Daphne Keller is the Director of Intermediary Liability at Stanford's Center for Internet and Society. Her work focuses on platform regulation and Internet users' rights. She has published both academically and in popular press; testified and participated in legislative processes; and taught and lectured extensively. Her recent work focuses on legal protections for users’ free expression rights when state and private power intersect, particularly through platforms’ enforcement of Terms of Service or use of algorithmic ranking and recommendations. Until 2015 Daphne was Associate General Counsel for Google, where she had primary responsibility for the company’s search products. She worked on groundbreaking Intermediary Liability litigation and legislation around the world and counseled both overall product development and individual content takedown decisions.
High Res Photo of Daphne Keller
Europe's new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) goes into force today, after two years of preparation. Meanwhile, in the US, a remarkable number of people are suggesting we should adopt something like the GDPR. What does that actually mean, and what policy trade-offs does it entail?
Canada's Office of the Privacy Commissioner has concluded that an existing law, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), gives individuals legal power to make individual websites take down information. This goes well beyond the rights recognized by the European Court of Justice in its “right to be forgotten” case, and raises the following important questions
Should Canada adopt its own version of the “right to be forgotten”? The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) recently concluded, in a Draft Position Paper, that such a right actually exists already. According to the OPC, Canada’s Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) gives individuals legal power to make search engines like Google de-list search results about them, and to make individual websites take down information. In a Comment filed last week, I argued that this interpretation of PIPEDA will create far more problems than it solves.
Attached to this post are Powerpoint slides introducing intermediary liability basics. This particular deck comes from a great CIDE program in Mexico City. It is descended from others I’ve used over the years teaching at Stanford and Berkeley, presenting at conferences, and training junior lawyers at Google. Ancestral decks that evolved into this one go back to at least 2012. (Which might explain why I struggle with fonts whenever I update them.)
This piece is exerpted from the Law, Borders, and Speech Conference Proceedings Volume, where it appears as an appendix. The terminology it explains is relevant for Intermediary Liability and content regulation issues generally - not only issues that arise in the jurisdiction or conflict-of-law context. The full conference Proceedings Volume contains other relevant resources, and is Creative Commons licensed.
Most observers cheered when the neo-Nazi Daily Stormer was booted from YouTube, CloudFlare, and other platforms around the Internet. At the same time, the site’s disappearance stirred anxiety about Internet companies’ power over online speech. It starkly illustrated how online speech can live or die at the discretion of private companies. The modern public square is in private hands.
Prime Minister Theresa May’s political fortunes may be waning in Britain, but her push to make internet companies police their users’ speech is alive and well. In the aftermath of the recent London attacks, Ms. May called platforms like Google and Facebook breeding grounds for terrorism.
These comments were prepared and submitted in response to the U.S. Copyright Office's November 8, 2016 Notice of Inquiry requesting additional public comment on the impact and effectiveness of the DMCA safe harbor provisions in Section 512 of Title 17
Forthcoming in the Berkeley Technology Law Journal
"“I don’t think there’s a chance that major economies like the E.U. are going to accept C.D.A. 230” said Daphne Keller, the director of intermediary liability at Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society. “So I’m not sure what the net effect is.”"
"“There has been real mission creep with the right to be forgotten,” said Daphne Keller, a lawyer at Stanford University’s Center for Internet and Society. “First it was supposed to be about information found using search engines, but now we see it affecting news reporting.”"
"Hate speech that isn’t an imminent threat is still protected by the Constitution, noted Daphne Keller, a researcher at Stanford’s Center for Internet and Society and a former associate general counsel for Google. “A law can’t just ban it. And Congress can’t just tell platforms to ban it, either — that use of government power would still violate the First Amendment,” she said."
"“It’s really important to understand how much Europe is in the driver’s seat,” says Daphne Keller, director of Intermediary Liability at the Center for Internet and Society, as well as former associate general counsel at Google. “It kind of doesn’t matter what U.S. law says for a lot of things. Europe is extracting agreements by companies — they're going to enforce those agreements publicly.”"
Stanford CIS brings together scholars, academics, legislators, students, programmers, security researchers, and scientists to study the interaction of new technologies and the law and to examine how the synergy between the two can either promote or harm public goods like free speech, innovation, privacy, public commons, diversity, and scientific inquiry
Privacy and free speech aren't fundamentally opposed, but they do have a tendency to come into conflict — and recent developments in Europe surrounding the right to be forgotten have brought this conflict into focus. This week, we're joined by Daphne Keller of Stanford's Center For Internet And Society to discuss the collision between these two important principles.