security, and public order. 85 The data that may be requested by the police include
caller identification, network terminals and/or telecommunication devices used in the
connection, data generated during the connection, the circumstances, and the type of
connection. 86
The Polish government has been criticized for conducting a large number of wiretapping operations that may be seen as an invasion of privacy. In early March 2009,
the office of the Polish prime minister announced that it had plans to compile a ‘‘super
database’’ of information on all Polish citizens. The database would be compiled during the 2011 census and would include information from the ministries of finance, justice, and home affairs, social insurance information, and information gathered from
telecommunications suppliers. The plan has met with outrage from Polish Internet
users, who claim the database would violate their constitutional rights. The prime minister’s office has since released a statement explaining that the database will only include necessary information. 87 It remains to be seen who would then determine what
information is necessary and how Internet users’ right to privacy would be guaranteed.
The prospect of revenue from online advertising has sometimes driven operators to
exercise surveillance over their customers’ preferences. Major British operators BT, Talk
Talk, and Virgin have all signed up to use Phorm, 88 a Web tracking service, which uses
information gathered from a user’s browsing history to deliver targeted advertising on
members’ Web sites. An admission has been made by BT that it ran secret trials of a
new advertising platform among 18,000 of its broadband customers in 2006 in order
to determine the operational and technical performance of the service. The platform
targets advertisements at the operator’s customers using their browsing profiles. The
EU threatened in April 2009 to pursue legal action against the United Kingdom for
breaching Internet privacy laws by allowing operators to use the platform to track their
customers’ online activities for commercial gain (estimated at GBP 3 billion a year).
Conclusion
Today, Internet content in Europe is controlled by three groups of factors: region-wide
organizations (the EU), individual countries, and companies (e.g., ISPs, search engines).
While governments have been extremely active in promoting filtering technologies for
child pornography and surveillance technologies for copyright infringement, they are
increasingly finding that they can achieve their aims through indirect means. Rather
than passing explicit regulations, governments have pressured companies to voluntarily self-regulate content, be it pornography, hate speech, or content that infringes
upon copyrights. Such pressures show a creeping tendency toward the second- and
third-generation controls found elsewhere.
At the EU level, countries are increasingly working to harmonize Internet regulation,
especially with regard to defamatory and pornographic content. Given the significant
290
Europe Overview
caller identification, network terminals and/or telecommunication devices used in the
connection, data generated during the connection, the circumstances, and the type of
connection. 86
The Polish government has been criticized for conducting a large number of wiretapping operations that may be seen as an invasion of privacy. In early March 2009,
the office of the Polish prime minister announced that it had plans to compile a ‘‘super
database’’ of information on all Polish citizens. The database would be compiled during the 2011 census and would include information from the ministries of finance, justice, and home affairs, social insurance information, and information gathered from
telecommunications suppliers. The plan has met with outrage from Polish Internet
users, who claim the database would violate their constitutional rights. The prime minister’s office has since released a statement explaining that the database will only include necessary information. 87 It remains to be seen who would then determine what
information is necessary and how Internet users’ right to privacy would be guaranteed.
The prospect of revenue from online advertising has sometimes driven operators to
exercise surveillance over their customers’ preferences. Major British operators BT, Talk
Talk, and Virgin have all signed up to use Phorm, 88 a Web tracking service, which uses
information gathered from a user’s browsing history to deliver targeted advertising on
members’ Web sites. An admission has been made by BT that it ran secret trials of a
new advertising platform among 18,000 of its broadband customers in 2006 in order
to determine the operational and technical performance of the service. The platform
targets advertisements at the operator’s customers using their browsing profiles. The
EU threatened in April 2009 to pursue legal action against the United Kingdom for
breaching Internet privacy laws by allowing operators to use the platform to track their
customers’ online activities for commercial gain (estimated at GBP 3 billion a year).
Conclusion
Today, Internet content in Europe is controlled by three groups of factors: region-wide
organizations (the EU), individual countries, and companies (e.g., ISPs, search engines).
While governments have been extremely active in promoting filtering technologies for
child pornography and surveillance technologies for copyright infringement, they are
increasingly finding that they can achieve their aims through indirect means. Rather
than passing explicit regulations, governments have pressured companies to voluntarily self-regulate content, be it pornography, hate speech, or content that infringes
upon copyrights. Such pressures show a creeping tendency toward the second- and
third-generation controls found elsewhere.
At the EU level, countries are increasingly working to harmonize Internet regulation,
especially with regard to defamatory and pornographic content. Given the significant
290
Europe Overview