight to keep the Internet open, innovative and free will require engaged Internet users who are willing to hold their elected representatives accountable. That’s why CDT is joining this effort and encouraging everyone who has a stake in the Internet to register and help spread the word about “Internet Voter Registration Day."

View the original article here

Shielding the Messengers: CDT Comments on Notice-and-Action

This post is part of our ‘Shielding the Messengers’ series, which examines issues related to intermediary liability protections, both in the U.S. and globally. Without these protections, the Internet as we know it today–a platform where diverse content and free expression thrive–would not exist.

Any guidelines to harmonize "notice and action" policies for content hosts must focus on maintaining strong liability protections and providing effective safeguards against abuse. That was the message CDT reiterated to the European Commission last week in our response to its public consultation on the issue. These comments (and appendix) are the latest in a series of contributions CDT has made since the Commission first picked up the issue in February, when CDT offered a set of principles to guide the inquiry.

Unlike in the US - where the Digital Millennium Copyright Act lays out a specific notice-and-takedown procedure that hosts must follow to be shielded from copyright liability - the E-Commerce Directive (ECD) that guides EU states' intermediary liability protections offers only a higher-level framework. It covers all content, and has been implemented in a wide variety of ways in different countries, some adopting formal notice-and-takedown systems, others not. The Commission is considering issuing guidelines to help harmonize the processes across the EU.

CDT's comments start from the proposition that liability protection should be available to the full range of content hosts that are relevant on today's Internet, and that any notice-and-takedown system needs to target illegal content with specificity and care. We stress that protection should be unequivocally extended to "active hosts" and that so-called notice-and-stay down obligations are inconsistent with the ECD's prohibition on general monitoring obligations. And CDT believes that private notice-and-takedown should only apply in areas where unlawful conduct is straightforward. Allowing notice-and-takedown for defamation and other content whose legal assessment requires difficult factual and legal determinations allows far too much opportunity for abuse.

A major focus of our comments is what steps can be taken to prevent abuse of notice-and-takedown where it is implemented. Abuse and mistakes under the DMCA and the threat they pose to online free expression have been well documented by CDT and other advocates. To prevent actions that result in the takedown of lawful material, we recommended a combination of strict requirements for notices, transparency requirements to expose abuses, and strong appeal and counter-noticing procedures - including the availability of meaningful penalties for those who send abusive, misleading, or negligent notices.

Lastly, the comments urge the Commission to consider "actions" other than takedown. Although the questionnaire focused on takedown, it is just one among a wide range of actions that can help address illegal content. Notice-forwarding by access providers, for example, can alert users of the allegations being made and the possibility of legal action against them - without the risk that lawful content will come down by mistake before a user has the chance to respond or a court has the chance to intervene.

View the original article here

Doubling Down with Double-Speak: ETNO Responds to Critics

When is a request for regulatory intervention not a request for regulatory intervention? Just ask the European Telecommunications Network Operators’ Association. Last week, ETNO published a response to critics of its controversial proposal to amend the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs), attempting to stress that the association was not asking for governments to weigh in on commercial Internet interconnection agreements.

The problem is, that’s exactly what ETNO is asking for. The ITRs are a global treaty that delineates the regulatory authority of the ITU. ETNO’s proposed amendment – roundly criticized by CDT, the Internet Society, and others when it was issued in June – calls for extending the ITRs’ reach beyond traditional telcos to cover a potentially wide range of entities from across the Internet. The proposal expressly calls for using the ITRs to establish a new interconnection system that would differ in key ways from the commercial interconnection agreements that have been privately negotiated to date. ETNO would have the ITRs specify that network operators should structure their interconnection agreements to include end-to-end Quality of Service (in other words, pay-for-priority) and the principle of “sending party network pays” (in other words, pay-for-delivery). As we wrote in June, acceptance of these proposals would mark a dramatic shift in the market for interconnection, upending basic principles of Internet neutrality and resulting in higher costs for end-users and potentially decreased access to information in developing economies.

ETNO attempts to frame its proposal as one that would simply remove barriers to the types of deals its members want to make with content providers. But neither the original proposal nor the recent paper point out exactly what those barriers are. ETNO cites the rise of large content providers, increases in Internet video traffic, and the proliferation of connected devices to argue that the market is changing, but presents no evidence that the market for interconnection isn’t functioning properly – and certainly no evidence that the ITRs themselves stand in the way of anything ETNO members want to do. It seems more likely that ETNO members are trying to use the authority of the ITU to force more favorable agreements than they can negotiate absent regulatory intervention.

Indeed, some of the “evidence” cited in the paper actually cuts against ETNO’s proposal. The paper cites the growth of content-delivery networks as evidence of growing demand for higher quality of service.  But as we noted in our June critique, ETNO’s proposal would most likely reverse the trend toward CDNs and efficient content-localization. “Sending party network pays” would create strong incentives for last-mile networks to opt against local content caching in order to collect compensation from sender networks forced to re-send the same content again and again. 

ETNO additionally claims that a system where content providers have to pay distant networks for access to customers will “enrich the Internet ecosystem” and increase content diversity. The more likely result, however, is that large entrenched players with the ability to pay will do so, cementing their dominance and raising huge new barriers to potential competitors. The Internet’s power to drive innovation comes from its low barriers to entry – once you plug in, you and your service can reach everyone else on the network of networks. While there are some disparities (not every service can be fully deployed on a global CDN on day one, for example), a system that effectively forced new entrants to “pay to play” would dramatically upset that competitive environment.

Nobody disputes that telcos need to generate revenues sufficient to sustain investment. But it’s just not true that, as ETNO asserts, “Over the Top players . . . are not contributing to network investment.” Providers of popular online content and services already invest huge amounts of money in their own networks, bandwidth, and CDN deployment in order to stay competitive as traffic grows; they interconnect with telcos via freely negotiated agreements; and they fuel customer demand for broadband Internet access. European member states are meeting this week to discuss regional proposals to amend the ITRs.Yesterday, the chair of ETNO tweeted that the ETNO proposal would be discussed at the next regional meeting in October. Attendees of that meeting – and ITU member states more broadly – should reject the idea of trading away the unified, global nature of the Internet in hopes of generating some incremental revenue for established telcos.

View the original article here

WCIT Civil Society Briefing Leaves Many Questions Unanswered

Earlier this week, the ITU Secretariat hosted a briefing for civil society organizations interested in the ITU's upcoming World Conference on International Telecommunications. Although the Secretariat's official aim was to "provide an overview of the conference, the preparatory process, and some of the main principles and issues being discussed," concrete answers to these questions were few and far between.  

What we did learn is that the ITU is putting the onus of civil society participation on the shoulders of Member States.  The Secretariat repeatedly has said that civil society may participate through national consultations, or on national delegations, but this is only if Member States allow such participation.  While this is fine and good for countries with a healthy civil sector and a commitment to multistakeholder governance, it is cold comfort to civil society in much of the world, where governments at best ignore their input and at worst target and harass them.

ITU representatives repeatedly assured participants that the ITU process is "open" and welcoming of civil society input, but it's clear that there's still a lot of daylight between our understandings of what an open and participatory process really looks like.

There was some discussion about whether civil society groups could participate at the WCIT by joining the ITU, as Sector Members, or by just showing up as private citizens. But it's still hard to pin down the details: what, exactly, are the costs of Sector Membership and attending the conference? What are the restrictions on participation for Sector Members? What kind of participation can civil society members who show up to the conference expect, given that the issue of opening up certain discussions to the public won't be voted on until the beginning of the conference?  With just 52 days to the WCIT, it's frustrating that we still cannot get clear answers.

View the original article here

New Report Rates Countries on Internet Freedom

On Monday, Freedom House released Freedom on the Net 2012, an annual report that summarizes threats to user rights online, access to ICTs, and a range of policy developments that affect openness on the global Internet. The report includes narrative profiles and Internet freedom “scores” for 47 countries around the world, with an emphasis on countries where Internet openness and user rights have historically been at risk. This year, CDT reviewed and provided updates for the Freedom on the Net profile for the United States.

In 2012, Azerbaijan, Malaysia, Pakistan, and Russia were among a handful of countries that experienced a sharp uptick in threats to user rights since 2011. In 19 of the 47 countries profiled, new laws had been introduced that threatened rights to privacy, free expression, or both. But researchers also found that civil society activism and strong due process had yielded positive results for Internet freedom in a wide range of countries.

Using metrics that aim to quantify limitations for online content, obstacles to access, and user rights, the report rates countries on a scale of “free” to “not free.” This year, the US rating became slightly “less free” due primarily to San Francisco public transit officials’ decision to shut down cell phone service on Bay Area Rapid Transit train platforms in an effort to stymie public protests, a move that CDT argued stood in violation of the First Amendment. The proposed anti-piracy laws SOPA and PIPA, which constituted clear threats to users’ rights to free expression and access to information, also had a negative effect on the US score.

While the scoring method used for the report provides a simplified picture of the often complex threats to Internet freedom that exist in different countries, the accompanying narratives shed some light on critical distinctions in how threats take shape from country to country. Comparing reports from multiple years can also give readers a useful sketch of a country’s Internet freedom trajectory over time.

Readers can find highlights from the 2012 report here, and a downloadable PDF for the report here.

View the original article here

Review: Panasonic Lumix TZ25

The Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ25 replaces the Panasonic TZ18 as the affordable camera in the Panasonic's TZ travel zoom range, with a price tag of £269.99/AU$288/US$249.99.

Panasonic's TZ compact cameras are known for their big zooms and even bigger feature sets. And the Panasonic TZ25 - also known as the Panasonic ZS15 - doesn't disappoint. What you get here is essentially a Panasonic TZ30 lite - although physically it's chunkier and heavier by a whisker than Panasonic's flagship superzoom.

Instead of the Panasonic TZ30's 20x optical zoom, the Panasonic TZ25 stretches to 16x - the same as last year's Panasonic TZ18.

The Panasonic TZ25's lens might not have the extreme reach (24-384mm equivalent, compared to the Panasonic TZ30's 24-480mm), but it does retain the same wide setting, which comes in particularly useful for indoor shots, group portraits and scenic shots.

The Panasonic TZ25 also sheds a little effective resolution in the sensor department - offering 12.1MP compared to the Panasonic TZ30's 14.1MP. This is a decrease from the Panasonic TZ18 too, which also delivered 14.1 million effective pixels.

However, instead of using a CCD sensor like its predecessor, the Panasonic TZ25 features a high-sensitivity MOS one, the same as in the Panasonic FZ150.

We'd accept a slight drop in overall resolution in return for cleaner images from a small 1/2.3-inch sensor every time.

What else do you get for your money with the Panasonic TZ25? A high-speed burst mode that captures 10 full res files (although focus is locked throughout), Full HD video recording in AVCHD or MP4 format and POWER OIS (Optical Image Stabilisation) that's said to be twice as effective as Panasonic's excellent MEGA OIS. Plus there's in-camera HDR, 3D photos and panoramas.

Stump up the extra little bit of cash for the Panasonic TZ30 and you get a touchscreen, GPS, progressive 1920 x 1080 Full HD video with stereo sound recording (the Panasonic TZ25 records mono 1080i footage) and an extra ED lens in the construction of the zoom.

Otherwise, the specifications of the two cameras are near identical.

It doesn't matter how technically adept a camera is if it isn't easy to use. Thankfully, the Panasonic TZ25 gets the balance between menu-based controls and physical buttons and dials just right.

The camera is comfortable to hold, despite only having a small grip lined with a shiny inlay and a remarkably ineffective dotted thumb rest. All the controls fall easily to hand, too.

The top-plate of the Panasonic TZ25 features a responsive shutter release enclosed by a zoom collar, plus a direct record button for movies and a small but nicely weighted mode dial.

In addition to P, A, S, M modes, this dial also includes Intelligent Auto, Scene Mode (17 to choose from here), 3D Photo Mode and My Scene Mode, which enables you to apply one of Panasonic's creative digital filter effects. Finally, there's also the option for storing complete camera setups as Custom modes.

The rear of the camera features the familiar Panasonic setup. A four-way control pad gives direct access to exposure compensation, flash settings, macro focus and self-timer, while the centre SET/MENU button confirms a selection and brings up the Panasonic TZ25's shooting or playback menus, depending on which mode the camera's in.

Rather than forcing you to rummage around the menus to change key shooting parameters such as ISO, white balance and AF mode, Panasonic has collected these in a Quick Menu. Tapping the Q.Menu button on the bottom of the Panasonic TZ25's backplate displays this drop-down overlay on the rear screen's live view.

This is an efficient way of getting to the functions that matter, although the lineup of options depends on which of the Panasonic TZ25's shooting modes you're in: Aperture Priority gives you seven options to choose from, while the Intelligent Auto mode gives you four.

An inset Exposure button is conveniently placed mid-body: press this while shooting in Aperture Priority, Shutter Priority and Manual modes to change aperture and/or shutter speed settings.

Most of the Panasonic TZ25's switchgear is quick and precise, and a reflection of the all-round high standards of build quality. The sliding on/off switch is fairly stiff, for instance, meaning that the camera is unlikely to spring into life while being carried in a bag or pocket.

Moving from shooting mode to playback mode is also achieved through the use of a switch on the back of the camera. It's a shame that Panasonic persists in making you have to physically flick a switch to move from playback to shooting, as it disrupts the otherwise smooth flow of operating the camera.

There were a couple of other operational weak points with our Panasonic TZ25. The zoom collar, although light and precise during shooting, became much less snappy while magnifying the image during playback.

The LCD screen also exhibited a nasty green tinge when viewed from above or below, although the various brightness options available, including High Angle for shooting with the camera held over your head, are welcome.

View the original article here