"I want this inquiry to mean something", not end up as "footnote in some professor of journalism's analysis of 21 century history." LJ Leveson in reply to A Rusbridger's submission to Inquiry.
 |
| Lord Justice Leveson |
From Guardian:
Here's a quick reminder of the four modules within this first year of the inquiry.
Module 1: The relationship between the press and the public and looks at phone-hacking and other potentially illegal behaviour
Module 2: The relationships between the press and police and the extent to which that has operated in the public interest
Module 3: The relationship between press and politicians
Module 4: Recommendations for a more effective policy and regulation that supports the integrity and freedom of the press while encouraging the highest ethical standards.
Witness list for this week (23rd - 26th January) to be found HERE
Video Recordings of each day's proceedings HERE
Live Feed From Leveson Inquiry Site HERE
BBC Democracy Live Feed HERE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today's links to articles, info and comments relevant to the Leveson Inquiry (frequently updated) :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday January 26th 2012
(Link to page for Day 31 HERE)
Today's Witnesses:
Richard Allan (Facebook)
David-John Collins (Google)
Christopher Graham (ICO)
Daphne Keller (Google)
Camilla Wright (Popbitch)
Richard Allan (Facebook)
 |
| Richard Allan |
Wikipedia page
3 000 people work for Facebook worldwide.
Monarchy made use of Facebook during last year's wedding celebrations.
Smiles raised as Mr Barr explains status updates and pokes on Facebook
Barr now discussing
FTC Report on Facebook Privacy.
Barr is quoting Facebook CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, saying privacy is no longer a social norm.
Guardian Live Blog:
Barr reads from a January 2010 Guardian article titled "Privacy no longer a social norm, says Facebook founder".
Allan says that Facebook's express purpose is to allow people to connect and share information with one each other.
"It's very much about what you wish to share with a group with which you wish to share it," he adds.
Like Google, Facebook tries to comply as a matter of policy with the laws of the lands where it operates.
Allan: We have specific clauses on bullying and harassment, nudity and pornography, violence and hate speech.
Facebook T&Cs allow it to remove content "way beyond" the illegal into other forms regarded as unsuitable for a general audience.
Facebook has a security team but the strongest protection is its community of users. "We have an 800m strong neighbourhood watch."
Allan: We have a system of social reporting. Feature allows reporting to be sent to a third-party, or on to FB and we can remove.
Allan: We offer service to people who don't use FB, so they can come back on posted material about themselves.
Facebook technically can restrict access to piece of content based on who is using it, if it's legal in one country but not another
Guardian Live Blog:
Allan says that most of the complaints to Facebook about content on the site are resolved by reference to the social network's terms of service.Facebook technically can restrict access to a piece of content based on who is viewing it, Allan says, if it is legal in one country but not another.
Allan: There is a form on Facebook to report illegal content, including copyright, trademark, libel and privacy issues.
Allan: The ability to copy digital material instantaneously does represent a new set of challenges.
From Telegraph Live Blog:
14.38 While Facebook's Lord Allan is explaining how the site complies with laws in the country of origin, Digital Media Editor Emma Barnett argues users should be able to be forgotten online. She writes:
New EU laws announced yesterday, which mean social networking sites and companies will be forced to delete inaccurate or embarrassing information about people online should be applauded. But they still don’t go far enough and solve what is the even bigger issue – how to control what other people write about you online.
The digital right to be forgotten, as EU Commissioner for Justice, Viviane Reding’s campaign has become known, is something all web users should be striving for, even if they haven’t realised the importance of such a right yet.
Allan: trying to regulate what people say on Facebook wd be like trying to regulate what people say in the pub
From Guardian Live Blog:
Lord Justice Leveson tells Allan that one of the issues the inquiry is grappling with is how traditional media are impacted by social media.
David-John Collins (Google)
 |
| D-J Collins |
On another hot issue, the incident last week which saw Facebook revealed as having tried to plant negative stories about Google, Mr Schmidt refused to be drawn.
"Ask Facebook about Facebook, ask Google about Google," was all he'd say. Luckily, his amiable European director of communications DJ Collins intervened: "If I suggested we did something like that, I'd be fired," he said. Phew, thought the assembled hacks, we've got our quote. Thanks, DJ.
D. Keller and D-J Collins are to give their evidence jointly.
Daphne Keller's Witness Statement in Full
Privacy:
Collins maintains privacy settings on Google are controlled by the user, not Google.
Google Privacy Centre
Google Privacy Policy is Subject of Backlash - Bloomberg Business
From Guardian Live Blog:
Keller and Collins are being asked by David Barr, junior counsel to the inquiry, about an article on the Register website that quoted Google's former chief executive, Eric Schmidt, of saying: "only miscreants worry about net privacy".Collins says that the headline is not representative of Google's privacy principles, which it takes "extremely seriously".
He says that Google offers transparency, choice and control over privacy.
From Guardian Live Blog:
Collins says that Google has a "regular dialogue" with privacy groups and data protection controllers because it wants the benefit of their wisdom.Barr asks about the Google Street View incident when the internet giant mistakenly collected private Wi-Fi data.
Collins says that the company regrets the incident and has since made significant internal changes, including setting up an internal privacy policy group headed by a director.
Collins talks about Google's contentious new privacy policy, unveiled earlier this week.He says that user feedback told Google they wanted a more simple policy – it had 70 separate policies covering different products.
Barr points out that Google has different domains – such as google.co.uk and google.com – and they under different jurisdictions.
He attempts to explain how Google's search works, saying that the search giant crawls other websites for relevant pages.
"I'm not sure about the word 'crawling', given the speed at which it operates," quips Leveson.
Keller is explaining Google's takedown process.She says Google has a "cache removal rool" and that it is important for the search engine to adhere to requests by webmasters to not index their websites.
Google has its "ears open everywhere to pick up complaints," Keller says.
Collins: We would comply with UK law (in terms of future press regulation). We prefer to use court judgments for removal decisions.
From Guardian Live Blog:
Barr asks the Google duo what weight the internet firm would attach to a new media regulator in the UK that regulated newspapers' online content and could ask for material to be removed.
Collins says he does not want to get into speculating over regulation, but would look for the same "robustness" as from court orders.
"I would want to have a very serious think about that," he says.
Daphne Keller (Google)
 |
| Daphne Keller |
Christopher Graham (ICO)
 |
| Christopher Graham |
Witness Statement in Full #1
Witness Statement #2
What Price Privacy? - ICO
What price Privacy Now? - ICO
From Guardian Live Blog:
Graham is asked about the principles behind section 32 of the Data Protection Act (DPA).Jay says these principles mean that the Information Commissioner's Office can justifiably seek information from private investigators on whether they are in breach of the DPA.
Graham suggests Jay is talking about hypothetical situations.
"We're not talking hypothetical because Express Newspapers were using J&J Services in 2010 … and other newspapers are using search agencies systematically," Jay replies.
Graham accepts there is power for the Information Commissioner's Office to undertake "spot checks" on private investigation firms.
Graham suggesting there is no political will to see his powers more regulatory basis.
Guardian Live Blog:
Graham refers to the Hacked Off letter.
He says it is not "practicable" for the ICO to notify the thousands of people revealed by the Met police's Operation Motorman to have been targeted by Steve Whittamore in the first half of the last decade.
Part of the answer to that is I would have to take on a veritable army of people. I'm not going to say it isn't necessary but all regulators need to prioritise resources.
From Guardian Live Blog:
The inquiry is taking a short break while core participants read Graham's second supplementary statement.
Leveson says it deals with evidence from Associated Newspapers lawyer Liz Hartley's testimony on access to the What Price Privacy? report.
Sitting resumes.
From Guardian Live Blog:
Robert Jay QC, counsel for the inquiry, says in 2009 the information commissioner offered news organisations the opportunity to examine the evidence behind the What Price Privacy? reports.
Graham says that Guardian News & Media took up the offer in February 2011 and other news organisations did so on the announcement of the inquiry.
Jay now referring to Hacked Off letter requesting that all 'victims' in Motorman report should be notified and journalists named. Graham says that some of the CMS Committee seemed to be very well informed of what was in the Motorman data notebooks. Says he hasn't the resources to inform every named person. Some are just names, not any reference as to what it was about. Could be more problematic to those named people - another breach of privacy.
Camilla Wright (Popbitch)
 |
| Camilla Wright |
Popbitch Website
From Guardian Live Blog:
A cursory visit to the Popbitch messageboard shows that users are debating the Leveson inquiry with some fervour.
Wright, a journalist, co-founded Popbitch with Neil Stevenson in 2000. She is director of the newsletter and website.
Wright: PRs act as gatekeepers to celebrities. You have to be careful what you write in a commercial sense.
Guardian Live Blog:
Popbitch has two main elements: a weekly email newsletter and a message board.The weekly newsletter now has 350,000 subscribers. Wright says a decision was taken early on not to feature paparazzi pictures.
Wright: We write about "the stories behind the stories" like Private Eye, and lighthearted details.
Wright says many newspapers shy away from negative stories about celebrities because they wouldn't be fed stories by their agents
Guardian Live Blog:
Wright suggests that Popbitch acts as a foil to the "very PR-driven" entertainment industry. She mentions evidence given to the inquiry last week by the editors of Heat, Hello! and OK! magazines, when they admitted that the majority of stories in those magazines are placed there by PR figures.
Inquiry now examining a Popbitch story headlined "for chuck's sake"
Patry-Hoskins is taking Wright through the most recent Popbitch newsletter. Top story is about Kim Kardashian's ex-husband.
Guardian Live Blog:
Patry asks about a story in the Popbitch newsletter about the ex-husband of Kim Kardashian.Wright says the story was sourced from a friend who was at the event and it was published in an attempt to point out that there is a darker side to celebrity culture.
In trying 'to understand the product,' court is discussing Popbitch story on how Dr No in James Bond was almost played by a monkey
Wright: I would double source contentious and controversial stories, and seek out more evidence.
Wright: web has evolved so now a two-way conversation between reader and writer. Readers expect to be involved in shaping stories
Wright - Popbitch is entertainment, we're trying to do no more than poke fun
Paying for stories would encourage people to lie or put forward too damaging information to us, Camilla Wright tells
Wright: Our self-regulation has worked for us. : Self-regulation doesn't quite mean that.
Guardian Live Blog:
Wright claims that the definition of the public interest is not broad enough and "is not fit for purpose in the world we live in now".She says that the public has much more power to influence others these days, and it is not just down to big media groups and politics.
Popbitch says privacy is a "moving line" ...she is struggling here, I think, given the meat of Popbitch is about celebrity's lives
will Camilla Wright talk about the hilarious popbitch trend for Milly Dowler pics and gags back in the day?
Wright: you can't choose when you're public and choose when you're private
Wright: I haven't read the PCC code cover to cover but I have read relevant sections.
Wright: Popbitch has made five to six apologies in its history.
Guardian Live Blog:
The Popbitch messageboard is not formally regulated, Wright says, but a group of long-term users help keep the comments on topic.
She says the website has made five to six apologies since it was founded, "so one ever two years".
Wright: You learn the value of negotiation and mediation with anyone who makes a complaint as speedily as you can.
Patry-Hoskins asks Wright about a libel case won against Popbitch by actor Max Beesley.
Patry-Hoskins asks Wright about claim that papers put stories in Popbitch so they can quote the newsletter as a source.
Wright: Papers sometimes leak stories to us, I try not to use them. Now v easy to get information online using social media.
Wright: The stories we would normally look at are not the kiss and tell type of stories which is where injunctions come in.
