Friday, November 25, 2016

China’s New Cybersecurity Law

China has formulated its new cybersecurity law that will come into force on June 1, 2017. Dubbed “Golden Shield”, it regulates internet access and data traffic which will be within the domain "order and security of the cyberspace" legislation. In short, information will be censored as it was before. That being said, the exact scope, impact and extend of the new law is not entirely clear. All in all, the new cybersecurity law encompasses 79 articles which you can read here.

The new law consist of seven chapters containing rules and regulations for two types of data, namely regulations for the protection of personal data, and regulations for the protection of critical information infrastructures. To clarify, critical information infrastructure relates to data connected with energy, transport, water supply, finance, public service and e-government infrastructures.

The new law determines that the hardware or software of foreign companies relating to critical infrastructures must be examined beforehand by Chinese officials conducting security audits. It is unclear if such audits would also include the disclosure of source codes. This is a major concern, since China has shown in the past that it has a keen interest in looking at source codes of foreign companies such as Apple.

Furthermore, the new law mandates that personal data and other important critical information infrastructure data must be stored within the Chinese territory. Internet users are also required to register with their real name. This means that Internet providers or providers of messenger services may not allow users who use an alias or screen name to register.

According to the new law, denying or revoking a license may result in penalties. In addition, the Ministry of Public Security may, in the event of suspected threats to the critical information infrastructure, freeze the accounts and other assets of foreign companies or persons.

Amnesty International mentioned in its annual report of 2016 that China for the first time conducted an internet security assessment of internet law. The law originally focused on maintaining national security and the social order. It provides for the possibility of prohibiting the use of Internet by individuals and groups, when such use would impact national security. As a result, freedom of expression and privacy could be restricted.


To read the full law in English, click here. The English translation is courtesy of China Law Translate.

Thursday, November 17, 2016

Highest court in Austria: "Average readers assume that media contributions are not neutral"

The Austrian Supreme Court (Oberste Gerichtshof or OGH) has ruled on the obligation of newspapers to label “convenience” articles as sponsored content. Under Austrian law, articles that are published in return for advertisements do not have to be labeled as such. 

According to the Court, the "average reader" does not assume that media are neutral, explaining that such an obligation only applies to paid publications, but not to publications of “mere convenience”.

This case involved a legal dispute between two free newspapers. One of the free newspapers complained that the other free newspaper was publishing editorial articles in return for paid ads without indicating that the articles are sponsored.

The court ruled that "The average, attentive and critical reader today assumes that editorial contributions in periodical media are not “neutral” and therefore not completely objective. When published articles are written by journalists, including well-known and reputable ones, those articles reflect their personal opinions, be it in political, scientific or economic aspect."

If, however, money is spent on the concrete publication of contributions, then these must continue to be marked as "advertisements", "advertising", “paid content” or "sponsored" under Austrian law.
With its ruling, the Supreme Court has reversed the previous rulings of two lower courts that each confirmed that “convenience” articles must be labeled as sponsored content.

The PR Ethics Council in Austria criticized the judgment as being "highly problematic". According to Gabriele Faber-Wiener, chairperson of the PR Ethics Council, "the ruling will open the door for intertwined business interests and readers will be deceived."


(Image: © Hubertl / Wikimedia Commons / License CC-BY-SA 4.0)