Chuck Cosson is Director, Legal Affairs, Privacy & Security, at T-Mobile US, based in Bellevue, WA. At T-Mobile, Chuck oversees privacy compliance programs and provides legal guidance on mobile Internet, location services, incident response, and other privacy, security, and business issues. Chuck spent 7 years at Microsoft leading that company’s public policy work on human rights, free expression, and child online safety. He has also worked in Washington, D.C.
Geoffrey King leads the Internet and technology policy program at the Committee to Protect Journalists. Based in San Francisco, he protects the rights of journalists through advocacy, public education, and engagement with policymakers worldwide.
Prior to joining CPJ, King served as staff attorney with First Amendment Project, where he litigated matters involving the freedoms of speech, press, and petition. King is also a documentary photographer whose work has focused on human rights and social movements.
Europe’s pending General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) threatens free expression and access to information on the Internet. The threat comes from erasure requirements that work in ways the drafters may not have intended -- and that are not necessary to achieve the Regulation’s data protection purposes.
Both projects seek to independently document the policies and practices of tech companies on the issues of free expression and privacy. These data can then be used by civil society, academics, and competitors to ensure companies follow best practices.
"“This is a real challenge, and whether and how we respond to it will be one of the defining legacies of our time,” said Neil Richards, the Thomas and Karole Green Professor of Law and internationally renowned expert on privacy law and freedom of expression.
"“This sanctions law, which was written for one purpose,” said Jennifer Stisa Granick, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Speech, Privacy and Technology project, “is being used to suppress speech with little consideration of the free expression values and the special risks of blocking speech, as opposed to blocking commerce or funds as the sanctions was designed to do. That’s really problematic.”"
"Danielle Citron, a University of Maryland law professor and author of a book "Hate Crimes in Cyberspace," called the incident "a learning moment."
"I applaud Twitter for its approach in this area," Citron said. "If you chase people offline with racist and intimidating speech, that's too much. Twitter and other platforms are contributing to social norms on free expression.""
"“The place we all go to exercise our freedom of expression and to share opinions is a private platform run by a private company, and they don’t let us say every single thing that’s legal,” says Daphne Keller, director of intermediary liability at the Stanford Center for Internet and Society and a former head lawyer for Google’s web search team. “They only let us say the things that their policies permit. There’s good business reasons for that for them, but it’s a strange impact for us as a society sharing speech.”"
What, if anything, should we do about extremist content on the Internet? What is the role of Internet companies in promoting free expression and privacy around the world? How should we manage data requests from law enforcement and intelligence agencies around the world, when countries have different privacy protections and different laws?