Twitter Yields to Pressure in Hate Case in France

The case shows how challenging it is for Silicon Valley companies to champion the free speech rights of users while complying with the laws of countries where they do business. It also highlights Silicon Valley’s Europe problem: the Continent represents a large and lucrative market, but its lawmakers, regulators and courts have hounded the industry in recent months on issues as varied as privacy and antitrust law.

For months, Twitter had fought a court order obtained by a private French citizens’ group demanding that the company turn over the user information. But on Friday, the company said it had handed over the information to a prosecutor in Paris, in response to a law enforcement request. By turning over the information, Twitter said, it had ended a lawsuit related to the court order brought by the private group.

In a statement Friday, the company said: “in response to a valid legal request, Twitter has provided the prosecutor of Paris, Presse et Libertés Publiques section of the Paris Tribunal de Grande Instance, with data that may enable the identification of certain users that the Vice-Prosecutor believes have violated French law.”

The statement took pains to note that Twitter was providing the information to law enforcement through a legal request, not to the private group.

The case has important implications for Twitter users worldwide, as governments increasingly try to extract user information from the service. Legal experts say Twitter could have insisted that the French authorities seek to extract the user data by filing a claim in the United States, where the company is based.

Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University, said that while Twitter had demonstrated its commitment to protecting free speech on many occasions, it was under pressure to meet nations’ demands for information on their citizens, both in America and abroad. Many companies face this pressure, and Twitter is all the more vulnerable now that it has an office in Paris, making its employees and assets there subject to French law.

“Governments have an unquenchable thirst for more information about their citizens, and Internet companies, as repositories of data, are going to be on the list of targets,” Mr. Goldman said. He added: “We are in no position to criticize another government for demanding data on users. Our government is doing that about us every day.”

The French Union of Jewish Students and SOS Racisme had sought the identities of the users, who had used pseudonyms, and in January a French court ordered Twitter to hand over the data. Twitter appealed, and lost, in June. The French student union filed a $50 million civil suit against the company, saying that it had failed to comply with the court order. On Friday, Jonathan Hayoun, president of the group, said that “Twitter has finally accepted its responsibility for hate prevention as a prominent player on the Web.”

In the second half of 2012, Twitter received over 1,000 requests from government agencies in the United States and abroad, from Australia to Turkey. It complied to varying degrees: 69 percent of the time with respect to requests from American authorities, 33 percent from the Dutch, and never in the case of countries like India, Israel or Turkey. Twitter on Friday said it did not have a uniform policy on how it treated law enforcement requests. “Requests for Twitter user information, whether domestic or international, are evaluated on a case-by-case basis,” the company said in a statement.

“There was more fighting Twitter could have done and chose not to,” said Christopher Wolf, a partner at Hogan Lovells who represents American technology companies, including in Europe. He added: “It is an episode that gives me some pause over the potential breadth of jurisdiction by a European government over a U.S. Internet company.”

Twitter’s legal feuds with foreign governments could muddle its expansion overseas. Running afoul of the law in any country potentially makes it vulnerable to having its assets seized and its employees arrested.

Complicating matters, Twitter, like other similar companies, has a sort of jurisprudence of its own, laid out in its Terms of Service. It does not explicitly address hate speech, but stipulates that “users are allowed to post content, including potentially inflammatory content, provided they do not violate the Twitter Terms of Service and Rules.” Those include a prohibition against “direct, specific threats of violence against others.”

The French case was prompted by a spate of anti-Semitic posts late last year. There were also jokes about the Holocaust and comments denigrating Muslims. Holocaust denial is a crime in France, and the country has strict laws against hate speech. Twitter removed the posts in France after the complaints.

Archivists in France Fight a Privacy Initiative

One of the European Union’s measures would grant Internet users a “right to be forgotten,” letting them delete damaging references to themselves in search engines, or drunken party photos from social networks. But a group of French archivists, the people whose job it is to keep society’s records, is asking: What about our collective right to keep a record even of some things that others might prefer to forget?

The archivists and their counteroffensive might seem out of step, as concern grows about American surveillance of Internet traffic around the world. But the archivists say the right to be forgotten, as it has become known, could complicate the collection and digitization of mundane public documents — birth reports, death notices, real estate transactions and the like — that form a first draft of history.

“Today, e-mail, Facebook, Twitter — this is the correspondence of the 21st century,” said Jean-Philippe Legois, president of the Association of French Archivists, which has around 1,700 members. “If we want to understand the society of today in the future, we have to keep certain traces.”

The group represents a wide swath of professionals who specialize in preserving and cataloging documents from institutions as diverse as town halls or museums. Still, supporters of the French campaign acknowledged the growing concern about digital privacy, after the disclosure of the extensive United States intelligence project known as Prism to mine data from Internet companies for security purposes.

To try to persuade European Union lawmakers to drop or soften the proposed rules on digital privacy, the French archivists introduced a petition, circulated to their counterparts in other countries. The group says the petition has received almost 50,000 signatures, which it will present to the European Parliament.

The group also commissioned advertising posters underlining the threat it sees. One shows a metaphorical image of demonstrators marching through Paris, their faces hidden by digitally appended clown masks. It asks: “Without a name, does individual commitment still have the same meaning?”

The archivists know that their influence is limited as the Parliament is lobbied by myriad Internet companies, governments and other organizations, which have submitted about 4,000 amendments to the proposed law for the European Union’s 27 member states. This month, several proposals were softened, including the plan to require companies to obtain “explicit” consent from users to collect and process their data, though the United States surveillance revelations could renew the push for tougher rules.

The right to be forgotten is one of the most contentious items.

The European Commission has drawn support from consumer organizations and privacy advocates, but the archivists have received backing from other European professionals who rely on record-keeping, including genealogists and history professors.

Advocates of the right to be forgotten say it is unrealistic to expect Internet companies like Google and Facebook, which collect huge amounts of data on their users in order to direct relevant advertising to them, to put safeguards in place without stricter regulations.

European Union lawmakers want to establish two separate, but related, digital privacy rules. One would guarantee Internet users the right to delete pictures, writings and other data on social networks and other online forums. In theory, this is already permitted, but regulators say removal can be cumbersome and deleted material often lingers in search engines and elsewhere.

Under the proposal, search engines would have to remove the material immediately. Internet companies balk at that. They say that they generally favor giving people control over material they have posted themselves, but oppose letting Internet users demand that search engines and other sites remove information about them that has been posted by others, perhaps including official documents.

The principle of a right to be forgotten is being tested under existing laws in Spain, where the government has ordered Google to remove unflattering references to dozens of individuals who filed complaints with the Spanish Data Protection Agency. Google has refused, insisting that only publishers or courts, not individuals or search engines, should have the power to remove information, assuming that it was legally published.

France Urged to Impose Tax on Smartphones and Tablets

PARIS — France’s “cultural exception” — the policy that creative works like books, music and movies deserve protection beyond what is accorded ordinary goods — is in line for a digital update.

A government adviser has suggested that manufacturers pay a 1 percent levy on the price of smartphones and tablet computers to help keep funding for such works alive, as more and more end up online and beyond the reach of existing taxes.

The tax, “painless for the consumer,” could also be used to ensure that artists are remunerated at a time when so much is downloaded free, said the report, which was presented Monday to President François Hollande and his culture minister, Aurélie Filippetti.

“Considering the weight of cultural content in connected devices, it is legitimate that those who make and distribute the equipment contribute to the financing of its creation,” according to the report, produced under the guidance of a former television executive and journalist, Pierre Lescure.

“L’exception culturelle” is no trifling matter: Nicole Bricq, the French trade minister, warned in March that it was “a red line” that could not be crossed in talks with the United States on a proposed free-trade area. France and 13 other European Union member nations insisted in a letter this week that the audiovisual sector must be left out of those talks, setting up a possible confrontation with the British prime minister, David Cameron, who has said that everything should be on the table.

In practice, the cultural exception means broadcasters must meet quotas for French music and television programming, for example, and prices for books are set by regulators. The effort stretches throughout the economy, requiring a system of taxes and subsidies for its upkeep, perhaps most visibly in the country’s film industry, which gets hundreds of million euros each year in subsidies — raised from taxes on movie tickets, television stations and Internet service providers — to defend itself from the Hollywood juggernaut.

But technology threatens to render such measures irrelevant, the report noted. The nature of Internet commerce means foreigners can have access to the French market without having to pay the levies that support French culture. And as more content is streamed online or stored in the cloud, a tax on recording media like blank compact discs and memory sticks will raise less money — and that is where the smartphone tax comes in.

Gilles Vercken, an intellectual property lawyer, acknowledged that streaming and the cloud would bring down those levies, which he estimated currently raise about €200 million, or $260 million, a year to support French authors, composers, actors, musicians and the like. But he expressed skepticism that the smartphone tax would see the light of day.

“I wonder what could be the legal grounds for such taxes,” he said, noting that the connection between hardware manufacturers and end users might prove a difficult one to defend in court. “I really don’t see it.”

Monica Horten, a visiting fellow at the London School of Economics who studies the politics of intellectual property rights, said that, in principle, such levies were possible under E.U. law, but that “the problem is in the implementation.”

The first issue would be drafting a law acceptable to the European Court of Justice, while another would be in actually getting device makers on board to pay the tax. “I think you can expect them to filibuster,” she said.

The report seeks to address a problem that is as old as the Internet, which has shifted the balance of power away from content creators in favor of newer actors like Google, Amazon and peer-to-peer downloading services, even as it gives creators previously unimagined opportunities to be seen or heard.

In addressing such matters, France has sometimes chosen to fight battles that other governments have shied away from. For instance, Google agreed in February to set up a €60 million fund to help French newspaper and magazine publishers develop their digital business, though it managed to fend off demands that it pay for the right to link to their content.

And the Lescure report comes less than two weeks after Arnaud Montebourg, the minister for industrial renewal, put the kibosh on a sale to Yahoo of a majority stake in Dailymotion, a French rival to YouTube, because the government had singled out the company as a national champion and did not want control falling into foreign hands.

The Lescure report also suggests that France throw out a “three-strikes” anti-piracy law that Nicolas Sarkozy, Mr. Hollande’s predecessor, had held up as one of his signature achievements and one that had been hailed by the global entertainment industry. Under the Hadopi Law, as it is known, illegal downloaders were to have their Internet access cut off if they failed to heed three warnings; violators were also to be subject to criminal sanctions and large fines. In practice, there has been little enforcement action, though proponents credit the law with helping to reduce Internet piracy.

If Mr. Lescure’s recommendations are followed, law enforcement will focus on the worst violators, and most people would face minimal fines. A proposed “Hadopi authority” would be eliminated, and responsibility for enforcement would revert to the national media regulator, the Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel.

France Rejects Plan by Internet Provider to Block Online Ads

The dispute has turned into a gauge of how France, and perhaps the rest of Europe, will mediate a struggle between telecommunications providers against Internet companies like Google, which generate billions of dollars in revenue from traffic that travels freely on their networks.

European telecommunications companies want a share of that money, saying they need it to finance investments in faster broadband networks — and, as the latest incident shows, they are willing to flex their muscles to get it.

Until now, European regulators have taken a laissez-faire approach, in contrast to the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, which has imposed guidelines barring operators of fixed-line broadband networks from blocking access to sites providing lawful content.

On Monday, Fleur Pellerin, the French minister for the digital economy, said she had persuaded the Internet service provider, Free, to restore full access. The company, which has long balked at carrying the huge volume of traffic from sites owned by Google without compensation, had moved last week to block online ads when it introduced a new version of its Internet access software.

“An Internet service provider cannot unilaterally implement such blocking,” Ms. Pellerin said at a news conference Monday, after meetings with online publishing and advertising groups, which had complained about a possible loss of revenue.

While she acknowledged that it could be annoying “when five ads pop up on a site,” she added that advertising should not be treated differently from other kinds of content. “This kind of blocking is inconsistent with a free and open Internet, to which I am very attached.”

While rejecting the initiative by Free, Ms. Pellerin said it was legitimate for the company to raise the question of who should pay for expensive network upgrades to handle growing volumes of Internet traffic.

French Internet analysts said advertisements appearing on Google-owned sites or distributed by Google appeared to have been the only ones affected — fueling speculation that the move was a tactic to try to get Google to share some of its advertising revenue with Internet service providers. Google’s YouTube video-sharing site is the biggest bandwidth user among Internet companies.

Google was not represented at the meetings Monday with Ms. Pellerin. In an interesting twist, its case was effectively argued by other Web publishers, including French newspapers, even though these sites, in a related dispute, are seeking their own revenue-sharing arrangement with Google. Separately, French tax collectors are also looking into the company’s fiscal practices, under which it largely avoids paying corporate taxes in France by routing its ad revenue through Ireland, which has lower rates. One proposal that has been discussed would be to use receipts from a tax on Google to support local Web sites.

In yet another dispute involving Free and Google, the French telecommunications regulator is investigating complaints that the Internet provider has been discriminating against YouTube. In that case, a French consumer organization, UFC-Que Choisir, said it suspected that Free was limiting customer access to YouTube because of the high amount of bandwidth that the site consumed.

Ms. Pellerin said these issues would be examined separately. Still, the timing of Free’s move raised questions, given that it came only days before a scheduled meeting among Ms. Pellerin, Internet companies and telecommunications operators to discuss the financing and regulation of new, higher-speed networks.

“Should users be held hostage to these commercial negotiations? That is not obvious to me,” said Jérémie Zimmermann, a spokesman for La Quadrature du Net, a group that campaigns against restrictions on the Internet.

Google Failed to Delete Street View Data in France

PARIS — The French data protection authorities asked Google on Tuesday to examine private information that cars taking pictures for its Street View service collected, after Google acknowledged that it had retained some of the information despite promising to delete it.

The request by the French privacy protection agency, known as the C.N.I.L., followed a similar one last week from the Information Commissioner’s Office of Britain.

The C.N.I.L. fined the company €100,000, or $120,000, in March 2011 for collecting private e-mail messages, computer passwords and other personal data as its cars took pictures for Google’s Street View feature, a case that prompted privacy investigations around the world.

“Like its British counterpart, the C.N.I.L. has asked Google to make available the data in question and to keep it secure while the necessary investigations are conducted,” the agency said.

In a letter responding to the British information commissioner, Steve Eckersley, Google’s global privacy counsel, Peter Fleischer, said the continued existence of the data had come to light during a “comprehensive manual review of our Street View disk inventory.”

The company added in a statement Tuesday: “Google has recently confirmed that it still has in its possession a portion of payload data collected by our Street View vehicles. Google apologizes for this error. Google would now like to delete the remaining data.”

Google has said that it never intended to collect the data, saying it was the result of mistakes by an engineer working on the Street View program. The company had promised to destroy the information but last week acknowledged it had not actually deleted all of it.

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission concluded an investigation into the matter in April, saying Google had “deliberately impeded and delayed” the inquiry. The agency fined the company $25,000, but determined that it had not violated data protection laws.

The British information commissioner said in November 2010 that Google’s collection of the data was a “significant breach” of British privacy laws, though the company was not fined. In June, the commissioner’s office opened a new investigation into the matter.

“The I.C.O. is clear that this information should never have been collected in the first place and the company’s failure to secure its deletion as promised is cause for concern,” the office said in a statement.