Neutralidad de la red y otros retos para - Repositori institucional ...
Neutralidad de la red y otros retos para - Repositori institucional ...
Neutralidad de la red y otros retos para - Repositori institucional ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong><br />
<strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
Actas <strong>de</strong>l VII Congreso Internacional Internet, Derecho y Política<br />
Universitat Oberta <strong>de</strong> Catalunya<br />
Barcelona, 11-12 <strong>de</strong> julio <strong>de</strong> 2011<br />
Net Neutrality and other challenges<br />
for the future of the Internet<br />
Proceedings of the 7 th International Conference on Internet, Law & Politics<br />
Universitat Oberta <strong>de</strong> Catalunya<br />
Barcelona, 11-12 July, 2011<br />
Agustí Cerrillo-i-martínez • miquel Peguera<br />
Ismael Peña-lópez • mònica Vi<strong>la</strong>sau so<strong>la</strong>na<br />
COORDINADORES<br />
Universitat Oberta<br />
<strong>de</strong> Catalunya<br />
www.uoc.edu
<strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong><br />
<strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
Actas <strong>de</strong>l VII Congreso Internacional Internet,<br />
Derecho y Política. Universitat Oberta <strong>de</strong> Catalunya,<br />
Barcelona, 11-12 <strong>de</strong> julio <strong>de</strong> 2011<br />
Net Neutrality and other challenges<br />
for the future of the Internet<br />
Proceedings of the 7 th International Conference on Internet,<br />
Law & Politics. Universitat Oberta <strong>de</strong> Catalunya,<br />
Barcelona, 11-12 July, 2011<br />
Universitat Oberta<br />
<strong>de</strong> Catalunya<br />
www.uoc.edu<br />
2011
Colección Lex<br />
<strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong><br />
<strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> iNterNet<br />
NET NEUTRALITY AND OTHER CHALLENGES<br />
FOR THE FUTURE OF THE INTERNET<br />
© 2011, Los autores<br />
© 2011, Huygens Editorial<br />
La Costa, 44-46, át. 1ª<br />
08023 Barcelona<br />
www.huygens.es<br />
ISBN: 978-84-694-7037-4<br />
Impreso en España<br />
Esta obra está bajo una llicència Attribution-<br />
NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported <strong>de</strong> Creative Commons.<br />
Para ver una copia <strong>de</strong> esta licencia, visite<br />
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/.
Índice General<br />
Prólogo ............................................................................................................................ 15<br />
CONFERENCIA INAUGURAL<br />
NetwOrk NeUtrAlIty: HIstOry, regUlAtION AND fUtUre. Christopher T. Mars<strong>de</strong>n............. 29<br />
1. History: Trust-to-Trust and Control of Communications .......................................................... 29<br />
1.1. History: Definition and Development ................................................................................ 30<br />
1.2. History: how traffic management has changed common carriage ........................................ 31<br />
2. Regu<strong>la</strong>tion: the Law of Net Neutrality ....................................................................................... 33<br />
2.1. National Regu<strong>la</strong>tory Responses ........................................................................................... 34<br />
2.1.1. Bandwidth caps ........................................................................................................ 35<br />
2.1.2. Transparency and ‘Reasonable Traffic Management’ .................................................. 36<br />
2.2. Implementing regu<strong>la</strong>tion of net neutrality .......................................................................... 37<br />
2.3. The Special Case of Wireless or Mobile Net Neutrality? ...................................................... 39<br />
3. The Future: Public Policy Consi<strong>de</strong>rations in Net Neutrality ...................................................... 40<br />
3.1. The Future Development of Net Neutrality and the Internet .............................................. 41<br />
4. Conclusions: Future Policy Research ......................................................................................... 42<br />
5. References ................................................................................................................................. 43<br />
COMUNICACIONES SOBRE NEUTRALIDAD DE LA RED<br />
lA NeUtrAlIDAD De lA reD DesDe lA PersPeCtIVA De sU ArQUIteCtUrA POr CAPAs<br />
¿De trANsPOrtIstAs PÚBlICOs A gestOres De CONteNIDOs? David Arjones Girál<strong>de</strong>z ..... 53<br />
1. Introducción. El <strong>de</strong>bate sobre <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>................................................................ 53<br />
2. La regu<strong>la</strong>ción por capas <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> banda ancha ................................................................................. 57<br />
2.1. Una aproximación a <strong>la</strong> arquitectura <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> ...................................................................... 57<br />
2.2. La arquitectura <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y su necesaria regu<strong>la</strong>ción neutral .................................................. 59<br />
3. Conclusión ................................................................................................................................ 64<br />
4. Bibliografía básica...................................................................................................................... 64<br />
lA NeUtrAlIDAD De reD y lAs lIBertADes eN lA refOrmA De lAs COmUNICACIONes<br />
eleCtróNICAs De lA UNIóN eUrOPeA: ¿estáN PreseNtes eN tODA eUrOPA? Cristina<br />
Cullell March ................................................................................................................................. 67<br />
1. Introducción. El <strong>de</strong>bate sobre <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>................................................................ 67<br />
2. La sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información: internet como bien colectivo ..................................................... 68<br />
3. La regu<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong> en <strong>la</strong> Unión Europea: <strong>la</strong> reforma <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones<br />
electrónicas <strong>de</strong> 2009 .................................................................................................................. 70<br />
4. Las intituciones europeas ante <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> internet: <strong>la</strong> comisión, el par<strong>la</strong>mento y el<br />
oRECE .................................................................................................................................... 72
6 Índice general<br />
5. Conclusiones ............................................................................................................................. 76<br />
6. Bibliografía ................................................................................................................................ 76<br />
tHe Net As A PUBlIC sPACe: Is Net-NeUtrAlIty NeCessAry tO PreserVe ON-lINe<br />
freeDOm Of exPressION? C<strong>la</strong>ra Marsan Raventós ................................................................... 79<br />
1. Introduction: Spaces, Net Neutrality and Freedom of Expression .............................................. 79<br />
2. The re<strong>la</strong>tionship between Net Neutrality and Public Space ........................................................ 80<br />
3. I<strong>de</strong>ntifying those that craft Network public spaces ..................................................................... 85<br />
3.1. The role of states against Net neutrality .............................................................................. 86<br />
3.2. The role of private parties against Net neutrality ................................................................. 89<br />
4. Net neutrality through a global multi-stakehol<strong>de</strong>r approach ...................................................... 90<br />
5. Concluding remarks .................................................................................................................. 92<br />
6. Bibliography .............................................................................................................................. 92<br />
sIN NeUtrAlIDAD eN lA reD ¿DóNDe lA lógICA UNIVersAl De lA INNOVACIóN? Helena<br />
Nadal Sánchez .............................................................................................................................. 95<br />
Introducción ................................................................................................................................. 95<br />
1. Diferentes aspectos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> ........................................................................... 96<br />
2. La discriminación <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> los ISP ................................................................................................ 98<br />
3. Reivindicando un acceso en abierto ........................................................................................... 100<br />
4. Consecuencias <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> lógica <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> innovación ........................................................................... 103<br />
5. Conclusiones ............................................................................................................................. 105<br />
6. Bibliografía citada...................................................................................................................... 106<br />
INterNet ABIertA, NeUtrAlIDAD De lA reD y DefeNsA De lA COmPeteNCIA. Jose Manuel<br />
Pérez Marzabal .............................................................................................................................. 109<br />
1. Introducción ............................................................................................................................. 109<br />
2. El <strong>de</strong>bate sobre <strong>la</strong> <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Red .................................................................................... 111<br />
2.1. Antece<strong>de</strong>ntes y convergencia <strong>de</strong> re<strong>de</strong>s ................................................................................. 111<br />
2.2. Métrica <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>bate sobre <strong>la</strong> <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Red ............................................................... 113<br />
2.3. Contexto internacional ....................................................................................................... 115<br />
3. Aspectos regu<strong>la</strong>torios ................................................................................................................. 117<br />
3.1. Antece<strong>de</strong>ntes y liberalización <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s telecomunicaciones ...................................................... 117<br />
3.2. Marco regu<strong>la</strong>dor <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s telecomunicaciones modificado ...................................................... 119<br />
4. Internet abierta, <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Red y <strong>de</strong>fensa <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia ......................................... 123<br />
4.1. Consi<strong>de</strong>raciones generales ................................................................................................... 123<br />
4.2. Principios <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>fensa <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia en el contexto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Red ........ 124<br />
4.3. <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Red y <strong>de</strong>fensa <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia ............................................................. 126<br />
5. A modo <strong>de</strong> conclusión ............................................................................................................... 129<br />
6. Bibliografía ................................................................................................................................ 131<br />
COMUNICACIONES SOBRE PROPIEDAD INTELECTUAL EN INTERNET<br />
‘PIrACy. It’s A CrIme.’ – tHe CrImINAlIsAtION PrOCess Of DIgItAl COPyrIgHt INfrINgemeNt.<br />
Benjamin Farrand .......................................................................................................... 137<br />
1. The Concept and Development of Digital Copyright ................................................................ 137<br />
1.1. Napster opens the floodgates: - infringement goes digital .................................................... 138
Índice general<br />
1.2. European digital copyright legis<strong>la</strong>tion ................................................................................. 140<br />
2. Pirates on the Digital Seas: - Criminalisation Enforcement Mechanisms ................................... 141<br />
2.1. From prose to policy: - how lobbyist rhetoric appears to shape copyright <strong>la</strong>w and policy, or,<br />
‘piracy is killing music’ ....................................................................................................... 142<br />
2.2. The legis<strong>la</strong>tive response, or, how discourse shapes policy ..................................................... 145<br />
2.3. The cross-pollination of actors ............................................................................................ 149<br />
3. Conclusions and final remarks ................................................................................................... 151<br />
4. Bibliography .............................................................................................................................. 152<br />
COPyrIgHt At A POlICy CrOss-rOADs – ONlINe eNfOrCemeNt, tHe teleCOms PACkAge<br />
AND tHe DIgItAl eCONOmy ACt. Monica Horten ...................................................................... 157<br />
1. The Telecoms Package ............................................................................................................... 158<br />
1.1. A general obligation on broadband provi<strong>de</strong>rs ...................................................................... 159<br />
1.2. A contractual obligation on Internet subscribers ................................................................. 162<br />
1.3. Access to subscribers’ data ................................................................................................... 163<br />
1.4. Linking to the policy agenda .............................................................................................. 165<br />
2. The Digital Economy Act .......................................................................................................... 167<br />
2.1. A suite of obligations imposed on broadband provi<strong>de</strong>rs and the regu<strong>la</strong>tor ........................... 167<br />
2.2. Implied contractual changes ............................................................................................... 169<br />
2.3. Subscriber data ................................................................................................................... 170<br />
2.4. Due process ........................................................................................................................ 171<br />
3. Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 172<br />
4. Bibliography .............................................................................................................................. 173<br />
“NeUtrAlIty” test ON weB 2.0 PlAtfOrm fOr Its INtermeDIAry lIABIlIty IN CHINA AND<br />
IN eUrOPe. Qian Tao ................................................................................................................... 177<br />
1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 177<br />
2. Legal status of web 2.0 p<strong>la</strong>tforms .............................................................................................. 178<br />
2.1. Legal framework ................................................................................................................. 178<br />
2.2. Case <strong>de</strong>cisions ..................................................................................................................... 180<br />
3. operating mo<strong>de</strong>l analysis .......................................................................................................... 181<br />
3.1. European approach –taking French and Spanish cases as example ....................................... 181<br />
3.2. Chinese approach ............................................................................................................... 184<br />
4. Financial benefit analysis ........................................................................................................... 185<br />
4.1. European approach ............................................................................................................. 186<br />
4.2. Chinese approach ............................................................................................................... 187<br />
5. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 189<br />
6. Bibliography .............................................................................................................................. 190<br />
Chinese Cases ............................................................................................................................ 191<br />
European cases .......................................................................................................................... 192<br />
INtermeDIArIes IN tHe eye Of tHe COPyrIgHt stOrm: A COmPArAtIVe ANAlysIs Of<br />
tHe tHree strIke APPrOACH wItHIN tHe eUrOPeAN UNION. Evi Werkers .......................... 195<br />
1. Copyright infringement vs. copyright enforcement, 1-1 ............................................................ 195<br />
1.1. The long-running failure of enforcing copyright regu<strong>la</strong>tion online ...................................... 195<br />
1.2. The changing role of intermediaries in the creative content online environment ................. 197<br />
1.2.1. The safe harbour provisions ...................................................................................... 197<br />
1.2.2. A complex set of services: challenging interpretations ............................................... 199<br />
7
8 Índice general<br />
1.2.3. Should intermediaries lift their anchor and set sail to less safe waters? ....................... 200<br />
2. Pouring oil on troubled waters… or adding fuel to the fire? ....................................................... 203<br />
2.1. The French (un)graduated response and its British lookalike ............................................... 203<br />
2.2. The curious case of Belgium ............................................................................................... 205<br />
2.3. Some <strong>de</strong>velopments on EU level ......................................................................................... 206<br />
3. The best is yet to come… ......................................................................................................... 207<br />
4. Bibliography .............................................................................................................................. 208<br />
COMUNICACIONES SOBRE DERECHOS FUNDAMENTALES, LIBERTADES<br />
Y RESPONSABILIDAD EN INTERNET<br />
ClOUD COmPUtINg: legAl IssUes IN CeNtrAlIzeD ArCHIteCtUres. Primavera De Filippi<br />
y Smari McCarthy .......................................................................................................................... 213<br />
1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 213<br />
2. The Emergence of Cloud Computing ........................................................................................ 214<br />
2.1. Definition of Cloud Computing ......................................................................................... 214<br />
2.2. The changing face of Networked Services ........................................................................... 215<br />
3. Legal Issues of Cloud Computing .............................................................................................. 218<br />
3.1. Centralized Control ............................................................................................................ 219<br />
3.2. Privacy & Confi<strong>de</strong>ntiality ................................................................................................... 221<br />
4. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 225<br />
DereCHO Al HONOr Vs DereCHO A lA lIBertAD De exPresIóN eN lA reD. Patricia Escribano<br />
Tortajada ............................................................................................................................... 227<br />
1. Los conceptos <strong>de</strong> honor y libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión ......................................................................... 227<br />
1.1. El honor como <strong>de</strong>recho fundamental y <strong>de</strong>recho <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> personalidad ..................................... 227<br />
1.2. La libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión como límite al <strong>de</strong>recho al honor .................................................... 229<br />
2. Un nuevo marco <strong>para</strong> el ejercicio <strong>de</strong> estos <strong>de</strong>rechos: el impacto <strong>de</strong> Internet ............................... 231<br />
3. Las lesiones <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho al honor en Internet: el caso concreto <strong>de</strong> los insultos ............................ 233<br />
3.1. Cuestiones generales ........................................................................................................... 233<br />
3.2. Análisis jurispru<strong>de</strong>ncial <strong>de</strong> los insultos en Internet y <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión....................... 236<br />
4. Conclusiones ............................................................................................................................. 241<br />
5. Bibliografía ................................................................................................................................ 242<br />
lA teNsIóN eNtre ImPUNIDAD eN lA reD y lImItACIóN De lA lIBertAD De exPresIóN.<br />
Mª Dolores Pa<strong>la</strong>cios González ......................................................................................................... 243<br />
1. Introducción ............................................................................................................................. 243<br />
2. Posibles responsables en caso <strong>de</strong> vulneración <strong>de</strong>l honor, <strong>la</strong> intimidad o <strong>la</strong> imagen ...................... 244<br />
3. Régimen <strong>de</strong> responsabilidad civil por intromisiones ilegítimas realizadas a través <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> .........<br />
4. Criterios <strong>de</strong> imputación <strong>de</strong> responsabilidad <strong>de</strong> los prestadores <strong>de</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong> intermediación<br />
consistentes en alojamiento o almacenamiento <strong>de</strong> datos o proporcionar en<strong>la</strong>ces o instrumentos<br />
245<br />
<strong>de</strong> búsqueda............................................................................................................................... 249<br />
4.1. El conocimiento efectivo .................................................................................................... 249<br />
4.2. La diligencia exigible al prestador ....................................................................................... 254<br />
5. Consi<strong>de</strong>raciones finales .............................................................................................................. 255<br />
6. Bibliografía ................................................................................................................................ 256
Índice general<br />
el esPACIO De lIBertAD, segUrIDAD y JUstICIA y lA CIBerCrImINAlIDAD eN lA UNIóN<br />
eUrOPeA. Alicia Chicharro ........................................................................................................... 259<br />
1. Introducción ............................................................................................................................. 259<br />
2. El espacio <strong>de</strong> libertad, seguridad y justicia en el Tratado <strong>de</strong> Lisboa ............................................. 260<br />
2.1. De <strong>la</strong> estructura <strong>de</strong> pi<strong>la</strong>res al espacio común <strong>de</strong> libertad, seguridad y justicia ...................... 260<br />
2.2. Modificaciones sustanciales <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> cooperación judicial en materia penal .............................. 264<br />
2.3. Noveda<strong>de</strong>s <strong>institucional</strong>es <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> cooperación policial y judicial en materia penal ................. 268<br />
3. El tratamiento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> cibercriminalidad en <strong>la</strong> UE ........................................................................ 270<br />
3.1. Consi<strong>de</strong>raciones generales ................................................................................................... 270<br />
3.2. Algunos instrumentos europeos en <strong>la</strong> lucha contra <strong>la</strong> cibercriminalidad .............................. 271<br />
3.2.1. La Decisión Marco sobre ataques contra sistemas <strong>de</strong> información ............................. 271<br />
3.2.2. Directiva sobre comercio electrónico......................................................................... 272<br />
3.2.3. La Decisión Marco sobre lucha contra el terrorismo ................................................. 273<br />
3.2.4. Directiva sobre b<strong>la</strong>nqueo <strong>de</strong> capitales y financiación <strong>de</strong>l terrorismo .......................... 275<br />
4. A modo <strong>de</strong> conclusión ............................................................................................................... 276<br />
ANONymIty, “trAsH tAlk” AND CyBer-smeArINg ON tHe INterNet. Anne W. Salisbury ...... 279<br />
1. The Role of Anonymity ............................................................................................................. 280<br />
1.1. Suits For Defamation.......................................................................................................... 282<br />
1.2. Process ................................................................................................................................ 282<br />
1.3. Brief Summary of U. S. Defamation <strong>la</strong>w............................................................................. 282<br />
2. Bad Facts Make Bad Law: The Lisku<strong>la</strong> Cohen Case ................................................................... 284<br />
2.1. Facts of Cohen Case ........................................................................................................... 285<br />
2.2. Fact v. opinion ................................................................................................................... 286<br />
2.3. The Context of the Blog Informing Defamatory Meaning .................................................. 287<br />
COMUNICACIONES SOBRE DERECHO AL OLVIDO, PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS Y PRIVACIDAD<br />
BeHAVIOUrAl ADVertIsINg IN eleCtrONIC COmmUNICAtIONs. A benefit to electronic communication<br />
<strong>de</strong>velopment and an intrusion of individual’s right to privacy and data protection. Jelena<br />
Burnik .......................................................................................................................................... 293<br />
1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 293<br />
2. Current state of p<strong>la</strong>y regarding behavioural advertising .............................................................. 295<br />
2.1. Behavioural advertising and electronic service provi<strong>de</strong>rs...................................................... 296<br />
2.2. Regu<strong>la</strong>tory context in the EU – The new “cookie Directive” requires prior consent ............ 297<br />
2.2.1. The industry response ............................................................................................... 298<br />
2.3. Regu<strong>la</strong>tory context in the US – Reliance on self-regu<strong>la</strong>tion ................................................. 299<br />
2.3.1. Self-regu<strong>la</strong>tory co<strong>de</strong> for behavioural advertising ........................................................ 299<br />
2.3.2. US recognizes issues with behavioural advertising ..................................................... 300<br />
3. A reflection on the two inter-<strong>de</strong>pendant regu<strong>la</strong>tory frameworks ................................................ 301<br />
3.1. Statutory regu<strong>la</strong>tion versus self-regu<strong>la</strong>tion ........................................................................... 302<br />
4. Implications for regu<strong>la</strong>tion of behavioural targeting in the future .............................................. 303<br />
4.1. The crucial elements of future behavioural advertising regu<strong>la</strong>tion ....................................... 303<br />
4.2. The interp<strong>la</strong>y between self-regu<strong>la</strong>tory and statutory means of regu<strong>la</strong>tion ............................. 304<br />
5. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 304<br />
6. Bibliography .............................................................................................................................. 305<br />
9
10 Índice general<br />
DAtA trANsfer frOm germANy Or sPAIN tO tHIrD COUNtrIes. QUestIONs Of<br />
CIVIl lIABIlIty fOr PrIVACy rIgHts INfrINgemeNt. Philipp E. Fischer y Rafael Ferraz<br />
Vazquez ......................................................................................................................... 311<br />
1. Topicality and complexity .......................................................................................................... 312<br />
1.1. Technological complexity.................................................................................................... 312<br />
1.2. Commercial complexity ...................................................................................................... 313<br />
1.3. Political complexity ............................................................................................................ 313<br />
2. Legal instruments of the European Union ................................................................................. 314<br />
2.1. European Data Protection Directive (EU-DPD) ................................................................. 314<br />
2.2. Safe Harbor ........................................................................................................................ 317<br />
2.3. Binding Corporate Rules (BCR) ......................................................................................... 318<br />
2.4. Standard Contractual C<strong>la</strong>uses (SCC) .................................................................................. 319<br />
2.4.1. Version 1 (SCC I) ..................................................................................................... 319<br />
2.4.2.Version 2 (SCC II) .................................................................................................... 320<br />
2.4.3. Special version for data processors established in third countries (SCC-DP) ............. 321<br />
3. Jurisdiction and applicable <strong>la</strong>w .................................................................................................. 321<br />
3.1. Jurisdiction ......................................................................................................................... 322<br />
3.2. Applicable Law ................................................................................................................... 323<br />
3.2.1. Contract statute ........................................................................................................ 323<br />
3.2.2. Tort statute / Data protection statute ........................................................................ 324<br />
3.3. outlook.............................................................................................................................. 326<br />
4. German substantive <strong>la</strong>w ............................................................................................................ 327<br />
4.1. Case study .......................................................................................................................... 327<br />
4.2. System of BDSG ................................................................................................................ 327<br />
4.3. Subsumtion to the regu<strong>la</strong>tions of BDSG............................................................................. 327<br />
4.3.1. Legal basis (first step) ................................................................................................ 327<br />
4.3.2. A<strong>de</strong>quate level of data protection (second step) ......................................................... 329<br />
5. Spanish substantive <strong>la</strong>w ............................................................................................................. 330<br />
5.1. Spanish Legal Framework ................................................................................................... 330<br />
5.2. System of LoPD ................................................................................................................ 331<br />
5.2.1. Authorisation through AEPD ................................................................................... 332<br />
5.2.2. Subcontracting ......................................................................................................... 333<br />
5.2.3. Alternative route: The <strong>de</strong>rogation of Art.34 (e) LoPD ............................................. 334<br />
5.3. The limited role of AEPD ................................................................................................... 335<br />
5.4. Data subject and the compensation for damages ................................................................. 335<br />
6. Com<strong>para</strong>tive <strong>la</strong>w analysis ........................................................................................................... 336<br />
7. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 337<br />
8. Bibliography .............................................................................................................................. 339<br />
lA PrIVACIDAD De lAs COmUNICACIONes eN lA INVestIgACIóN PeNAl: UNO De lOs retOs<br />
De lA JUstICIA eN UNA sOCIeDAD glOBAlIzADA. Inmacu<strong>la</strong>da López-Barajas Perea ......... 341<br />
1. La sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información y <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>rechos .................................................... 341<br />
2. El secreto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones ................................................................................................ 344<br />
3. La protección <strong>de</strong> datos <strong>de</strong> carácter personal, <strong>la</strong> intimidad y el secreto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones ...... 345<br />
4. La <strong>de</strong>tección <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s c<strong>la</strong>ves IMSI e IMEI ..................................................................................... 350<br />
5. Conclusión ................................................................................................................................ 353<br />
6. Bibliografía sobre <strong>la</strong> materia ....................................................................................................... 354
Índice general<br />
lA BAse ADAms De lA AgeNCIA mUNDIAl ANtIDOPAJe. PrOBlemAs De PrOteCCIóN De<br />
DAtOs. Ricardo Morte Ferrer ....................................................................................................... 359<br />
1. Introducción al tema <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> lucha antidopaje ............................................................................... 359<br />
2. Localizaciones o whereabouts .................................................................................................... 360<br />
3. Transferencias internacionales <strong>de</strong> datos. La base ADAMS .......................................................... 362<br />
4. Conclusiones ............................................................................................................................. 368<br />
5. Bibliografía ................................................................................................................................ 369<br />
el DereCHO Al OlVIDO eN INterNet. Ramón M. Orza Linares y Susana Ruiz Tarrías .............. 371<br />
1. Introducción ............................................................................................................................. 371<br />
2. El <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido en Internet ................................................................................................. 374<br />
2.1. Antece<strong>de</strong>ntes ...................................................................................................................... 374<br />
2.2. La actividad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Agencia Españo<strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> Protección <strong>de</strong> Datos en re<strong>la</strong>ción al <strong>de</strong>recho al<br />
olvido ........................................................................................................................... 375<br />
2.3. Derecho al olvido y re<strong>de</strong>s sociales ....................................................................................... 378<br />
3. La posible reforma <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Directiva 95/46/CE <strong>de</strong> 24 <strong>de</strong> octubre <strong>de</strong> 1995 y su repercusión en re<strong>la</strong>ción<br />
con el “<strong>de</strong>recho al olvido” ................................................................................................... 380<br />
4. Conclusiones ............................................................................................................................. 387<br />
5. Bibliografía ................................................................................................................................ 388<br />
el régImeN CONstItUCIONAl Del DereCHO Al OlVIDO eN INterNet. Pere Simón Castel<strong>la</strong>no<br />
................................................................................................................................. 391<br />
1. Introducción y terminología ...................................................................................................... 391<br />
2. Web 2.0 Y transformaciones sociales .......................................................................................... 392<br />
2.1. La perennidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información en Internet ...................................................................... 393<br />
3. El encaje constitucional <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido digital .................................................................. 395<br />
3.1. El <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido <strong>de</strong>ntro <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos personales ........................ 396<br />
3.1.1. El principio <strong>de</strong> consentimiento <strong>de</strong> los datos .............................................................. 399<br />
3.1.2. El principio <strong>de</strong> finalidad ........................................................................................... 399<br />
4. Diferentes ámbitos <strong>de</strong> aplicación <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido frente a <strong>la</strong> memoria digital ..................... 400<br />
4.1. El olvido en <strong>la</strong> re<strong>de</strong>s sociales ............................................................................................... 400<br />
4.2. El olvido en los resultados <strong>de</strong> los motores <strong>de</strong> búsqueda ....................................................... 402<br />
4.3. El olvido en <strong>la</strong>s hemerotecas digitales .................................................................................. 404<br />
5. Conclusiones ............................................................................................................................. 405<br />
6. Bibliografía ................................................................................................................................ 406<br />
PrIVACIDAD y trACkINg COOkIes. UNA APrOxImACIóN CONstItUCIONAl. María Concepción<br />
Torres Díaz ............................................................................................................................. 407<br />
1. P<strong>la</strong>nteamiento general ............................................................................................................... 407<br />
2. objetivos ................................................................................................................................... 408<br />
3. Conceptualizaciones y bases constitucionales <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> privacidad .................................................... 409<br />
4. Privacidad en <strong>la</strong> Directiva 136/2009/CE.................................................................................... 415<br />
5. Apuntes sobre el Dictamen 2/2010, sobre publicidad comportamental on-line ..........................<br />
6. Las tracking cookies y el <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> integridad y confi<strong>de</strong>ncialidad <strong>de</strong> los sistemas tecnológicos y<br />
417<br />
<strong>de</strong> información .......................................................................................................................... 419<br />
7. Consi<strong>de</strong>raciones finales .............................................................................................................. 421<br />
8. Bibliografía ................................................................................................................................ 421<br />
11
12 Índice general<br />
legAl feAsIBIlIty fOr stAtIstICAl metHODs ON INterNet As A sOUrCe Of DAtA gAtHerINg<br />
IN tHe eU. Faye Fangfei Wang ....................................................................................... 423<br />
1. Introduction: Current EU Legal Framework for Data Privacy Protection .................................. 423<br />
2. Legis<strong>la</strong>tive Measures for Automated Data Collection ................................................................. 424<br />
2.1. Un<strong>de</strong>rlying General Steps on Data Privacy Protection ........................................................ 424<br />
2.2. Exemption C<strong>la</strong>uses for Automated Data Collection for Statistical Purposes ........................ 427<br />
3. Recommendation and Conclusion ............................................................................................. 428<br />
4. References ................................................................................................................................. 428<br />
COMUNICACIONES SOBRE GOBIERNO Y DEMOCRACIA ELECTRÓNICA<br />
yOU HAVe NO sOVereIgNty wHere we gAtHer. wIkIleAks AND freeDOm, AUtONOmy<br />
AND sOVereIgNty IN tHe ClOUD. Bodó Balázs ......................................................................... 433<br />
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 434<br />
2. A new era of hacktivism ............................................................................................................. 435<br />
3. Anonymous ............................................................................................................................... 437<br />
4. Transparency ............................................................................................................................. 438<br />
5. Sovereignty ................................................................................................................................ 440<br />
6. References ................................................................................................................................. 445<br />
lA INICIAtIVA CIUDADANA eUrOPeA eleCtróNICA. Lorenzo Cotino Hueso ............................... 447<br />
1. Aproximación a una normativa muy innovadora ....................................................................... 447<br />
1.1. origen e interés <strong>de</strong> una normativa innovadora mundialmente ............................................ 447<br />
1.2. Elementos básicos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción y fases <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Iniciativa Ciudadana Europea .................... 449<br />
2. Sistemas <strong>de</strong> recogida <strong>de</strong> apoyos vía web y su ac<strong>red</strong>itación por los Estados .................................. 450<br />
2.1. El <strong>de</strong>sarrollo <strong>de</strong> p<strong>la</strong>taformas a partir <strong>de</strong> normas y programas <strong>de</strong> código abierto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comisión ... 450<br />
2.2. Requisitos <strong>de</strong> los apoyos y <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> p<strong>la</strong>taforma <strong>de</strong> recogida ......................................................<br />
2.3. El tipo <strong>de</strong> firma electrónica requerida, el posible uso <strong>de</strong> sistemas poco robusto y el anonimato<br />
452<br />
o el seudónimo electrónico .................................................................................................<br />
2.4. La ac<strong>red</strong>itación por autoridad competente <strong>de</strong> un Estado <strong>de</strong> los ciudadanos que aun sistema<br />
452<br />
<strong>de</strong> recogida <strong>de</strong> apoyos y el obligatorio reconocimiento por los <strong>de</strong>más Estados .................... 454<br />
3. La presentación y verificación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s concretas firmas y apoyos recibidos por una ICE ............... 454<br />
4. El régimen <strong>de</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos <strong>de</strong> los apoyos ciudadanos ...................................................... 456<br />
4.1. Los <strong>de</strong>sproporcionados datos que los ciudadanos <strong>de</strong>ben facilitar <strong>para</strong> apoyar una iniciativa . 457<br />
4.2. La finalidad exclusiva <strong>de</strong> los datos <strong>de</strong> los ciudadanos ........................................................... 458<br />
4.3. La fijación <strong>de</strong> los responsables <strong>de</strong>l tratamiento y el alcance <strong>de</strong> su responsabilidad ................ 458<br />
4.4. El régimen<strong>de</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos aplicable .........................................................................<br />
4.5. Las exigencias <strong>de</strong> seguridad y <strong>de</strong>strucción <strong>de</strong> ficheros según el Reg<strong>la</strong>mento ICE y el alto nivel<br />
459<br />
<strong>de</strong> seguridad exigido por tratarse <strong>de</strong> datos i<strong>de</strong>ológicos ........................................................ 460<br />
5. Bibliografía seleccionada ............................................................................................................ 461<br />
INstItUtIONAl trUst AND e-gOVerNmeNt ADOPtION IN tHe eU: A CrOss-NAtIONAl<br />
ANAlysIs. Georgia Foteinou .......................................................................................................... 463<br />
1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 463<br />
2. The ‘Digitally Reluctant’ Europeans........................................................................................... 464<br />
3. The answers to the research problem: what the literature suggests .............................................. 466<br />
4. Trust literature ........................................................................................................................... 467<br />
5. Theoretical Lenses: A Neo-Institutional Approach ..................................................................... 468
Índice general<br />
6. The outliers: britain, germany and estonia ................................................................................. 471<br />
7. Factors affecting e-government adoption and the ‘trust’ hypothesis ............................................ 472<br />
7.1. Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 472<br />
7.2. Data, variables and measurement ....................................................................................... 473<br />
7.3. The role of trust in e-government adoption ........................................................................ 474<br />
8. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 476<br />
9. Bibliography .............................................................................................................................. 477<br />
AN INtrODUCtOry HIstOrICAl CONtextUAlIzAtION Of ONlINe CreAtION COmmUNItIes<br />
fOr tHe BUIlDINg Of DIgItAl COmmONs: tHe emergeNCe Of A free CUltUre mOVemeNt.<br />
Mayo Fuster Morell .............................................................................................................. 481<br />
1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 481<br />
2. From the 1950s: Cultural roots of oCCs: pioneer online communities ..................................... 482<br />
3. From the 1990s: The appearance of the first online creation communities: Free and open source<br />
software projects ........................................................................................................................ 483<br />
4. 2001: From free software to free culture: The expansion of oCCs to other immaterial content . 484<br />
5. 2006: The explosion of commercial Web 2.0 ............................................................................. 485<br />
6. A free culture movement in formation? ...................................................................................... 486<br />
7. Defining the movement dimension of free culture ..................................................................... 489<br />
8. Bibliographic references ............................................................................................................. 493<br />
self-gOVerNeD sOCIO-teCHNICAl INfrAstrUCtUres. Autonomy and Cooperation through<br />
free software and Community wireless Networks. Daniel Guagnin y Car<strong>la</strong> Ilten ............................ 497<br />
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 497<br />
1. Free Software: a Constitution for Crowd Sourcing ..................................................................... 498<br />
1.1. Principles of Free Software .................................................................................................. 498<br />
1.2. Why Freedom of Software Affects the Freedom of Everyday Life ....................................... 499<br />
1.2.1. Society Ma<strong>de</strong> Durable and the Law of Cyberspace .................................................... 500<br />
1.2.2. Expert Systems, Resources and the Power of Laypeople ............................................ 501<br />
1.3. A Constitution for Crowd Sourcing ................................................................................... 502<br />
1.4. Interlu<strong>de</strong> ............................................................................................................................ 503<br />
2. Community Wireless Networks: Free Software and DIY Hardware Citizen-owned Infrastructures .. 504<br />
2.1. What are Community Wireless Networks? ......................................................................... 504<br />
2.1.1. Wireless Architectures: Socio-Technical Configurations ............................................ 504<br />
2.1.2. Chicago Wireless Community Networks .................................................................. 505<br />
2.2. A Community Wireless Networks Niche ........................................................................... 506<br />
2.2.1. The Broadband Market ............................................................................................. 507<br />
2.2.2. Alternative Niches .................................................................................................... 507<br />
2.2.3. Community Wireless I<strong>de</strong>als ...................................................................................... 508<br />
2.3. Diversity and Local Expertise Through Socio-Technical Niches ......................................... 510<br />
3. Niches Based on the Usage of Free Software and Hardware Foster Network Neutrality ............. 511<br />
4. Bibliography .............................................................................................................................. 512<br />
CONflICts ABOUt tHe regUlAtION Of INtelleCtUAl PrOPerty IN INterNet: COmPArINg<br />
tHe IssUe NetwOrks IN Uk AND sPAIN. Jorge Luis Salcedo.............................................. 515<br />
1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 515<br />
2. Literature ................................................................................................................................... 517<br />
2.1. Why media visibility is important? ..................................................................................... 517<br />
13
14 Índice general<br />
3. Methods .................................................................................................................................... 522<br />
4. Contextual features .................................................................................................................... 527<br />
5. Findings .................................................................................................................................... 529<br />
6. References ................................................................................................................................. 534<br />
lAs CIBer-CAmPAñAs eN AmérICA lAtINA: POteNCIAlIDADes y lImItANtes. Andrés Val<strong>de</strong>z<br />
Zepeda ........................................................................................................................................... 539<br />
1. Introducción ............................................................................................................................. 539<br />
2. La política en <strong>la</strong> era “punto.com” ............................................................................................... 540<br />
3. Las ciber-campañas .................................................................................................................... 541<br />
4. Las ciber-campañas en América Latina....................................................................................... 543<br />
5. Limitantes y potencialida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s ciber-campañas ................................................................... 549<br />
6. A modo <strong>de</strong> conclusión ............................................................................................................... 552<br />
7. Bibliografía ................................................................................................................................ 554
Prólogo<br />
NetwOrk NeUtrAlIty: HIstOry, regUlAtION AND fUtUre<br />
Agustí Cerrillo-i-Martínez<br />
Miquel Peguera<br />
Ismael Peña-López<br />
Mònica Vi<strong>la</strong>sau So<strong>la</strong>na<br />
Comité <strong>de</strong> dirección<br />
VII Congreso, Internet, Derecho y Política<br />
El VII Congreso Internacional Internet, Derecho y Política (IDP 2011), que se ha<br />
<strong>de</strong>sarrol<strong>la</strong>do en Barcelona los días 11 y 12 <strong>de</strong> julio <strong>de</strong> 2011 bajo el título genérico <strong>de</strong> “<strong>Neutralidad</strong><br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet”, ha abordado algunos <strong>de</strong> los principales<br />
<strong>retos</strong> a los que se enfrenta <strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información, <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> perspectiva jurídica<br />
y politológica. En particu<strong>la</strong>r, los temas centrales han sido el <strong>de</strong>bate sobre <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>, <strong>de</strong> can<strong>de</strong>nte actualidad tanto en Europa como en los Estados Unidos <strong>de</strong> América,<br />
y el l<strong>la</strong>mado “<strong>de</strong>recho al olvido” cuyo reconocimiento emerge con fuerza como un nuevo<br />
problema aparejado a <strong>la</strong>s cada vez más potentes herramientas <strong>de</strong> búsqueda, y en el que se<br />
ven implicados <strong>de</strong>licados aspectos <strong>de</strong> privacidad, protección <strong>de</strong> datos y libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión<br />
e información.<br />
El Congreso Internet, Derecho y Política es impulsado y organizado por los Estudios<br />
<strong>de</strong> Derecho y Ciencia Política <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Universitat Oberta <strong>de</strong> Catalunya (UoC), cuyos profesores<br />
vienen <strong>de</strong>sarrol<strong>la</strong>ndo una fructífera actividad investigadora sobre <strong>la</strong>s transformaciones <strong>de</strong>l<br />
<strong>de</strong>recho y <strong>la</strong> política en <strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información canalizada a través <strong>de</strong> diversos grupos<br />
<strong>de</strong> investigación 1 .<br />
Con sus ya siete ediciones, el Congreso Internet, Derecho y Política, se ha consolidado<br />
como lugar <strong>de</strong> encuentro anual <strong>de</strong> investigadores, académicos y profesionales interesados<br />
en <strong>la</strong>s consecuencias <strong>de</strong>l uso <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s tecnologías <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información y <strong>la</strong> comunicación en los<br />
diferentes ámbitos <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho y <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> política en un sentido amplio. Destacados académicos<br />
e investigadores han participado en calidad <strong>de</strong> ponentes invitados en anteriores ediciones <strong>de</strong>l<br />
congreso, entre <strong>otros</strong>, Benjamin Barber, Lilian Edwards, Jane Ginsburg, James Grimmelmann,<br />
Ronald Leenes, Helen Margetts, Eben Moglen, Evgeny Morozov, John Palfrey, Yves<br />
Poullet, Stephano Rodotà, A<strong>la</strong>in Strowel o Jonathan Zittrain 2 . En esta ocasión, <strong>la</strong>s conferen-<br />
1 Véase al respecto, Peguera Poch, M. (coord.) PrinciPios <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>recho <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> información. Cizur Menor: Reuters-Thomson-Aranzadi (2010).<br />
2 En <strong>la</strong> página web http://edcp.uoc.edu/symposia/idp2011/ se pue<strong>de</strong> acce<strong>de</strong>r a <strong>la</strong>s web <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s ediciones<br />
anteriores con los en<strong>la</strong>ces a <strong>la</strong>s grabaciones en ví<strong>de</strong>o <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s diversas sesiones y en http://idp.uoc.edu/ a<br />
los diferentes números <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> revista IDP don<strong>de</strong> se ha venido publicando una selección <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s ponencias<br />
presentadas así como un amplio resumen <strong>de</strong> los resultados obtenidos.
16 Prólogo<br />
cias inaugurales han corrido a cargo <strong>de</strong>l profesor Christopher T. Mars<strong>de</strong>n, <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Univesidad<br />
<strong>de</strong> Essex, que ha analizado el <strong>de</strong>bate sobre <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>, y <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> profesora Cécile<br />
<strong>de</strong> Terwangne, <strong>de</strong>l Centre <strong>de</strong> Recherche Informatique et Droit (CRID) <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Universidad <strong>de</strong><br />
Namur, que ha tratado sobre el l<strong>la</strong>mado <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido.<br />
Si bien el Congreso Internet, Derecho y Política ha mantenido su interés fundacional<br />
<strong>de</strong> analizar anualmente <strong>la</strong> evolución <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho y <strong>la</strong> política a <strong>la</strong> vista <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s transformaciones<br />
que se van produciendo en <strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información, esta VII edición se distingue <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong>s anteriores en el nuevo enfoque dado al Congreso, al abrirlo <strong>de</strong> modo c<strong>la</strong>ro a una amplia<br />
participación internacional a través <strong>de</strong> un riguroso proceso <strong>de</strong> solicitud <strong>de</strong> comunicaciones<br />
y <strong>de</strong> revisión <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s mismas y <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> asistencia <strong>de</strong> participantes <strong>de</strong> numerosos países. De este<br />
modo, aunque se ha mantenido <strong>la</strong> presencia <strong>de</strong> conferenciantes y <strong>de</strong> ponentes invitados a<br />
participar en mesas <strong>red</strong>ondas, el peso principal <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s aportaciones ha recaído en los profesores<br />
y expertos que han enviado sus contribuciones al congreso promoviendo con ello <strong>la</strong><br />
internacionalización y <strong>la</strong> calidad <strong>de</strong>l Congreso.<br />
El elemento <strong>de</strong> internacionalización salta a <strong>la</strong> vista en el propio índice <strong>de</strong> este libro,<br />
dado el elevado porcentaje <strong>de</strong> comunicaciones aceptadas que han sido presentadas por académicos<br />
y especialistas proce<strong>de</strong>ntes <strong>de</strong> numerosos países.<br />
La calidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones seleccionadas se ha visto garantizada a través <strong>de</strong><br />
un proceso académico <strong>de</strong> revisión por pares que se ha regido por los criterios fijados por el<br />
comité <strong>de</strong> dirección y validados por el comité científico <strong>de</strong>l Congreso. Así, se ha valorado en<br />
particu<strong>la</strong>r el encaje <strong>de</strong>l objeto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> comunicación <strong>de</strong>ntro <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s principales líneas temáticas<br />
<strong>de</strong>l congreso, <strong>la</strong> originalidad y relevancia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s aportaciones y el rigor académico <strong>de</strong>l trabajo<br />
presentado.<br />
2<br />
La elección <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido como ejes centrales <strong>de</strong>l<br />
congreso respon<strong>de</strong> a <strong>la</strong> voluntad <strong>de</strong> facilitar el <strong>de</strong>bate académico sobre temas <strong>de</strong> gran actualidad<br />
<strong>institucional</strong> y social y ha querido contribuir a presentar diversos puntos <strong>de</strong> vista y a<br />
enriquecer el <strong>de</strong>bate sobre estas materias, que, cada una a su modo, revisten una importancia<br />
sin duda creciente en <strong>la</strong> reflexión sobre los efectos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y sobre su <strong>de</strong>sarrollo futuro.<br />
La neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>, o Net Neutrality, es el principio según el cual <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> <strong>de</strong>be<br />
permanecer neutral en re<strong>la</strong>ción con los contenidos que se transmiten a través <strong>de</strong> el<strong>la</strong> y evitar<br />
cualquier discriminación basada en <strong>la</strong> naturaleza o el origen <strong>de</strong> los datos. Este principio es<br />
visto generalmente como una característica esencial <strong>de</strong>l diseño original <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>, que ha<br />
permitido un crecimiento exponencial <strong>de</strong> nuevos servicios en los últimos años.<br />
El mantenimiento <strong>de</strong> esta neutralidad se enfrenta a <strong>la</strong> pau<strong>la</strong>tina introducción <strong>de</strong> diversas<br />
prácticas <strong>de</strong> gestión <strong>de</strong>l tráfico por parte <strong>de</strong> los operadores <strong>de</strong> telecomunicaciones que<br />
implican un tratamiento diferenciado <strong>de</strong> los datos transmitidos. Por otra parte, se enfrenta a<br />
<strong>la</strong> perspectiva <strong>de</strong> que <strong>para</strong> hacer llegar contenidos y aplicaciones <strong>de</strong> calidad a los <strong>de</strong>stinatarios<br />
finales, los prestadores <strong>de</strong> estos servicios puedan verse precisados a suscribir acuerdos específicos<br />
con los operadores <strong>de</strong> telecomunicaciones que podrían supeditarse a <strong>la</strong> participación <strong>de</strong>
Prólogo<br />
estos últimos en los beneficios <strong>de</strong> dicha actividad. Esta posibilidad, ya p<strong>la</strong>nteada por algunos<br />
operadores, presenta por lo <strong>de</strong>más evi<strong>de</strong>ntes problemas <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> el punto <strong>de</strong> vista <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia cuando, cada vez más a menudo, <strong>la</strong>s compañías <strong>de</strong> telecomunicaciones<br />
extien<strong>de</strong>n su actividad al mercado <strong>de</strong> contenidos, lo que pue<strong>de</strong> dar lugar a prácticas <strong>de</strong> priorización<br />
o <strong>de</strong> restricción <strong>de</strong> carácter anticompetitivo.<br />
Des<strong>de</strong> otro punto <strong>de</strong> vista, <strong>de</strong>terminadas fórmu<strong>la</strong>s <strong>de</strong> gestión <strong>de</strong>l tráfico pue<strong>de</strong>n llevar<br />
aparejadas consecuencias negativas tanto sobre <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión como sobre el propio<br />
<strong>de</strong>sarrollo <strong>de</strong> los servicios <strong>de</strong> Internet, <strong>de</strong>sarrollo que ha venido en gran medida facilitado<br />
precisamente por el esquema <strong>de</strong> neutralidad o <strong>para</strong>digma <strong>de</strong> extremo a extremo, don<strong>de</strong> el<br />
núcleo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> no interfiere en <strong>la</strong>s aplicaciones y contenidos que circu<strong>la</strong>n a través <strong>de</strong> el<strong>la</strong>.<br />
A favor <strong>de</strong> permitir a los operadores <strong>de</strong> telecomunicaciones un amplio margen <strong>para</strong> llevar<br />
a cabo una razonable gestión <strong>de</strong>l tráfico se alega <strong>la</strong> necesidad <strong>de</strong> evitar el co<strong>la</strong>pso <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>,<br />
así como <strong>la</strong> legítima aspiración a obtener el retorno <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s inversiones realizadas <strong>para</strong> <strong>de</strong>splegar<br />
y mantener <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> telecomunicaciones. Se indica, a<strong>de</strong>más, que una discriminación<br />
con fundamento estrictamente técnico pue<strong>de</strong> llegar a ser beneficiosa <strong>para</strong> el usuario final, al<br />
permitir dar un servicio <strong>de</strong> mayor calidad y con mayores niveles <strong>de</strong> eficacia y eficiencia.<br />
En buena parte, el <strong>de</strong>bate se centra en si es precisa una específica intervención regu<strong>la</strong>toria<br />
<strong>para</strong> exigir el respeto a los principios <strong>de</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>, o si <strong>la</strong> cuestión <strong>de</strong>be<br />
<strong>de</strong>jarse a <strong>la</strong> libre competencia <strong>de</strong> los operadores y al juego <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s normas <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>fensa <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
competencia, limitándose el legis<strong>la</strong>dor a exigir a los operadores un <strong>de</strong>terminado nivel <strong>de</strong><br />
transparencia y <strong>de</strong> información al consumidor. Quienes se oponen a una regu<strong>la</strong>ción explícita<br />
<strong>para</strong> garantizar <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> argumentan que precisamente esa regu<strong>la</strong>ción<br />
implicaría una injerencia por parte <strong>de</strong>l Estado en el sector <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s telecomunicaciones y que<br />
es preferible el juego <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia <strong>para</strong> ajustarse a <strong>la</strong>s <strong>de</strong>mandas <strong>de</strong> los usuarios y <strong>de</strong> los<br />
proveedores <strong>de</strong> contenidos.<br />
Frente a estos argumentos <strong>de</strong> mercado, se invocan los peligros que pue<strong>de</strong>n <strong>de</strong>rivarse<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> merma <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> neutralidad que históricamente ha presidido el funcionamiento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>,<br />
merma que se percibe como amenaza, por lo menos potencial, a <strong>de</strong>terminados <strong>de</strong>rechos<br />
básicos como el <strong>de</strong>recho a recibir información <strong>de</strong> calidad, no sesgada, imparcial, exenta <strong>de</strong><br />
censura o manipu<strong>la</strong>ciones o el <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión. En particu<strong>la</strong>r, esta última<br />
podría verse perjudicada en el caso <strong>de</strong> que se admita <strong>la</strong> posibilidad <strong>de</strong> dar prioridad a unos<br />
paquetes <strong>de</strong> datos –información, comunicaciones, comunicados, noticias, <strong>de</strong>nuncias– frente<br />
a <strong>otros</strong> a los que el operador <strong>de</strong>see favorecer.<br />
otro elemento, mucho menos referido y, sin embargo, tan o más relevante que los<br />
anteriores, es el <strong>de</strong>recho <strong>de</strong> reunión. Cada vez más, <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones, conversaciones e<br />
interacción entre los usuarios se tras<strong>la</strong>dan a <strong>la</strong>s p<strong>la</strong>taformas digitales, y tienen lugar en foros,<br />
re<strong>de</strong>s sociales, espacios <strong>de</strong> encuentro síncrono <strong>de</strong> texto, voz y ví<strong>de</strong>o. De este modo <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> se<br />
constituye en un verda<strong>de</strong>ro espacio <strong>de</strong> reuniones (virtuales), a menudo <strong>de</strong> tipo lúdico pero<br />
también <strong>de</strong> tipo político, religioso, cultural o <strong>de</strong> pensamiento en general. La capacidad <strong>de</strong><br />
interferir <strong>de</strong> modo arbitrario en el tráfico impidiendo o dificultando estas comunicaciones<br />
colectivas por parte <strong>de</strong> los operadores <strong>de</strong> telecomunicaciones pondría en riesgo el ejercicio<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>rechos fundamentales. En buena medida, <strong>de</strong>terminados movimientos sociales <strong>de</strong> indu-<br />
17
18 Prólogo<br />
dable relevancia acaecidos en muy diversos lugares <strong>de</strong>l mundo en <strong>la</strong> primera mitad <strong>de</strong> 2011<br />
–primavera árabe, protestas en los países <strong>de</strong>l sur <strong>de</strong> Europa– se han apoyado fuertemente en<br />
<strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> como ágora virtual <strong>para</strong> informar, <strong>de</strong>liberar y <strong>de</strong>cidir, mientras que <strong>otros</strong> se han visto<br />
impedidos, precisamente, por el control <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>.<br />
Las re<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> telecomunicaciones constituyen sin duda infraestructuras cruciales <strong>para</strong><br />
el ejercicio <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>rechos fundamentales. Así pues, <strong>la</strong> cuestión ya apuntada surge <strong>de</strong> nuevo:<br />
¿en qué medida los operadores <strong>de</strong>ben gozar <strong>de</strong> plena autonomía <strong>para</strong> establecer sistemas <strong>de</strong><br />
gestión <strong>de</strong>l tráfico, o priorizaciones basadas en acuerdos <strong>de</strong> mercado, que pongan en riesgo o<br />
dificulten el ejercicio <strong>de</strong> tales <strong>de</strong>rechos? ¿Hasta qué punto es preciso renunciar a <strong>la</strong> eficiencia<br />
en <strong>la</strong> gestión <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> en aras <strong>de</strong> una mejor tute<strong>la</strong> efectiva <strong>de</strong> los mismos? ¿El respeto a los<br />
principios <strong>de</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong>be confiarse a <strong>la</strong> exclusivamente a <strong>la</strong> autoregu<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong>l sector?<br />
¿Es precisa una regu<strong>la</strong>ción directa <strong>para</strong> garantizarlos? ¿Sería a<strong>de</strong>cuado el recurso a esquemas <strong>de</strong><br />
co-regu<strong>la</strong>ción? Son muchos los matices a los que se prestan <strong>la</strong>s distintas opciones y el <strong>de</strong>bate<br />
<strong>de</strong> política jurídica parece lejos <strong>de</strong> estar cerrado. Toda esta riqueza <strong>de</strong> puntos <strong>de</strong> vista se ha<br />
querido tras<strong>la</strong>dar a <strong>la</strong>s diferentes sesiones <strong>de</strong>sarrol<strong>la</strong>das durante el primer día <strong>de</strong>l Congreso.<br />
El segundo eje temático <strong>de</strong>l congreso ha sido <strong>la</strong> configuración <strong>de</strong> un “<strong>de</strong>recho al olvido”<br />
en Internet y <strong>la</strong>s notables dificulta<strong>de</strong>s que presenta. El conflicto se p<strong>la</strong>ntea aquí como un<br />
equilibrio entre el <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> privacidad y a <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos personales y el <strong>de</strong>recho<br />
a <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión y <strong>de</strong> información, así como a <strong>la</strong> libre prestación <strong>de</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong><br />
in<strong>de</strong>xación y localización <strong>de</strong> los contenidos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>.<br />
Internet acumu<strong>la</strong> ingentes cantida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> datos. A <strong>la</strong> información generada recientemente<br />
se aña<strong>de</strong> una infinidad <strong>de</strong> contenidos ya antiguos que pasan a estar en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> gracias,<br />
por ejemplo, a <strong>la</strong> digitalización <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s hemerotecas <strong>de</strong> los principales periódicos y que cobran<br />
nueva vida al quedar in<strong>de</strong>xados y ser fácilmente localizables gracias a los buscadores. Así, una<br />
búsqueda en Google por el nombre <strong>de</strong> una persona, pue<strong>de</strong> arrojar como resultados viejas noticias,<br />
ciertas o menos ciertas, <strong>de</strong>smentidas o no, que en otras circunstancias habrían quedado<br />
olvidadas o cuyo conocimiento se habría mantenido en círculos re<strong>la</strong>tivamente limitados.<br />
Como parte <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> auto<strong>de</strong>terminación informativa se rec<strong>la</strong>ma a los buscadores <strong>de</strong><br />
Internet <strong>la</strong> eliminación <strong>de</strong> los en<strong>la</strong>ces a tales contenidos, que pue<strong>de</strong>n afectar, en ocasiones<br />
gravemente, a <strong>la</strong> privacidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s personas afectadas. Los motores <strong>de</strong> búsqueda, por su parte,<br />
seña<strong>la</strong>n que su actividad es neutra, limitándose a in<strong>de</strong>xar y facilitar <strong>la</strong> localización <strong>de</strong> contenidos<br />
en cuya creación no han intervenido, y consi<strong>de</strong>ran que <strong>la</strong>s rec<strong>la</strong>maciones <strong>de</strong>berían<br />
dirigirse a <strong>la</strong> eliminación <strong>de</strong> los datos en su origen. Esto último pue<strong>de</strong> chocar con el <strong>de</strong>recho<br />
a proporcionar información y así lo hacen notar por ejemplo los periódicos que han volcado<br />
sus fondos históricos en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>.<br />
El <strong>de</strong>bate se hal<strong>la</strong> presente no sólo en los foros académicos. Las autorida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> protección<br />
<strong>de</strong> datos mantienen abiertos contenciosos con prestadores <strong>de</strong> servicios que podrían dar<br />
lugar a una cuestión prejudicial ante el Tribunal <strong>de</strong> Justicia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión Europea. La cuestión<br />
está también en <strong>la</strong> agenda <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comisión Europea, que se ha manifestado a favor <strong>de</strong><br />
reconocer un <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido en términos que todavía no se han explicitado. Esta materia<br />
ocupó buena parte <strong>de</strong>l segundo día <strong>de</strong>l VII Congreso IDP, con <strong>la</strong> enriquecedora aportación<br />
<strong>de</strong> puntos <strong>de</strong> vista muy diversos y matizados.
Prólogo<br />
2<br />
Las actas que aquí presentamos recogen <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones que fueron expuestas en<br />
el Congreso, agrupadas en diversos ámbitos temáticos, encabezadas por <strong>la</strong> conferencia <strong>de</strong>l<br />
profesor Mars<strong>de</strong>n sobre <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>.<br />
Los bloques temáticos se refieren a <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>; <strong>la</strong> propiedad intelectual en<br />
Internet; los <strong>de</strong>rechos fundamentales, liberta<strong>de</strong>s y responsabilidad en Internet; el <strong>de</strong>recho al<br />
olvido, protección <strong>de</strong> datos y privacidad; y finalmente al ámbito <strong>de</strong>l gobierno y <strong>de</strong>mocracia<br />
electrónicas.<br />
En el bloque <strong>de</strong> comunicaciones sobre neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> se abordan diversos aspectos<br />
<strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>bate ya referido. Por una parte, Cullell March y Marsan Raventós tratan <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> el punto <strong>de</strong> vista <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones y <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión,<br />
centrando el análisis en el papel fundamental <strong>de</strong> Internet en <strong>la</strong> difusión <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información<br />
en el siglo XXI. Por su parte, Pérez Marzabal, Arjones Girál<strong>de</strong>z y Nadal Sánchez aportan un<br />
punto <strong>de</strong> vista más centrado en <strong>la</strong> industria, tanto el propio sector <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s telecomunicaciones<br />
como el <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s empresas cuya actividad como proveedores <strong>de</strong> contenidos se apoya fuertemente<br />
en <strong>la</strong>s infraestructuras tecnológicas digitales.<br />
En el grupo <strong>de</strong> comunicaciones sobre propiedad intelectual se tratan diversos aspectos<br />
re<strong>la</strong>cionados con <strong>la</strong> persecución <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s infracciones <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>rechos en el ámbito digital. Horten<br />
nos presenta el <strong>de</strong>bate <strong>de</strong> política jurídica en el marco <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s Directivas <strong>de</strong>l l<strong>la</strong>mado paquete<br />
Telecom y Farrand examina críticamente <strong>la</strong> ten<strong>de</strong>ncia a recurrir al <strong>de</strong>recho penal como vía<br />
<strong>de</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> aquellos <strong>de</strong>rechos. Werkers o Tao ponen el foco en los intermediarios, en<br />
quienes a menudo se quiere hacer recaer el peso <strong>de</strong> contro<strong>la</strong>r <strong>la</strong>s posibles infracciones <strong>de</strong> sus<br />
usuarios.<br />
El régimen <strong>de</strong> responsabilidad <strong>de</strong> los intermediarios constituyó también un elemento<br />
relevante en el siguiente bloque <strong>de</strong> comunicaciones, referido a los <strong>de</strong>rechos fundamentales,<br />
liberta<strong>de</strong>s y responsabilidad en Internet. Escribano Tortajada, Salisbury o Pa<strong>la</strong>cios González<br />
<strong>de</strong>baten los ataques a <strong>la</strong> intimidad y al honor <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s personas en Internet, junto con <strong>la</strong><br />
necesidad <strong>de</strong> garantizar <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión, así como los límites <strong>de</strong>l anonimato en <strong>la</strong><br />
<strong>red</strong>, con especial referencia al sistema <strong>de</strong> exclusiones <strong>de</strong> responsabilidad <strong>de</strong> los prestadores <strong>de</strong><br />
servicios <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información. De Filippi y McCarthy analizan los riesgos <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
privacidad y confi<strong>de</strong>ncialidad que p<strong>la</strong>ntea el cloud computing. Por último, Chicharro Toledo<br />
examina <strong>la</strong> responsablidad penal en el marco <strong>de</strong>l espacio <strong>de</strong> libertad, seguridad y justicia <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> Unión Europea.<br />
En el bloque <strong>de</strong> comunicaciones sobre <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido, protección <strong>de</strong> datos y privacidad,<br />
orza Linares y Ruiz Tarrías, así como Simon Castel<strong>la</strong>no centran sus aportaciones en el<br />
concepto mismo <strong>de</strong> “<strong>de</strong>recho al olvido” en re<strong>la</strong>ción con <strong>otros</strong> <strong>de</strong>rechos. Por su parte, Burnik<br />
y Torres Díaz se centran en los problemas <strong>de</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos <strong>de</strong>rivados <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> publicidad<br />
basada en comportamiento. Wang, Fisher y Ferraz y Morte analizan diversos aspectos re<strong>la</strong>cionados<br />
con <strong>la</strong>s posibles infracciones <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho protección <strong>de</strong> datos <strong>de</strong> carácter personal<br />
en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>, en especial con ocasión <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> recogida y <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> transferencia internacional <strong>de</strong> datos.<br />
19
20 Prólogo<br />
López-Barajas Perea se centra en <strong>la</strong>s cuestiones <strong>de</strong> privacidad re<strong>la</strong>cionadas con <strong>la</strong> intervención<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones en el marco <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> investigación penal.<br />
El último grupo <strong>de</strong> comunicaciones se refiere al ámbito <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> participación política y<br />
ciudadana a través <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>, así como al <strong>de</strong>sarrollo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> administración o gobierno electrónico.<br />
Los trabajos <strong>de</strong> Balázs, Guagnin e Ilten abordan diversos aspectos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s en sí<br />
mismas o en sus componentes básicos, <strong>de</strong>stacando <strong>la</strong> naturaleza extraterritorial <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>, que<br />
trascien<strong>de</strong> fronteras y ámbitos legales. otro grupo <strong>de</strong> comunicaciones analizan el funcionamiento<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> el punto <strong>de</strong> vista <strong>de</strong> los gobiernos o <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> re<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s administraciones<br />
públicas con sus administrados. Los textos <strong>de</strong> Cotino Hueso y Foteinou nos hab<strong>la</strong>n<br />
<strong>de</strong> administración electrónica o gobierno electrónico, así como <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s nuevas ciudadanías en<br />
<strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información. Por último, y <strong>de</strong> can<strong>de</strong>nte actualidad, se presenta también el<br />
uso y funcionamiento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunida<strong>de</strong>s virtuales <strong>para</strong> el activismo ciudadano, <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> mano<br />
<strong>de</strong> Morell, Salcedo y Val<strong>de</strong>z Zepeda.<br />
2<br />
El VII Congreso Internet, Derecho y Política es el resultado <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> estrecha inter<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>ncia<br />
entre diferentes nodos <strong>de</strong> una compleja <strong>red</strong> conformada por numerosos participantes<br />
que aportan su conocimiento, experiencia y pericia tanto en los aspectos puramente académicos<br />
como en los logísticos.<br />
Ponentes y comunicantes han aportado su conocimiento, ava<strong>la</strong>do por los revisores <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong>s diferentes comunicaciones presentadas y aceptadas.<br />
Los comités <strong>de</strong> dirección, académico y científico han perseguido fomentar <strong>la</strong> calidad<br />
académica <strong>de</strong>l Congreso e impulsar su internacionalización garantizando asimismo <strong>la</strong> actualidad<br />
y el interés académico y social <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s diferentes sesiones organizadas y <strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>bates<br />
en el<strong>la</strong>s mantenidos.<br />
El equipo <strong>de</strong> gestión <strong>de</strong> los Estudios <strong>de</strong> Derecho y Ciencia Política <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Universitat<br />
oberta <strong>de</strong> Catalunya, con el apoyo <strong>de</strong> diferentes técnicos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> propia universidad y <strong>de</strong>l<br />
singu<strong>la</strong>r edificio MediaTIC don<strong>de</strong> transcurrió el Congreso, han facilitado <strong>la</strong> consecución <strong>de</strong><br />
los objetivos previstos.<br />
Finalmente, <strong>la</strong> editorial El Derecho ha patrocinado el VII Congreso Internet, Derecho<br />
y Política y el Ilustre Colegio <strong>de</strong> Abogados <strong>de</strong> Barcelona ha co<strong>la</strong>borado en su organización.<br />
A todos ellos, nuestro agra<strong>de</strong>cimiento por su <strong>la</strong>bor e implicación y nuestra confianza<br />
<strong>de</strong> que nos podamos reencontrar en una próxima edición <strong>de</strong>l Congreso Internet, Derecho<br />
y Política.
Prólogo<br />
organización <strong>de</strong>l Vii congreso idP<br />
La organización <strong>de</strong>l VII Congreso IDP está formada por los siguientes órganos con <strong>la</strong><br />
composición que se indica a continuación:<br />
comité <strong>de</strong> dirección<br />
• Agustí Cerrillo-i-Martínez, director <strong>de</strong> los Estudios <strong>de</strong> Derecho y Ciencia Política. Universitat<br />
oberta <strong>de</strong> Catalunya<br />
• Miquel Peguera Poch, profesor agregado <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Universitat oberta <strong>de</strong> Catalunya<br />
• Ismael Peña-López, profesor <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Universitat oberta <strong>de</strong> Catalunya<br />
• Mònica Vi<strong>la</strong>sau So<strong>la</strong>na, profesora <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Universitat oberta <strong>de</strong> Catalunya<br />
comité académico<br />
• Joan Balcells Padullés, profesor <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Universitat oberta <strong>de</strong> Catalunya<br />
• Mikel Bar<strong>red</strong>a Díez, profesor agregado <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Universitat oberta <strong>de</strong> Catalunya<br />
• Albert Batlle Rubio, profesor agregado <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Universitat oberta <strong>de</strong> Catalunya<br />
• Ignasi Beltrán <strong>de</strong> He<strong>red</strong>ia Ruiz, profesor agregado <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Universitat oberta <strong>de</strong> Catalunya<br />
• Ana Sofía Car<strong>de</strong>nal Izquierdo, profesora agregada <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Universitat oberta <strong>de</strong> Catalunya<br />
• Biel Company Pérez, investigador <strong>de</strong>l IN3 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Universitat oberta <strong>de</strong> Catalunya<br />
• Ana María Delgado García, catedrática <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Universitat oberta <strong>de</strong> Catalunya<br />
• Patricia Escribano Tortajada, profesora <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Universitat oberta <strong>de</strong> Catalunya<br />
• Jordi Garcia Albero, profesor <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Universitat oberta <strong>de</strong> Catalunya<br />
• Elisabet Gratti Martinez, profesora <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Universitat oberta <strong>de</strong> Catalunya<br />
• Maria Julià Barceló, profesora <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Universitat oberta <strong>de</strong> Catalunya<br />
• C<strong>la</strong>ra Marsan Raventós, profesora <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Universitat oberta <strong>de</strong> Catalunya<br />
• David Martínez Zorril<strong>la</strong>, profesor agregado <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Universitat oberta <strong>de</strong> Catalunya<br />
• Marcel Mateu Vi<strong>la</strong>seca, profesor <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Universitat oberta <strong>de</strong> Catalunya<br />
• Albert Padró-So<strong>la</strong>net Grau, profesor <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Universitat oberta <strong>de</strong> Catalunya<br />
• Irene Rovira Ferrer, profesora <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Universitat oberta <strong>de</strong> Catalunya<br />
• Víctor M. Sánchez Sánchez, profesor agregado <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Universitat oberta <strong>de</strong> Catalunya<br />
• B<strong>la</strong>nca Torrubia Chalmeta, profesora <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Universitat oberta <strong>de</strong> Catalunya<br />
• Manuel José Vial Dumas, profesor <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Universitat oberta <strong>de</strong> Catalunya<br />
• Aura Esther Vi<strong>la</strong>lta Nicuesa, profesora agregada <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Universitat oberta <strong>de</strong> Catalunya<br />
• Marc Vi<strong>la</strong>lta Reixach, profesor <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Universitat oberta <strong>de</strong> Catalunya<br />
21
22 Prólogo<br />
comité científico<br />
• Ama<strong>de</strong>u Abril i Abril, profesor asociado <strong>de</strong>l Departamento <strong>de</strong> Derecho Público <strong>de</strong><br />
ESADE, exmiembro <strong>de</strong>l Consejo <strong>de</strong> Administración <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> ICANN (Internet Corporation<br />
for Assigned Names and Numbers)<br />
• Ramon Casas Vallès, profesor titu<strong>la</strong>r <strong>de</strong> Derecho civil <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Universitat <strong>de</strong> Barcelona y<br />
profesor <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Escue<strong>la</strong> Judicial <strong>de</strong>l Consejo General <strong>de</strong>l Po<strong>de</strong>r Judicial.<br />
• Santiago Cavanil<strong>la</strong>s Múgica, catedrático <strong>de</strong> Derecho Civil y Decano <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Facultad <strong>de</strong><br />
Derecho <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Universitat <strong>de</strong> les Illes Balears.<br />
• Lorenzo Cotino, profesor titu<strong>la</strong>r <strong>de</strong> Derecho Constitucional <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Universitat <strong>de</strong> València,<br />
responsable <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> DerechoTICS.<br />
• Lilian Edwards, catedrática <strong>de</strong> e-Governance <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Strathcly<strong>de</strong> University.<br />
• James Grimmelmann, profesor <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> New York Law School (NYLS) e investigador <strong>de</strong>l<br />
Institute for Information Law and Policy.<br />
• Ronald Leenes, profesor <strong>de</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción y tecnología en el Instituto <strong>para</strong> el Derecho, <strong>la</strong><br />
Tecnología y <strong>la</strong> Sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Universidad <strong>de</strong> Tilburg (TILT).<br />
• Daithí Mac Sithigh, profesor <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Facultad <strong>de</strong> Derecho <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> University of East Anglia.<br />
• Helen Margetts, directora <strong>de</strong> Investigación y profesora <strong>de</strong> Sociedad e Internet, oxford<br />
Internet Institute, Universidad <strong>de</strong> oxford.<br />
• Apol·lònia Martínez, catedrática <strong>de</strong> Derecho mercantil <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Universitat <strong>de</strong> les Illes<br />
Balears.<br />
• Esther Mitjans, directora <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Autoritat Cata<strong>la</strong>na <strong>de</strong> Protecció <strong>de</strong> Da<strong>de</strong>s y profesora<br />
titu<strong>la</strong>r <strong>de</strong> Derecho Constitucional <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Universitat <strong>de</strong> Barcelona.<br />
• Evgeny Morozov. Visiting Scho<strong>la</strong>r en <strong>la</strong> Universidad <strong>de</strong> Stanford y Schwartz Fellow <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> New America Foundation<br />
• Guillermo ormazábal, catedrático <strong>de</strong> Derecho procesal <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Universitat <strong>de</strong> Girona.<br />
• Josep Maria Reniu, profesor titu<strong>la</strong>r <strong>de</strong> Ciencia Política <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Universitat <strong>de</strong> Barcelona.<br />
• A<strong>la</strong>in Strowel, profesor <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s Facultés Universitaires Saint-Louis (Bruse<strong>la</strong>s) y Université<br />
<strong>de</strong> Liège.<br />
• Antoni Roig, profesor titu<strong>la</strong>r <strong>de</strong> Derecho Constitucional <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Universitat Autònoma<br />
<strong>de</strong> Barcelona y miembro <strong>de</strong>l Instituto <strong>de</strong> Derecho y Tecnología (IDT) <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> misma<br />
universidad.<br />
• Julián Valero, profesor titu<strong>la</strong>r <strong>de</strong> Derecho administrativo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Universidad <strong>de</strong> Murcia.
Prólogo<br />
El VII Congreso Internet, Derecho y Política se <strong>de</strong>sarrolló con arreglo al siguiente<br />
Programa<br />
lunes 11 <strong>de</strong> julio <strong>de</strong> 2011<br />
• 9.00 Recepción y ac<strong>red</strong>itaciones<br />
• 9.30 Conferencia inaugural: Network Neutrality: History, Regu<strong>la</strong>tion and Future.<br />
Christopher T. Mars<strong>de</strong>n Communications Law Prof, University of Essex, UK.<br />
Autor <strong>de</strong>l libro “Net Neutrality: Towards a Co-Regu<strong>la</strong>tory Solution” (2010).<br />
• 10.30 Mesa <strong>red</strong>onda: El <strong>de</strong>bate sobre <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>: <strong>la</strong>s opciones <strong>de</strong> política<br />
legis<strong>la</strong>tiva.<br />
Mo<strong>de</strong>rador: Ama<strong>de</strong>u Abril. Profesor <strong>de</strong> ESADE, <strong>de</strong>partamento <strong>de</strong> Derecho<br />
Público. Ex-miembro <strong>de</strong>l Consejo <strong>de</strong> Administración <strong>de</strong> ICANN.<br />
Ponentes:<br />
• Antoni Elias. Catedrático <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> ETS <strong>de</strong> Ingeniería <strong>de</strong> Telecomunicación <strong>de</strong><br />
Barcelona, Universitat Politècnica <strong>de</strong> Catalunya.<br />
• Joan Barata. Profesor <strong>de</strong> Derecho <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comunicación y Vice<strong>de</strong>cano <strong>de</strong> Re<strong>la</strong>ciones<br />
Internacionales y Calidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Facultad <strong>de</strong> Comunicación B<strong>la</strong>nquerna,<br />
Universitat Ramon Llull.<br />
• Ángel León. Dirección General <strong>de</strong> Telecomunicaciones y Sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Información.<br />
Ministerio <strong>de</strong> Industria, Turismo y Comercio.<br />
• 12:00 Pausa-café.<br />
• 12:30 Mesa <strong>red</strong>onda: El <strong>de</strong>bate sobre <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>: <strong>la</strong> perspectiva <strong>de</strong> los<br />
operadores <strong>de</strong> re<strong>de</strong>s, proveedores <strong>de</strong> contenidos y usuarios.<br />
Mo<strong>de</strong>rador: Miquel Peguera. Profesor Agregado <strong>de</strong> Derecho mercantil <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
Universitat oberta <strong>de</strong> Catalunya<br />
Ponentes:<br />
• Maite Arcos. Directora General <strong>de</strong> RedTel<br />
• Andreu Teixidor. Director <strong>de</strong> estrategia editorial <strong>de</strong> BUBoK<br />
• ofelia Tejerina. Abogada, Asociación <strong>de</strong> Internautas.<br />
• 14:00 Comida<br />
• 15:30 Sesión sobre neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong><br />
Mo<strong>de</strong>rador: Rodolfo Tesone Mendizabal, Presi<strong>de</strong>nte <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> SDTIC (Sección <strong>de</strong><br />
Derecho <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s Tecnologías <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Información y <strong>la</strong> Comunicación <strong>de</strong>l Ilustre<br />
Colegio <strong>de</strong> Abogados <strong>de</strong> Barcelona).<br />
Comunicaciones:<br />
• Cristina Cullell March: La <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Red y <strong>la</strong>s Liberta<strong>de</strong>s en <strong>la</strong> reforma<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión Europea: ¿están presentes en toda<br />
Europa?<br />
23
24 Prólogo<br />
• José Manuel Pérez Marzabal: Internet abierta, <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Red y <strong>de</strong>fensa<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia<br />
• C<strong>la</strong>ra Marsan Raventós: The Net as a public space: Is Net-neutrality necessary<br />
to preserve on-line freedom of expression?<br />
• Helena Nadal Sánchez : Sin neutralidad en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>, ¿dón<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> lógica universal<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> innovación?<br />
• David Arjones Girál<strong>de</strong>z: La neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> perspectiva <strong>de</strong> su<br />
arquitectura por capas: ¿De transportistas públicos a gestores <strong>de</strong> contenidos?<br />
• Debate<br />
• 16:45 Sesión sobre propiedad intelectual en Internet<br />
Mo<strong>de</strong>radora: B<strong>la</strong>nca Torrubia Chalmeta. Profesora <strong>de</strong> Derecho mercantil <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
Universitat oberta <strong>de</strong> Catalunya<br />
Comunicaciones:<br />
• Monica Horten: Copyright at a Policy Cross-Roads – online Enforcement,<br />
the Telecoms Package and the Digital Economy Act<br />
• Evi Werkers: Intermediaries in the eye of the copyright storm: A com<strong>para</strong>tive<br />
analysis of the three strike approach within the European Union<br />
• Qian Tao: “Neutrality” Test on web 2.0 P<strong>la</strong>tform for its intermediary liability<br />
in China and in Europe<br />
• Benjamin Farrand : ‘Piracy. It’s a Crime.’ – The criminalisation process of<br />
digital copyright infringement<br />
• Debate<br />
• 17:45 Pausa-café<br />
• 18:15 Sesión sobre <strong>de</strong>rechos fundamentales, liberta<strong>de</strong>s y responsabilidad en Internet<br />
Mo<strong>de</strong>radora: C<strong>la</strong>ra Marsan Raventós. Profesora <strong>de</strong> Derecho Público <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Universitat<br />
oberta <strong>de</strong> Catalunya.<br />
Comunicaciones:<br />
• Patricia Escribano Tortajada: Derecho al honor vs Derecho a <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong><br />
expresión en <strong>la</strong> Red<br />
• Primavera De Filippi, Smári McCarthy: Cloud Computing: Legal Issues in<br />
Centralized Architectures<br />
• Anne W. Salisbury: Anonymity, Trash Talk and Cyber-Smearing on the Internet<br />
• Mª Dolores Pa<strong>la</strong>cios González: La tensión entre impunidad en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y limitación<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión<br />
• Alicia Chicharro : El espacio <strong>de</strong> libertad, seguridad y justicia y <strong>la</strong> cibercriminalidad<br />
en <strong>la</strong> Unión Europea<br />
• Debate<br />
• 19:30 Fin <strong>de</strong>l primer día
Prólogo<br />
martes 12 <strong>de</strong> julio <strong>de</strong> 2011<br />
• 9.30 Conferencia inaugural: Privacidad en Internet y <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido<br />
Cécile <strong>de</strong> Terwangne. Profesora, Centre <strong>de</strong> recherche informatique et droit<br />
(CRID)<br />
• 10.30 Mesa <strong>red</strong>onda: privacidad en Internet y <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido<br />
Mo<strong>de</strong>radora: Esther Mitjans. Directora <strong>de</strong> l’Agència Cata<strong>la</strong>na <strong>de</strong> Protecció <strong>de</strong><br />
Da<strong>de</strong>s. Profesora <strong>de</strong> Derecho Constitucional, Universitat <strong>de</strong> Barcelona.<br />
Ponentes:<br />
• Norberto Nuno Gomes <strong>de</strong> Andra<strong>de</strong>. Scientific officer at the European Commission,<br />
working at the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS,<br />
Spain)<br />
• Ricard Martínez Martínez. Profesor <strong>de</strong> Derecho Constitucional. Universitat<br />
<strong>de</strong> València.<br />
• Mi<strong>la</strong>gros Pérez oliva. Defensora <strong>de</strong>l lector <strong>de</strong> El País.<br />
• 12:00 Pausa-café<br />
• 12:30 Sesión sobre <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido, protección <strong>de</strong> datos y privacidad<br />
Mo<strong>de</strong>radora: Mònica Vi<strong>la</strong>sau So<strong>la</strong>na. Profesora <strong>de</strong> Derecho civil <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Universitat<br />
oberta <strong>de</strong> Catalunya.<br />
Comunicaciones:<br />
• Ramón M. orza Linares; Susana Ruiz Tarrías: El <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido en Internet<br />
• Pere Simon Castel<strong>la</strong>no: El régimen constitucional <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido en<br />
Internet<br />
• Jelena Burnik: Behavioural advertising in electronic communications. A benefit<br />
to electronic communication <strong>de</strong>velopment and an intrusion of individual’s<br />
right to privacy and data protection<br />
• María Concepción Torres Diaz: Privacidad y tracking cookies. Una aproximación<br />
constitucional<br />
• Philipp E. Fischer; Rafael Ferraz Vazquez: Data transfer from Germany or<br />
Spain to third countries – Questions of civil liability for privacy rights infringement<br />
• Faye Fangfei Wang: Legal Feasibility for Statistical Methods on Internet as a<br />
Source of Data Gathering in the EU<br />
• Ricardo Morte Ferrer: La base ADAMS <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Agencia Mundial Antidopaje.<br />
Problemas <strong>de</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos<br />
• Inmacu<strong>la</strong>da López-Barajas Perea: La privacidad en internet y <strong>la</strong> investigación<br />
penal: uno <strong>de</strong> los <strong>retos</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> justicia en una sociedad globalizada<br />
• Debate<br />
• 14:30 Comida<br />
25
26 Prólogo<br />
• 16:00 Sesión sobre gobierno y <strong>de</strong>mocracia electrónica<br />
Mo<strong>de</strong>rador: Ismael Peña-López. Profesor <strong>de</strong> Políticas Públicas <strong>para</strong> el Desarrollo.<br />
Universitat oberta <strong>de</strong> Catalunya<br />
Comunicaciones:<br />
• Lorenzo Cotino Hueso: La Iniciativa Ciudadana Europea electrónica<br />
• Daniel Guagnin; Car<strong>la</strong> Ilten: Self-Governed Socio-technical Infrastructures.<br />
Autonomy and Cooperation through Free Software and Community Wireless<br />
Networks<br />
• Mayo Fuster Morell: An introductory historical contextualization of online<br />
creation communities for the building of digital commons: The emergence of<br />
a free culture movement<br />
• Georgia Foteinou: Institutional Trust and e-Government Adoption in the EU:<br />
a Cross-National Analysis<br />
• Bodó Balázs: You have no sovereignty where we gather — Wikileaks and Freedom,<br />
Autonomy and Sovereignty in the cloud<br />
• Andrés Val<strong>de</strong>z Zepeda: Las Ciber-campañas en América Latina: Potencialida<strong>de</strong>s<br />
y Limitantes<br />
• Jorge Luis Salcedo: Conflicts about the regu<strong>la</strong>tion of intellectual property in<br />
Internet: comparing the issue networks in UK and Spain<br />
• Debate<br />
• 18:00 Pausa-café<br />
• 18:30 Conclusiones. Re<strong>la</strong>tor: Javier <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Cueva, abogado.<br />
• 19:00 Fin <strong>de</strong>l congreso
CONFERENCIA INAUGURAL
NetwOrk NeUtrAlIty: HIstOry, regUlAtION AND fUtUre<br />
1<br />
Dr. Christopher T. Mars<strong>de</strong>n<br />
University of Essex School of Law<br />
1. History: trust-to-trust and control of communications<br />
Network neutrality is the <strong>la</strong>test phase of an eternal argument over control of communications<br />
media. The Internet was held out by early legal and technical analysts to be<br />
special, due to its <strong>de</strong>cent<strong>red</strong> construction, se<strong>para</strong>ting it from earlier ‘technologies of freedom’<br />
(<strong>de</strong> So<strong>la</strong> Pool 1983) including radio and the telegraph. Spar (2001) argues that control is a<br />
historical evolutionary step in communications media <strong>de</strong>velopment, while Wu (2010) following<br />
Lessig (1999a) argues that closure need not be an inevitable outcome.<br />
The Internet had never been subject to regu<strong>la</strong>tion beyond that nee<strong>de</strong>d for interoperability<br />
and competition, building on the Computer I and II inquiries by the Fe<strong>de</strong>ral Communications<br />
Commission (FCC) in the United States (Werbach 2005), and the <strong>de</strong>sign principle<br />
of End-to-End (E2E) that was first <strong>de</strong>scribed by Saltzer, Reed and C<strong>la</strong>rk (1984). That<br />
principle itself was bypassed by the need for greater trust and reliability in the emerging<br />
broadband network by the <strong>la</strong>te 1990s, particu<strong>la</strong>rly as spam email led to viruses, botnets and<br />
other risks. As a result, E2E has gradually given way to trust-to-trust mechanisms, in which<br />
it is receipt of the message by one party’s trusted agent which rep<strong>la</strong>ces the receipt by final<br />
receiver (C<strong>la</strong>rk/Blumenthal 2011). This agent is almost always the Internet Service Provi<strong>de</strong>r<br />
(ISP), and it is regu<strong>la</strong>tion of this party which is at stake in net neutrality. ISPs are not only<br />
removing spam and other hazardous materials before they reach the (<strong>la</strong>rgely technically<br />
uneducated) subscriber, ISPs also can remove other potentially illegal materials on behalf of<br />
governments and copyright hol<strong>de</strong>rs, to name the two most active censors on the Internet,<br />
as well as prioritising packets for their own benefit. As a result, the E2E principle would be<br />
threatened were it not already moribund.<br />
The legal policy and regu<strong>la</strong>tory implications of rapidly standardising innovation on<br />
the communications ecology was well un<strong>de</strong>rstood by Benkler, who was concerned with<br />
the need to maintain interoperability and openness to ensure a ‘commons’ in which unaffiliated<br />
and non-commercial innovation could flourish (Benkler, 1998a, 1998b). The<br />
Internet’s core values of openness and <strong>de</strong>mocracy have been established by acci<strong>de</strong>nt as well<br />
as <strong>de</strong>sign. Noam (2008) states: ‘There is nothing especially new about [media <strong>la</strong>w’s] recent<br />
round- net-neutrality – as a conceptual issue, or in terms of its policy options, except for<br />
the terminology’. Benkler (2006) has argued that though network effects may tend to<br />
closure of the network, regu<strong>la</strong>tory scrutiny may not be the only outcome that will result<br />
in greater openness.
30 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
It is not novel to c<strong>la</strong>im that protocols regu<strong>la</strong>te user behaviour on the Internet (‘Co<strong>de</strong> is<br />
<strong>la</strong>w’ as Lessig [ 1999a] put it), but legal commitment to freedom of speech means that <strong>la</strong>w<br />
can regu<strong>la</strong>te the Internet, by enforcing conditions to enable free speech. As Wu (2003a) exp<strong>la</strong>ins,<br />
<strong>la</strong>ws can regu<strong>la</strong>te the Internet as surely as vice versa, and with more constitutional authority<br />
if less technical virtuosity (Mayer-Schonberger, 2008; Rei<strong>de</strong>nberg, 2005). By 1998,<br />
the innovation-control argument hinged on Microsoft’s leveraging of its operating system<br />
monopoly into browser and vi<strong>de</strong>o software, and by 2000 this had led to scrutiny of AoL-<br />
Time Warner, notably the potential for foreclosure of Instant Messaging and vi<strong>de</strong>o (Faulhaber<br />
2002), and of cable-telephony horizontal merger such as that between AT&T and<br />
Mediaone (Lemley and Lessig 1999). This moved on to control over WiFi, an unlicensed<br />
spectrum technology capable of providing Local Area Network connectivity and opening<br />
the control over end-users exerted by fixed and wireless ISPs (Croxford and Mars<strong>de</strong>n 2001).<br />
Net neutrality as a <strong>de</strong>scription was first applied to the <strong>de</strong>bate about Internet traffic management<br />
practices (ITMP), or Quality of Service on the Internet in 2003 (Lessig and Wu,<br />
2003; Wu, 2003b), though the <strong>de</strong>bate began when aca<strong>de</strong>mics fea<strong>red</strong> that cable TV’s closed<br />
business mo<strong>de</strong>l would overtake the open Internet in 1999 (Lemley and Lessig, 1999; Lessig<br />
1999a, 1999b).<br />
Initial treatment of network neutrality discussed ensuring four ‘Net Freedoms’ (FCC<br />
2005) for end-users: freedom to attach <strong>de</strong>vices, run applications, receive the content packets<br />
of their choice and to receive ‘Service P<strong>la</strong>n Information...meaningful information’ (on<br />
which see the section on transparency). Even in 2011, scho<strong>la</strong>rs are suggesting freedom to innovate<br />
can be squa<strong>red</strong> with <strong>de</strong>sign prohibitions (van Schewick 2010), <strong>de</strong>spite over a <strong>de</strong>ca<strong>de</strong><br />
of multi-billion dol<strong>la</strong>r protocol <strong>de</strong>velopment by the ISP community resulting in the ability<br />
to control traffic coming onto their networks (Wac<strong>la</strong>wsky 2005), and wholescale rationing<br />
of end-user traffic (see Section 5.1). Berners Lee (2006) exp<strong>la</strong>ined: “There have been suggestions<br />
that we don’t need legis<strong>la</strong>tion because we haven’t had it. These are nonsense, because in<br />
fact we have had net neutrality in the past - it is only recently that real explicit threats have<br />
occur<strong>red</strong>.” Berners Lee was particu<strong>la</strong>rly adamant that he does not wish to see the prohibition<br />
of QoS because that is precisely the c<strong>la</strong>im ma<strong>de</strong> by some US net neutrality advocates – and<br />
opposed by the network engineering community.<br />
1.1. History: <strong>de</strong>finition and <strong>de</strong>velopment<br />
Net neutrality may be seen to comprise two se<strong>para</strong>te non-discrimination commitments<br />
(Mars<strong>de</strong>n 2010a), one of universal service and another of common carriage. Backward-looking<br />
‘net neutrality lite’ c<strong>la</strong>ims that Internet users should not be disadvantaged due to opaque<br />
and invidious practices by their current Internet Service Provi<strong>de</strong>r –the company providing<br />
the Internet connection into their home. The argument is that a minimum level of service<br />
should be provi<strong>de</strong>d which offers open Internet access without blocking or <strong>de</strong>grading of<br />
specific applications or protocols– what has been <strong>de</strong>scribed as an updated form of universal<br />
service (Mueller 1998), generally proposed at 2Mbps. That provi<strong>de</strong>s a basic level of service<br />
which all subscribers should eventually receive.
Network Neutrality: History, regu<strong>la</strong>tion and future<br />
Forward-looking ‘positive net neutrality’ <strong>de</strong>scribes a practice whereby higher Quality of<br />
Service (QoS) for higher prices should be offe<strong>red</strong> on fair reasonable and non-discriminatory<br />
(FRAND) terms to all-comers, a mo<strong>de</strong>rn equivalent of common carriage (Noam, 1994). It<br />
is a more <strong>de</strong>batable principle, with many content provi<strong>de</strong>rs and carriers preferring exclusive<br />
arrangements. The type of service which may be entitled to FRAND treatment could result<br />
in short-term exclusivity in itself, as for instance wireless/mobile cell towers may only be<br />
able to carry a single high-<strong>de</strong>finition vi<strong>de</strong>o stream at any one point in time and therefore a<br />
monopoly may result. As common carriage dictates terms but not the specific market conditions,<br />
transparency and non-discrimination would not automatically result in a plurality of<br />
services. I argue against social or economic justifications for either barring any proprietary<br />
high-speed traffic at all, or for strict versions of net neutrality that would not allow any<br />
traffic prioritisation. There is too much at stake either to expect government to supp<strong>la</strong>nt<br />
the market in providing higher speed connections, or for the market to continue to <strong>de</strong>liver<br />
openness without the most basic of policy and regu<strong>la</strong>tory backstops to ensure some growth<br />
(Meisel, 2010: 20).<br />
The net neutrality problem is complex and far-reaching: attempts to dismiss it as a<br />
problem that can be overcome by local loop (<strong>la</strong>st mile) telecoms competition (Cave et al.<br />
2009; Renda 2008) do not fully acknowledge persistent problems with market failure. The<br />
physical <strong>de</strong>livery of Internet to consumers is subject to a wi<strong>de</strong> range of bottlenecks, not<br />
simply in the ‘<strong>la</strong>st mile’ to the end-user. There is little ‘middle mile’ (backhaul) competition<br />
in fixed ISP markets, even in Europe where the commitment to regu<strong>la</strong>tion for competition<br />
remains, as wholesale backhaul is provi<strong>de</strong>d by the incumbent privatised national telecoms<br />
provi<strong>de</strong>r (in the UK, British Telecom). Even if p<strong>la</strong>tforms did compete in, for instance, heavily<br />
cabled countries, there would remain ‘n-si<strong>de</strong>d’ market problems in that there is no necessary<br />
direct (even non-contractual) re<strong>la</strong>tionship between innovative application provi<strong>de</strong>rs<br />
and ISPs (Economi<strong>de</strong>s and Tåg, 2007), so that p<strong>la</strong>tforms may set rules to ‘tax’ data packets<br />
that ultimately impoverish the open innovation value chain, so ultimately causing consumer<br />
harm. Thus the archetypal garage start-ups such as Facebook (foun<strong>de</strong>d 2003) and YouTube<br />
(foun<strong>de</strong>d 2005) would have had less opportunity to spread ‘virally’ across the Internet, as<br />
their services would be subject to these extra costs. Many commercial content provi<strong>de</strong>rs,<br />
such as Google, use content <strong>de</strong>livery networks and other caching mechanisms to accelerate<br />
the speed of <strong>de</strong>livery to users, in essence <strong>red</strong>ucing the number of those ‘hops’. Content is<br />
therefore already <strong>de</strong>live<strong>red</strong> at different speeds <strong>de</strong>pending on the paid priority the content<br />
provi<strong>de</strong>r assigns to it, but not the ISPs’ policies.<br />
1.2. History: how traffic management has changed common carriage<br />
Network congestion and <strong>la</strong>ck of bandwidth at peak times is a feature of the Internet.<br />
It has always existed. That is why vi<strong>de</strong>o over the Internet was until the <strong>la</strong>te 1990s simply<br />
unfeasible. It is why Voice over the Internet has patchy quality, and why engineers have been<br />
trying to create higher QoS. ‘End to end’ is a two-edged sword, with advantages of openness<br />
and a dumb network, and disadvantages of congestion, jitter and ultimately a slowing<br />
rate of progress for high-end applications such as High Definition vi<strong>de</strong>o. E2E may have its<br />
31
32 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
disadvantages for those introducing zoning as compa<strong>red</strong> with QoS, and in this it has obvious<br />
<strong>para</strong>llels with ‘common carriage’. Common carriers who c<strong>la</strong>im on the one hand the<br />
benefits of rights of way and other privileges, yet on the other c<strong>la</strong>im traffic management for<br />
profit rather than network integrity, are trying to both have their cake and eat it (Frie<strong>de</strong>n<br />
2010b). It is worth stating what common carriage is not. It is not a f<strong>la</strong>t rate for all packets.<br />
It is also not necessarily a f<strong>la</strong>t rate for all packets of a certain size. It is, however, a mediaeval<br />
non-discrimination bargain between Sovereign and transport network or facility, in which<br />
an exchange is ma<strong>de</strong>: for the privileges of c<strong>la</strong>ssification as a common carrier, those private<br />
actors will be granted the rights and benefits that an ordinary private carrier would not. As<br />
Cherry (2006, 2008) has written, common carriers are not a solution to a competition problem,<br />
they far p<strong>red</strong>ate competition <strong>la</strong>w. They prevent discrimination between the same traffic<br />
type – if I offer you transport of your High Definition vi<strong>de</strong>o stream of a certain protocol,<br />
then the next customer could <strong>de</strong>mand the same subject to capacity, were the Internet to be<br />
subject to common carriage.<br />
New technology lets any of the ISP routers (if so equipped) look insi<strong>de</strong> a data packet<br />
to ‘see’ its content, via what is known as Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) and other techniques.<br />
Previous routers were not powerful enough to conduct more than a shallow inspection that<br />
simply established the hea<strong>de</strong>r information –the equivalent of the postal address for the packet.<br />
An ISP can use DPI to <strong>de</strong>termine whether a data packet values high-speed transport– as<br />
a television stream does in requiring a <strong>de</strong>dicated broadcast channel –and offer higher-speed<br />
<strong>de</strong>dicated capacity to that content, typically real-time <strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nt content such as television,<br />
movies or telephone calls using VoIP. Most voice calls and vi<strong>de</strong>o today use a <strong>de</strong>dicated line,<br />
your copper telephone line or cable line: tomorrow they may use <strong>de</strong>dicated high-speed <strong>la</strong>nes<br />
on your Internet connection. That could make a good business for ISPs that wish to offer<br />
higher capability via DPI (not all ISPs will do so, and it is quite possible to manage traffic<br />
less obtrusively by using the DiffServ protocol to prioritise traffic streams within the same<br />
Internet channel). Wac<strong>la</strong>wsky (2005) stated, ‘This is the emerging, consensus view: [it] will<br />
let broadband industry vendors and operators put a control <strong>la</strong>yer and a cash register over the<br />
Internet and creatively charge for it’.<br />
DPI and other techniques that let ISPs prioritise content also allow them to slow down<br />
other content, as well as speed up content for those that pay (and for emergency communications<br />
and other ‘good’ packets). This potentially threatens the business of companies<br />
that compete with that content: Skype offers VoIP using normal Internet speeds; uTorrent<br />
and BBC’s iP<strong>la</strong>yer offer vi<strong>de</strong>o using peer-to-peer (P2P) protocols. Encryption is common in<br />
these applications and partially successful in overcoming these ISP controls, but even if all<br />
users and applications used strong encryption this would not succeed in overcoming <strong>de</strong>cisions<br />
by ISPs simply to route known premium traffic to a ‘faster <strong>la</strong>ne’, consigning all other<br />
traffic into a slower non-priority <strong>la</strong>ne (a policy exp<strong>la</strong>nation simplifying a complex engineering<br />
<strong>de</strong>cision). P2P is <strong>de</strong>signed to make the most efficient use of congested networks, and its<br />
proponents c<strong>la</strong>im that with sufficient <strong>de</strong>ployment, P2P could <strong>la</strong>rgely overcome congestion<br />
problems.
Network Neutrality: History, regu<strong>la</strong>tion and future<br />
Traffic management techniques affect not only high-speed, high-money content, but<br />
by extension all other content too. You can only build a high-speed <strong>la</strong>ne on a motorway by<br />
creating inequality, and often those ‘improvement works’ slow down everyone currently using<br />
the roads. The Internet may be different in that regu<strong>la</strong>tors and users may tolerate much<br />
more discrimination in the interests of innovation. To make this <strong>de</strong>cision on an informed<br />
basis, it is in the public interest to investigate transparently both net neutrality ‘lite’ (the slow<br />
<strong>la</strong>nes) and net neutrality ‘heavy’ (what rules allow higher speed content). For instance, in the<br />
absence of oversight, ISPs could use DPI to block some content altogether, if they <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong> it<br />
is not to the benefit of ISPs, copyright hol<strong>de</strong>rs, parents or the government. ISP blocking is<br />
currently wi<strong>de</strong>spread in controlling spam email, and in some countries in blocking sexually<br />
graphic illegal images.<br />
one of the main c<strong>la</strong>ims by ISPs wishing to traffic manage the Internet is that Internet<br />
traffic growth is unmanageable by traditional means of expansion of bandwidth and that<br />
therefore their practices are reasonable. In or<strong>de</strong>r to properly research this c<strong>la</strong>im, regu<strong>la</strong>tors<br />
need access to ISP traffic measurement data. There are several possible means of accessing<br />
data at Internet Exchange points, but much data is private either because it is between<br />
two peers who do not use an exchange, or because it is carried by a CDN. No government<br />
regu<strong>la</strong>tor has produced any reliable data and carriers’ and CDNs’ own data is subject to<br />
commercial confi<strong>de</strong>ntiality (for instance Google’s proprietary CDN). In June 2009, Epitiro<br />
benchmarking tests showed UK broadband running at 0.9 Mbps in evening peak time, a<br />
rate below that which would permit vi<strong>de</strong>o streaming of the BBC iP<strong>la</strong>yer. The <strong>de</strong><strong>la</strong>ys to the<br />
network also ma<strong>de</strong> it unreliable for vi<strong>de</strong>o gaming or VoIP (ThinkBroadband 2009): “users<br />
received on average 24% of the maximum ‘up to’ headline speeds advertised.... During peak<br />
hours (6 pm to midnight) speeds dipped by approximately 20% ...Ping times, an important<br />
metric for online game p<strong>la</strong>ying came in at around 150 ms which is too high for acceptable<br />
gaming performance.”<br />
2. regu<strong>la</strong>tion: tHe <strong>la</strong>w of net neutrality<br />
Although net neutrality was the subject of FCC regu<strong>la</strong>tory discussions and merger<br />
conditions from 2003 (Frie<strong>de</strong>n 2010b, 2011), its status was unsure in mid-2011 with no<br />
legis<strong>la</strong>tion passed by Congress, and FCC actions reserved to iso<strong>la</strong>ted examples of discrimination<br />
that were litigated (Comcast v. FCC, 2010). Presi<strong>de</strong>nt obama came into office committed<br />
to net neutrality regu<strong>la</strong>tion (Mars<strong>de</strong>n, 2010a: 1). A Notice of Proposed Rule Making<br />
(NPRM) by the FCC exten<strong>de</strong>d a consultation on net neutrality over 2009-10. This process<br />
was finishing just as the Court of Appeal in April 2010 (Comcast v. FCC, 2010) judged that<br />
the FCC’s regu<strong>la</strong>tory actions in this area were not justified by its reasoning un<strong>de</strong>r the Communications<br />
Act 1996 (Ammori 2010). The successful Comcast appeal meant that the FCC<br />
had three legal choices: rec<strong>la</strong>im Title II common carrier authority for ISPs un<strong>de</strong>r the 1996<br />
Telecommunications Act, ask Congress to re-legis<strong>la</strong>te to grant it Title I authority, or try to<br />
assert its own Title I authority subject to legal challenge (Mars<strong>de</strong>n 2010a). It adopted this<br />
<strong>la</strong>st course in its or<strong>de</strong>r of 23 December 2010 (FCC 2010), which is to be challenged before<br />
33
34 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
the courts (Frie<strong>de</strong>n 2011: 6-15). This stay of regu<strong>la</strong>tory action may leave the FCC in suspen<strong>de</strong>d<br />
animation for much of 2012, and researchers must look elsewhere for net neutrality<br />
regu<strong>la</strong>tion (Mars<strong>de</strong>n 2010b; Meisel, 2010, Donahue 2010).<br />
The European institutions in <strong>la</strong>te 2009 agreed to impose transparency and net neutrality<br />
‘lite’ conditions on ISPs, in directives that had to be implemented in national <strong>la</strong>w by May<br />
2011. BEREC (2010) note that legal provisions in the Directives permit greater ‘symmetric’<br />
regu<strong>la</strong>tion on all operators, not simply dominant actors, but ask for c<strong>la</strong>rification on these<br />
measures: “Access Directive, Art 5(1) now explicitly mentions that NRAs are able to impose<br />
obligations “on un<strong>de</strong>rtakings that control access to end-users to make their services interoperable”.<br />
The new wi<strong>de</strong>r scope for solving interoperability disputes may be used:<br />
“revised article 20 of the Framework Directive now provi<strong>de</strong>s for the resolution of<br />
disputes between un<strong>de</strong>rtakings providing electronic communications networks or<br />
services and also between such un<strong>de</strong>rtakings and others that benefit from obligations<br />
of access and/or interconnection (with the <strong>de</strong>finition of “access” also modified<br />
in Art 2 AD as previously stated). Dispute resolutions cannot be consi<strong>de</strong><strong>red</strong><br />
as straightforward tools for <strong>de</strong>veloping a regu<strong>la</strong>tory policy, but they do provi<strong>de</strong> the<br />
option to address some specific (maybe urgent) situations. The potential outcome<br />
of disputes based on the transparency obligations can provi<strong>de</strong> a “c<strong>red</strong>ible threat” for<br />
un<strong>de</strong>rtakings to behave in line with those obligations, since vio<strong>la</strong>tion may trigger the<br />
imposition of minimum quality requirements on an un<strong>de</strong>rtaking, in line with Art<br />
22(3) USD.”<br />
The European Commission is in 2011 consulting on the future of the Universal Service<br />
obligation (EC, 2010) which may be exten<strong>de</strong>d to 2Mbps broadband (impacting member<br />
state <strong>la</strong>w in 2012), which will mark a new ‘line in the sand’ in Europe for minimum service<br />
levels. That will also require commitments to offering that level of access to the open Internet,<br />
not a throttled, blocked, walled gar<strong>de</strong>n area.<br />
2.1. national regu<strong>la</strong>tory responses<br />
Net neutrality has been most effectively carried into legis<strong>la</strong>tion or regu<strong>la</strong>tion in Japan<br />
and the European Union, as well as Norway and Canada (where it is called ITMP: De Beer,<br />
2009). European Economic Area (not full EU) member, Norway, <strong>de</strong>alt with net neutrality<br />
in 2008-9. A comp<strong>la</strong>int first arose due to a dispute between an ISP, NextGenTel, and<br />
the Norwegian state broadcaster NRK in mid-2006 (Mars<strong>de</strong>n, 2010a, pp. 172–173). The<br />
regu<strong>la</strong>tor in Norway persua<strong>de</strong>d the ISPs and cable companies to sign a co-regu<strong>la</strong>tory pact on<br />
transparency and consumer rights in 2009. The Norwegian Co<strong>de</strong> (2009) states:<br />
• Internet users must be given complete and accurate information about the service they<br />
are buying, including capacity and quality.<br />
• Users may send and receive content of their choice, use services and applications of<br />
their choice and connect any hardware and software that does not harm the network.<br />
• The connection cannot be discriminated against based on application, service, content,<br />
sen<strong>de</strong>r or receiver.
Network Neutrality: History, regu<strong>la</strong>tion and future<br />
At national level, EU member states have been slow to recognise net neutrality problems,<br />
<strong>de</strong>spite strong anecdotal evi<strong>de</strong>nce arising (Dunstone, 2006). ofcom has confined itself<br />
to measuring ISP broadband performance, and making it easier for consumers to switch to<br />
rival provi<strong>de</strong>rs (Kiedrowski, 2007). The government itself has been inert, even erroneously<br />
reporting to the European Commission in its 15th Annual Implementation Report on telecoms<br />
liberalisation that no problems were occurring.<br />
The Nether<strong>la</strong>nds in June 2011 introduced a net neutrality provision into Parliament,<br />
following controversy over KPN Mobile’s intention to charge extra for VoIP and text messaging<br />
by alternative provi<strong>de</strong>rs. The vote was postponed twice, on 14 and 21 June, and is<br />
pending.<br />
Net neutrality is politically controversial in Canada, where a celebrated breach took<br />
p<strong>la</strong>ce in 2005 (De Beer, 2009). The regu<strong>la</strong>tor announced an evi<strong>de</strong>nce-based inquiry into net<br />
neutrality held in 2009. As a result, new principles of transparency and non-discrimination<br />
were <strong>de</strong>c<strong>la</strong><strong>red</strong>; these await cases and regu<strong>la</strong>tory <strong>de</strong>cisions in which to add <strong>de</strong>tail to the broad<br />
<strong>de</strong>c<strong>la</strong>rations.<br />
2.1.1. Bandwidth caps<br />
Usage based billing (UBB), to use the Canadian expression, is not new in Internet<br />
policy, being the <strong>de</strong>fault in most countries prior to the introduction of broadband mo<strong>de</strong>ms<br />
in the <strong>la</strong>te 1990s. only in countries with unmete<strong>red</strong> local calls, such as Canada and the<br />
United States, was Internet use ‘all you can eat’ (oftel 2000). UBB became a headline issue<br />
in 2010 in both the United States and Canada. Different practices have been i<strong>de</strong>ntified by<br />
Geist (2011). With the introduction of broadband cable in Canada, its regu<strong>la</strong>tor the Canadian<br />
Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) permitted UBB with<br />
monthly download caps on users. This was justified by the sha<strong>red</strong> resource used by cable<br />
mo<strong>de</strong>m subscribers in the local loop. The CRTC (2011) reiterated its permission for UBB,<br />
justified by reference to its responsibilities to ensure competition un<strong>de</strong>r Section 7 of the<br />
Telecommunications Act 1993. Comcast in the US created a 250GB cap (Burstein 2008),<br />
which was consi<strong>de</strong><strong>red</strong> more transparent than its previous usage of DPI and other techniques<br />
led by its subcontractor Sandvine to prevent Peer-to-Peer transfers.<br />
Most UBB re<strong>la</strong>tes to maximum download capacity, and is assessed in<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>ntly<br />
of the maximum download speeds which users can receive, the <strong>la</strong>tter being the ‘headline<br />
rates’ that are generally used in broadband advertising to consumers. oECD (2008)<br />
shows that of 215 broadband packages sampled, almost half would result in users exceeding<br />
their monthly caps within three hours at advertised maximum speeds. oECD (2010)<br />
shows that while two countries (Japan, South Korea) have rep<strong>la</strong>ced almost half of their<br />
copper lines with fibre, the vast majority are still copper-based. There is wi<strong>de</strong> variation in<br />
practices between countries, though comparisons are difficult to put into context (Bauer<br />
2010). Countries which were bottom of the oECD tables for bandwidth provision in<br />
2008, Australia and New Zea<strong>la</strong>nd have adopted the radical step of commissioning a national<br />
fibre local loop to rep<strong>la</strong>ce their incumbent telephony monopoly. Public interven-<br />
35
36 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
tion is by no means a taboo in broadband investment, and the European Commission<br />
has repeatedly approved all non-urban public investment in fibre <strong>de</strong>ployments proposed<br />
by Member States. Broadband is not an investment to be left wholly to the private sector,<br />
and investment incentives such as permitting UBB will not of themselves ensure national<br />
fibre to the premises.<br />
The <strong>de</strong>ployment of fibre to the local exchange is in itself no major current constraint<br />
on capacity: it is the backhaul cost from the telephone exchange to the Internet that is<br />
the constraint here (and in future, the cost of fibre from exchange closer to the customer).<br />
All broadband users share the backhaul capacity from the local exchange to the Internet,<br />
capacity which must be bought wholesale from the incumbent in most cases. Therefore,<br />
incumbents can control the capacity avai<strong>la</strong>ble to competitive ISPs. Burstein (2011) has<br />
stated his belief that current caps are <strong>de</strong>signed to prevent ‘over-the-top’ (oTT) vi<strong>de</strong>o to<br />
be <strong>de</strong>live<strong>red</strong> via broadband, competing with the triple-p<strong>la</strong>y offers of ISPs which want<br />
subscribers to pay for a telephone line, broadband service and cable or Internet <strong>de</strong>live<strong>red</strong><br />
vi<strong>de</strong>o programming (also Crawford 2011). oTT vi<strong>de</strong>o would compete with the <strong>la</strong>st of<br />
these services, and <strong>de</strong>grading or capping the broadband service can protect the incumbent’s<br />
vi<strong>de</strong>o service. Burstein estimates the backhaul costs to ISPs as un<strong>de</strong>r $1/month,<br />
whereas ofcom (2006) estimated the costs of backhaul for BBC’s iP<strong>la</strong>yer vi<strong>de</strong>o catch-up<br />
service to UK ISPs as in the or<strong>de</strong>r of £4-5/month. Prices have fallen rapidly with increases<br />
in transmission efficiency in that period (Moore’s Law alone will have <strong>de</strong>creased prices<br />
by 75% over five years). Much more research is nee<strong>de</strong>d into backhaul costs and other<br />
constraints on UBB.<br />
2.1.2. Transparency and ‘Reasonable Traffic Management’<br />
one of the several principles of network neutrality promulgated by both the FCC and<br />
European Commission is that only ‘reasonable network management’ be permitted, and<br />
that the end-user be informed of this reasonableness via clear information (Faulhaber 2010).<br />
Both the FCC in the US and the European Commission have relied on non-binding <strong>de</strong>c<strong>la</strong>rations<br />
to make clear their intention to regu<strong>la</strong>te the ‘reasonableness’ of traffic management<br />
practices. In Canada, the CRTC has relied on inquiries to the dissatisfaction of advocates,<br />
while in Norway and Japan non-binding self-regu<strong>la</strong>tory <strong>de</strong>c<strong>la</strong>rations have been thus far<br />
non-enforced.<br />
Transparency is a work in progress, and best regu<strong>la</strong>tory information practices have yet<br />
to emerge –without such practices, any commitment to net neutrality is specious. Faulhaber<br />
(2010) has suggested four basic principles based on examination of other industries’ information<br />
regu<strong>la</strong>tion: “disclose all information relevant to customer choice, 2) to which customers<br />
have easy access, 3) clearly and simply, and 4) in a way that is verifiable.” He argues<br />
that Comcast would not have been repriman<strong>de</strong>d by the FCC had its traffic management<br />
been more transparent. I suggest a fifth principle: information should be cross-compa<strong>red</strong><br />
by an acc<strong>red</strong>ited in<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nt third party that is not reliant on broadband industry funding,<br />
such as a consumer protection agency. This could be carried out at arm’s length via a self- or<br />
co-regu<strong>la</strong>tory agreement.
Network Neutrality: History, regu<strong>la</strong>tion and future<br />
From May 2011, both European regu<strong>la</strong>tors and the European Commission have begun<br />
to attempt to <strong>de</strong>fine ‘reasonable traffic management’ for the purposes of the European<br />
<strong>la</strong>w on Internet traffic. This is likely to produce more robust gui<strong>de</strong>lines for both ISPs and<br />
consumers (Sluijs 2010), with a BEREC work group due to report by the end of 2011. The<br />
European <strong>la</strong>w was in 2009 amen<strong>de</strong>d to inclu<strong>de</strong> the following:<br />
‘19. Transparency obligations on public communications network provi<strong>de</strong>rs providing<br />
electronic communications services avai<strong>la</strong>ble to the public to ensure end-to-end connectivity,<br />
...disclosure regarding any conditions limiting access to and/or use of services<br />
and applications where such conditions are allowed by Member States in conformity<br />
with Community <strong>la</strong>w, and, where necessary and proportionate, access by national regu<strong>la</strong>tory<br />
authorities to such information nee<strong>de</strong>d to verify the accuracy of such disclosure’<br />
1 .<br />
In the UK, ofcom has tried to encourage industry self-regu<strong>la</strong>tion via transparency<br />
Co<strong>de</strong>s of Conduct. It has also carried out measurement of ISP practices in col<strong>la</strong>boration<br />
with SamKnows, a consultancy that has also worked with the FCC. SamKnows is measuring<br />
the following seventeen metrics over 2010-12 2 . It has worked with ofcom since 2008, and<br />
the FCC since 2010 (with the <strong>la</strong>tter it is conducting 11 tests over a three year period). US<br />
FCC-SamKnows tests with project name TestMyISP are also supported by the Measurement<br />
Lab, notably the New America Foundation. The Canadian CRTC ma<strong>de</strong> rules in 2009, but<br />
there is little evi<strong>de</strong>nce of enforcement of CRTC principles of reasonableness, which are to<br />
be ma<strong>de</strong> on a case-by-case basis (Geist 2011).<br />
2.2. implementing regu<strong>la</strong>tion of net neutrality<br />
Net neutrality regu<strong>la</strong>tory solutions un<strong>de</strong>r the 2009 European Directives had to be<br />
implemented by May 2011. They can be c<strong>la</strong>ssified by the ‘<strong>de</strong>gree of self-regu<strong>la</strong>tion’ involved,<br />
from basic informal communication through to formal regu<strong>la</strong>tion. The general<br />
trend is towards an expansion of scope of co-regu<strong>la</strong>tion, often at the expense of statutory<br />
regu<strong>la</strong>tion. A wi<strong>de</strong> variety of mo<strong>de</strong>ls of co-regu<strong>la</strong>tory tools exist (EU, 2003), for those<br />
actions that require coordinated or joint implementation (Mars<strong>de</strong>n et al, 2008; Tambini,<br />
Leonardi, Mars<strong>de</strong>n, 2007). Without co-regu<strong>la</strong>tion responsive to constitutional protection<br />
of freedom of expression at national levels, measures cannot be self-sustaining (Mars<strong>de</strong>n<br />
2011).<br />
In the UK, ofcom has continually attempted since 2008 to reach a self-regu<strong>la</strong>tory<br />
solution. By 2011, with the timetable for implementation of EC Directives growing<br />
near, the government-fun<strong>de</strong>d Broadband Stakehol<strong>de</strong>r Group (BSG) produced a Co<strong>de</strong><br />
1 Annex to Directive 2002/20/EC Authorisation Directive by Directive 2009/140/EC at oJ<br />
L337/68 18 December 2009.<br />
2 For more <strong>de</strong>tails and methodology, see http://www.samknows.com/broadband/ofcom_and_samknows<br />
for ofcom and https://www.testmyisp.com/faq.html for the FCC tests.<br />
37
38 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
of Conduct, upon which the UK government minister indicated that Berners Lee would<br />
p<strong>la</strong>y an oversight role (Vaizey 2011). Whether such a ramshackle arrangement satisfies<br />
the European Commission, which is legally obliged to monitor implementation,<br />
remains to be seen in the course of 2012. It is likely to first ask the 27 Member States<br />
for <strong>de</strong>tails of their <strong>de</strong>tailed implementations, before a further information request can<br />
be ma<strong>de</strong> which would be a prelu<strong>de</strong> to a possible case for a preliminary ruling before the<br />
Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Such a case would be unlikely to be<br />
heard before 2013.<br />
In the US, co-regu<strong>la</strong>tion is a novel concept, and the implementation of the technical<br />
means for measuring reasonable traffic management are to be tested in a self-regu<strong>la</strong>tory<br />
forum, though with FCC blessing, the Broadband Industry Technical Advisory Group<br />
(BITAG), un<strong>de</strong>r Executive Director and FCC veteran Dale Hadfield. Its specific duties<br />
inclu<strong>de</strong> that to offer ‘safe harbor’ opinions on traffic management practices’ by parties making<br />
formal reference for an advisory technical opinion: “Specific TWG functions inclu<strong>de</strong>: (i)<br />
i<strong>de</strong>ntifying “best practices” by broadband provi<strong>de</strong>rs and other entities; (ii) interpreting and<br />
applying “safe harbor” practices; (iii) otherwise providing technical guidance to industry and<br />
to the public; and/or (iv) issuing advisory opinions on the technical issues germane to the<br />
TWG’s mission that may un<strong>de</strong>rlie disputes among discrete parties.” (BITAG 2011: Section<br />
7.1). BITAG has a broad multistakehol<strong>de</strong>r constituency and is therefore far from simply an<br />
industry self-regu<strong>la</strong>tory solution, but charges companies for testing of their solutions and is<br />
not currently mandated by <strong>la</strong>w, therefore continuing to act as self- rather than co-regu<strong>la</strong>tory<br />
forum 3 . As a De<strong>la</strong>ware-incorporated entity with published by<strong>la</strong>ws and an antitrust policy<br />
to formally exclu<strong>de</strong> government activity, BITAG is a c<strong>la</strong>ssic self-regu<strong>la</strong>tory organisation in<br />
structure. US legal and policy scho<strong>la</strong>rs may wish to research the extent to which this offers<br />
advantages and costs in constitutional oversight and regu<strong>la</strong>tory flexibility as compa<strong>red</strong> with<br />
more administrative <strong>la</strong>w supported bodies in Europe. Phil Weiser has proposed that a coregu<strong>la</strong>tory<br />
mechanism be supported (Weiser 2009).<br />
Unsurprisingly, net neutrality regu<strong>la</strong>tion has been fiercely resisted by the ISPs, and<br />
its implementation has relied on a series of <strong>de</strong>c<strong>la</strong>rations and merger conditions prior<br />
to full implementation via regu<strong>la</strong>tions and legis<strong>la</strong>tion. Mergers afford regu<strong>la</strong>tors the opportunity<br />
to introduce such re<strong>la</strong>tively minor adjustments as merger parties are eager to<br />
conclu<strong>de</strong> the overall <strong>de</strong>al, and tra<strong>de</strong> off the re<strong>la</strong>tively minor inconvenience of controls on<br />
traffic management in the interests of successful approval. In the same way as consumers<br />
–even with perfect information– may not view traffic management as the primary goal<br />
of their subscription to broadband (and are thus easy targets for restrictive conditions so<br />
long as industry standards prevent real choice between ISPs), so ISPs may make strategic<br />
choices to accept some limited traffic management conditions as a price of approval. The<br />
proposed 2011 merger of AT&T Wireless and T-Mobile could also illustrate the propensity<br />
to enforce net neutrality via merger conditions, as could the merger of Level3 and<br />
3 For <strong>de</strong>tails see http://members.bitag.org/kwspub/BITAG_Membership/
Network Neutrality: History, regu<strong>la</strong>tion and future<br />
Global Crossing, important Tier 1 backbone provi<strong>de</strong>rs with extensive Content Delivery<br />
Networks.<br />
2.3. The special case of wireless or mobile net neutrality?<br />
Mobile remains a poor substitute for the fixed Internet, and mobile smartphone users<br />
(the most advanced mobile users) in 2010 only downloa<strong>de</strong>d an average of 79 Megabytes per<br />
month (Cisco 2011). It is misleading to use headline percentage growth to suggest there is a<br />
major congestion issue - people are finally using the Internet on mobile networks via dongles<br />
and smartphones, so absolute usage is increasingly slowly compa<strong>red</strong> to growth. Mobile data<br />
traffic was in 2010 a total of 237 Petabytes, which Cisco states is three times greater than<br />
the entire Internet in 2000. More relevant is that it was 1% of the Internet in 2010, a global<br />
total of 21 Exabytes. If mobile data grows twice as fast as the global Internet for the next<br />
<strong>de</strong>ca<strong>de</strong> years, it will amount to 11% of the entire Internet by 2020. At that point, it will<br />
become more than a statistical insignificance in global terms. Mobile c<strong>la</strong>ims should be met<br />
with robust scepticism as mobile is such a minute part of the entire Internet traffic measu<strong>red</strong>,<br />
and in<strong>de</strong>ed a substantial part of mobile ‘traffic’ is inten<strong>de</strong>d in future to be han<strong>de</strong>d off to<br />
femtocells, WiFi cells, and other fixed wireless infrastructure, piggybacking on the re<strong>la</strong>tively<br />
stable and mature fixed Internet that is expanding to meet capacity. Mobile is a trivial proportion<br />
of overall Internet traffic by volume, but commands massive premiums over fixed<br />
traffic for the service provi<strong>de</strong>d.<br />
European regu<strong>la</strong>tors’ group BEREC (2010: 11) exp<strong>la</strong>ined: “mobile network access<br />
may need the ability to limit the overall capacity consumption per user in certain circumstances<br />
(more than fixed network access with high bandwidth resources) and as this<br />
does not involve selective treatment of content it does not, in principle, raise network<br />
neutrality concerns.” They exp<strong>la</strong>in that though mobile will always need greater traffic<br />
management than fixed (“traffic management for mobile accesses is more challenging”),<br />
symmetrical regu<strong>la</strong>tion must be maintained to ensure technological neutrality: “there<br />
are not enough arguments to support having a different approach on network neutrality<br />
in the fixed and mobile networks. And especially future-oriented approach for network<br />
neutrality should not inclu<strong>de</strong> differentiation between different types of the networks.”<br />
BEREC (2010: 3) conclu<strong>de</strong>d that mobile should be subject to the ‘net neutrality lite’<br />
provisions avai<strong>la</strong>ble un<strong>de</strong>r Directives 136/2009/EC and 140/2009/EC, listing some<br />
breaches of neutrality: “blocking of VoIP in mobile networks occur<strong>red</strong> in Austria, Croatia,<br />
Germany, Italy, the Nether<strong>la</strong>nds, Portugal, Romania and Switzer<strong>la</strong>nd”. The FCC’s<br />
comment period on their open Internet inquiry, specifically asked for answers to regu<strong>la</strong>tion<br />
of managed specialized services, and wireless net neutrality. The FCC announced<br />
in their (FCC 2010) or<strong>de</strong>r that they were prepa<strong>red</strong> not to enforce their proposed regu<strong>la</strong>tion<br />
on wireless services in the near future. This means that the faster growing and<br />
more competitive US market will be less regu<strong>la</strong>ted, whereas the more sluggish and less<br />
competitive European market will be.<br />
39
40 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
3. tHe future: Public Policy consi<strong>de</strong>rations in net neutrality<br />
Net neutrality is a more politically important issue than telecommunications regu<strong>la</strong>tors<br />
are equipped or legally bound to explore, as at stake are technologies of censorship.<br />
BEREC (2010: 20) exp<strong>la</strong>ins:<br />
“Freedom of expression and citizens rights, as well as media pluralism and cultural diversity,<br />
are important values of the mo<strong>de</strong>rn society, and they are worth being protected<br />
in this context –especially since mass communication has become easier for all citizens<br />
thanks to the Internet. However intervention in respect of such consi<strong>de</strong>rations lies<br />
outsi<strong>de</strong> the competence of BEREC.”<br />
‘Putting a cash register on the Internet’ (Wac<strong>la</strong>wsky 2005) will permit much more<br />
granu<strong>la</strong>r knowledge of what an ISP’s customers are downloading and uploading on the<br />
Internet. ISPs could filter out both annoying and illegal content. For instance, they could<br />
‘hear’ criminal conversations, such as those by terrorist sympathisers, illegal pornographers,<br />
harassers, those p<strong>la</strong>nning robberies, libellous commentary and so on. They could also ‘see’<br />
illegal downloading of copyrighted material. They would be obliged to cooperate with <strong>la</strong>w<br />
enforcement or even copyright industries in these scenarios, and this could create even greater<br />
difficulties where that speech was legal in one country but illegal where it was received<br />
(Diebert et al., 2010). Net neutrality is therefore less unpopu<strong>la</strong>r with smaller ISPs that wish<br />
to avoid a legal liability morass, which Directive 2000/31/EC (E-Commerce Directive) and<br />
other national ISP non-liability ‘safe harbor’ [sic] <strong>la</strong>ws are expressly <strong>de</strong>signed to prevent.<br />
Politicians in 2011 were reviewing the E-Commerce Directive (CoM 2010, pp. 10–<br />
11), and passing local <strong>la</strong>ws that favour, for instance, their copyright industries, such as the<br />
Digital Economy Act 2010 in the United Kingdom or the HADoPI <strong>la</strong>w in France. In the<br />
discussions to amend the E-Communications Framework via Directives 2009/136/EC and<br />
2009/140/EC, <strong>la</strong>rge well-resourced European incumbent ISPs saw the opportunity to make<br />
common cause with mobile operators (Wu 2007) and others, in an alliance to prevent transparency<br />
and permit filtering. The regu<strong>la</strong>tion of the Internet is erecting entry barriers with<br />
the connivance of the incumbent p<strong>la</strong>yers, with potentially enormous consequences for free<br />
speech, for free competition and for individual expression. This may be the correct policy<br />
option for a safer Internet policy (to prevent exposing children to illegal and/or offensive<br />
content), though it signals an abrupt change from the open Internet (Zittrain 2008). It is<br />
therefore vital that regu<strong>la</strong>tors address the question of the proper ‘lite’ approach to net neutrality<br />
to prevent harm to the current Internet, as well as beginning to address the heavier<br />
questions of positive –or tie<strong>red</strong>– breaches of network neutrality.<br />
Forms of private censorship by intermediaries have been increasing throughout the <strong>la</strong>st<br />
<strong>de</strong>ca<strong>de</strong> even as the <strong>la</strong>w continues to <strong>de</strong>c<strong>la</strong>re those intermediaries (mainly ISPs, but increasingly<br />
also vi<strong>de</strong>o hosting companies such as YouTube, social networks such as Facebook, and<br />
search provi<strong>de</strong>rs such as Google) to be ‘Three Wise Monkeys’. These intermediaries are not<br />
subject to liability for their customers’ content un<strong>de</strong>r the Electronic Commerce Directive<br />
(EC/2000/31) so long as they have no actual or constructive knowledge of that content: if
Network Neutrality: History, regu<strong>la</strong>tion and future<br />
they ‘hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil’ (Mars<strong>de</strong>n, 2010a, pp. 105–149). Any net<br />
neutrality solution needs to be holistic, consi<strong>de</strong>ring ISPs’ roles in the round.<br />
Privacy inquiries can also impact on regu<strong>la</strong>tory control of traffic management, with<br />
the UK government taken to the European Court by the European Commission for approving<br />
the both secret and invasive behavioural advertising practices of British Telecom<br />
and PHoRM in 2006. The introduction of network neutrality rules into European <strong>la</strong>w was<br />
un<strong>de</strong>r the rubric of consumer information safeguards and privacy regu<strong>la</strong>tion, not competition<br />
rules, and the US Congress was in 2011 actively exploring privacy rules and controls on<br />
ISP behavioural advertising activities.<br />
Finally, regu<strong>la</strong>tions passed in licensing can affect network neutrality at a fundamental<br />
level. Interoperability requirements can form a basis for action where an ISP blocks an application.<br />
Furthermore, wireless ISPs may be requi<strong>red</strong> to provi<strong>de</strong> open access, as in the FCC<br />
auction of 700MHz Upper Block C frequencies in 2008 (Rosston and Topper 2010: 115-<br />
116), or in more general common carriage requirements traditionally imposed on public<br />
communications networks since before the dawn of mo<strong>de</strong>rn communications, with railways<br />
and telegraphs (Railways Act 1844).<br />
3.1. The future <strong>de</strong>velopment of net neutrality and the internet<br />
The future of the Internet is a non-trivial issue; in fact it is central to the future of productivity<br />
in most industries. It is an enabling technology, which means that the exchange of<br />
information on this open p<strong>la</strong>tform promises (and <strong>de</strong>livers) real efficiencies in the economy<br />
and society generally, as it helps col<strong>la</strong>boration and improvement (Carnoy et al., 1993). It is<br />
also socially enabling ‘Web 2.0’ or ‘the participative web’ (Schrage, 2000; Seely Brown and<br />
Duguid, 2000). That is, it has become a virtual p<strong>la</strong>yground, c<strong>la</strong>ssroom, <strong>la</strong>boratory and chat<br />
room (Palfrey and Gasser 2008; Tapscott, 1999). Moreover, small businesses and solo homebased<br />
workers <strong>de</strong>pend on the Internet. The promise of virtual worlds and massive online<br />
col<strong>la</strong>boration is to extend this impact even further by 2020.<br />
The ‘Wealth of Networks’ analysis of Benkler (2006) thinks of the Internet as a giant<br />
experiment, combining <strong>la</strong>boratory with user innovation and feedback, while Boyle (2008)<br />
<strong>de</strong>scribes a wi<strong>de</strong>r movement ‘Enclosing the Commons of the Mind’ and Post (2009) extends<br />
a comparison with Jeffersonian America. The open Internet is a commons for all to enjoy.<br />
That is the basis for c<strong>la</strong>ims that it should be preserved and regu<strong>la</strong>tion induced to prevent any<br />
more enclosure of that commons, while at the same time ensuring that the commons is not<br />
ruined by free-ri<strong>de</strong>rs – that there is no ‘Tragedy of the Commons’. The open Internet is by<br />
no means the only or necessarily the most important p<strong>la</strong>ce for public opinion to be formed,<br />
but it is the open public space that gives legitimacy to all these private or semi-private spaces.<br />
The problems of <strong>de</strong>velopment and the global Digital Divi<strong>de</strong> are intimately connected<br />
to net neutrality. Internet connectivity is still very expensive for most <strong>de</strong>veloping countries,<br />
<strong>de</strong>spite attempts to ensure local Internet peering points (exchanges) and new un<strong>de</strong>rsea<br />
cables, for instance serving East Africa. To flood the <strong>de</strong>veloping world’s ISPs with vi<strong>de</strong>o<br />
traffic, much of which came from major vi<strong>de</strong>o production countries such as India, Nigeria<br />
41
42 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
and of course Hollywood, could p<strong>la</strong>ce local ISPs in serious financial peril. Casualties in<br />
such un<strong>de</strong>rtakings inclu<strong>de</strong>, for instance, countries b<strong>la</strong>cklisted by major ISPs for producing<br />
<strong>la</strong>rge amounts of spam: Nigerian consumers have previously discove<strong>red</strong> that their email was<br />
blocked because the ISP was also used by spammers. The second <strong>de</strong>velopment problem that<br />
net neutrality <strong>de</strong>bate centres on is the wireless Internet. Most <strong>de</strong>veloping countries’ citizens<br />
have much lower bandwidth than the west, and most of their connectivity is mobile: India is<br />
probably the poster child for a country with at least ten times more mobile than fixed phone<br />
subscribers. In the next several years, the <strong>de</strong>veloping world Internet user will test the limits<br />
of mobile networks, and capacity as well as price might <strong>de</strong>termine the extent to which they<br />
can expect a rapidly <strong>de</strong>veloping or a Third World Internet experience. I f<strong>la</strong>g up <strong>de</strong>velopment<br />
issues because they are critical. Universal service is still a pipe dream for many in the <strong>de</strong>veloping<br />
world, and when that arrives, the <strong>de</strong>finition it is given will <strong>de</strong>termine the minimum<br />
threshold that ISPs have to achieve. As Mueller (2007: 7) states, net neutrality ‘must also encompass<br />
a positive assertion of the broa<strong>de</strong>r social, economic and political value of universal<br />
and non-discriminatory access to Internet resources among those connected to the Internet’.<br />
The types of non-net neutrality employed in West Asia/North Africa in winter 2010-11<br />
were politically rather than economically motivated, that is, political censorship <strong>de</strong>signed to<br />
prevent citizens’ access to the Internet. Mueller (2007: 8) argues that the ten<strong>de</strong>ncy of governments<br />
in both repressive and traditionally <strong>de</strong>mocratic regimes to impose liability on ISPs<br />
to censor content for a plethora of reasons argues for a policy of robust non-interference.<br />
That is especially valuable in countries where there is much less discussion of how government<br />
<strong>de</strong>ployment of ISPs as censors can endanger user privacy and freedom of expression.<br />
Mueller suggests that the net neutrality metaphor could be used to hold all filtering and censorship<br />
practices up to the light, as well as other areas of Internet regu<strong>la</strong>tion, such as domain<br />
name governance. Network neutrality has become an important policy issue discussed at the<br />
United Nations Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The IGF discussions of net neutrality<br />
has substantially increased (IGF, 2008, 2009).<br />
We may expect to see more protest behaviour by ‘netizens’ who do not agree with net<br />
neutrality policies, especially where ISPs are seen to have failed to inform end-users fully<br />
about the implications of policy changes. Regu<strong>la</strong>tors and politicians are challenged publicly<br />
by such problems, particu<strong>la</strong>rly given the ubiquity of email, Twitter and social media protests<br />
against censorship, and there are two Pirate Party MEPs elected to the European Parliament.<br />
Research into social activism against corporate control of the Internet is a growing research<br />
field (Hart 2011).<br />
4. conclusions: future Policy researcH<br />
The Internet’s evolution is dynamic and complex. The avai<strong>la</strong>bility and <strong>de</strong>sign of a suitable<br />
regu<strong>la</strong>tory response must reflect this dynamism, and also the responsiveness of regu<strong>la</strong>tors<br />
and market p<strong>la</strong>yers to each other. Therefore, national legis<strong>la</strong>tion should be future<br />
proof and avoid being overly prescriptive, to avoid a premature response to the emerg-
Network Neutrality: History, regu<strong>la</strong>tion and future<br />
ing environment. The pace of change in the re<strong>la</strong>tion between architecture and content on<br />
the Internet requires continuous improvement in the regu<strong>la</strong>tor’s research and technological<br />
training. Regu<strong>la</strong>tors can monitor both commercial transactions and traffic shaping by ISPs<br />
to <strong>de</strong>tect potentially abusive discrimination. An ex ante requirement to <strong>de</strong>monstrate internal<br />
network metrics to content provi<strong>de</strong>r customers and consumers may be a practical solution,<br />
via a regu<strong>la</strong>tory or co-regu<strong>la</strong>tory reporting requirement. The need for better research towards<br />
un<strong>de</strong>rstanding the nature of congestion problems on the Internet and their effect on content<br />
and innovation is clear (Mars<strong>de</strong>n et al, 2008). These conclusions support a light-touch regu<strong>la</strong>tory<br />
regime involving reporting requirements and co-regu<strong>la</strong>tion with, as far as is possible,<br />
market-based solutions. Solutions may be international as well as local, and international<br />
coordination of best practice and knowledge will enable national regu<strong>la</strong>tors to keep up with<br />
the technology ‘arms race’.<br />
The European legal basis for regu<strong>la</strong>tory intervention is an enabling framework to prevent<br />
competition abuses and prevent discrimination, un<strong>de</strong>r which national regu<strong>la</strong>tors need<br />
the skills and evi<strong>de</strong>nce base to investigate unjustified discrimination. Regu<strong>la</strong>tors expecting<br />
a ‘smoking gun’ to present itself should be advised against such a reactive approach. A<br />
more proactive approach to monitoring and researching non-neutral behaviours will make<br />
network operators much more cognisant of their duties and obligations. A consumer- and<br />
citizen-orientated intervention <strong>de</strong>pends on preventing unregu<strong>la</strong>ted non-transparent controls<br />
exerted over traffic, whether imposed by ISPs for financial advantage or by governments<br />
eager to use this new technology to filter, censor and enforce copyright against their citizens.<br />
Unravelling the previous ISP limited liability regime risks removing the efficiency of that<br />
approach in permitting the free flow of information for economic and social advantage.<br />
5. references<br />
Ammori, M. (2010) How I lost the big one bigtime, at http://ammori.org/2010/04/07/<br />
how-i-lost-the-big-one-bigtime/<br />
Ayres, I. and J. Braithwaite, J. (1992) Responsive Regu<strong>la</strong>tion: Transcending the Deregu<strong>la</strong>tion<br />
Debate. Hartford, CT: Yale University Press.<br />
Bauer, Johannes M. (2010) Learning from each other: promises and pitfalls of benchmarking<br />
in communications policy 12 Info 6, pp. 8-20.<br />
Benkler, Y. (1998a) ‘Communications Infrastructure Regu<strong>la</strong>tion and the Distribution of<br />
Control over Content’, Telecommunications Policy [online], 22(3), pp.183-196. Avai<strong>la</strong>ble<br />
from: http://www.benkler.org/PolTech.pdf [Accessed].<br />
Benkler, Y. (1998b) ‘overcoming Agoraphobia: Building the Commons of the Digitally<br />
Networked Environment’, Harvard Journal of Law and Technology [online], 11, pp.<br />
287-400. Avai<strong>la</strong>ble from: http://www.<strong>la</strong>w.nyu.edu/benklery/agoraphobia.pdf [Accessed].<br />
Benkler, Y. (2006) The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and<br />
Freedom. New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press.<br />
43
44 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
BEREC (2010) 42 BEREC Response to the European Commission’s consultation on<br />
the open Internet and net neutrality in Europe, at http://www.erg.eu.int/doc/berec/<br />
bor_10_42.pdf<br />
Berners Lee, Tim (2006) Net Neutrality: This is serious, 2006-06-21 16:35, at http://dig.<br />
csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/no<strong>de</strong>/144<br />
Bitag (2011) By-<strong>la</strong>ws of Broadband Industry Technical Advisory Group at http://members.<br />
bitag.org/kwspub/background_docs/BITAG_By<strong>la</strong>ws.pdf<br />
Boyle, J. (2008) The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind. New Haven, CT:<br />
Yale University Press.<br />
Burstein, D. (2008) Comcast’s Fair 250 Gig Bandwidth Cap, DSL Prime 21 october at<br />
http://www.dslprime.com/docsisreport/163-c/53-comcasts-fair-250-gig-bandwidthcap<br />
Burstein, D. (2011) Wireline Costs And Caps: A Few Facts, DSL Prime 6 March at http://<br />
www.dslprime.com/dslprime/42-d/4148-costs-and-caps<br />
Carnoy, M., Castells, M., Cohen, S. S. and Cardoso, F. H. (1993) The New Global<br />
Economy in the Information Age; Reflections on Our Changing World. New York: Macmil<strong>la</strong>n.<br />
Cave, M., Collins, R., van Eijk, N., Larouche, P., Prosperetti, L., <strong>de</strong> Streel, A. et al.<br />
(2009) ‘Statement by European Aca<strong>de</strong>mics on the Inappropriateness of Imposing Increased<br />
Internet Regu<strong>la</strong>tion in the EU’, 8 January 2009. Avai<strong>la</strong>ble from: http://papers.<br />
ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1329926 [Accessed].<br />
Cherry, Barbara A. (2006) Misusing Network Neutrality to Eliminate Common Carriage<br />
Threatens Free Speech and the Postal System, 33 N. KY. L. REV. 483.<br />
Cherry, Barbara (2008) Back to the Future: How Transportation Deregu<strong>la</strong>tory Policies<br />
Foreshadow Evolution of Communications Policies, The Information Society, p. 24.<br />
Cisco (2011) Visual Networking In<strong>de</strong>x (VNI) Global Mobile Data Traffic Forecast at<br />
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/col<strong>la</strong>teral/ns341/ns525/ns537/ns705/ns827/<br />
white_paper_c11-520862.html<br />
C<strong>la</strong>rk, David D. and. Blumenthal, Marjory S (2011) The End-to-End Argument and<br />
Application Design: The Role of Trust, 63 Fed.Comm.L.J. 2 pp. 357-390.<br />
C<strong>la</strong>rk, D. (1988) The Design Philosophy of the DARPA Internet Protocols, Computer<br />
Communications Review 18:4, August, pp. 106-114.<br />
CoM (2002) 278 Better Regu<strong>la</strong>tion Action P<strong>la</strong>n.<br />
CoM (2010) 245, ‘A Digital Agenda for Europe. European Commission, Brussels. Avai<strong>la</strong>ble<br />
from: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/digital-agenda/documents/digita<strong>la</strong>genda-communication-en.pdf<br />
[Accessed].<br />
Comcast v. FCC (2010) No. 08-1291, <strong>de</strong>live<strong>red</strong> 6 April. Avai<strong>la</strong>ble from: http://pacer.cadc.<br />
uscourts.gov/common/opinions/201004/08-1291-1238302.pdf [Accessed].<br />
Crawford, S. (2011) The Big Squeeze: The Looming Cable Monopoly, forthcoming.
Network Neutrality: History, regu<strong>la</strong>tion and future<br />
Crowcroft, J. (2011) The Affordance of Asymmetry or a Ren<strong>de</strong>zvous with the Random?<br />
Communications and Convergence Review, in print [draft version].<br />
CRTC (2011) Telecoms Decision 2011-44, ottawa, 25 January 2011, Usage-based billing<br />
for Gateway Access Services and third-party Internet access services, File number:<br />
8661-C12-201015975 at http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2011/2011-44.htm<br />
De Beer, J. (2009) ‘Net Neutrality in the Great White North (and its Impact on Canadian<br />
Culture)’, Telecommunications Journal of Australia, 59 (2), pp. 24.1-24.19.<br />
De So<strong>la</strong> Pool, I. (1983) Technologies of Freedom. Cambridge MA: Belknap.<br />
Deibert, R. J., Palfrey, J. G., Rohozinski, R. and Zittrain, J. (eds)(2010) Access Controlled:<br />
The Shaping of Power, Rights, and Rule in Cyberspace, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.<br />
Digital Economy Act (2010) Avai<strong>la</strong>ble from: http://www.opsi.gov.uk%2Facts%2Facts2010%<br />
2Fukpga_20100024_en_1&ei=LxwMToC-E56V4gaanIGbAQ&usg=AFQjCNH1_<br />
aWgbfrLbgPyhm8lpQDopaa_ww&sig2=UoKxFp6oDeyxFexURnrn3A [Accessed].<br />
Donahue, H. (2010) ‘The Network Neutrality Inquiry’, info, 12 (2), pp. 3-8.<br />
Dunstone, C. (2006) ‘Presentation by Carphone Warehouse/TalkTalk CEo at the 2006<br />
ofcom conference. Avai<strong>la</strong>ble from: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/event/2006conference/<br />
presentations/session3 [Accessed].<br />
Economi<strong>de</strong>s, N. and Tåg, J. (2007) ‘Net Neutrality on the Internet: A Two-Si<strong>de</strong>d Market<br />
Analysis’. Working Paper, NYU Center for Law and Economics, New York.<br />
European Commission (EC) (2010) ‘Consultation on the Future of the Universal Service<br />
obligation’. Avai<strong>la</strong>ble from: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/ecomm/<br />
library/public_consult/univeuniv_service_2010/in<strong>de</strong>x_en.htm [Accessed].<br />
European Union (EU) (2003) ‘Inter Institutional Agreement’. Avai<strong>la</strong>ble from: http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=oJ:C:2003:321:0001:0005:EN:PDF<br />
[Accessed].<br />
Faulhaber, Gerald R. (2002) Network effects and merger analysis: instant messaging and<br />
the AoL–Time Warner case, 26 Telecommunications Policy 5-6, pp. 311-333.<br />
Faulhaber, Gerald R. (2010) Transparency and Broadband Internet Service Provi<strong>de</strong>rs, International<br />
Journal of Communication 4, pp. 738-757.<br />
FCC (2005) Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to the Internet over Wireline<br />
Facilities et al., Policy Statement, 20 FCC Rcd 14986 (2005) (Internet Policy Statement).<br />
FCC (2010) In the Matter of Preserving the open Internet Broadband Industry Practices,<br />
GN Docket No. 09-191 WC Docket No. 07-52 REPoRT AND oRDER Adopted:<br />
December 21, 2010.<br />
Frie<strong>de</strong>n, R. (2010a) Winning the Silicon Sweepstakes: Can the United States Compete in<br />
Global Telecommunications? Hartford, CT: Yale University Press.<br />
Frie<strong>de</strong>n, Rob (2010b) Invoking and Avoiding the First Amendment: How Internet Service<br />
Provi<strong>de</strong>rs Leverage Their Status as Both Content Creators and Neutral Conduits, 12<br />
U. PA. J. CoNST. L. p. 1279.<br />
45
46 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
Frie<strong>de</strong>n, Rob (2011) A Laye<strong>red</strong> and Nuanced Assessment of Network Neutrality Rationales,<br />
Tilburg TILEC Workshop on Law and Economics, 20 June at http://www.tilburguniversity.edu/research/institutes-and-research-groups/tilec/pdfs/events/20-21june2011/<br />
paper-robert-frie<strong>de</strong>n.pdf<br />
Gaines, S. E. and Kimber, C. (2001) ‘Redirecting Self-Regu<strong>la</strong>tion’, Environmental Law, 13<br />
(2), pp. 157-184.<br />
Geist, Michael (2011a) Unpacking The Policy Issues Behind Bandwidth Caps & Usage<br />
Based Billing, February 01, at http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5611/99999/<br />
Geist, Michael (2011b) Canada’s Usage Based Billing Controversy: How to Address the<br />
Wholesale and Retail Issues, March 2011, at http://www.michaelgeist.ca/component/<br />
option,com_docman/task,doc_download/gid,53/<br />
Harris, Susan & Elise Gerich, The NSFNET Backbone Service: Chronicling the End of an<br />
Era, 10 CoNNEXIoNS (April 1996), avai<strong>la</strong>ble at www.merit.edu/networkresearch/<br />
projecthistory/nsfnet/nsfnet_article.php<br />
Hart, Jeffrey A. (2011) The Net Neutrality Debate in the United States, Journal of Information<br />
Technology & Politics, Issue 1, 2011, Page 1.<br />
Hasslinger, G., Nunzi, G., Meirosu, C., Changpeng Fan, An<strong>de</strong>rsen, F.-U. (2011)<br />
Traffic engineering supported by Inherent Network Management: analysis of resource<br />
efficiency and cost saving potential, International Journal of Network Management, at<br />
section 2, 25 JAN, DoI: 10.1002/nem.770<br />
Internet Governance Forum (IGF) (2008) ‘Network Neutrality: Examining the Issues<br />
and Implications for Development’, Co-hosted Workshop, 4 December. Avai<strong>la</strong>ble<br />
from: http://techpolicyinstitute.org/events/show/77.html and http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/in<strong>de</strong>x.php/2008-igf-hy<strong>de</strong>rabad/event-reports/72-workshops/370-workshop-58-network-neutrality-examining-the-issues-and-implications-for<strong>de</strong>velopment<br />
[Accessed].<br />
Internet Governance Forum (IGF) (2009) ‘Programme, Format and Schedule for the<br />
2009 Meeting, Revision of 4 June 2009’. Avai<strong>la</strong>ble from: http://www.intgovforum.org/<br />
cms/2009/postings/ProgrammePaper.04.06.2009.rtf [Accessed].<br />
Kiedrowski, T. (2007) ‘Net Neutrality: ofcom’s View’. Avai<strong>la</strong>ble from: http://www.wwww.<br />
radioauthority.org.uk/media/speeches/2007/02/net_neutrality [Accessed].<br />
Labovitz, C., S. Iekel-Johnson, D. McPherson J. oberhei<strong>de</strong>, F. Jahanian, M. Karir<br />
(2009) ATLAS Internet observatory Annual Report, and their presentation to the<br />
North American Network operators Group –an industry body– NANoG (2009)<br />
http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog47/presentations/Monday/Labovitz_observeReport_N47_Mon.pdf<br />
Lemley, M. A. and Lessig, L. (1999) ‘Ex Parte Dec<strong>la</strong>ration of Professor Mark A. Lemley<br />
and Professor Lawrence Lessig in the Matter of: Application for Consent to the Transfer<br />
of Control of Licenses of Mediaone Group, Inc. to AT&T Corp CS Docket No.<br />
99-251 Before the Fe<strong>de</strong>ral Communications Commission’.<br />
Lessig, L. (1999a) Co<strong>de</strong> and Other Laws of Cyberspace. New York: Basic Books.
Network Neutrality: History, regu<strong>la</strong>tion and future<br />
Lessig, L. (1999b) ‘The Limits in open Co<strong>de</strong>: Regu<strong>la</strong>tory Standards and the Future of the<br />
Net’, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 14 (2), pp. 759-770.<br />
Lessig, L. and Wu, T. (2003) ‘Letter to the FCC Ex parte, 22 August 2003. Avai<strong>la</strong>ble from:<br />
www.timwu.org/wu_lessig_ [Accessed].<br />
Malik, o. (2010) Nov. 7: U.S. Mobile Data Traffic to Top 1 Exabyte, at http://gigaom.<br />
com/2010/11/07/in-2010-us-mobile-data-traffic-to-top-1-exabyte/<br />
Mars<strong>de</strong>n, C. (2001) ‘The Start of End-to-End? Internet Protocol Television’, Intermedia,<br />
29, pp. 4-8.<br />
Mars<strong>de</strong>n, C. (2010a) Net Neutrality: Towards a Co-regu<strong>la</strong>tory Solution. London: Bloomsbury<br />
Aca<strong>de</strong>mic.<br />
Mars<strong>de</strong>n, C. (2010b) ‘Appeals Court Demolishes FCC Legal Argument for Ancil<strong>la</strong>ry Jurisdiction<br />
without Title I Argument in Comcast’, 6 April. Avai<strong>la</strong>ble from: http://chrismars<strong>de</strong>n.blogspot.com/2010/04/appeals-court-<strong>de</strong>molishes-fcc-legal.html<br />
[Accessed].<br />
Mars<strong>de</strong>n, C. (2011) Internet Co-regu<strong>la</strong>tion: European Law and Regu<strong>la</strong>tory Legitimacy in<br />
Cyberspace, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press at http://www.cambridge.org/gb/<br />
knowledge/isbn/item6445008/?site_locale=en_GB<br />
Mars<strong>de</strong>n, C., Cave, J. et al. (2006) Assessing Indirect Impacts of the EC Proposals for Vi<strong>de</strong>o<br />
Regu<strong>la</strong>tion, TR-414 for Ofcom. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.<br />
Mars<strong>de</strong>n, C., Simmons, S., Brown, I., Woods, L., Peake, A., Robinson, N. et al. (2008)<br />
‘options for and Effectiveness of Internet Self- and Co-regu<strong>la</strong>tion Phase 2: Case Study<br />
Report’ 15 January 2008. Prepa<strong>red</strong> for European Commission DG Information Society<br />
& Media. Avai<strong>la</strong>ble from: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1281374 [Accessed].<br />
Mayer-Schonberger, V. (2008) Demystifying Lessig, Wisconsin Law Review, 4, pp. 713-<br />
746.<br />
Meisel, J. P. (2010) ‘Trinko and Mandated Access to the Internet’, info, 12 (2), pp. 9-27.<br />
MINTS (2007) Methodology, page <strong>la</strong>st modified 30 August, at http://www.dtc.umn.edu/<br />
mints/methodology.html<br />
MINTS (2009) “MINTS pages updated, many new reports, further slight slowdown in<br />
wireline traffic growth rate” November 17 at http://www.dtc.umn.edu/mints/news/<br />
news_22.html<br />
Mueller Milton (1998) Universal Service: Competition, Interconnection, and Monopoly<br />
in the Making. AEI Press, Washington DC.<br />
Mueller, M. (2007) ‘Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance’. Internet<br />
Governance Project Paper IGP07-003. Avai<strong>la</strong>ble from: http://internetgovernance.org/<br />
pdf/NetNeutralityGlobalPrinciple.pdf [Accessed].<br />
Noam, E. M. (1994) ‘Beyond Liberalization II: The Impending Doom of Common Carriage’,<br />
Telecommunications Policy, 18 (6), pp. 435-452.<br />
Noam, E. M. (2008) ‘Beyond Net Neutrality: Enduser Sovereignty, Columbia University<br />
Draft Paper for 34th Telecoms Policy Research Conference, 14 August.<br />
47
48 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
Norwegian Co<strong>de</strong> (2009) ‘Gui<strong>de</strong>lines for Net Neutrality’ Avai<strong>la</strong>ble from: http://www.npt.no/<br />
iKnowBase/Content/109604/Gui<strong>de</strong>lines%20for%20network%20neutrality.pdf [Accessed].<br />
odlyzko, A. and Levinson, D. (2007) Too expensive to meter: The influence of transaction<br />
costs in transportation and communication, draft at http://www.dtc.umn.<br />
edu/~odlyzko/doc/meteringexpensive.pdf<br />
oECD (2008) oECD Broadband Portal, Table 5(m): Time to reach bit/data caps at advertised<br />
speeds (Sept. 2008), at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/11/15/39575302.xls<br />
oECD (2010) oECD Broadband Portal, Table 1l: Percentage of fibre connections in total<br />
broadband among countries reporting fibre subscribers, June 2010, at http://www.<br />
oecd.org/dataoecd/21/58/39574845.xls<br />
ofcom (2006) Market Impact Assessment: BBC new on-<strong>de</strong>mand vi<strong>de</strong>o proposals, at http://<br />
stakehol<strong>de</strong>rs.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/tv-research/bbc-mias/on<strong>de</strong>mand/<br />
bbc-on<strong>de</strong>mand/<br />
oftel (2000) Draft Direction un<strong>de</strong>r Condition 45 of the Public Telecommunications Licence<br />
granted to British Telecommunications plc of a dispute between BT and MCI<br />
Worldcom concerning the provision of a F<strong>la</strong>t Rate Internet Access Call origination<br />
product (FRIACo), at http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/oftel/publications/internet/fria0400.htm,<br />
noting at point 3 that “BT cited concerns about network capacity<br />
and the principle of capacity charging”.<br />
Palfrey, J. and Gasser, U. (2008) Born Digital: Un<strong>de</strong>rstanding the First Generation of Digital<br />
Natives. New York: Basic Books.<br />
Post, D. (2009) In Search of Jefferson’s Moose: Notes on the State of Cyberspace. New York:<br />
oxford University Press.<br />
Rei<strong>de</strong>nberg, J. (2005) Technology and Internet Jurisdiction, University of Pennsylvania<br />
Law Review, 153, p. 1951.<br />
Renda, A. (2008) ‘I own the Pipes, You Call the Tune: The Net Neutrality Debate and its (Ir)<br />
relevance for Europe’. CEPS Special Reports, Centre for European Policy Studies, Brussels.<br />
Rooney, Ben (2011) Net Neutrality Debate in Europe Is ‘over’ February 28, at http://<br />
blogs.wsj.com/tech-europe/2011/02/28/net-neutrality-<strong>de</strong>bate-in-europe-isover/?mod=google_news_blog<br />
Rosston, G.I. and Topper, M.D. (2010) An anti-trust analysis of the case for wireless net<br />
neutrality, Information Economics and Policy 22: 10, pp. 103-119.<br />
Saltzer J.H., D. Reed and D. C<strong>la</strong>rk (1981) End to End Arguments in System Design, Second<br />
International Conf. on Distributed Computing Systems, pp. 509-12<br />
Schrage, M. (2000) ‘The Debriefing: John Seely Brown’, Wi<strong>red</strong>, August, p. S.8.08.<br />
Seely Brown J. and Duguid, P. (2000) The Social Life of Information. Cambridge, MA:<br />
Harvard Business School Press.<br />
Sluijs J. P. (2010) Network Neutrality between False Positives and False Negatives: Introducing<br />
a European Approach to American Broadband Markets, Fe<strong>de</strong>ral Communications<br />
Law Journal, Vol. 62, p. 77.
Network Neutrality: History, regu<strong>la</strong>tion and future<br />
Tambini, D., Leonardi, D. and Mars<strong>de</strong>n, C. (2008) Codifying Cyberspace: Communications<br />
Self-Regu<strong>la</strong>tion in the Age of Internet Convergence. London: Routledge.<br />
Tapscott, D. (1999) Growing Up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation. New York: Mc-<br />
Graw Hill.<br />
Teubner, G. (1986) ‘The Transformation of Law in the Welfare State’, in G. Teubner (ed.),<br />
Dilemmas of Law in the Welfare State. Berlin: W. <strong>de</strong> Gruyter.<br />
Thinkbroadband (2009) Average mobile broadband speed clocks in at 0.9 meg, 10 June at<br />
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/p/2.html<br />
Vaizey, Ed (2011) Hansard HC Deb, 5 April 2011, c259WH at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110405/halltext/110405h0002.<br />
htm#11040557000591<br />
Wac<strong>la</strong>wsky, J. G. (2005) ‘IMS 101: What You Need to Know Now’. Avai<strong>la</strong>ble from: http://<br />
www.op<strong>la</strong>n.org/documents/articles/IMS_need_to_know/fss_download/file [Accessed].<br />
Weiser, P. (2009) The Future of Internet Regu<strong>la</strong>tion, 43 U.C. Davis L. Rev. pp. 529-590.<br />
Werbach, Kevin (2005) The Fe<strong>de</strong>ral Computer Commission, 84 N.C. L. REV. 1, 21.<br />
Werbach, Kevin (2010) off the Hook, 95 CoRNELL L. REV. p.535.<br />
Wu, T. (2003a) ‘When Co<strong>de</strong> Isn’t Law’, Virginia Law Review [online], 89, p. 679. Avai<strong>la</strong>ble<br />
from: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=413201 [Accessed].<br />
Wu, T. (2003b) ‘Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination’, Journal of Telecommunications<br />
and High Technology Law [online], 2, pp. 141–172. Avai<strong>la</strong>ble from: http://ssrn.<br />
com/abstract=388863 [Accessed].<br />
Wu, T. (2007) ‘Wireless Net Neutrality: Cellu<strong>la</strong>r Carterfone and Consumer Choice in Mobile<br />
Broadband’. New America Foundation Wireless Future Program Working Paper<br />
#17, February.<br />
Yoo, C. (2010) The Changing Patterns of Internet Usage, 63 Fe<strong>de</strong>ral Communications Law.<br />
J. 1 pp.67-90 http://www.<strong>la</strong>w.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v63/no1/2010-Dec.-Vol.63-05_<br />
Yoo.pdf<br />
Zittrain, J. (2008) The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It. New Haven, CT: Yale<br />
University Press.<br />
49
COMUNICACIONES SOBRE NEUTRALIDAD DE LA RED
lA NeUtrAlIDAD De lA reD DesDe lA PersPeCtIVA<br />
De sU ArQUIteCtUrA POr CAPAs ¿De trANsPOrtIstAs<br />
PÚBlICOs A gestOres De CONteNIDOs?<br />
David Arjones Girál<strong>de</strong>z<br />
Doctorando en el Área <strong>de</strong> Derecho Administrativo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Universidad <strong>de</strong> Vigo<br />
AbstrAct: This paper brings up an overview about the problem and significance of network neutrality<br />
from the perspective of a <strong>la</strong>ye<strong>red</strong> Internet regu<strong>la</strong>tion, which states that legal Internet regu<strong>la</strong>tion<br />
should be governed by the <strong>la</strong>yers principle. The <strong>la</strong>w should respect the integrity of <strong>la</strong>ye<strong>red</strong> Internet architecture,<br />
based on three basic <strong>la</strong>yers: the physical, the logical, and the content and application <strong>la</strong>yer.<br />
Due to the fact that this theory and its corol<strong>la</strong>ries have been accepted as a whole, we will show how<br />
the architecture which gives way to the broadband requires a neutral regu<strong>la</strong>tion and management on<br />
all its <strong>la</strong>yers. This neutral management creates a field which encourages the growth of innovation and<br />
<strong>de</strong>velopment on the network, avoiding the market power abuse of the telecommunication companies.<br />
The solution to the shortage of bandwidth is not traffic management, but the solution could be the<br />
implementation of competition on all <strong>la</strong>yers and perhaps, the change of the business mo<strong>de</strong>l of telecommunication<br />
companies which subsidizes the outrageous bandwidth consume of a few consumers<br />
with the money of the rest, who will suffer the <strong>la</strong>ck of bandwidth.<br />
pAlAbrAs clAve: arquitectura <strong>red</strong>, banda ancha, capas, competencia, <strong>la</strong>ye<strong>red</strong> mo<strong>de</strong>l, network<br />
management, network neutrality, regu<strong>la</strong>ción.<br />
1. introducción. el <strong>de</strong>bate sobre <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong><br />
Propiciados por el avance en el <strong>de</strong>sarrollo <strong>de</strong>l sector <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s telecomunicaciones y en<br />
especial en el <strong>de</strong>sarrollo tecnológico <strong>de</strong> y en <strong>la</strong> banda ancha surgen continuamente nuevos<br />
<strong>retos</strong> y escollos <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong>l sector, que pugna por proporcionar a los ciudadanos<br />
un servicio <strong>de</strong> calidad <strong>de</strong>ntro <strong>de</strong>l marco <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> empresa y concurrencia empresarial.<br />
Así, se ha p<strong>la</strong>nteado en los últimos años un <strong>de</strong>bate a esca<strong>la</strong> internacional sobre los límites<br />
en el manejo y <strong>la</strong> gestión <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> <strong>de</strong> banda ancha por parte <strong>de</strong> los operadores <strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong>,<br />
propietarios y gestores <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s infraestructuras por <strong>la</strong>s cuales fluye el servicio <strong>de</strong> banda ancha.<br />
El mismo se extien<strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> postura <strong>de</strong> aquellos que <strong>de</strong>fien<strong>de</strong>n <strong>la</strong> nu<strong>la</strong> intromisión <strong>de</strong> los<br />
operadores <strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong> en el tráfico <strong>de</strong> contenidos y aplicaciones –network neutrality o neutralidad<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>–, a aquellos <strong>otros</strong>, fundamentalmente los propios operadores <strong>de</strong> telecomunicaciones,<br />
que abogan porque se les permita bloquear o priorizar ciertas aplicaciones sobre otras,<br />
apoyándose en argumentos como <strong>la</strong> congestión <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> o <strong>la</strong> propiedad privada <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> misma,<br />
pero siempre previo <strong>de</strong>sembolso <strong>de</strong> cuantiosas sumas <strong>de</strong> dinero por parte <strong>de</strong> los proveedores<br />
<strong>de</strong> contenidos.<br />
2
54 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
El <strong>de</strong>bate se ha suscitado vivamente en Estados Unidos, don<strong>de</strong> diferentes operadores<br />
en el mercado dada <strong>la</strong> ausencia <strong>de</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción en <strong>la</strong> materia, comienzan a realizar bloqueos<br />
a <strong>de</strong>terminadas aplicaciones y servicios prestados a través <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> <strong>de</strong> banda ancha, justificándose<br />
en <strong>la</strong> supuesta congestión que podría producirse en el tráfico <strong>de</strong> contenidos y aplicaciones<br />
en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>. De entre los diversos asuntos que ya se han p<strong>la</strong>nteado sobre el particu<strong>la</strong>r,<br />
<strong>de</strong>stacan el caso Madison (2005) y el proceso contra Comcast (2007). En el primero <strong>de</strong><br />
ellos, <strong>la</strong> Fe<strong>de</strong>ral Communications Commission (FCC) 1 hubo <strong>de</strong> actuar contra <strong>la</strong> compañía <strong>de</strong><br />
telecomunicaciones Madison, que como quedó posteriormente probado, bloqueaba repetidamente<br />
los servicios <strong>de</strong> VoIP2 que transitaban por su <strong>red</strong>. En el segundo, hizo lo propio<br />
contra Comcast3 , que realizaba bloqueos <strong>de</strong> análogas características pero en re<strong>la</strong>ción con los<br />
servicios P2P4 que transitaban por <strong>la</strong>s líneas <strong>de</strong> este operador5 .<br />
Para enten<strong>de</strong>r en toda su dimensión el problema, resultará interesante recordar que el mo<strong>de</strong>lo<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong> neutral hace referencia a <strong>la</strong> or<strong>de</strong>nación <strong>de</strong> los servicios <strong>de</strong> banda ancha <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> su misma<br />
aparición. Este mo<strong>de</strong>lo nos indica que no ha <strong>de</strong> existir ningún tipo <strong>de</strong> bloqueo o priorización <strong>de</strong><br />
los contenidos, aplicaciones o servicios que circu<strong>la</strong>n por <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>, y don<strong>de</strong> los mismos, ya sean ofertados<br />
por prestadores <strong>de</strong> servicios o volcados por meros particu<strong>la</strong>res, no requieren <strong>de</strong> una previa<br />
remuneración al operador <strong>de</strong> telecomunicaciones, propietario <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s por <strong>la</strong>s cuales circu<strong>la</strong>n<br />
aquellos6 . En <strong>de</strong>finitiva, se trata <strong>de</strong> abogar por un Internet libre, carente <strong>de</strong> barreras <strong>de</strong> entrada y<br />
don<strong>de</strong> todo el tráfico lícito ha <strong>de</strong> ser consi<strong>de</strong>rado <strong>de</strong> manera igualitaria, <strong>de</strong>terminando el avance<br />
1 Autoridad in<strong>de</strong>pendiente estadouni<strong>de</strong>nse <strong>de</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s telecomunicaciones. (www.fcc.gov).<br />
2 Voice over Internet Protocol, consiste en toda aquel<strong>la</strong> transmisión <strong>de</strong> voz que se realiza utilizando el<br />
protocolo <strong>de</strong> Internet (IP).<br />
3 Cfr. FCC, Memorandum Opinion and Or<strong>de</strong>r, “In the Matters of Formal Comp<strong>la</strong>int of Free Press and<br />
Public Knowledge Against Comcast Corporation for Secretly Degrading Peer to Peer Applications, Broandband<br />
Industry Practices, Petition of Free Press et al. Dec<strong>la</strong>ratory Ruling that Degrading an Internet Application<br />
Vio<strong>la</strong>tes the FCC´s Internet Policy Statement and Does Not Mee tan Exception for “Reasonable<br />
Network Management”.1.08.2008.<br />
Disponible en: hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-183A1.pdf. [Fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta:<br />
25 <strong>de</strong> febrero <strong>de</strong> 2011].<br />
4 Peer to Peer, se <strong>de</strong>nominan <strong>de</strong> este modo a todos aquellos servicios que proporcionan el intercambio<br />
directo <strong>de</strong> información entre los diferentes usuarios <strong>de</strong>l mismo y don<strong>de</strong> no existe ningún tipo <strong>de</strong><br />
fuente central común proveedora <strong>de</strong> contenidos, lo que hace que cada uno <strong>de</strong> los usuarios sea simultáneamente<br />
<strong>de</strong>mandante y proveedor <strong>de</strong> contenidos.<br />
5 En Europa los casos <strong>de</strong> bloqueos <strong>de</strong> contenidos por parte <strong>de</strong> los operadores <strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong> no son una excepción.<br />
Se han producido esencialmente sobre los servicios P2P, VoIP o audiovisuales, recabando <strong>la</strong><br />
actuación <strong>de</strong>l regu<strong>la</strong>dor nacional en puntuales ocasiones, en países como Polonia, Lituania, Hungría,<br />
Grecia o Portugal. BEREC, “Response to the European Commission´s consultation on the open Internet<br />
and net neutrality in Europe”, 30.09.2010. Pág. 3. Disponible en: http://www.erg.eu.int/doc/berec/<br />
bor_10_42.pdf. [Fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta: 22 <strong>de</strong> abril <strong>de</strong> 2011].<br />
6 Entre <strong>otros</strong>, <strong>para</strong> una pequeña ilustración <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>bate: oFCoM, Traffic Management and “net neutrality”.<br />
A Discusion Paper. 24 June 2010, pág. 8. Disponible en: http://stakehol<strong>de</strong>rs.ofcom.org.uk/<br />
consultations/net-neutrality/ [Fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta: 03 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011].
<strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> perspectiva <strong>de</strong> su arquitectura por capas ¿<strong>de</strong> transportistas…<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> bajo <strong>la</strong> premisa conocida como innovation without permission 7 , don<strong>de</strong> cada individuo<br />
–con ánimo <strong>de</strong> lucro o sin él– pue<strong>de</strong> crear nuevos contenidos y volcarlos libremente en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>.<br />
Frente a esta <strong>red</strong> neutral tal y como <strong>la</strong> conocemos en <strong>la</strong> actualidad, diversas voces<br />
han comenzado a <strong>de</strong>fen<strong>de</strong>r una <strong>red</strong> gestionada por los operadores proveedores <strong>de</strong>l acceso<br />
a <strong>la</strong> banda ancha 8 . Estos <strong>de</strong> modo discrecional <strong>de</strong>cidirían qué, cómo y cuándo incorporan<br />
contenidos a sus re<strong>de</strong>s. En esta tesitura, los operadores proveedores exigirían a los diferentes<br />
prestadores <strong>de</strong> servicios importantes sumas <strong>de</strong> dinero <strong>para</strong> que sus servicios, <strong>de</strong> un <strong>la</strong>do, no<br />
se vean bloqueados y <strong>de</strong>l otro se presten <strong>de</strong> modo preferente y en mejores condiciones que<br />
los restantes, causando el corre<strong>la</strong>tivo perjuicio <strong>de</strong> estos.<br />
Ante esta situación, diferentes actores internacionales –principalmente los organismos regu<strong>la</strong>dores<br />
en materia <strong>de</strong> telecomunicaciones 9 – se han pronunciado con una mayor o menor contun<strong>de</strong>ncia<br />
en pos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>, no ya <strong>de</strong> un modo directo, tajante o imperativo, pero sí<br />
<strong>de</strong>jando entrever <strong>la</strong>s líneas básicas por <strong>la</strong>s que habría <strong>de</strong> transcurrir el futuro <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción en<br />
<strong>la</strong> materia. Puntos en los que <strong>la</strong>s diferentes voces convergen son <strong>la</strong> necesaria transparencia entre el<br />
operador <strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong> y el consumidor o el perjuicio que pue<strong>de</strong> conllevar <strong>la</strong> discriminación <strong>de</strong> contenidos,<br />
ensalzando a su vez, el amplio campo a <strong>la</strong> innovación que proporciona <strong>la</strong> apertura <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> 10 .<br />
En esta línea han <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>stacarse, siquiera <strong>de</strong> modo sucinto, <strong>la</strong>s medidas recientemente<br />
tomadas por <strong>la</strong> FCC 11 . En el<strong>la</strong>s se da un primer paso –insuficiente <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> mi punto <strong>de</strong> vis-<br />
7 “the Internet has thrived because of its freedom and openness – the absence of any gatekeeper blocking<br />
<strong>la</strong>wful uses of the network or picking winners and losers online. Consumers and innovators do not have<br />
to seek permission before they use the Internet to <strong>la</strong>unch new technologies, start businesses, connect<br />
with friends, or share their views.” FCC: In the Matter of Preserving the Open Internet Broadband Industry<br />
Practices. (Report and Or<strong>de</strong>r) 21.12.2010. Apartado I, párrafo: 3. Disponible: http://www.fcc.gov/<br />
Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db1223/FCC-10-201A1.pdf [Fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta: 6 <strong>de</strong> febrero <strong>de</strong><br />
2011]. En <strong>la</strong> misma línea, ATKINSoN, RoBERT D. & WEISER, PHILIP J. (2006) “A Third Way<br />
on Network Neutrality”, The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, mayo, pp. 5 y ss.<br />
8 La FCC consi<strong>de</strong>ra que <strong>de</strong> entre los objetivos buscados por los operadores proveedores <strong>de</strong> acceso a <strong>red</strong>,<br />
pue<strong>de</strong>n <strong>de</strong>stacarse: <strong>la</strong> integración vertical <strong>de</strong> los mismos con los proveedores <strong>de</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong> su mismo<br />
grupo empresarial, <strong>la</strong> prestación <strong>de</strong> un servicio <strong>de</strong> baja calidad en or<strong>de</strong>n a incitar el pago por parte <strong>de</strong><br />
los proveedores <strong>de</strong> contenidos con el objetivo <strong>de</strong> lograr un servicio <strong>de</strong> mayor calidad, diferenciar el<br />
servicio prestado a sus propios clientes <strong>de</strong>l facilitado por los proveedores <strong>de</strong> acceso competidores, etc.<br />
FCC: In the Matter of Preserving… Op. cit. Apartado II, párrafo 21 y ss.<br />
9 BEREC, FCC, ARCEP, PTS, etc.<br />
10 De entre los documentos oficiales <strong>de</strong> más reciente publicación en <strong>la</strong> materia pue<strong>de</strong>n consultarse,<br />
entre <strong>otros</strong>: BEREC, “Response to the European Commission´s consultation on the open Internet and<br />
net neutrality in Europe”, 30.09.2010. Disponible en: http://www.erg.eu.int/doc/berec/bor_10_42.<br />
pdf. (25.01.2011). FCC, In the Matter of Preserving…Op. cit. oFCoM, “Traffic Management and<br />
“net neutrality”. A discussion paper”. 24.06.2010. Disponible: http://stakehol<strong>de</strong>rs.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/net-neutrality/<br />
[Fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta: 03 <strong>de</strong> marzo <strong>de</strong> 2011]. ARCEP, Internet and Network<br />
Neutrality. Proposals and recommendations. Sep. 2010. Disponible: http://www.arcep.fr/uploads/<br />
tx_gspublication/net-neutralite-orientations-sept2010-eng.pdf [Fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta: 20 <strong>de</strong> enero <strong>de</strong><br />
2011].<br />
11 Cfr. FCC, In the Matter of Preserving…Op. cit.<br />
55
56 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
ta12 – <strong>para</strong> garantizar <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> en beneficio último <strong>de</strong> los consumidores y <strong>de</strong>l<br />
<strong>de</strong>sarrollo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Información. Las mismas enuncian cuatro principios básicos<br />
en <strong>la</strong> prestación <strong>de</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong> banda ancha: transparencia <strong>de</strong> cara a los consumidores13 ;<br />
prohibición <strong>de</strong> bloqueos <strong>de</strong> contenidos y aplicaciones; no discriminación irrazonable <strong>de</strong><br />
contenidos y posibilidad <strong>de</strong> gestión razonable <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>14 .<br />
Por su parte, en Europa <strong>la</strong> situación se observa <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> un prisma parcialmente distinto<br />
dada <strong>la</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción sectorial existente y <strong>la</strong>s especificida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> este mercado. A este <strong>la</strong>do <strong>de</strong>l<br />
Atlántico es un mantra continuamente repetido <strong>la</strong> innecesaria intervención ex ante <strong>para</strong> asegurar<br />
<strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>seada neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>15 . El motivo, dicen, hay que buscarlo en <strong>la</strong> situación<br />
<strong>de</strong> los mercados y en <strong>la</strong>s faculta<strong>de</strong>s concedidas a los regu<strong>la</strong>dores nacionales, que facultan a <strong>la</strong><br />
solución ex post <strong>de</strong> estos problemas en caso <strong>de</strong> su aparición16 .<br />
En <strong>la</strong>s siguientes líneas, lejos <strong>de</strong> realizar un repaso por <strong>la</strong> evolución <strong>de</strong> este encarnizado<br />
<strong>de</strong>bate, tanto <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s posiciones adoptadas por los diferentes regu<strong>la</strong>dores como<br />
por los p<strong>la</strong>nteamientos doctrinales al respecto, se preten<strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>jar constancia y hacer una<br />
pequeña reflexión <strong>de</strong>l lugar en el que hemos <strong>de</strong> ubicar el mo<strong>de</strong>lo <strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong> neutral que se<br />
persigue.<br />
12 Son c<strong>la</strong>ras <strong>la</strong>s discrepancias en <strong>la</strong> materia objeto <strong>de</strong> análisis, siendo reve<strong>la</strong>dor que <strong>la</strong> aprobación <strong>de</strong><br />
estas medidas en el seno <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> FCC se ha realizado por diferencia <strong>de</strong> un solo voto (3 votos favorables<br />
frente a 2).<br />
13 Transparencia que propicie el conocimiento <strong>de</strong>l consumidor <strong>de</strong> los problemas <strong>de</strong> congestión <strong>de</strong> los<br />
que se pue<strong>de</strong> ver aquejada <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>, <strong>la</strong> política <strong>de</strong> gestión <strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong> aplicable <strong>de</strong> ser supuesto necesario, <strong>la</strong><br />
posibilidad discriminación <strong>de</strong> ciertos contenidos web y un <strong>la</strong>rgo etcétera. FCC, In the Matter of Preserving…<br />
Op. cit. Apartado III, párrafo 56 y ss.<br />
Recientemente, el 13 <strong>de</strong> abril <strong>de</strong>l pasado año 2010, <strong>la</strong> Vicepresi<strong>de</strong>nta <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comisión Europea, Neelie<br />
Kroes, manifestaba ante <strong>la</strong> se<strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>l regu<strong>la</strong>dor francés <strong>de</strong> telecomunicaciones (ARCEP) que <strong>la</strong> transparencia<br />
<strong>para</strong> con el consumidor era “no negociable”. Disponible en: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/10/153.<br />
14 Se trata este <strong>de</strong>l punto más <strong>de</strong>licado <strong>de</strong>l presente pronunciamiento. En opinión propia, el regu<strong>la</strong>dor<br />
estadouni<strong>de</strong>nse mediante esta estipu<strong>la</strong>ción abre una vía legal <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> entrada <strong>de</strong> los proveedores <strong>de</strong><br />
banda ancha en <strong>la</strong> gestión <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> <strong>de</strong> un modo seudodiscrecional, ya que, como en el propio texto se<br />
pue<strong>de</strong> observar –párrafos 82 y ss–, el regu<strong>la</strong>dor no hace más que sujetar <strong>la</strong> gestión y discriminación<br />
<strong>de</strong> contenidos a criterios harto confusos e in<strong>de</strong>terminados que se ponen a <strong>la</strong> plena disposición <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> voluntad <strong>de</strong> los operadores <strong>de</strong> acceso a <strong>red</strong>, fomentando <strong>la</strong> proliferación <strong>de</strong> acuerdos ilegales por<br />
<strong>de</strong>terminados proveedores <strong>de</strong> contenidos.<br />
15 Importa <strong>de</strong>stacar aquí, <strong>la</strong> moción presentada por los GRUPoS PARLAMENTARIoS SoCIALISTA,<br />
ENTESA CATALANA DE PRoGRÉS, CATALÁN EN EL SENADo DE CoNVERGÈNCIA<br />
I UNIÓ, DE SENADoRES NACIoNALISTAS Y MIXTo, por <strong>la</strong> que se insta al Gobierno a<br />
modificar <strong>la</strong> normativa españo<strong>la</strong> en <strong>la</strong> materia a fin <strong>de</strong> garantizar el cumplimiento <strong>de</strong>l principio <strong>de</strong><br />
neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> por parte <strong>de</strong> los proveedores <strong>de</strong> telecomunicaciones que operan en España. Boletín<br />
General <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s Cortes Generales. Senado. 29.11.2010. Nº 554. Pág. 17. Disponible: http://www.<br />
senado.es/legis9/publicaciones/html/textos/I0554.html (27.01.2011).<br />
16 Por todos, ver: BEREC, “Response to the European…Op. cit.
<strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> perspectiva <strong>de</strong> su arquitectura por capas ¿<strong>de</strong> transportistas…<br />
Con este fin, se ha creído oportuno traer a co<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>la</strong> teoría <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción por capas<br />
17 <strong>para</strong> hacer notar que <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> que se preten<strong>de</strong> no es otra cosa que incluir<br />
neutralidad en el último es<strong>la</strong>bón que forma el servicio <strong>de</strong> banda ancha. Una última capa que<br />
ha <strong>de</strong> ser neutral, <strong>de</strong>l mismo modo que lo son <strong>la</strong>s capas inferiores en <strong>la</strong> ca<strong>de</strong>na <strong>de</strong> valor –<strong>la</strong>s<br />
infraestructuras y los protocolos que por el<strong>la</strong>s fluyen–, dando solución a <strong>la</strong> aparición <strong>de</strong><br />
cuellos <strong>de</strong> botel<strong>la</strong>, tanto en el <strong>de</strong>sarrollo geográfico <strong>de</strong> infraestructuras como en <strong>la</strong> propia<br />
capacidad intrínseca <strong>de</strong> éstas.<br />
Avanzando en <strong>la</strong> exposición, se observará cómo <strong>la</strong> aplicación <strong>de</strong> una regu<strong>la</strong>ción por<br />
capas evitaría por absurdo todo <strong>de</strong>bate sobre el control <strong>de</strong> los contenidos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>. La posibilidad<br />
<strong>de</strong> gestionar <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>, ya sea en los términos en que <strong>la</strong> FCC lo consi<strong>de</strong>ra o no, supone<br />
un abuso <strong>de</strong> posición <strong>de</strong> po<strong>de</strong>r <strong>de</strong> mercado <strong>de</strong> los operadores <strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong>, que en nada han <strong>de</strong><br />
interferir en el <strong>de</strong>sarrollo <strong>de</strong> una efectiva competencia libre en <strong>la</strong> prestación <strong>de</strong> servicios,<br />
contenidos y aplicaciones en <strong>la</strong> web.<br />
2. <strong>la</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción Por caPas <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> banda ancHa<br />
2.1. una aproximación a <strong>la</strong> arquitectura <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong><br />
La teoría <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción por capas <strong>de</strong>rivada <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> arquitectura <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>, en sus diferentes<br />
variantes y evoluciones 18 , parece ser <strong>la</strong> que mejor se adapta a <strong>la</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s telecomunicaciones.<br />
La misma establece una fuerte unión entre <strong>la</strong>s características tecnológicas <strong>de</strong>l objeto <strong>de</strong><br />
regu<strong>la</strong>ción y su propia regu<strong>la</strong>ción, dando lugar, en <strong>la</strong> práctica, a <strong>la</strong> aplicación <strong>de</strong> una regu<strong>la</strong>ción<br />
que se rige por los mismos principios –o arquitectura– que <strong>la</strong> propia <strong>red</strong> <strong>de</strong> banda ancha 19 .<br />
Para el presente análisis partiremos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> ya convencional estructura simplificada <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> prestación <strong>de</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong> banda ancha en tres capas 20 : <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> infraestructura física, <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong><br />
infraestructura lógica y <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> contenidos 21 .<br />
17 La teoría generalmente mejor aceptada como punto guía a <strong>la</strong> hora <strong>de</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>r el sector <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s telecomunicaciones.<br />
18 Destacan por sus aportaciones a <strong>la</strong> teoría <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción por capas: BENKLER, LESSIG, SICKER,<br />
SoLUM o CHUNG.<br />
19 Es alentador que <strong>la</strong> propia organización <strong>de</strong> Naciones Unidas se haya hecho eco <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> teoría <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
regu<strong>la</strong>ción por capas, manifestando que: “the <strong>la</strong>yers principle and its corol<strong>la</strong>ries are fundamental for<br />
establishing a rational and workable policy and regu<strong>la</strong>tory framework for Internet governance”. UNITED<br />
NATIoNS, Information Economy Report 2006. Pág. 276 y ss. Disponible: http://www.unctad.org/en/<br />
docs/sdteecb20061ch7_en.pdf [Fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta: 20 <strong>de</strong> abril <strong>de</strong> 2011].<br />
20 Para una mejor comprensión inicial <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> mentada división y estructuración <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s capas, pue<strong>de</strong> consultarse<br />
el Informe <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s Naciones Unidas anteriormente citado, don<strong>de</strong> se realiza una exposición gráfica <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción por capas realizando una com<strong>para</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> misma con el sector <strong>de</strong> correo postal.<br />
21 Cfr. BENKLER, Y. (2006). The Wealth of Networks: how social production transform markets and freedom.<br />
Ed. 1ª. Yale University Press. LESSIG, L. (2001). The future of i<strong>de</strong>as. The fate of the commons in<br />
a connected world. Ed. 1ª. New York: Random House. Disponible en línea: http://the-future-of-i<strong>de</strong>as.<br />
57
58 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
La primera capa está formada por <strong>la</strong>s infraestructuras <strong>de</strong> telecomunicaciones que proporcionan<br />
los servicios <strong>de</strong> transmisión en el servicio <strong>de</strong> banda ancha: <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s mismas, los<br />
postes que le dan apoyo, los puntos <strong>de</strong> acceso a interconexión, etc. Es esta <strong>la</strong> capa que ha<br />
sufrido y sufre una mayor carga regu<strong>la</strong>toria, que se manifiesta en <strong>la</strong>s obligaciones <strong>de</strong> interconexión<br />
entre <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> los diferentes operadores 22 , obligaciones <strong>de</strong> acceso 23 , u obligaciones<br />
<strong>de</strong> servicio público en el <strong>de</strong>sarrollo geográfico <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> infraestructura 24 , entre muchas otras.<br />
La capa lógica se i<strong>de</strong>ntifica con los diferentes protocolos y tecnologías que permiten <strong>la</strong><br />
prestación <strong>de</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong> banda ancha, es <strong>de</strong>cir, <strong>la</strong>s diferentes leyes lógicas que or<strong>de</strong>nan <strong>la</strong><br />
información que circu<strong>la</strong> por <strong>la</strong>s infraestructuras y que finaliza mediante su materialización<br />
en <strong>la</strong>s aplicaciones y contenidos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>. Entre ellos, <strong>de</strong> modo ilustrativo, se encuentran el<br />
protocolo IP, TCP, HPPT, FTP 25 , etc.<br />
La última capa, <strong>de</strong> contenidos y aplicaciones 26 es en <strong>la</strong> que se suscita el presente <strong>de</strong>bate<br />
sobre <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>. Es <strong>la</strong> capa que se encuentra directamente en contacto con<br />
los consumidores finales, siendo <strong>la</strong> que aporta el valor añadido que los usuarios buscan y<br />
encuentran en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>, ya que <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> sin contenidos no es nada 27 .<br />
Está formada por <strong>la</strong>s diferentes utilida<strong>de</strong>s que un consumidor pue<strong>de</strong> encontrar en <strong>la</strong><br />
<strong>red</strong> y que van <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> prestación <strong>de</strong> servicios audiovisuales hasta aplicaciones <strong>de</strong> contenido<br />
cultural o científico, pasando por servicios VoIP 28 y un <strong>la</strong>rgo etcétera. Se trata <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> capa que<br />
com [Fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta: 20 <strong>de</strong> abril <strong>de</strong> 2011]. Conviene seña<strong>la</strong>r en este punto que <strong>la</strong>s diferentes teorías<br />
doctrinales en referencia a <strong>la</strong> arquitectura que forma <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y conforme a <strong>la</strong> cual ha <strong>de</strong> dividirse su regu<strong>la</strong>ción<br />
legal, <strong>de</strong>rivan <strong>de</strong>l mo<strong>de</strong>lo inicial <strong>de</strong>sarrol<strong>la</strong>do en los años 80 por <strong>la</strong> ISo (International Standars<br />
organization). Este mo<strong>de</strong>lo sería el <strong>de</strong> Interconexión <strong>de</strong> sistemas abiertos (oSI), que dividía <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> en<br />
siete capas diferentes: aplicaciones, presentaciones, sesiones, transporte, <strong>red</strong>, en<strong>la</strong>ce <strong>de</strong> datos y física.<br />
22 Los operadores <strong>de</strong> re<strong>de</strong>s públicas <strong>de</strong> comunicaciones electrónicas tendrán el <strong>de</strong>recho y, cuando se solicite<br />
por <strong>otros</strong> operadores <strong>de</strong> re<strong>de</strong>s públicas <strong>de</strong> comunicaciones electrónicas, <strong>la</strong> obligación <strong>de</strong> negociar <strong>la</strong> interconexión<br />
mutua con el fin <strong>de</strong> prestar servicios <strong>de</strong> comunicaciones electrónicas disponibles al público,<br />
con el objeto <strong>de</strong> garantizar así <strong>la</strong> prestación <strong>de</strong> servicios y su interoperabilidad. Art. 11.2 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> LGT.<br />
23 Art. 11 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> LGT.<br />
24 En extenso: CARLÓN RUIZ, M.(2007). El servicio universal <strong>de</strong> telecomunicaciones. Ed. 1º. Madrid,<br />
Thomson- Civitas.<br />
25 Internet Protocol, Transmission Control Protocol, Hypertext Transfer Protocol, File Transfer Protocol, respectivamente.<br />
26 Esta capa, <strong>de</strong>pendiendo <strong>la</strong> precisión <strong>de</strong>l análisis empleado pue<strong>de</strong> ser subdividida en dos capas: <strong>la</strong><br />
<strong>de</strong> contenidos y <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> aplicaciones. En este sentido, LAWRENCE B. SoLUM y MINN CHUN,<br />
entien<strong>de</strong>n <strong>la</strong> existencia <strong>de</strong> seis capas: <strong>la</strong> capa física, <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> acceso, <strong>la</strong> correspondiente al protocolo <strong>de</strong><br />
Internet, <strong>la</strong> capa <strong>de</strong> transporte, <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> aplicaciones y <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> contendidos. En SoLUM, L., & CHUN, M.<br />
(2003). «The Layers Principle: Internet Architecture and the Law». University of San Diego School of<br />
Law Public Law and Legal Theory. Research Paper 55.<br />
27 Cfr. LESSIG, L. (2001). The future of i<strong>de</strong>as. The fate of the commons in a connected world. Ed. 1ª. New York:<br />
Random House. Disponible en línea: http://the-future-of-i<strong>de</strong>as.com [Fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta: 20 <strong>de</strong> abril <strong>de</strong> 2011].<br />
28 Importante papel tienen los servicios <strong>de</strong> VoIP <strong>de</strong>ntro <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> estructuración por capas. Éstos, aun siendo<br />
servicios <strong>de</strong> voz en competencia con el servicio <strong>de</strong> voz convencional, han <strong>de</strong> consi<strong>de</strong>rarse <strong>de</strong>l mismo
<strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> perspectiva <strong>de</strong> su arquitectura por capas ¿<strong>de</strong> transportistas…<br />
menor carga regu<strong>la</strong>toria ha experimentado a lo <strong>la</strong>rgo <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>sarrollo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> banda ancha. La<br />
regu<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> misma se ha centrado en <strong>la</strong> prohibición <strong>de</strong> transmisión <strong>de</strong> aquellos contenidos<br />
consi<strong>de</strong>rados como ilícitos, bien por infringir <strong>de</strong>rechos fundamentales o, al caso, <strong>la</strong><br />
vulneración <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> propiedad intelectual.<br />
2.2. <strong>la</strong> arquitectura <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y su necesaria regu<strong>la</strong>ción neutral<br />
La verda<strong>de</strong>ra aplicación <strong>de</strong> una regu<strong>la</strong>ción por capas implica, por <strong>de</strong>finición, que existen<br />
diferentes mercados en los que se entien<strong>de</strong> ha <strong>de</strong> imperar una efectiva competencia y en<br />
los que ha <strong>de</strong> aplicarse una regu<strong>la</strong>ción específica adaptada a sus especiales características. A<br />
su vez, <strong>la</strong> se<strong>para</strong>ción entre <strong>la</strong>s capas no pue<strong>de</strong> ser vio<strong>la</strong>da, lo que supone que el regu<strong>la</strong>dor no<br />
podrá permitir que un operador aproveche su po<strong>de</strong>r o mera posición en <strong>la</strong> escalera <strong>de</strong> valor<br />
<strong>para</strong> abusar <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> misma frente a los operadores <strong>de</strong> otras capas29 .<br />
Así entendida, <strong>la</strong> neutralidad ha sido, hasta <strong>la</strong> fecha, el eje dominante en <strong>la</strong>s diferentes capas<br />
que conforman el mercado <strong>de</strong> los servicios <strong>de</strong> banda ancha. Garantizando ésta se está garantizando<br />
el <strong>de</strong>sarrollo libre <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia, <strong>la</strong> inexistencia <strong>de</strong> abuso <strong>de</strong> po<strong>de</strong>r <strong>de</strong> mercado y se evita <strong>la</strong><br />
integración vertical <strong>de</strong> los operadores –y con ello su respectivo dominio en el servicio–.<br />
La capa <strong>de</strong> infraestructuras físicas ha concentrado el grueso <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> fuerza regu<strong>la</strong>toria<br />
en el sector, no en vano es <strong>la</strong> capa primigenia y en <strong>la</strong> que se apoyan <strong>la</strong>s restantes, que se ha<br />
enfrentado ante un importante cuello <strong>de</strong> botel<strong>la</strong> como lo es el <strong>de</strong>sarrollo geográfico <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s<br />
infraestructuras. Consi<strong>de</strong>rando <strong>la</strong> infraestructura física como monopolio natural, se crearon<br />
lo que po<strong>de</strong>mos <strong>de</strong>nominar como re<strong>de</strong>s neutras. Por estas re<strong>de</strong>s habían <strong>de</strong> circu<strong>la</strong>r los servicios<br />
<strong>de</strong> los diferentes operadores <strong>de</strong> telecomunicaciones, in<strong>de</strong>pendientemente <strong>de</strong> su propiedad<br />
privada, lo que no obstaba a <strong>la</strong> interposición <strong>de</strong> los conocidos como peajes <strong>de</strong> paso. Se<br />
articu<strong>la</strong> así un fuerte régimen <strong>de</strong> obligaciones <strong>de</strong> acceso y <strong>de</strong> interconexión <strong>de</strong> re<strong>de</strong>s –entre<br />
otras– que <strong>de</strong>ntro <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s limitaciones existentes30 consigue superar <strong>la</strong>s dificulta<strong>de</strong>s inherentes<br />
al cuello <strong>de</strong> botel<strong>la</strong>.<br />
modo –a priori– que <strong>la</strong>s restantes aplicaciones web –un blog, por ejemplo–, por lo que, el mero hecho<br />
<strong>de</strong> ser un servicio <strong>de</strong> voz prestado bajo un protocolo diferente al servicio <strong>de</strong> voz convencional no hace<br />
nacer ipso iure <strong>la</strong> necesidad <strong>de</strong> una regu<strong>la</strong>ción específica <strong>de</strong> los mismos <strong>para</strong> gestionar su competencia<br />
con los servicios <strong>de</strong> voz convencionales. Es el logro <strong>de</strong> una regu<strong>la</strong>ción específica <strong>de</strong> los mismos el<br />
objetivo que buscan los proveedores <strong>de</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong> voz convencionales, argumentando a su vez, que<br />
los servicios <strong>de</strong> VoIP contribuyen masivamente a <strong>la</strong> congestión <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> –así, se observa cómo los<br />
contenidos web más aquejados <strong>de</strong> bloqueos han sido, junto con los servicios P2P, los servicios VoIP–.<br />
Sobre el particu<strong>la</strong>r, pue<strong>de</strong>n consultarse: MoNTERo PASCUAL, JUAN J. (2005). «La regu<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong><br />
los servicios <strong>de</strong> voz por internet.» Revista <strong>de</strong> Derecho <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s Telecomunicaciones e Infraestructuras en Red.<br />
Nº 22, pp. 39-55. GRETEL (2004). El <strong>de</strong>sarrollo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> VoIP y sus implicaciones regu<strong>la</strong>torias. Colegio<br />
oficial <strong>de</strong> Ingenieros <strong>de</strong> Telecomunicación, Madrid.<br />
29 SoLUM, L., & CHUN, M. (2003). «The Layers Principle: Internet Architecture and the Law». University<br />
of San Diego School of Law Public Law and Legal Theory. Research Paper 55.<br />
30 Principalmente una fuerte oposición <strong>de</strong> los operadores incumbentes.<br />
59
60 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
En <strong>la</strong> capa <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> infraestructura lógica, <strong>la</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción converge en el mismo sentido: <strong>la</strong><br />
neutralidad. Así, en <strong>la</strong> vigente LGT, en su artículo 3 apartado f), se establece como principio<br />
y objetivo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Ley el fomento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> neutralidad tecnológica 31 . Aun estableciéndose este<br />
como principio legal, <strong>la</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción en <strong>la</strong> materia ha sido parca y a lo sumo vigi<strong>la</strong>nte.<br />
Han sido los propios actores <strong>de</strong>l mercado los que, conscientes <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> necesaria convergencia<br />
tecnológica –neutralidad 32 – <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> prestación <strong>de</strong> un servicio <strong>de</strong> calidad, sin fronteras<br />
geográficas y disponible <strong>para</strong> todo tipo <strong>de</strong> usuarios in<strong>de</strong>pendientemente <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> infraestructura<br />
a <strong>la</strong> que tuvieren acceso, han creado estándares tecnológicos y parámetros <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>sarrollo <strong>de</strong>ntro<br />
<strong>de</strong> foros internacionales 33 don<strong>de</strong> se discute y se incuba el futuro <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s tecnología subyacente<br />
en el servicio <strong>de</strong> banda ancha. De entre ellos, cabe <strong>de</strong>stacar: <strong>la</strong> ITU (International<br />
Telecommunication Union), ETSI (European Telecommunications Standars Institute), IAB<br />
(Internet Architecture Board), IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force), ICANN (Internet<br />
Corporation for Asigned Names and Numbers), etc.<br />
El último es<strong>la</strong>bón <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> ca<strong>de</strong>na <strong>de</strong> valor que da lugar a <strong>la</strong> banda ancha, <strong>la</strong> capa <strong>de</strong> contenidos,<br />
ha gozado siempre <strong>de</strong> una <strong>la</strong>guna regu<strong>la</strong>toria que ha permitido que se or<strong>de</strong>ne <strong>de</strong><br />
acuerdo a <strong>la</strong>s fuerzas <strong>de</strong>l mercado. Estas, indicativo es, han hecho que primara <strong>la</strong> neutralidad<br />
a lo <strong>la</strong>rgo <strong>de</strong> toda su evolución. El objetivo último <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> aplicación <strong>de</strong> una regu<strong>la</strong>ción por<br />
capas es <strong>la</strong> aplicación mínima <strong>de</strong> normas regu<strong>la</strong>doras, y con más importancia si cabe en <strong>la</strong><br />
capa <strong>de</strong> contenidos, ya que es en el<strong>la</strong> don<strong>de</strong> se produce <strong>la</strong> verda<strong>de</strong>ra creación <strong>de</strong> valor <strong>para</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> sociedad. Hasta el momento, <strong>la</strong> carencia <strong>de</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción ha permitido <strong>la</strong> autoafirmación <strong>de</strong>l<br />
mercado <strong>de</strong> contenidos, que dada <strong>la</strong> abundancia <strong>de</strong> ancho <strong>de</strong> banda disponible a través <strong>de</strong>l<br />
cual prestar estos servicios, había optado por <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>.<br />
Ahora bien, el avance en el <strong>de</strong>sarrollo <strong>de</strong> contenidos que atraen a los consumidores y<br />
que absorben un gran ancho <strong>de</strong> banda, ha propiciado <strong>la</strong> creación <strong>de</strong> facto <strong>de</strong> un nuevo cuello<br />
31 En este sentido también po<strong>de</strong>mos mencionar <strong>la</strong> neutralidad tecnológica en <strong>la</strong> Administración Pública,<br />
por todos consúltese: BoIX PALoP, A. (2007). «La neutralidad tecnológica como exigencia regu<strong>la</strong>toria<br />
en el acceso electrónico a los servicios.» Revista General <strong>de</strong> Derecho Administrativo. Nº 16.<br />
32 Entendiendo <strong>la</strong> neutralidad tecnológica como <strong>la</strong> posibilidad <strong>de</strong> acceso por parte <strong>de</strong> todos los usuarios<br />
a todo tipo <strong>de</strong> aplicaciones y contenidos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> con in<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>ncia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> ubicación física en <strong>la</strong> que<br />
se encuentren y <strong>de</strong>l concreto operador <strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong> a través <strong>de</strong>l que tengan acceso a <strong>la</strong> misma, toda vez que<br />
<strong>la</strong> tecnología que fluye por <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> se encuentra homogeneizada con indiferencia <strong>de</strong> su ubicación geográfica,<br />
posibilitando <strong>la</strong> interconexión entre todos los usuarios <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> p<strong>la</strong>taforma y el volcado <strong>de</strong> contenidos<br />
a <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>. A sensu contrario, <strong>la</strong> expresión neutralidad tecnológica también suele hacer mención a<br />
<strong>la</strong> actividad regu<strong>la</strong>dora <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s telecomunicaciones «que lejos <strong>de</strong> centrarse en <strong>la</strong> tecnología, presta atención<br />
a los efectos que emanan <strong>de</strong> su uso, por ello, <strong>la</strong> técnica legis<strong>la</strong>tiva <strong>de</strong>be basarse en una regu<strong>la</strong>ción sostenible,<br />
subsidiaria y proporcionada a <strong>la</strong> vez que transparente (…)», don<strong>de</strong> a su vez, «<strong>la</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción inspirada en<br />
el principio <strong>de</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong>be evitar efectos <strong>de</strong> discriminación entre otras tecnologías al mismo tiempo<br />
que favorecer el <strong>de</strong>sarrollo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s TIC.» Cfr. CULLEL MARCH, C.; «El principio <strong>de</strong> neutralidad tecnológica<br />
y <strong>de</strong> servicios en <strong>la</strong> UE: <strong>la</strong> liberalización <strong>de</strong>l espectro radioeléctrico» IDP. Revista <strong>de</strong> Internet,<br />
Derecho y Política, UoC, n.º 11, 2010. [Artículo en línea, disponible: http://idp.uoc.edu] [Fecha <strong>de</strong><br />
consulta: 20 <strong>de</strong> abril <strong>de</strong> 2011].<br />
33 De carácter privado, público o en ocasiones público-privados.
<strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> perspectiva <strong>de</strong> su arquitectura por capas ¿<strong>de</strong> transportistas…<br />
<strong>de</strong> botel<strong>la</strong> en el servicio <strong>de</strong> banda ancha: su propio ancho <strong>de</strong> banda. Es ahora el momento<br />
<strong>de</strong> preguntarse si el legis<strong>la</strong>dor ha <strong>de</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>r este nuevo cuello <strong>de</strong> botel<strong>la</strong>, o por el contrario,<br />
<strong>de</strong>jar el mismo en <strong>la</strong>s manos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s fuerzas <strong>de</strong>l mercado, <strong>la</strong>s fuerzas <strong>de</strong> los diferentes mercados<br />
intervinientes.<br />
En efecto, el <strong>de</strong>bate actual se centra en permitir <strong>la</strong> gestión <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> por parte <strong>de</strong>l operador<br />
<strong>de</strong> telecomunicaciones, pero ¿no supondría esto <strong>la</strong> vulneración <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> teoría regu<strong>la</strong>toria<br />
por capas, don<strong>de</strong> el operador estará pasando a contro<strong>la</strong>r un mercado que le ha <strong>de</strong> ser totalmente<br />
ajeno?<br />
Los operadores <strong>de</strong> telecomunicaciones han pasado, dada <strong>la</strong> posición en <strong>la</strong> ca<strong>de</strong>na <strong>de</strong> valor<br />
que ocupan y su ingente po<strong>de</strong>río económico, <strong>de</strong> ser meros transportistas <strong>de</strong> servicios a ser los<br />
propios prestadores <strong>de</strong> servicios. La regu<strong>la</strong>ción en el sector <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s telecomunicaciones ha venido<br />
caracterizada por lograr <strong>la</strong> efectiva puesta a disposición <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> telecomunicaciones<br />
–consi<strong>de</strong>radas essential facilities– a los diferentes operadores <strong>de</strong>l mercado. Las empresas <strong>de</strong> telecomunicaciones<br />
se han entendido siempre como common carriers, como operadores sujetos a<br />
una amplia regu<strong>la</strong>ción sectorial, que tienen como objetivo hacer llegar un <strong>de</strong>terminado servicio<br />
–mediante sus re<strong>de</strong>s– a todos los ciudadanos <strong>de</strong> una manera igualitaria y sin discriminaciones.<br />
Si <strong>la</strong> naturaleza <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s compañías <strong>de</strong> telecomunicaciones ha <strong>de</strong> enten<strong>de</strong>rse como el<br />
mero transporte <strong>de</strong> servicios (voz, datos…), en nada han <strong>de</strong> interferir éstos en los contenidos<br />
que se transmiten a través <strong>de</strong> sus re<strong>de</strong>s. Así, siendo “transportistas públicos 34 ” sujetos a<br />
diversas obligaciones <strong>de</strong> servicio público, han <strong>de</strong> realizar un transporte in<strong>de</strong>pendiente, ajeno<br />
al contenido <strong>de</strong> los paquetes <strong>de</strong> datos que circulen por <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y dando cumplimiento así a <strong>la</strong><br />
estructuración por capas <strong>de</strong>l servicio.<br />
Los agentes regu<strong>la</strong>dores han <strong>de</strong> tener siempre presente <strong>la</strong> existencia <strong>de</strong> dos gran<strong>de</strong>s<br />
mercados interre<strong>la</strong>cionados, pero necesariamente in<strong>de</strong>pendientes, <strong>para</strong> po<strong>de</strong>r garantizar <strong>la</strong><br />
competencia efectiva en cada uno <strong>de</strong> ellos y el beneficio último <strong>de</strong>l consumidor 35 . De un<br />
<strong>la</strong>do, los diferentes mercados <strong>de</strong> acceso a <strong>red</strong> –minorista o mayorista–, en uno u otro punto<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> ca<strong>de</strong>na <strong>de</strong> valor, que tienen como objetivo último dar al ciudadano una conexión con<br />
los mínimos requerimientos legales establecidos. Del otro, se encontraría el mercado <strong>de</strong><br />
servicios, contenidos y aplicaciones existentes <strong>de</strong>ntro <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> propia <strong>red</strong>.<br />
Dada <strong>la</strong> posición que ocupan los operadores <strong>de</strong> telecomunicaciones, <strong>la</strong>s diferentes políticas<br />
que los mismos apliquen a <strong>la</strong> gestión <strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong>, bloqueando o priorizando unos contenidos<br />
34 La FCC entien<strong>de</strong> que ha <strong>de</strong> diferenciarse c<strong>la</strong>ramente el marco <strong>de</strong> actuación <strong>de</strong>l “transportista público”<br />
con infraestructuras privativas, <strong>de</strong>l marco <strong>la</strong>xo por excelencia en el que se movería el propiamente<br />
consi<strong>de</strong>rado transportista privado, abogando, <strong>de</strong>l mismo modo, por <strong>la</strong> reconsi<strong>de</strong>ración <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> posición<br />
<strong>de</strong> los primeros como meros transportistas al servicio <strong>de</strong>l mercado y <strong>de</strong>l ciudadano y no excluyendo,<br />
c<strong>la</strong>ro está, su legítima búsqueda <strong>de</strong>l beneficio económico. FCC, “In the Matter of Preserving…”, Op.<br />
cit. Apartado III, párrafo. 46 y ss.<br />
35 Como seña<strong>la</strong> BEREC: “se<strong>para</strong>tion between the network <strong>la</strong>yer and the content/application <strong>la</strong>yer, potentially<br />
allows competition and innovation throughout the value chain. It also implies low entry barriers on<br />
the open p<strong>la</strong>tform of the Internet that have provi<strong>de</strong>d particu<strong>la</strong>rly fertile ground for new content, applications<br />
and services to <strong>de</strong>velop”. BEREC, “Response to the European… Op. cit. Pág. 4.<br />
61
62 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
sobre <strong>otros</strong>, no sería más que aprovechar su posición en el mercado <strong>de</strong> acceso. El objetivo<br />
buscado radicaría en beneficiar a <strong>la</strong>s empresas pertenecientes a su mismo grupo empresarial<br />
o por <strong>la</strong> contra, propiciar el cobro a los proveedores <strong>de</strong> contenidos por <strong>la</strong> prestación <strong>de</strong> un<br />
servicio <strong>de</strong> transporte –ya que en <strong>de</strong>finitiva no pue<strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>finirse <strong>de</strong> otro modo– en mejores o<br />
peores condiciones. Estas actuaciones provocarían una elevada influencia en <strong>la</strong>s elecciones<br />
libres que los consumidores realicen, a <strong>la</strong> vez que <strong>de</strong>saparecería <strong>la</strong> competencia homogénea<br />
–en igualdad <strong>de</strong> condiciones ex ante– <strong>de</strong> los diferentes proveedores <strong>de</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong> internet 36 ,<br />
con ánimo <strong>de</strong> lucro o sin él.<br />
Las diferentes discusiones que se levantan en pos <strong>de</strong> permitir una mayor o menor gestión<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> mediante el cobro por <strong>la</strong> prestación preferencial <strong>de</strong> servicios, <strong>de</strong>vienen incongruentes<br />
una vez se analiza <strong>la</strong> posición que han tenido y <strong>de</strong>ben tener los operadores <strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong> a<br />
tenor <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción por capas.<br />
Las medidas regu<strong>la</strong>torias a tomar han <strong>de</strong> pasar por frenar el ascenso <strong>de</strong> posiciones <strong>de</strong> estos<br />
operadores en el mercado <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> banda ancha y el fomento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia en <strong>la</strong>s tres capas<br />
diferenciadas. En esta línea se pronunciaba ya en el 2009 el regu<strong>la</strong>dor <strong>de</strong> telecomunicaciones<br />
sueco, PTS, quien indicaba que lejos <strong>de</strong> inmiscuirse en un <strong>de</strong>bate sobre <strong>la</strong> posible permisión<br />
<strong>de</strong> gestión <strong>de</strong> contenidos en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>, el objetivo regu<strong>la</strong>torio habría <strong>de</strong> seguir siendo el fomento<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia a todos los niveles 37 . El fomento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia en <strong>la</strong>s capas <strong>de</strong> infraestructuras,<br />
tecnologías y contenidos conllevaría que cada una actuase sobre <strong>la</strong>s restantes a modo<br />
<strong>de</strong> catalizador <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> propia competencia e innovación, en los términos que ahora indicamos.<br />
A pesar <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> se<strong>para</strong>ción por capas y el tratamiento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s mismas como compartimentos<br />
estancos, no se evita que <strong>la</strong> evolución <strong>de</strong> cada una potencie <strong>la</strong> innovación y <strong>la</strong> competencia<br />
en <strong>la</strong>s capas superiores y/o inferiores. Las re<strong>la</strong>ciones entre <strong>la</strong>s mismas son siempre<br />
directamente proporcionales, lo que provoca que el aumento <strong>de</strong> competencia en cualquiera<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s mismas aumente <strong>la</strong> competencia en <strong>la</strong>s restantes 38 . Así, hasta el momento el <strong>de</strong>sarrollo<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> banda ancha ha <strong>de</strong>rivado <strong>de</strong>l motor que supuso <strong>la</strong> evolución en los contenidos y aplicaciones<br />
en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>, que ha sido el catalizador que ha avivado <strong>la</strong> generación <strong>de</strong> nuevos protocolos<br />
<strong>de</strong> transporte más avanzados, a <strong>la</strong> vez que han hecho surgir <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> nueva generación 39<br />
(NGN, <strong>la</strong> banda ultra ancha).<br />
36 Así lo apunta el BEREC, que –entre <strong>otros</strong>– <strong>la</strong> intervención <strong>de</strong> los operadores <strong>de</strong> telecomunicaciones<br />
en el mercado <strong>de</strong> servicio pue<strong>de</strong> llevar a <strong>la</strong> discriminación empresarial dado el potencial riesgo <strong>de</strong> integración<br />
vertical –y sus consecuencias anticompetitivas–, o <strong>la</strong> disminución a <strong>la</strong>rgo p<strong>la</strong>zo <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>sarrollo<br />
<strong>de</strong> internet, propiciada por <strong>la</strong> coartación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> innovación y libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión. BEREC, “Response<br />
to the European…” Op. cit. Págs. 4 y ss.<br />
37 Cfr. PTS, Gui<strong>de</strong>lines for Internet Neutrality. 24.02.2009. Disponible en: http://www.pts.se/upload/<br />
Rapporter/Internet/2009/natneutralitet-2009-6-eng.pdf.[Fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta: 25 <strong>de</strong> enero <strong>de</strong> 2011].<br />
38 Cfr. SICKER DoUGLAS C. & MINDEL JoSHUA L. (2002). «Refinements of a <strong>la</strong>ye<strong>red</strong> mo<strong>de</strong>l for<br />
telecommunications policy.» Journal on Telecommunications & High Technology Law. Vol. 1, pp. 310 y ss.<br />
39 Consúltese, FERNÁNDEZ GARCÍA, LIoNEL D. (2008) «La regu<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> telecomunicaciones<br />
<strong>de</strong> nueva generación (NGN). Perspectivas <strong>de</strong> evolución en España.» Revista <strong>de</strong> Derecho <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong>s Telecomunicaciones, Transportes e Infraestructuras en <strong>red</strong>. Nº 32, pp. 75-126.
<strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> perspectiva <strong>de</strong> su arquitectura por capas ¿<strong>de</strong> transportistas…<br />
Frenar el <strong>de</strong>sarrollo en libre competencia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> capa <strong>de</strong> contenidos y aplicaciones es<br />
tanto como <strong>red</strong>ucir el valor añadido <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>, coartar <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión, el <strong>de</strong>recho a<br />
<strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> empresa, a <strong>la</strong> vez que se censura discrecionalmente el mayor foro <strong>de</strong> diálogo<br />
existente a nivel internacional 40 .<br />
La solución a esta problemática probablemente no se encuentre en crear un nuevo y<br />
profuso mercado regu<strong>la</strong>do en el sector <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s telecomunicaciones que dé salida a <strong>la</strong> congestión<br />
<strong>de</strong> ese cuello <strong>de</strong> botel<strong>la</strong>. Quizá, al menos <strong>de</strong> momento, ha <strong>de</strong> pensarse en garantizar ex<br />
ante el ejercicio libre <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> empresa <strong>de</strong>ntro <strong>de</strong>l mercado <strong>de</strong> servicios, contenidos y<br />
aplicaciones en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>. Des<strong>de</strong> este punto <strong>de</strong> partida, los propios intervinientes <strong>de</strong>sarrol<strong>la</strong>rán<br />
–al caso <strong>de</strong> ser necesario– estrategias comerciales que pongan fin a <strong>la</strong> supuesta saturación <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>, al nuevo cuello <strong>de</strong> botel<strong>la</strong>.<br />
La existencia <strong>de</strong> un cuello <strong>de</strong> botel<strong>la</strong> ha <strong>de</strong> enmarcarse <strong>de</strong>ntro <strong>de</strong> un espacio temporal<br />
<strong>de</strong> medio-<strong>la</strong>rgo p<strong>la</strong>zo, no tratándose <strong>de</strong> un problema <strong>de</strong>finitivo e insubsanable por <strong>la</strong>s propias<br />
fuerzas que or<strong>de</strong>nan el mercado. El <strong>de</strong>sarrollo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> nueva generación supondrá<br />
<strong>la</strong> creación <strong>de</strong> un mayor ancho <strong>de</strong> banda, <strong>de</strong> mayor calidad y don<strong>de</strong> tendrán cabida más<br />
servicios y mejores aplicaciones. A su vez, <strong>la</strong> existencia <strong>de</strong> picos <strong>de</strong> congestión o cuellos <strong>de</strong><br />
botel<strong>la</strong> 41 no ha <strong>de</strong> venir “solucionada” discrecionalmente por el operador <strong>de</strong> telecomunicaciones<br />
<strong>de</strong> turno –ajeno al juego <strong>de</strong>l mercado <strong>de</strong> contenidos– u organismo regu<strong>la</strong>dor competente,<br />
sino por los propios intervinientes, los propios consumidores con su elección <strong>de</strong><br />
contenidos. Estos forzarán <strong>la</strong> eliminación <strong>de</strong> aquellos servicios in<strong>de</strong>seados y que ocupen <strong>de</strong><br />
manera ineficiente ancho <strong>de</strong> banda. Como también afirma <strong>la</strong> FCC 42 , <strong>la</strong>s tarifas p<strong>la</strong>nas, aunque<br />
buena estrategia <strong>para</strong> el <strong>de</strong>sarrollo masivo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> banda ancha, conllevan el co<strong>la</strong>pso <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
<strong>red</strong> con aplicaciones y contenidos no <strong>de</strong>mandados o <strong>de</strong>mandados en exceso, contribuyendo<br />
<strong>de</strong> manera escalofriante a <strong>la</strong> supuesta saturación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> banda ancha, y don<strong>de</strong> unos consumidores<br />
subvencionan el acceso masivo <strong>de</strong> <strong>otros</strong> a <strong>red</strong>, que <strong>de</strong>viene en una menor calidad en el<br />
servicio recibido por el primero.<br />
Quizá sea hora <strong>de</strong> modificar <strong>la</strong> estrategia comercial aplicada –medida poco popu<strong>la</strong>r<br />
don<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s haya 43 – <strong>para</strong> sufragar los problemas <strong>de</strong> congestión <strong>de</strong> tráfico. Entre <strong>la</strong>s opciones,<br />
tarificar en función <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> banda consumida y premiar a aquellos consumidores que menos<br />
40 Así, <strong>la</strong> Comisión Europea, entien<strong>de</strong> en <strong>la</strong> Directiva 2009/140/EC, <strong>de</strong>l Par<strong>la</strong>mento Europeo y <strong>de</strong>l<br />
Consejo, <strong>de</strong> 25 <strong>de</strong> noviembre <strong>de</strong> 2009 que: “Dado que Internet es esencial <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> educación y el ejercicio<br />
práctico <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión y el acceso a <strong>la</strong> información, por lo que toda restricción impuesta<br />
al ejercicio <strong>de</strong> esos <strong>de</strong>rechos fundamentales <strong>de</strong>berá ajustarse al Convenio Europeo <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> Protección <strong>de</strong> los<br />
Derechos Humanos y <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s Liberta<strong>de</strong>s Fundamentales.”<br />
41 oFCoM, consi<strong>de</strong>ra que los picos <strong>de</strong> congestión son muy puntuales, a <strong>la</strong> par que <strong>la</strong>s rec<strong>la</strong>maciones<br />
formales <strong>de</strong> los usuarios <strong>de</strong>rivadas <strong>de</strong> los mismos son inexistentes. oFCoM, Traffic Management…<br />
Op. cit. Pág. 15 y ss. En el mismo sentido, BEREC y ARCEP, entre <strong>otros</strong>.<br />
42 FCC, In the Matter of Preserving…Op. cit. Apartado III, párrafo 70 y ss.<br />
43 Más populista, sin duda, se presenta argumentar fa<strong>la</strong>zmente el cobro <strong>de</strong> importantes cánones a gran<strong>de</strong>s<br />
colosos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> -Google, Yahoo, YouTube, etc-, so pretexto <strong>de</strong> sus impronunciables beneficios<br />
obtenidos a costa <strong>de</strong> co<strong>la</strong>psar <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y perjudicar al pequeño blog particu<strong>la</strong>r.<br />
63
64 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
ancho <strong>de</strong> banda absorban, haciendo así <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> un espacio neutral y libre, don<strong>de</strong> todos los<br />
servicios se presten <strong>de</strong>ntro <strong>de</strong> unas condiciones comúnmente aceptadas <strong>de</strong> calidad y don<strong>de</strong><br />
neutralidad no es sinónimo <strong>de</strong> co<strong>la</strong>pso, ineficiencia o innecesaridad <strong>de</strong> contenidos.<br />
3. conclusión<br />
Una vez hecho un breve repaso por <strong>la</strong> teoría regu<strong>la</strong>toria por capas y sus implicaciones<br />
<strong>para</strong> con <strong>la</strong> neutralidad, <strong>la</strong> conclusión a <strong>la</strong> que llegamos ha <strong>de</strong> quedar c<strong>la</strong>ra. La falta <strong>de</strong><br />
neutralidad en <strong>la</strong> transmisión <strong>de</strong> contenidos web es diametralmente opuesta al principio<br />
<strong>de</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción por capas. Tal situación subyugaría el mercado <strong>de</strong> contenidos una vez que se<br />
permite <strong>la</strong> gestión discrecional y aleatoria <strong>de</strong>l mismo por parte <strong>de</strong> gran<strong>de</strong>s operadores económicos<br />
pertenecientes a una capa y mercado distinto, que nada han <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>cir al respecto. Así,<br />
los pasos a dar pasan por <strong>de</strong>limitar c<strong>la</strong>ramente los mercados intervinientes en el servicio <strong>de</strong><br />
banda ancha, <strong>para</strong>, sumiéndose los operadores al juego comercial y regu<strong>la</strong>ción propia <strong>de</strong> su<br />
mercado, alcanzar un elevado grado competencial en cada uno <strong>de</strong> los mismos.<br />
4. bibliografÍa bÁsica<br />
Benkler, Y. (2006). The Wealth of Networks: how social production transform markets and<br />
freedom. Ed. 1ª. Yale University Press.<br />
De La Quadra-Salcedo Fernán<strong>de</strong>z Del Castillo, T. (Dir.) (2009). Telecomunicaciones,<br />
<strong>de</strong>ntro <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> colección «Derecho <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Regu<strong>la</strong>ción económica». Ed. 1ª. Madrid: Iustel.<br />
Jordan S. (2009). «Implications of Internet Architecture upon Net Neutrality». ACM Transactions<br />
on Internet Technology. Vol. 9, nº. 2, pp. (5)1-28.<br />
Laguna De Paz, J. (2009). «Internet en un cruce <strong>de</strong> caminos: ¿neutralidad o gestión razonable<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s infraestructuras?», Revista Españo<strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> Derecho Administrativo. Vol. 141,<br />
pp. 43-62.<br />
Molly Shaffer Van Houweling (2002). «Cultivating open information p<strong>la</strong>tforms: a <strong>la</strong>nd<br />
trust mo<strong>de</strong>l», Journal on Telecommunications & High Technology Law. Vol. 1, pp. 309-<br />
324.<br />
Reed, D. (2006). «Critiquing the <strong>la</strong>ye<strong>red</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>tory mo<strong>de</strong>l». Journal on Telecommunications<br />
& High Technology Law. Vol. 4, pp. 281-298.<br />
Sicker D. & Min<strong>de</strong>l Joshua L. (2002). «Refinements of a <strong>la</strong>ye<strong>red</strong> mo<strong>de</strong>l for telecommunications<br />
policy.» Journal on Telecommunications & High Technology Law. Vol. 1, pp.<br />
69-94.<br />
Sicker, D., & Blumensaadt, L. (2006). «Misun<strong>de</strong>rstanding the <strong>la</strong>ye<strong>red</strong> mo<strong>de</strong>l(s)». Journal<br />
on Telecommunications & High Technology Law. Vol. 4, pp. 299-320.<br />
Solum, L., & Chun, M. (2003). «The Layers Principle: Internet Architecture and the Law».<br />
University of San Diego School of Law Public Law and Legal Theory. Research Paper 55.
<strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> perspectiva <strong>de</strong> su arquitectura por capas ¿<strong>de</strong> transportistas…<br />
Valcárcel Fernán<strong>de</strong>z, P. (2011). «Documentos y archivos electrónicos». En Administración<br />
electrónica y ciudadanos, Madrid: Thomson-Civitas, pp. 531-631.<br />
Whitt Richard, S. (2004). «A Horizontal Leap Forward: Formu<strong>la</strong>ting a New Communications<br />
Public Policy Framework Based on the Network Layers Mo<strong>de</strong>l.» Fe<strong>de</strong>ral Communications<br />
Law Journal. Vol. 56, nº 3, pp. 587-672.<br />
Wu, T. (2003). «Network neutrality, Broadband discrimination», Journal on Telecommunications<br />
& High Technology Law. Vol. 2, pp. 141-176.<br />
65
lA NeUtrAlIDAD De reD y lAs lIBertADes eN lA<br />
refOrmA De lAs COmUNICACIONes eleCtróNICAs De<br />
lA UNIóN eUrOPeA: ¿estáN PreseNtes eN tODA eUrOPA?<br />
Cristina Cullell March<br />
Profesora ayudante en <strong>la</strong> Facultad <strong>de</strong> Ciencias <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comunicación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
Universitat Internacional <strong>de</strong> Catalunya (UIC). Doctora en Ciencias <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comunicación<br />
AbstrAct: La reforma europea <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones electrónicas <strong>de</strong> 2009 introduce nuevas garantías<br />
<strong>para</strong> un internet más abierto y neutral a <strong>la</strong> vez que protege los <strong>de</strong>rechos <strong>de</strong> los ciudadanos <strong>de</strong> acceso<br />
a internet. Las nuevas normas reconocen que el acceso a internet es un <strong>de</strong>recho fundamental como<br />
<strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión e información. La Directiva 2009/136/CE prevé <strong>de</strong> forma explícita que cualquier<br />
medida llevada a cabo por los estados miembros sobre el acceso o uso <strong>de</strong> servicios y aplicaciones a<br />
través <strong>de</strong> re<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> telecomunicaciones <strong>de</strong>be respetar los <strong>de</strong>rechos fundamentales y <strong>la</strong>s liberta<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> los<br />
ciudadanos recogidas en el Convenio Europeo <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> Protección <strong>de</strong> los Derechos Humanos y <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s<br />
Liberta<strong>de</strong>s Fundamentales. A su vez, <strong>la</strong> reforma <strong>de</strong> 2009 también autoriza a <strong>la</strong>s autorida<strong>de</strong>s nacionales<br />
<strong>de</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción a fijar una calidad mínima <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> transmisión <strong>de</strong> datos a través <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y a promover<br />
<strong>la</strong> transparencia y <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong> en <strong>la</strong> UE.<br />
Esta comunicación preten<strong>de</strong> i<strong>de</strong>ntificar los mecanismos establecidos por <strong>la</strong> UE a <strong>la</strong> hora <strong>de</strong> asegurar<br />
que estas liberta<strong>de</strong>s están protegidas en los países europeos. Para alcanzar estos objetivos, <strong>la</strong> creación<br />
<strong>de</strong>l organismo <strong>de</strong> Regu<strong>la</strong>dores Europeos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s Comunicaciones Electrónicas (oRECE) será c<strong>la</strong>ve ya<br />
que fortalece y coordina <strong>la</strong> implementación <strong>de</strong>l nuevo marco jurídico a lo <strong>la</strong>rgo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión. Des<strong>de</strong> un<br />
punto <strong>de</strong> vista metodológico, esta comunicación se basará en una revisión bibliográfica <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> literatura<br />
especializada en el campo <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho y <strong>la</strong> ciencia política. La consulta <strong>de</strong> documentos oficiales <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s<br />
instituciones europeas como resoluciones <strong>de</strong>l Par<strong>la</strong>mento Europeo, Informes, Libros B<strong>la</strong>ncos, Comunicaciones<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comisión y <strong>de</strong> los organismos especializados como el oRECE.<br />
pAlAbrAs clAve: neutralidad, transparencia, oRECE, <strong>red</strong>, calidad <strong>de</strong> servicio.<br />
1. introducción. el <strong>de</strong>bate sobre <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong><br />
El 25 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011, se <strong>de</strong>berán incorporar a los or<strong>de</strong>namientos jurídicos nacionales<br />
<strong>la</strong>s nuevas normas <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión Europea en materia <strong>de</strong> comunicaciones electrónicas<br />
aprobadas a finales <strong>de</strong> 2009. Se trata <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Directiva 2009/140/CE por <strong>la</strong> que se modifican<br />
<strong>la</strong> Directiva 2002/21/CE re<strong>la</strong>tiva a un marco regu<strong>la</strong>dor común <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s y los servicios <strong>de</strong><br />
comunicaciones electrónicas, <strong>la</strong> Directiva 2002/19/CE <strong>de</strong> acceso a <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> comunicaciones<br />
electrónicas, y <strong>la</strong> Directiva 2002/20/CE re<strong>la</strong>tiva a <strong>la</strong> autorización <strong>de</strong> re<strong>de</strong>s y servicios<br />
<strong>de</strong> comunicaciones electrónicas. otro pi<strong>la</strong>r <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> reforma es <strong>la</strong> Directiva 2009/136/CE por<br />
<strong>la</strong> que se modifican <strong>la</strong> Directiva 2002/22/CE <strong>de</strong>l servicio universal y los <strong>de</strong>rechos <strong>de</strong> los<br />
usuarios en re<strong>la</strong>ción con <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s y los servicios <strong>de</strong> comunicaciones electrónicas, <strong>la</strong> Directiva<br />
2002/58/CE re<strong>la</strong>tiva al tratamiento <strong>de</strong> los datos personales y a <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> intimidad<br />
en el sector <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones electrónicas y el Reg<strong>la</strong>mento (CE) 2006/2004 sobre <strong>la</strong><br />
3
68 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
cooperación en materia <strong>de</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> los consumidores. La reforma también incluye <strong>la</strong><br />
creación <strong>de</strong> un organismo <strong>de</strong> Regu<strong>la</strong>dores Europeos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s Comunicaciones Electrónicas<br />
(oRECE) que favorece una mayor seguridad y cohesión normativa en <strong>la</strong> UE.<br />
Con esta reforma <strong>la</strong> UE quiere garantizar un sector <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s telecomunicaciones más<br />
competitivo que ofrezca mejores servicios a los clientes tales como facilitar el cambio <strong>de</strong> operador<br />
<strong>de</strong> telecomunicaciones en un solo día sin cambiar <strong>de</strong> número <strong>de</strong> teléfono o el <strong>de</strong>recho<br />
a una mayor c<strong>la</strong>ridad sobre los servicios ofrecidos a los consumidores que podría manifestarse<br />
en <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong>. La reforma <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones electrónicas <strong>de</strong> 2009 incorpora<br />
por primera vez preceptos re<strong>la</strong>tivos a <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong>, es <strong>de</strong>cir, asegurar que cualquier<br />
comunicación electrónica que circu<strong>la</strong> a través <strong>de</strong> una <strong>red</strong> es tratada <strong>de</strong> igual manera.<br />
En esta comunicación abordaremos <strong>la</strong> importancia que tiene un acceso abierto, sin<br />
limitaciones <strong>de</strong> ningún tipo, a internet en el marco <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información; en<br />
segundo lugar, expondremos <strong>la</strong> protección jurídica que ofrece el or<strong>de</strong>namiento comunitario<br />
a <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong> <strong>para</strong> pasar a concretar <strong>la</strong> posición <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s autorida<strong>de</strong>s comunitarias en<br />
el<strong>la</strong>. Finalmente, centraremos nuestra atención en los mecanismos previstos <strong>para</strong> asegurar el<br />
cumplimiento <strong>de</strong>l or<strong>de</strong>namiento comunitario a lo <strong>la</strong>rgo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión y <strong>la</strong> importancia que<br />
tiene <strong>la</strong> creación <strong>de</strong>l oRECE <strong>para</strong> asegurar una cohesión interna en <strong>la</strong> aplicación <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho<br />
comunitario por parte <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s autorida<strong>de</strong>s nacionales <strong>de</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción (ANR).<br />
2. <strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información: internet como bien<br />
colectiVo<br />
La revolución digital, impulsada por <strong>la</strong>s tecnologías <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información y <strong>la</strong> comunicación,<br />
ha modificado radicalmente nuestras formas <strong>de</strong> pensar, actuar y comunicar en diferentes<br />
ámbitos <strong>de</strong> nuestras vidas. Des<strong>de</strong> un punto <strong>de</strong> vista económico, <strong>la</strong> digitalización ha<br />
reestructurado <strong>la</strong>s formas económicas y <strong>de</strong> negocio; y a nivel social ha creado nuevas formas<br />
<strong>de</strong> entretenimiento y ocio a <strong>la</strong> vez que se ha favorecido <strong>la</strong> aparición <strong>de</strong> nuevas modalida<strong>de</strong>s<br />
<strong>de</strong> crear conocimientos, educar a <strong>la</strong> pob<strong>la</strong>ción y transmitir información.<br />
Reconociendo que esta nueva dinámica exige una discusión a esca<strong>la</strong> mundial, <strong>la</strong> Unión<br />
Internacional <strong>de</strong> Telecomunicaciones (UIT) <strong>de</strong>cidió celebrar una Cumbre Mundial sobre <strong>la</strong><br />
Sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Información (CMSI) 1 e inscribir<strong>la</strong> en el programa <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s Naciones Unidas 2 .<br />
La celebración <strong>de</strong> esta conferencia constituye un buen ejemplo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> importancia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> re-<br />
1 La Cumbre Mundial sobre <strong>la</strong> Sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Información (CMSI), celebrada en Ginebra (2003) y<br />
Túnez (2005), reunió a representantes <strong>de</strong> gobiernos, <strong>la</strong> sociedad civil y el sector industrial <strong>para</strong> abordar<br />
una amplia gama <strong>de</strong> temas re<strong>la</strong>cionados con <strong>la</strong>s TIC <strong>para</strong> el <strong>de</strong>sarrollo. Finalmente, los gobiernos<br />
llegaron a un acuerdo sobre una serie <strong>de</strong> compromisos y acciones <strong>de</strong>stinados a fomentar <strong>la</strong> creación <strong>de</strong><br />
una sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información inclusiva. En concreto, en el P<strong>la</strong>n <strong>de</strong> Acción <strong>de</strong> Ginebra se <strong>de</strong>finieron<br />
diez objetivos, a<strong>de</strong>más <strong>de</strong> diversas recomendaciones basadas en <strong>la</strong>s diversas líneas <strong>de</strong> acción.<br />
2 <strong>otros</strong> organismos <strong>de</strong> Naciones Unidas que también participaron en <strong>la</strong> Cumbre Mundial <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Sociedad<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Información fueron UNCTAD, <strong>la</strong> UNESCo y <strong>la</strong> UNDP.
<strong>la</strong> <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>la</strong>s liberta<strong>de</strong>s en <strong>la</strong> reforma <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones electrónicas <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> …<br />
gu<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> internet, en el<strong>la</strong> se estableció una estrategia c<strong>la</strong>ra <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> construcción <strong>de</strong> una<br />
Sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Información Global. Tal y como se estipu<strong>la</strong> en <strong>la</strong> Dec<strong>la</strong>ración <strong>de</strong> Principios<br />
Construir <strong>la</strong> Sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Información: un <strong>de</strong>safío global <strong>para</strong> el nuevo Milenio los representantes<br />
<strong>de</strong> todos los pueblos <strong>de</strong>l mundo expresaron su <strong>de</strong>seo y compromiso <strong>de</strong> “construir una<br />
Sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Información centrada en <strong>la</strong> persona, integradora y orientada al <strong>de</strong>sarrollo, en<br />
que todos puedan crear, consultar, utilizar y compartir <strong>la</strong> información y el conocimiento,<br />
<strong>para</strong> que <strong>la</strong>s personas, <strong>la</strong>s comunida<strong>de</strong>s y los pueblos puedan emplear plenamente sus posibilida<strong>de</strong>s<br />
en <strong>la</strong> promoción <strong>de</strong> su <strong>de</strong>sarrollo sostenible y en <strong>la</strong> mejora <strong>de</strong> su calidad <strong>de</strong> vida,<br />
sobre <strong>la</strong> base <strong>de</strong> los propósitos y principios <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Carta <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s Naciones Unidas y respetando<br />
plenamente y <strong>de</strong>fendiendo <strong>la</strong> Dec<strong>la</strong>ración Universal <strong>de</strong> Derechos Humanos” 3 .<br />
El compromiso <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> construcción <strong>de</strong> esta Sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Información Global adquirido<br />
en Ginebra está muy ligado a <strong>la</strong> consecución <strong>de</strong> los objetivos <strong>de</strong> Desarrollo <strong>de</strong>l Milenio<br />
(oDM) acordados en <strong>la</strong> Dec<strong>la</strong>ración <strong>de</strong>l Milenio adoptada por <strong>la</strong> Asamblea General <strong>de</strong><br />
Naciones Unidas el año 2000 4 . En el<strong>la</strong>, los representantes <strong>de</strong> todos los pueblos <strong>de</strong>l mundo<br />
expresan su “<strong>de</strong>safío <strong>de</strong> encauzar el potencial <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> tecnología <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información y <strong>la</strong> comunicación<br />
<strong>para</strong> promover los objetivos <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>sarrollo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Dec<strong>la</strong>ración <strong>de</strong>l Milenio”. Entre los<br />
objetivos <strong>de</strong>l Milenio <strong>de</strong>bemos subrayar <strong>la</strong> educación universal y <strong>la</strong> mejora <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> salud humana<br />
<strong>para</strong> cuya consecución resulta imprescindible el <strong>de</strong>sarrollo <strong>de</strong> re<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> banda ancha. Las<br />
re<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> alta velocidad pue<strong>de</strong>n transportar aplicaciones avanzadas que enriquecen <strong>la</strong> educación<br />
y mejoran <strong>la</strong>s prestaciones y finalida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> salud en muchos países en vías <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>sarrollo.<br />
Dejando a un <strong>la</strong>do cuestiones re<strong>la</strong>tivas al avance tecnológico vincu<strong>la</strong>das al <strong>de</strong>sarrollo<br />
humano, <strong>de</strong>bemos tener presente que <strong>la</strong> piedra angu<strong>la</strong>r <strong>de</strong> esta Sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información<br />
<strong>la</strong> constituye <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> opinión e información. Por ello en <strong>la</strong> Dec<strong>la</strong>ración <strong>de</strong> Principios<br />
Construir <strong>la</strong> Sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Información: un <strong>de</strong>safío global <strong>para</strong> el nuevo Milenio los representantes<br />
nacionales reafirmaron como fundamento esencial <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Información,<br />
y según se estipu<strong>la</strong> en el Artículo 19 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Dec<strong>la</strong>ración Universal <strong>de</strong> Derechos Humanos, que<br />
“todo individuo tiene <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> opinión y <strong>de</strong> expresión, que este <strong>de</strong>recho incluye<br />
el <strong>de</strong> no ser molestado a causa <strong>de</strong> sus opiniones, el <strong>de</strong> investigar y recibir información y<br />
opiniones, y el <strong>de</strong> difundir<strong>la</strong>s, sin limitación <strong>de</strong> fronteras, por cualquier medio <strong>de</strong> expresión”<br />
ya que <strong>la</strong> comunicación constituye el eje fundamental <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Información y es<br />
una necesidad humana básica y el fundamento <strong>de</strong> toda organización social. Por ello, todas<br />
<strong>la</strong>s personas <strong>de</strong>ben tener <strong>la</strong> oportunidad <strong>de</strong> participar en el<strong>la</strong> sin restricciones y en igualdad<br />
<strong>de</strong> condiciones. En una sociedad hiperconectada como <strong>la</strong> Sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Información tener<br />
acceso a un internet abierto pue<strong>de</strong> ser crucial. Así se reconoce a nivel regional europeo ya<br />
que el artículo 1.3. <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Directiva 2009/136/CE prevé que “…<strong>la</strong>s medidas nacionales re-<br />
3 Dec<strong>la</strong>ración <strong>de</strong> Principios. Construir <strong>la</strong> Sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Información: un <strong>de</strong>safío global <strong>para</strong> el Nuevo<br />
Milenio. Primera fase <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> CMSI Ginebra, 2003. http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dopes.html.<br />
4 Los objetivos <strong>de</strong>l Milenio son <strong>la</strong> erradicación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> pobreza extrema y el hambre, educación universal,<br />
igualdad entre los géneros, <strong>red</strong>ucir <strong>la</strong> mortalidad <strong>de</strong> los niños, mejorar <strong>la</strong> salud materna, combatir el<br />
SIDA, sostenibilidad <strong>de</strong>l medio ambiente, fomentar una asociación mundial.<br />
69
70 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
<strong>la</strong>tivas al acceso o al uso por parte <strong>de</strong> los usuarios finales <strong>de</strong> los servicios y <strong>la</strong>s aplicaciones a<br />
través <strong>de</strong> re<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> comunicaciones electrónicas respetarán los <strong>de</strong>rechos y liberta<strong>de</strong>s fundamentales<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s personas físicas, también en lo que se refiere a <strong>la</strong> intimidad y a un proceso<br />
con <strong>la</strong>s <strong>de</strong>bidas garantías, tal como se <strong>de</strong>fine en el artículo 6 <strong>de</strong>l Convenio Europeo <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
Protección <strong>de</strong> los Derechos Humanos y <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s Liberta<strong>de</strong>s Fundamentales”.<br />
Plenamente inmersos en esta sociedad aparecen nuevos <strong>de</strong>rechos <strong>para</strong> garantizar el correcto<br />
ejercicio <strong>de</strong> estas liberta<strong>de</strong>s y una <strong>de</strong> el<strong>la</strong>s es el <strong>de</strong>recho <strong>de</strong> acceso libre a internet. Así es, <strong>la</strong> importancia<br />
<strong>de</strong> internet <strong>para</strong> el <strong>de</strong>sarrollo social y económico <strong>de</strong> todas <strong>la</strong>s naciones <strong>de</strong>l mundo hace<br />
que el acceso a esta <strong>red</strong> también pueda constituir una condición sine qua non <strong>para</strong> el ejercicio <strong>de</strong><br />
algunos <strong>de</strong>rechos fundamentales como <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión y <strong>de</strong> información en <strong>la</strong> era digital.<br />
En este sentido, internet es el que mejor representa los principios <strong>de</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión y pensamiento<br />
ya que ha dado lugar a gran<strong>de</strong>s avances sociales tales como podría ser <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>mocratización<br />
<strong>de</strong>l acceso al saber, favorecer <strong>la</strong> participación <strong>de</strong> los ciudadanos en el <strong>de</strong>bate social y político,<br />
facilitar promoción <strong>de</strong> i<strong>de</strong>as novedosas, comercialización universal <strong>de</strong> todo tipo <strong>de</strong> productos y<br />
servicios, favorecer <strong>la</strong> cooperación y <strong>la</strong> creación <strong>de</strong> riqueza, etc. Por todo ello, se hace necesario <strong>la</strong><br />
creación <strong>de</strong> unas reg<strong>la</strong>s <strong>para</strong> preservar una internet universal ya que se trata <strong>de</strong> un bien colectivo<br />
que no <strong>de</strong>be ser transformado <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>fensa <strong>de</strong> unos intereses o actores muy conc<strong>retos</strong>.<br />
Como <strong>de</strong>cíamos, internet es una pieza angu<strong>la</strong>r <strong>para</strong> el <strong>de</strong>sarrollo <strong>de</strong> nuestra sociedad.<br />
No obstante, el aumento <strong>de</strong> tráfico –sobre todo <strong>de</strong> ví<strong>de</strong>o– a través <strong>de</strong> esta <strong>red</strong> así como los<br />
esfuerzos <strong>de</strong> los po<strong>de</strong>res públicos <strong>para</strong> prevenir el crimen cibernético han favorecido el <strong>de</strong>bate<br />
sobre su neutralidad. El <strong>de</strong>bate sobre <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong> aparece en un contexto caracterizado<br />
por el incremento <strong>de</strong> tráfico <strong>de</strong> datos, el crecimiento <strong>de</strong> internautas y <strong>la</strong> necesidad<br />
<strong>de</strong> llevar a cabo inversiones <strong>para</strong> <strong>de</strong>sarrol<strong>la</strong>r <strong>la</strong> banda ancha (Mars<strong>de</strong>n, 2010). Este cúmulo<br />
<strong>de</strong> circunstancias ha hecho que <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>la</strong> existencia <strong>de</strong> un internet abierto<br />
–que en su momento fue su principio fundador– corran el riesgo <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>saparecer. La Unión<br />
Europea ha comenzado a actuar sobre esta cuestión a fin <strong>de</strong> asegurar un internet universal<br />
abierto accesible a través <strong>de</strong> una <strong>red</strong> neutral a lo <strong>la</strong>rgo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión. La neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong><br />
representa un principio <strong>de</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción fundamental <strong>para</strong> el correcto <strong>de</strong>sarrollo <strong>de</strong> los nuevos<br />
<strong>de</strong>rechos digitales, se <strong>de</strong>be asegurar un acceso a internet libre, es <strong>de</strong>cir, que <strong>la</strong> información<br />
que circu<strong>la</strong> a través <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> no experimenta ningún tipo <strong>de</strong> discriminación que beneficie<br />
intereses distintos a los <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> mayoría <strong>de</strong> cibernautas.<br />
3. <strong>la</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong> en <strong>la</strong> unión euroPea:<br />
<strong>la</strong> reforma <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones electrónicas <strong>de</strong> 2009<br />
A diferencia <strong>de</strong> lo que suce<strong>de</strong> con <strong>la</strong> neutralidad tecnológica y <strong>de</strong> servicios que han<br />
quedado consagrados normativamente en <strong>la</strong> reforma europea <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones electrónicas<br />
<strong>de</strong> 2009 5 , los articu<strong>la</strong>dos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Directiva 2009/140/CE y <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Directiva 2009/136/CE<br />
5 El principio <strong>de</strong> neutralidad tecnológica ya se preveía en <strong>la</strong> primera versión <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Directiva marco<br />
2002/21/CE como mecanismo <strong>de</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción en base al cual los regu<strong>la</strong>dores <strong>de</strong>bían <strong>de</strong>jar que el mer-
<strong>la</strong> <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>la</strong>s liberta<strong>de</strong>s en <strong>la</strong> reforma <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones electrónicas <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> …<br />
no recogen <strong>de</strong> forma expresa <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong>. La única referencia a <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong><br />
internet se encuentra en un anexo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Directiva 2009/140/CE que incluye <strong>la</strong> Dec<strong>la</strong>ración<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comisión sobre <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> internet. En el<strong>la</strong>, el ejecutivo europeo manifiesta su<br />
compromiso a <strong>la</strong> hora <strong>de</strong> “preservar un carácter abierto y neutral <strong>de</strong> internet”. Con esta Dec<strong>la</strong>ración,<br />
sin trascen<strong>de</strong>ncia jurídica pero <strong>de</strong> indiscutible valor político, <strong>la</strong> Comisión otorga<br />
gran importancia a esta cuestión y consagra <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> internet como un objetivo<br />
político y un principio regu<strong>la</strong>dor <strong>de</strong>be ser fomentado por <strong>la</strong>s autorida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> reg<strong>la</strong>mentación.<br />
A pesar <strong>de</strong> que en el or<strong>de</strong>namiento europeo no existe una <strong>de</strong>finición <strong>de</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>red</strong>, sí existe una voluntad <strong>de</strong> favorecer <strong>la</strong> preservación <strong>de</strong> un internet abierto y una <strong>red</strong> neutral.<br />
En este sentido, cabe <strong>de</strong>stacar el artículo 8.4 g) <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Directiva Marco (reformada por<br />
<strong>la</strong> Directiva 2009/140/CE) <strong>de</strong>l cual pue<strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>spren<strong>de</strong>rse una primera y ligera aproximación<br />
conceptual cuando se obliga a <strong>la</strong>s autorida<strong>de</strong>s nacionales <strong>de</strong> reg<strong>la</strong>mentación a promover “los<br />
intereses <strong>de</strong> los ciudadanos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión Europea, entre otras cosas: promoviendo <strong>la</strong> capacidad<br />
<strong>de</strong> los usuarios finales <strong>para</strong> acce<strong>de</strong>r y distribuir <strong>la</strong> información o utilizar <strong>la</strong>s aplicaciones<br />
y los servicios <strong>de</strong> su elección”. Es <strong>de</strong>cir, según el or<strong>de</strong>namiento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> UE un primer aspecto<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> internet estría re<strong>la</strong>cionado con <strong>la</strong> libre elección y supondría garantizar<br />
capacidad a los usuarios <strong>para</strong> acce<strong>de</strong>r, distribuir o utilizar todo aquello que libremente escojan<br />
sin discriminación alguna sobre su elección 6 .<br />
Según <strong>la</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción europea existe un segundo elemento constitutivo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> neutralidad<br />
<strong>de</strong> internet: <strong>la</strong> transparencia. La Directiva <strong>de</strong> Servicio Universal (reformada por <strong>la</strong> Directiva<br />
2009/136/CE) establece en su artículo 20.1 b) que en <strong>la</strong> celebración <strong>de</strong> contratos <strong>de</strong> servicios<br />
<strong>de</strong> conexión o comunicaciones electrónicas, este contrato <strong>de</strong>berá incluir como mínimo<br />
los servicios prestados y en particu<strong>la</strong>r: información sobre cualquier otra condición que limite<br />
el acceso o <strong>la</strong> utilización <strong>de</strong> los servicios y <strong>la</strong>s aplicaciones; los niveles mínimos <strong>de</strong> calidad <strong>de</strong><br />
servicio que se ofrecen, en particu<strong>la</strong>r, el p<strong>la</strong>zo <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> conexión inicial, así como, en su caso,<br />
<strong>otros</strong> parámetros <strong>de</strong> calidad <strong>de</strong>l servicio, que establezcan <strong>la</strong>s autorida<strong>de</strong>s nacionales <strong>de</strong> reg<strong>la</strong>mentación.<br />
Finalmente, también <strong>de</strong>be incluir información sobre cualquier procedimiento<br />
establecido por <strong>la</strong> empresa <strong>para</strong> medir y gestionar el tráfico <strong>de</strong> forma que se evite agotar o<br />
saturar el en<strong>la</strong>ce <strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong>, o cualquier otro procedimiento que pueda afectar <strong>la</strong> calidad <strong>de</strong>l<br />
servicio.<br />
Cabe tener en cuenta que <strong>la</strong> transparencia no solo se refiere al contrato <strong>de</strong> conexión<br />
o <strong>de</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong> comunicaciones electrónicas sino que también incluye <strong>la</strong> obligación <strong>de</strong><br />
informar en casos <strong>de</strong> cambios en <strong>la</strong>s condiciones <strong>de</strong> acceso. Así lo prevé el artículo 21.3 c)<br />
y d) <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Directiva <strong>de</strong> Servicio Universal cuando estipu<strong>la</strong> que <strong>la</strong>s empresas proveedoras <strong>de</strong><br />
re<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong>berán, por un <strong>la</strong>do, informar a los abonados <strong>de</strong> los cambios en <strong>la</strong>s condiciones que<br />
cado <strong>de</strong>cidiera qué tecnología utilizar <strong>para</strong> un uso en particu<strong>la</strong>r. Por su parte, <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> servicios<br />
se trata <strong>de</strong> un concepto más reciente surgido <strong>de</strong>l potencial que brindan <strong>la</strong>s nuevas tecnologías y<br />
en esencia supone que los regu<strong>la</strong>dores <strong>de</strong>ben incentivar un uso más flexible <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s autorizando<br />
el uso <strong>de</strong> cualquier banda <strong>de</strong> frecuencia <strong>para</strong> cualquier servicio (Cullell-March, 2010).<br />
6 Algunos autores justifican posibles actuaciones discriminatorias por parte <strong>de</strong> los ISP <strong>para</strong> asegurar una<br />
calidad <strong>de</strong>l servicio, especialmente en casos <strong>de</strong> congestión <strong>de</strong> tráfico en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> (Cave y Crocioni, 2007).<br />
71
72 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
limiten el acceso o <strong>la</strong> utilización <strong>de</strong> los servicios y <strong>la</strong>s aplicaciones, cuando tales condiciones<br />
estén permitidas; y por otro, proporcionar información sobre cualquier procedimiento establecido<br />
por el proveedor <strong>para</strong> medir y gestionar el tráfico <strong>de</strong> forma que se evite agotar o<br />
saturar el en<strong>la</strong>ce <strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong>.<br />
Finalmente, <strong>de</strong>jando a un <strong>la</strong>do <strong>la</strong> importancia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> transparencia en el momento <strong>de</strong><br />
celebración <strong>de</strong>l contrato y <strong>la</strong> obligación <strong>de</strong> informar sobre cualquier cambio <strong>de</strong> gestión <strong>de</strong>l<br />
tráfico en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>, el tercer elemento constitutivo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong> en <strong>la</strong> UE consiste en <strong>la</strong><br />
limitación <strong>de</strong> prácticas restrictivas <strong>de</strong>l tráfico en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> a fin <strong>de</strong> preservar <strong>la</strong> calidad <strong>de</strong>l servicio y<br />
prevenir con ello su <strong>de</strong>gradación, a causa <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> obstaculización o ralentización <strong>de</strong>l tráfico en <strong>la</strong>s<br />
re<strong>de</strong>s 7 . A este fin, el artículo 22.3 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Directiva <strong>de</strong> Servicio Universal otorga a <strong>la</strong>s autorida<strong>de</strong>s<br />
nacionales <strong>de</strong> reg<strong>la</strong>mentación <strong>la</strong> potestad <strong>de</strong> establecer unos requisitos mínimos <strong>de</strong> calidad <strong>de</strong>l<br />
servicio a <strong>la</strong> empresa o empresas proveedoras <strong>de</strong> re<strong>de</strong>s públicas <strong>de</strong> comunicaciones.<br />
En <strong>de</strong>finitiva, observamos como <strong>la</strong> capacidad <strong>de</strong> elección, <strong>la</strong> transparencia y <strong>la</strong> calidad<br />
<strong>de</strong>l servicio son los tres elementos c<strong>la</strong>ve en <strong>la</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong> en <strong>la</strong> Unión<br />
que también otorga nuevos po<strong>de</strong>res <strong>de</strong> supervisión <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comisión Europea. Como se<br />
prevé en <strong>la</strong> Dec<strong>la</strong>ración <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comisión sobre <strong>la</strong> <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> Internet anexa a <strong>la</strong> Directiva<br />
2009/140/CE, el ejecutivo europeo se obliga a supervisar <strong>la</strong> aplicación <strong>de</strong> estas disposiciones<br />
en los estados miembros, convirtiéndose en <strong>la</strong> garante <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s “liberta<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> internet” <strong>de</strong> los<br />
ciudadanos europeos. Los estados miembros también tendrán un papel <strong>de</strong>stacado ya que serán<br />
los encargados <strong>de</strong> garantizar su aplicación en sus respectivos territorios; sobre este punto<br />
pivotará precisamente <strong>la</strong> importancia <strong>de</strong>l oRECE como <strong>de</strong>stacado actor <strong>de</strong> coordinación en<br />
aplicación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción europea, evitando <strong>de</strong>sajustes normativos entre or<strong>de</strong>namientos jurídicos<br />
<strong>de</strong> diferentes estados miembros y, en <strong>de</strong>finitiva, garantizando unos mismos <strong>de</strong>rechos<br />
a los internautas <strong>de</strong> toda <strong>la</strong> UE.<br />
4. <strong>la</strong>s intituciones euroPeas ante <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> internet:<br />
<strong>la</strong> comisión, el Par<strong>la</strong>mento y el orece<br />
Una vez incorporadas disposiciones re<strong>la</strong>tivas a <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong> en el or<strong>de</strong>namiento<br />
europeo, en noviembre <strong>de</strong> 2011 <strong>la</strong> Comisión Europea y el Par<strong>la</strong>mento Europeo organizaron<br />
conjuntamente una conferencia sobre “Internet Abierto y <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> Red en Europa”,<br />
cuyo objetivo era <strong>de</strong>batir <strong>la</strong>s aportaciones <strong>de</strong> los diferentes sectores participantes en <strong>la</strong> consulta<br />
pública organizada por <strong>la</strong> Comisión. De aquel<strong>la</strong>s jornadas se <strong>de</strong>sprendió un consenso<br />
general sobre <strong>la</strong> importancia <strong>de</strong> mantener un internet abierto.<br />
7 Para algunos autores como Gregory Sidak <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Universidad <strong>de</strong> Georgetown <strong>la</strong> calidad <strong>de</strong>l servicio<br />
pue<strong>de</strong> ir ligada al precio. Como afirma Sidak los <strong>de</strong>fensores <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong> se oponen al<br />
establecimiento <strong>de</strong> tarifas <strong>para</strong> los proveedores <strong>de</strong> contenidos <strong>de</strong> internet pero no se pronuncian sobre<br />
<strong>la</strong> posibilidad <strong>de</strong> pago por parte <strong>de</strong>l usuario final. En este sentido, el autor afirma que existen usuarios<br />
que puedan estar dispuestos a pagar <strong>para</strong> tener preferencia en el tráfico <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>, especialmente en<br />
algunos servicios conc<strong>retos</strong> como pue<strong>de</strong>n ser el <strong>de</strong> apuestas online (Sidak, 2007).
<strong>la</strong> <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>la</strong>s liberta<strong>de</strong>s en <strong>la</strong> reforma <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones electrónicas <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> …<br />
Preservar un internet abierto ha sido una <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s principales preocupaciones <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comisión<br />
Europea y ya <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> un principio ha existido un compromiso c<strong>la</strong>ro por parte <strong>de</strong>l<br />
ejecutivo europeo <strong>para</strong> asegurarlo. Un ejemplo <strong>de</strong> ello es <strong>la</strong> Dec<strong>la</strong>ración anexa a <strong>la</strong> Directiva<br />
2009/140/CE sobre <strong>la</strong> <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> Internet en <strong>la</strong> UE. En el<strong>la</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comisión <strong>de</strong>ja c<strong>la</strong>ro que<br />
son <strong>la</strong>s autorida<strong>de</strong>s nacionales <strong>de</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>la</strong>s encargadas <strong>de</strong> fomentar un internet libre y<br />
abierto y al mismo tiempo asume un rol <strong>de</strong> supervisión <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s disposiciones <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> reforma<br />
<strong>de</strong> 2009 re<strong>la</strong>tivas a <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong>. Asimismo, en esta Dec<strong>la</strong>ración anexa a <strong>la</strong> Directiva<br />
2009/140/CE, <strong>la</strong> Comisión refuerza los requisitos <strong>de</strong> transparencia y afianza <strong>la</strong>s competencias<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s autorida<strong>de</strong>s nacionales <strong>de</strong> reg<strong>la</strong>mentación <strong>para</strong> prevenir <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>gradación <strong>de</strong> los<br />
servicios y <strong>la</strong> obstaculización o entorpecimiento <strong>de</strong>l tráfico en <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s públicas 8 .<br />
otra competencia importante <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comisión <strong>de</strong>stinada proteger <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong><br />
se refiere a reportar información <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s evoluciones <strong>de</strong>l mercado <strong>de</strong> comunicaciones electrónicas<br />
sobre <strong>la</strong>s “liberta<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> internet”, a otras instituciones <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión como el Par<strong>la</strong>mento<br />
Europeo y el Consejo. En sus informes también expone si consi<strong>de</strong>ra necesario establecer<br />
directrices adicionales, y hacer uso <strong>de</strong> sus atribuciones legis<strong>la</strong>tivas <strong>de</strong>stinadas preservar una<br />
correcta competencia en el mercado.<br />
La primera información <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comisión al Par<strong>la</strong>mento y al Consejo ha tenido lugar en<br />
abril <strong>de</strong> 2011 con <strong>la</strong> publicación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comunicación sobre internet abierto y neutralidad<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong> en Europa [CoM(2011)222final]. En este documento el ejecutivo europeo <strong>de</strong>tecta<br />
algunos puntos conflictivos como <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>terminación <strong>de</strong> lo que pue<strong>de</strong> constituir una gestión<br />
<strong>de</strong> tráfico razonable y los abusos que se producen por parte <strong>de</strong> algunos operadores especialmente<br />
a <strong>la</strong> hora <strong>de</strong> ralentizar 9 ciertos tipos <strong>de</strong> tráfico y por lo tanto afectar <strong>la</strong> calidad <strong>de</strong>l<br />
contenido (Comisión Europea, 2011:5). El ejecutivo europeo también pone <strong>de</strong> manifiesto<br />
algunas preocupaciones manifestadas en <strong>la</strong> consulta pública como pue<strong>de</strong> ser el bloqueo <strong>de</strong><br />
algunos servicios como los <strong>de</strong> VoIP, y el peligro <strong>de</strong> que pudiera exten<strong>de</strong>rse a <strong>otros</strong> servicios<br />
como <strong>la</strong> televisión por internet. otra cuestión que pone <strong>de</strong> manifiesto <strong>la</strong> Comisión en este<br />
documento es <strong>la</strong> necesidad que tiene el consumidor <strong>de</strong> obtener información a<strong>de</strong>cuada sobre<br />
<strong>la</strong>s posibles limitaciones en <strong>la</strong> gestión que puedan repercutir en el volumen <strong>de</strong>l tráfico<br />
contratado, <strong>la</strong> información proporcionada <strong>de</strong>be permitir a los usuarios tomar <strong>la</strong>s <strong>de</strong>cisiones<br />
a<strong>de</strong>cuadas.<br />
Por otro <strong>la</strong>do, el Par<strong>la</strong>mento Europeo en una Resolución 10 sin prece<strong>de</strong>ntes anima a <strong>la</strong><br />
Comisión a introducir <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong> y vincu<strong>la</strong>r<strong>la</strong> a <strong>la</strong> Carta <strong>de</strong> Derechos Digitales.<br />
8 En esta misma dirección se pronuncia <strong>la</strong> Vicepresi<strong>de</strong>nta <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comisión y Comisaria <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Agenda<br />
Digital Neelie Kroes que refuerza el compromiso <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comisión con <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong> en un<br />
discurso “Internet nos pertenece a todos” pronunciado el 19 <strong>de</strong> abril <strong>de</strong> 2011. http://europa.eu/rapid/<br />
pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/11/285&format=HTML&aged=0&<strong>la</strong>nguage=EN&gui<br />
Language=en.<br />
9 Conocido como throttling en inglés<br />
10 Resolución <strong>de</strong>l Par<strong>la</strong>mento Europeo, <strong>de</strong> 5 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2010, sobre una nueva Agenda Digital <strong>para</strong><br />
Europa: 2015.eu. Puntos 27, 28 y 31 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Resolución.<br />
73
74 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
En concreto dicha resolución subraya que todos los ciudadanos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> UE <strong>de</strong>ben ser informados<br />
<strong>de</strong> sus <strong>de</strong>rechos y obligaciones digitales básicos mediante una Carta Europea <strong>de</strong> los<br />
Derechos <strong>de</strong> los ciudadanos y los consumidores en el entorno digital. El Par<strong>la</strong>mento también<br />
consi<strong>de</strong>ra que esta Carta <strong>de</strong> Derechos Digitales <strong>de</strong>be consi<strong>de</strong>rarse <strong>de</strong>ntro <strong>de</strong>l marco general<br />
<strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>rechos fundamentales 11 . Asimismo, el Par<strong>la</strong>mento insiste en que se <strong>de</strong>be garantizar<br />
un internet abierto en el que los usuarios puedan acce<strong>de</strong>r a <strong>la</strong> información, distribuir<strong>la</strong> o<br />
ejecutar aplicaciones y servicios <strong>de</strong> su elección. Para ello, pi<strong>de</strong> a <strong>la</strong> Comisión, al organismo<br />
<strong>de</strong> Regu<strong>la</strong>dores Europeos <strong>de</strong> Comunicaciones Electrónicas (oRECE) y a <strong>la</strong>s autorida<strong>de</strong>s<br />
nacionales <strong>de</strong> reg<strong>la</strong>mentación (ANR) que promuevan <strong>la</strong>s disposiciones <strong>para</strong> asegurar <strong>la</strong> neutralidad<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>.<br />
Ello nos conduce a hab<strong>la</strong>r <strong>de</strong> otro organismo europeo <strong>de</strong> reciente creación como es el<br />
oRECE. En concreto, trataremos los mecanismos <strong>de</strong> cooperación entre el oRECE y <strong>la</strong>s<br />
Autorida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> Regu<strong>la</strong>ción Nacionales (ARN) en <strong>la</strong> preservación <strong>de</strong> una neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong><br />
en <strong>la</strong> Unión Europea. Y es que como hemos tenido ocasión <strong>de</strong> comprobar, el or<strong>de</strong>namiento<br />
europeo reconoce abiertamente <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y tras<strong>la</strong>da <strong>la</strong> responsabilidad <strong>de</strong> su<br />
aplicación a los estados miembros ya que serán ellos los encargados <strong>de</strong> garantizar<strong>la</strong> en sus<br />
respectivos territorios. Esta situación pue<strong>de</strong> crear ciertas <strong>de</strong>sigualda<strong>de</strong>s sobre el grado <strong>de</strong><br />
neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> en los diferentes países europeos, especialmente a <strong>la</strong> hora <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>terminar<br />
los niveles mínimos <strong>de</strong> calidad <strong>de</strong> un servicio.<br />
A fin <strong>de</strong> evitar <strong>de</strong>sequilibrios entre or<strong>de</strong>namientos jurídicos <strong>de</strong> los estados miembros,<br />
con <strong>la</strong> reforma <strong>de</strong> 2009 también se aprueba el Reg<strong>la</strong>mento 1211/2009 por el que se establece<br />
el organismo <strong>de</strong> Regu<strong>la</strong>dores Europeos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s Comunicaciones Electrónicas (oRECE) 12 .<br />
Este nuevo organismo regu<strong>la</strong>dor <strong>de</strong>be contribuir a garantizar <strong>la</strong> coherencia y <strong>la</strong> armonización<br />
normativa en <strong>la</strong> Unión así como difundir buenas prácticas regu<strong>la</strong>doras entre <strong>la</strong>s ANR, e<strong>la</strong>borar<br />
informes y proporcionar asesoramiento en materia <strong>de</strong> reg<strong>la</strong>mentación <strong>para</strong> garantizar <strong>la</strong><br />
coordinación entre el resto <strong>de</strong> autorida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción. Tanto <strong>la</strong> Comisión como <strong>la</strong>s ANR<br />
<strong>de</strong>ben tener plenamente en cuenta sus dictámenes, recomendaciones, directrices, asesoramiento<br />
<strong>para</strong> ejercer <strong>la</strong>s buenas prácticas en materia <strong>de</strong> reg<strong>la</strong>mentación 13 .<br />
De entrada, observamos que <strong>la</strong> posición <strong>de</strong> este organismo europeo sobre <strong>la</strong> neutralidad<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong> es <strong>de</strong> no intervención por consi<strong>de</strong>rar prematuro una regu<strong>la</strong>ción mayor con<br />
respeto a <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong> a nivel Europeo, ya que, a su enten<strong>de</strong>r, el actual marco ju-<br />
11 El Par<strong>la</strong>mento Europeo hace una mención especial a <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> privacidad que constituye un<br />
valor fundamental e insta a <strong>la</strong> Comisión a presentar una propuesta <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> adaptación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Directiva<br />
<strong>de</strong> Protección <strong>de</strong> Datos al actual contexto digital. Asimismo, el Par<strong>la</strong>mento pi<strong>de</strong> a <strong>la</strong> Comisión y a<br />
los Estados miembros que tomen nuevas medidas <strong>para</strong> mejorar <strong>la</strong> seguridad digital, luchar contra <strong>la</strong><br />
<strong>de</strong>lincuencia cibernética y el spam, mejorar <strong>la</strong> confianza <strong>de</strong> los usuarios y asegurar el ciberespacio <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> Unión Europea contra todo tipo <strong>de</strong> crímenes y <strong>de</strong>litos. Finalmente, anima a los Estados miembros<br />
a ratificar el Convenio sobre <strong>de</strong>lincuencia cibernética <strong>de</strong>l Consejo <strong>de</strong> Europa.<br />
12 Este organismo europeo <strong>de</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción está integrado por un Consejo <strong>de</strong> Regu<strong>la</strong>dores formado por<br />
representantes <strong>de</strong> cada Estado miembro.<br />
13 Así lo prevé el artículo 3.3 <strong>de</strong>l Reg<strong>la</strong>mento 1211/2009 por el que se crea el oRECE.
<strong>la</strong> <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>la</strong>s liberta<strong>de</strong>s en <strong>la</strong> reforma <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones electrónicas <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> …<br />
rídico es suficiente <strong>para</strong> encauzar estas cuestiones que ya se están solventado sin necesidad<br />
<strong>de</strong> medidas jurídicas adicionales. Esto se <strong>de</strong>spren<strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> opinión <strong>de</strong>l oRECE a tenor <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
consulta pública sobre <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong> organizada por <strong>la</strong> Comisión, y subraya que si el<br />
marco normativo es suficiente o no <strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>rá <strong>de</strong> cómo es transpuesto e implementado en<br />
los estados miembros (oRECEa, 2010). Sin embargo, reconoce que pue<strong>de</strong>n existir problemas<br />
en el futuro y, a <strong>la</strong> hora <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>tectarlos, <strong>la</strong>s ANR son <strong>la</strong>s mejor situadas <strong>para</strong> monitorizar<br />
una apertura y neutralidad real <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>. Entre los problemas futuros que pue<strong>de</strong>n eventualmente<br />
aparecer, el informe <strong>de</strong>staca el grado <strong>de</strong> discriminación (que ocasionalmente pue<strong>de</strong><br />
tener efectos anticompetitivos <strong>para</strong> el mercado); limitación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> innovación en contenidos y<br />
aplicaciones que pue<strong>de</strong> tener consecuencias negativas <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> economía digital; o finalmente<br />
<strong>la</strong> falta <strong>de</strong> calidad <strong>de</strong>l servicio <strong>de</strong> transparencia en <strong>la</strong> información relevante a <strong>la</strong> hora <strong>de</strong> contratar<br />
que pue<strong>de</strong> perjudicar los intereses <strong>de</strong>l consumidor.<br />
Durante el 2011, período previsto <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> transposición <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> normativa europea a<br />
los or<strong>de</strong>namientos nacionales, y a <strong>la</strong> espera <strong>de</strong> concretar <strong>la</strong> forma en que ésta tendrá lugar,<br />
comprobamos que <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong> es uno <strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>safíos emergentes que <strong>de</strong>staca el<br />
programa <strong>de</strong> trabajo <strong>de</strong>l oRECE <strong>para</strong> este año (oRECE, 2010b) 14 . Sobre esta cuestión,<br />
<strong>la</strong> autoridad europea ha i<strong>de</strong>ntificado unos puntos c<strong>la</strong>ve sobre los cuales se <strong>de</strong>berá analizar<br />
<strong>para</strong> prevenir dificulta<strong>de</strong>s futuras. La primera <strong>de</strong> el<strong>la</strong>s hace referencia a <strong>la</strong> transparencia<br />
en <strong>la</strong> información concebida como condición necesaria <strong>para</strong> tener una verda<strong>de</strong>ra libertad<br />
<strong>de</strong> elección mediante <strong>la</strong> com<strong>para</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> ofertas; <strong>para</strong> ello se <strong>de</strong>berá <strong>de</strong>terminar qué se entien<strong>de</strong><br />
por información relevante. En segundo lugar observamos como el grado <strong>de</strong> calidad<br />
<strong>de</strong>l servicio también <strong>de</strong>be concretarse y coordinarse al máximo a lo <strong>la</strong>rgo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> UE ya que<br />
<strong>la</strong>s ANR <strong>de</strong>ben establecer los requisitos mínimos a partir <strong>de</strong> los cuales se consi<strong>de</strong>rará que<br />
<strong>la</strong> calidad <strong>de</strong> un servicio <strong>de</strong> conexión a internet es a<strong>de</strong>cuado. Por último, el oRECE ha<br />
i<strong>de</strong>ntificado otro peligro <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong>: <strong>la</strong> discriminación. Des <strong>de</strong>l momento<br />
en que los proveedores <strong>de</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong> internet priorizan un tráfico sobre otro están<br />
discriminando al segundo, según el oRECE en estos casos será importante <strong>de</strong>terminar<br />
si los comportamientos discriminatorios son permitidos o no, y si tiene consecuencias<br />
anticompetitivas.<br />
Igualmente, en el informe <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comisión sobre <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong>, se pi<strong>de</strong> al oRE-<br />
CE que lleve a cabo un ejercicio riguroso <strong>de</strong> análisis <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> situación respecto a cuestiones<br />
cruciales <strong>para</strong> conseguir un internet abierto y neutral, como <strong>la</strong>s barreras al cambio <strong>de</strong> operador,<br />
el bloqueo o el estrangu<strong>la</strong>miento <strong>de</strong>l tráfico por internet (por ejemplo, <strong>de</strong>l tráfico <strong>de</strong> voz<br />
por los servicios <strong>de</strong> internet), <strong>la</strong> transparencia y <strong>la</strong> calidad <strong>de</strong>l servicio. A mediados <strong>de</strong> 2011<br />
el oRECE está trabajando <strong>para</strong> <strong>de</strong>tectar prácticas <strong>de</strong> bloqueo <strong>de</strong> ciertos tipos <strong>de</strong> tráfico y a<br />
finales <strong>de</strong> este año está prevista <strong>la</strong> publicación <strong>de</strong> un Informe sobre <strong>la</strong> Transparencia y los requisitos<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Calidad <strong>de</strong>l Servicio. Solo en el caso que el informe final <strong>de</strong>l oRECE concluya<br />
que existen problemas <strong>de</strong>stacables en <strong>la</strong> UE, <strong>la</strong> Comisión evaluará <strong>la</strong> necesidad <strong>de</strong> medidas<br />
más estrictas <strong>para</strong> preservar <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong>.<br />
14 Este programa se aprobó en diciembre <strong>de</strong> 2010 http://www.erg.eu.int/doc/berec/bor_10_43_1.pdf.<br />
75
76 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
5. conclusiones<br />
Transcurrido un tiempo <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> transposición <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> reforma <strong>de</strong> 2009 –prevista <strong>para</strong><br />
finales <strong>de</strong> mayo 2011– en los países europeos será momento <strong>de</strong> evaluar si <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong> en <strong>la</strong> Unión Europea requiere o no una regu<strong>la</strong>ción complementaria. Sobre<br />
esta cuestión, el oRECE tendrá un protagonismo <strong>de</strong>stacado ya que su informe será c<strong>la</strong>ve<br />
<strong>para</strong> <strong>de</strong>cidir si el marco legis<strong>la</strong>tivo actual es suficiente <strong>para</strong> preservar <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong> en<br />
<strong>la</strong> Unión. Por otro <strong>la</strong>do, podría darse el caso que el problema fuese singu<strong>la</strong>r y se encontrara<br />
en <strong>la</strong> transposición <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> normativa europea a un or<strong>de</strong>namiento interno. Una cuestión que<br />
también ocuparía al oRECE cuya función es <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> contribuir a armonizar y cohesionar los<br />
or<strong>de</strong>namientos jurídicos <strong>de</strong> los países europeos. En este caso, <strong>la</strong> asistencia <strong>de</strong>l oRECE a <strong>la</strong>s<br />
ANR <strong>para</strong> coordinar <strong>la</strong> imp<strong>la</strong>ntación sería c<strong>la</strong>ve <strong>para</strong> asegurar un internet abierto y una <strong>red</strong><br />
plenamente neutral en toda <strong>la</strong> Unión.<br />
Determinar si el problema es general <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción europea vigente o particu<strong>la</strong>r –sobre<br />
<strong>la</strong> transposición a nivel nacional <strong>de</strong> un estado en concreto– será tarea <strong>de</strong>l oRECE. En<br />
este último caso, <strong>la</strong> solución consistiría en hacer un seguimiento más exhaustivo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> implementación<br />
en los países que experimentan más dificulta<strong>de</strong>s <strong>para</strong> garantizar <strong>la</strong>s disposiciones<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> normativa europea. Y es que son los estados miembros los responsables <strong>de</strong> garantizar<br />
<strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong> en sus respectivos territorios, y podría suce<strong>de</strong>r que los mecanismos<br />
introducidos a nivel interno fueran insuficientes. Únicamente mediante el establecimiento<br />
<strong>de</strong> buenas prácticas regu<strong>la</strong>doras favorecidas por una estrecha cooperación entre autorida<strong>de</strong>s<br />
<strong>de</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción nacional y el oRECE podremos hab<strong>la</strong>r <strong>de</strong> unos <strong>de</strong>rechos digitales comunes<br />
entre todos los ciudadanos europeos.<br />
En cualquier caso, no <strong>de</strong>bemos per<strong>de</strong>r <strong>de</strong> vista que asegurar un internet abierto no<br />
solo <strong>de</strong>be constituir un objetivo político y económico primordial sino que también <strong>de</strong>ben<br />
establecerse mecanismos a<strong>de</strong>cuados <strong>para</strong> garantizarlo; y <strong>la</strong> UE tiene una oportunidad única<br />
<strong>para</strong> convertirse en un referente mundial en <strong>la</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> internet.<br />
6. bibliografÍa<br />
Asamblea Nacional Francesa (2011) Rapport d’information sur <strong>la</strong> neutralité <strong>de</strong> l’internet<br />
et les réseaux. (Depositado 13 <strong>de</strong> abril <strong>de</strong> 2011) http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/13/<br />
pdf/rap-info/i3336.pdf [Consultado mayo 2011].<br />
Comisión Europea (2011) Comunicación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comisión al Par<strong>la</strong>mento, al Consejo, al<br />
Comité Económico y Social y al Comité <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s Regiones sobre Internet abierto y neutralidad<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong> en Europa [CoM(2011)222final]. 19/4/2011.<br />
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CoM:2011:0222:FIN:ES:PDF<br />
[consultado mayo 2011].<br />
Cave, M. y Croconi, P. (2007) “Does Europe need a Network Neutrality Rules?”. International<br />
Journal of Communication. Volume 1 [Special Section on Net Neutrality].<br />
669-679.
<strong>la</strong> <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>la</strong>s liberta<strong>de</strong>s en <strong>la</strong> reforma <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones electrónicas <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> …<br />
Cullell March, C. (2010) “El principio <strong>de</strong> neutralidad tecnológica y <strong>de</strong> servicios en <strong>la</strong><br />
UE: <strong>la</strong> liberalización <strong>de</strong>l espacio radioeléctrico”. Revista <strong>de</strong> Internet Derecho y Política.<br />
Volumen 11.<br />
oRECE (2010a) Respuesta <strong>de</strong>l oRECE a <strong>la</strong> Consulta Pública <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comisión Europea sobre<br />
“Internet Abierto y <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> Red”. http://erg.eu.int/doc/berec/bor_10_42.<br />
pdf [consultado mayo 2011].<br />
oRECE (2010b) Programa <strong>de</strong> Trabajo 2011 http://www.erg.eu.int/doc/berec/bor_10_43_1.<br />
pdf [consultado mayo 2011].<br />
Faulhaber, G. (2007) “Network Neutrality: The Debate Evolves”. International Journal of<br />
Communication. Volume 1 [Special Section on Net Neutrality]. 680-700.<br />
Mars<strong>de</strong>n, C. (2010) Net Neutrality in Europe: Towards a co-regu<strong>la</strong>tory solution. London:<br />
Bloomsbury Aca<strong>de</strong>mic.<br />
Par<strong>la</strong>mento Europeo (2010) Resolución <strong>de</strong> 5 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2010, sobre una nueva Agenda<br />
Digital <strong>para</strong> Europa: 2015.eu. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/si<strong>de</strong>s/getDoc.<br />
do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2010-0133+0+DoC+XML+V0//ES [consultado<br />
mayo 2011].<br />
Sidak, J.G. (2007) “What is the Network Neutrality Debate Really About?” International<br />
Journal of Communication. Volume 1 [Special Section on Net Neutrality]. 377-388.<br />
Unión Internacional De Las Telecomunicaciones (2003) Dec<strong>la</strong>ración <strong>de</strong> Principios.<br />
Construir <strong>la</strong> Sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Información: un <strong>de</strong>safío global <strong>para</strong> el Nuevo Milenio. http://<br />
www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop-es.html [Consultado mayo 2011].<br />
normativa:<br />
Directiva 2009/136/CE, <strong>de</strong>l Par<strong>la</strong>mento Europeo y el Consejo, <strong>de</strong> 25 <strong>de</strong> noviembre <strong>de</strong><br />
2009, por <strong>la</strong> que se modifican <strong>la</strong> Directiva 2002/22/CE re<strong>la</strong>tiva al servicio universal y<br />
los <strong>de</strong>rechos <strong>de</strong> los usuarios en re<strong>la</strong>ción con <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s y los servicios <strong>de</strong> comunicaciones<br />
electrónicas, <strong>la</strong> Directiva 2002/58/CE re<strong>la</strong>tiva al tratamiento <strong>de</strong> los datos personales<br />
y a <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> intimidad en el sector <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones electrónicas y el<br />
Reg<strong>la</strong>mento (CE) no 2006/2004 sobre <strong>la</strong> cooperación en materia <strong>de</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> los<br />
consumidores. Diario Oficial L337 <strong>de</strong> 18/12/2009.<br />
Directiva 2009/140/CE <strong>de</strong>l Par<strong>la</strong>mento Europeo y el Consejo, <strong>de</strong> 25 <strong>de</strong> noviembre <strong>de</strong> 2009,<br />
por <strong>la</strong> que se modifican <strong>la</strong> Directiva 2002/21/CE re<strong>la</strong>tiva a un marco regu<strong>la</strong>dor común<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s y los servicios <strong>de</strong> comunicaciones electrónicas, <strong>la</strong> Directiva 2002/19/CE<br />
re<strong>la</strong>tiva al acceso a <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> comunicaciones electrónicas y recursos asociados, y a su<br />
interconexión, y <strong>la</strong> Directiva 2002/20/CE re<strong>la</strong>tiva a <strong>la</strong> autorización <strong>de</strong> re<strong>de</strong>s y servicios<br />
<strong>de</strong> comunicaciones electrónicas.<br />
Reg<strong>la</strong>mento (CE) 1211/2009 <strong>de</strong>l Par<strong>la</strong>mento Europeo y <strong>de</strong>l Consejo, <strong>de</strong> 25 <strong>de</strong> noviembre<br />
<strong>de</strong> 2009, por el que se establece el organismo <strong>de</strong> Regu<strong>la</strong>dores Europeos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s Comunicaciones<br />
Electrónicas (oRECE) y <strong>la</strong> oficina. Diario Oficial L337 <strong>de</strong> 18/12/2009.<br />
77
The NeT as a public space: is NeT-NeuTraliTy<br />
Necessary To preserve oN-liNe<br />
freedom of expressioN?<br />
4<br />
C<strong>la</strong>ra Marsan Raventós<br />
PhD, European University Institute.<br />
Public Law Professor at Universitat Oberta <strong>de</strong> Catalunya.<br />
AbstrAct: The aim of this paper is to analyze from a constitutional theory perspective the so-called<br />
Net-neutrality. In particu<strong>la</strong>r, it will treat two sets of questions. The first one wishes to engage with the<br />
nature of the Net (public or private?) and tackle the issue of the breach of constitutional rights and<br />
freedoms through the Net. The focus will be p<strong>la</strong>ced on the freedom of expression and censorship. The<br />
second, instead, offers an overview of the actors that can influence the nature and content of internet.<br />
Telecommunication Technologies have brought new spaces in which people interact. The most prominent<br />
of these new spaces is the Net, where individuals communicate in manners that fall as much into<br />
a private-space interaction pattern (e.g. e-mailing), as into a public-space one (e.g. forums, blogs, etc).<br />
The first element that this paper explores is how the so-called neutrality of the Net re<strong>la</strong>tes to the nature<br />
of this space and, in particu<strong>la</strong>r, to on-line freedom of expression.<br />
When consi<strong>de</strong>ring the <strong>la</strong>tter we will see how public and private entities have a direct influence in<br />
<strong>de</strong>termining the future of on-line freedom of expression. Traditionally, fundamental rights have been<br />
a tool to protect individuals from abuses of power by public authorities (the State); yet, the State is<br />
no longer autonomous to perform this ba<strong>la</strong>ncing between goods when the <strong>la</strong>tter c<strong>la</strong>sh in this hybrid<br />
space of the Net. Moreover, when public authorities succeed in regu<strong>la</strong>ting the Net to protect private<br />
rights (e.g. the freedom of expression or the protection of one’s private life) and other public goods<br />
(e.g. security), is the State carrying out its role as ultimate guarantor of fundamental rights? Or is it<br />
trying to censor Net-content and control this space? And, finally, does the fact that private entities<br />
have a clear role in the possibilities of freedom of expression change how the Net should be regu<strong>la</strong>ted<br />
to protect this liberty?<br />
Ultimately, these questions oblige us to look at who is <strong>de</strong>ciding on the neutrality of the Net. Who<br />
participates from this neutrality? Who <strong>de</strong>signs its contours and ensures that it is respected? Do private<br />
companies have a share on the public monopole for the protection of the public good? Or, finally, is<br />
this neutrality completely alien to public authorities and, hence, any direct or indirect intervention<br />
by them should be <strong>la</strong>beled as a breach of neutrality (e.g. as a mechanism of censorship vis-à-vis the<br />
freedom of expression)?<br />
Keywords: public-space/private space; Net-neutrality; fundamental rights; freedom of expression;<br />
censorship; multi-stakehol<strong>de</strong>r cooperation; international standards; certification system.<br />
1. IntroductIon: SpaceS, net neutralIty and Freedom oF<br />
expreSSIon<br />
Imagine a city with no streets but one single central square from where citizens can access<br />
any space of this city (a shop, a café, their workp<strong>la</strong>ce…). The purpose of imagining such
80 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
city is to introduce an assumption that is key to the <strong>de</strong>velopment of this paper, namely that<br />
the Net is no longer a tool or a channel to communicate but a space that has been gradually<br />
conque<strong>red</strong> by individuals and organizations 1 .<br />
Being the Net the <strong>la</strong>test space we have created –and one that is constantly transformed–<br />
has forced us to <strong>de</strong>al with the question of the nature of this space. In the physical world we<br />
are used to the public space / private space dichotomy but does it apply to the Net?<br />
This is a particu<strong>la</strong>rly crucial question for Net regu<strong>la</strong>tors since the nature of spaces<br />
has always conditioned the manner these have been regu<strong>la</strong>ted. Public spaces are intensively<br />
regu<strong>la</strong>ted due to the function they perform. They are those loci where individuals and public<br />
authorities interact, where tolerance among all the people has to be ensu<strong>red</strong>. Contrarily,<br />
private spaces are only regu<strong>la</strong>ted in their connection to public spaces or for particu<strong>la</strong>r public<br />
needs (e.g. crime prevention).<br />
In the following pages we will start to unravel the “space” question from a human<br />
rights-based perspective. We will address the tension that exists between the protection of a<br />
particu<strong>la</strong>r individual right (freedom of expression) and the need to regu<strong>la</strong>te and limit such<br />
right in the Net. Moreover, we will re<strong>la</strong>te the regu<strong>la</strong>tion of freedom of expression in the Net<br />
with the “space” question for the first <strong>de</strong>pends on preliminary assumptions such as how we<br />
un<strong>de</strong>rstand this space called the Net and, particu<strong>la</strong>rly, how we <strong>de</strong>scribe its attributes (e.g. as<br />
a “neutral” space?).<br />
2. tHe re<strong>la</strong>tionsHiP between net neutrality and Public sPace<br />
Following the dichotomy introduced above we should stress that our daily actions may<br />
be also c<strong>la</strong>ssified as public or private. Generally, we c<strong>la</strong>ssify them in connection to the space<br />
where they take p<strong>la</strong>ce. Although there are in<strong>de</strong>ed grey zones where private and public mingle<br />
and, for instance, a private action takes p<strong>la</strong>ce in a public space, there is no doubt that public<br />
affairs happen in public spaces. We could not conceive a public <strong>de</strong>monstration in a private<br />
home or voting for the new government in a private space where no public supervision of<br />
the process would be possible.<br />
From the examples we have just used we can foresee that public action <strong>de</strong>scribes different<br />
events that are critical for individual and societal <strong>de</strong>velopment. They generally involve<br />
individual and collective use of the freedom of expression; monitoring public authorities;<br />
connecting with others, etc. It follows from this that freedom of expression is present in<br />
both, public and private spaces, but it is particu<strong>la</strong>rly precious to enjoy this liberty in the public<br />
sphere. That is, one can be censo<strong>red</strong> in the private (maybe due to authoritarian parents),<br />
1 An example of a thesis that treats the Net as a public space can be seen in Zatz’s article, where the<br />
author applies the American doctrine of the “public forum” to the Internet. ZATZ, N. D. (1998).<br />
“Si<strong>de</strong>walks in Cyberspace: Making Space for Public Forums in the Electronic Environment.” Harvard<br />
Journal of Law & Technology, 12-1, pp. 149-240.
the Net as a public space: Is Net-neutrality necessary to preserve on-line freedom of expression?<br />
but where censorship is likely to appear is where it can be regu<strong>la</strong>ted by public authorities;<br />
that is, in the public space.<br />
Freedom of expression has a dual dimension; one regards the content or the message<br />
expressed, whereas the second regards the possibilities that the message reaches the audience<br />
targeted by the author of the message. Public space is, thus, the possibility of having the<br />
second dimension that we have just refer<strong>red</strong> to, i.e. to reach the people we want to communicate<br />
to 2 . This allows us to <strong>de</strong>fine censorship as the action that aims at cutting the connection<br />
between the messenger and the recipient (rather than one focused on the message itself).<br />
This is how public space re<strong>la</strong>tes to censorship and freedom of expression, and how we need<br />
to keep it in mind when thinking about the Net as a public space.<br />
Let us pick up the i<strong>de</strong>as connected to “public space” highlighted until now. on the<br />
one hand, we have <strong>de</strong>picted public spaces as those that concentrate regu<strong>la</strong>tion. Moreover,<br />
we have stated that public spaces are those p<strong>la</strong>ces where tolerance among individuals and<br />
public authorities has to be ensu<strong>red</strong>. Finally, we have pointed out that the public space is<br />
the battleground for freedom of expression, where the <strong>la</strong>ter is most valued since it is right<br />
where it is at risk. In sum, we might be censo<strong>red</strong> while speaking in a square or in a market if<br />
our message is incompatible with the tolerance that has to exist in public spaces (in society);<br />
a censorship that will be carried out by public authorities and authorized by regu<strong>la</strong>tions 3 .<br />
Let us now p<strong>la</strong>ce the same example in the Net. If I write in a blog or an open forum<br />
about a highly sensitive topic do I face the risk of being censo<strong>red</strong>? By whom? Following<br />
which regu<strong>la</strong>tion? And which will be the <strong>para</strong>meter used to measure my statement and <strong>de</strong>termine<br />
that it is incompatible with what is tolerated? We will find very different answers to<br />
these questions; from those arguing that the Net is neutral and, hence, that no censorship<br />
may take p<strong>la</strong>ce; to those sustaining that anything that can be censo<strong>red</strong> in the “physical world”<br />
can also be censo<strong>red</strong> in the Net. All these answers, though, will be given from a case-by-case<br />
perspective; that is, looking at a particu<strong>la</strong>r legal or<strong>de</strong>r, a particu<strong>la</strong>r society and a particu<strong>la</strong>r<br />
case of censorship in that legal or<strong>de</strong>r. What seems that we can agree on in a quite straight<br />
forward manner is that the Net is the best space to spread messages and, consequently, quite<br />
reasonable to expect censorship; it is too tempting by those negatively <strong>de</strong>scribed in the internet<br />
not to censor their critics if they have the means to do so.<br />
Before we can start digging on this complicated matter we should e<strong>la</strong>borate on how<br />
Net Neutrality is re<strong>la</strong>ted to public space. We cannot answer this question straight-forward<br />
for Net Neutrality is a rich and contested concept. It has been <strong>de</strong>fined from many different<br />
perspectives although its economic approach has dominated the <strong>de</strong>bate. The <strong>la</strong>tter suggests<br />
that Net Neutrality appea<strong>red</strong> when members of the IT community and scho<strong>la</strong>rs started to<br />
worry about the fact that network owners would treat internet packages differently and, by<br />
2 It is very interesting how Zatz e<strong>la</strong>borates these aspects in the context of the American doctrine of the<br />
“public forum.” Id. at pp. 161 et sq.<br />
3 This process is imagined in a Democratic society that is built, among other values, on the Rule of <strong>la</strong>w<br />
principle.<br />
81
82 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
doing so, would favor a given Internet Service Provi<strong>de</strong>r (ISP) or on-line Service Provi<strong>de</strong>r<br />
(oSP) over another 4 . Consequently, network owners would privilege certain “data packages”<br />
over others (e.g. giving priority to data packages of bank transactions over e-mails) 5 ,<br />
establishing internet traffic preferences that would condition the use of the Net (e.g. which<br />
internet usages take priority over which; which are faster and more accessible; etc). The possibility,<br />
thus, of having first-c<strong>la</strong>ss data packages and second-c<strong>la</strong>ss ones was what trigge<strong>red</strong> the<br />
<strong>de</strong>mand for a Neutral Net.<br />
In Zhu’s paper we find a comprehensive analysis of the implications of Net Neutrality<br />
(and Net Neutrality Bills in the US) from such economic perspective –including<br />
its impact in technological <strong>de</strong>velopment and quality of service in the Net. Surprisingly,<br />
though, the author barely tackles the questions that surrounds the choices that internet<br />
owners can make while breaching the neutrality of the Net. In particu<strong>la</strong>r, there is no<br />
analysis on the value-judgment nature of these choices6 , which is essential to any analysis<br />
on Net Neutrality.<br />
We can <strong>de</strong>part from Tim Wu and Lawrence Lessig’s proposal, which Zhu presents as<br />
the origin of the concept of network neutrality. The proposal argues, among other things,<br />
that state authorities may only restrict the use of broadband when users adopt “publicly <strong>de</strong>trimental<br />
behaviors.” 7 I believe that we could substitute the professor’s expression by “what<br />
is permissible in the society” or “what would not be accepted if becoming known –in the<br />
public space” without making the slightest change in its meaning. The threshold established<br />
for the breach of network equality (and neutrality) is thus public morality. The <strong>la</strong>tter is the<br />
value-judgment that will allow unlimited or limited freedom in the Net if we un<strong>de</strong>rstand the<br />
<strong>la</strong>tter as the freedom to use the Net in any imaginative manner as any other individual could<br />
do. What this value-judgment threshold also points at is the fact that Network neutrality<br />
may only appear if the use of the Net is tolerated in society –which allows us to clearly see<br />
the connection between Network neutrality and the concept of public space. We just have<br />
to recall the “tolerance function” that we have attached to public spaces to see that, if public<br />
morality is used as a <strong>para</strong>meter to permit or <strong>de</strong>ny internet communications, the Net must<br />
be (at least in some of its parts) a public space8 .<br />
4 ZHU, K. (2007). “Bringing neutrality to network neutrality.” Berkeley Technology Law Journal, Vol.<br />
22, at p. 627.<br />
5 Id. at p. 628. For technical <strong>de</strong>finitions such as “data package” –which in Zhu’s article is “package” see<br />
its technical overview in pp. 616 and 617.<br />
6 Although he cannot avoid mentioning that such value-judgment is there and it is important. Id. at p.<br />
634.<br />
7 Id. at p. 627.<br />
8 In private spaces there can obviously also operate value-judgments that would impe<strong>de</strong> particu<strong>la</strong>r communications;<br />
nonetheless, those will not be generally assessed from a societal perspective but from the<br />
individuals’ that operate in that private space perspective
the Net as a public space: Is Net-neutrality necessary to preserve on-line freedom of expression?<br />
If one of Zhu’s point is to signal that Net neutrality cannot be “<strong>de</strong>bated in the abstract<br />
without consi<strong>de</strong>ring the un<strong>de</strong>rlying engineering realities,” 9 I would add that neither can it<br />
be discussed without consi<strong>de</strong>ring the un<strong>de</strong>rlying value-judgment questions that Wu and<br />
Lessig <strong>de</strong>fined; that is, to consi<strong>de</strong>r what should be free from any public or private interference,<br />
as well as what is reprehensible from a societal point of view and, consequently, potentially<br />
censorable.<br />
on the one hand, Wu and Lessig’s c<strong>la</strong>im that Net regu<strong>la</strong>tions must ensure the respect<br />
of public morality seems to be very positive for it is a prove that in this new social space there<br />
is room for public spaces. The <strong>la</strong>tter are essential to any community, at any time and in any<br />
part of the world for its “tolerance function.” That is, public spaces are where the multitu<strong>de</strong><br />
connects and tolerates individual options within the public modus operandi. Without public<br />
spaces societies could not function for its <strong>de</strong>velopment rests in the socio-economic interaction<br />
among individuals and groups. Not surprisingly, the most important spaces in cities<br />
were the p<strong>la</strong>ce par excellence for socio-economic exchanges: the Agora in a Greek polis, the<br />
Roman Forum or any main square in contemporary cities and vil<strong>la</strong>ges. If the Net is a new<br />
space we have gained, one that is taking up quickly much of the socio-economic exchange<br />
that used to happen in the physical public space, should not we consi<strong>de</strong>r that there must be<br />
an on-line public space? A cyber-agora such as the one <strong>de</strong>picted in the imaginary city that<br />
has introduced this paper?<br />
on the other hand, using this value-judgment to regu<strong>la</strong>te the Net is not <strong>de</strong>prived from<br />
<strong>de</strong>ep problems that are not yet solved. The Net, as a space, is often compa<strong>red</strong> to one p<strong>la</strong>ce<br />
(like the imaginary city we have been referring to). This space though is the most diverse<br />
and complex ever seen; inhabited by anyone with the technical resources to connect to it.<br />
Regardless of gen<strong>de</strong>r, culture, religion10…anyone can reach the cyber-agora so, the question<br />
is, which social values have to be taken into consi<strong>de</strong>ration when applying the criteria<br />
proposed by Wu and Lessig? Who will regu<strong>la</strong>te Net neutrality? Who will <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong> what falls<br />
outsi<strong>de</strong> what is socially acceptable and, thus, outsi<strong>de</strong> the umbrel<strong>la</strong> of the right to equal access<br />
and participation to the Net? At the end of the day the question is about who holds<br />
the legitimacy to <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong> on the values that have to apply in any regu<strong>la</strong>tion that restricts or<br />
influences the neutrality of the Net.<br />
These are no easy questions; in fact, they are quite irresolvable questions although we<br />
will suggest a path to get a little bit closer to a solution. This path has a basic pil<strong>la</strong>r that can<br />
9 See supra footnote 4, at p. 634.<br />
10 Although we cannot disregard the “digital divi<strong>de</strong>” that is produced by socioeconomic, gen<strong>de</strong>r, race…<br />
differences and that divi<strong>de</strong> the world’s popu<strong>la</strong>tion between those with access and those without access<br />
to the Net. To put an example, the internet user penetration in 2009 in Europe was of 62,7%;<br />
41,7% in the Americas, whereas it was of 19,1% in Asia and the Pacific or of 7,5% in Africa. International<br />
Telecommunication Union (ITU). World Telecommunication/ICT Development Report<br />
2010. Monitoring the WSIS targets. A mid-term review (avai<strong>la</strong>ble at www.itu.int), at p.202.<br />
83
84 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
be <strong>la</strong>beled as “global multi-stakehol<strong>de</strong>r negotiation.” 11 In other words, it will be argued that<br />
neither can Net regu<strong>la</strong>tions be exclusively conceived within the state bor<strong>de</strong>r, nor can they be<br />
the regu<strong>la</strong>tory effort of the legis<strong>la</strong>tor. All interested parties in the Net, at a global level have<br />
to find the mechanisms to establish regu<strong>la</strong>tions applicable to all of them. The main reasons<br />
for such an approach are, on the one hand, the bor<strong>de</strong>rless nature of internet and 12 , on the<br />
other, the fact that internet governance is not only in the hands of governments but also of<br />
multinationals and individuals. We will <strong>de</strong>velop further the first reason now for it is directly<br />
connect to the i<strong>de</strong>as sketched in this section, while we will e<strong>la</strong>borate the second one <strong>la</strong>ter on.<br />
When <strong>de</strong>aling with the diversity that characterizes the public space in the Net we are<br />
confronted with the challenge to select the values that are common to such broad collective.<br />
We just have to recall how universal human rights or other values enshrined in international<br />
treaties (e.g. the protection of the environment) have been <strong>la</strong>beled as “imperialistic values.” 13<br />
For quite a big part of the world, those values reflect Western i<strong>de</strong>als that due to the geopolitical<br />
dominance of Europe and, <strong>la</strong>ter, the US, have been imposed in International fora and sold as<br />
universal. As these countries have been losing its hegemony and other states have started to<br />
have a share on it (China, Brazil, India…) the discussion has gained momentum. Here, it is no<br />
p<strong>la</strong>ce to analyze the <strong>de</strong>bate in <strong>de</strong>pth; yet, it is unavoidable to point at it for the exact same discussion<br />
is now taking p<strong>la</strong>ce in the Net and, particu<strong>la</strong>rly, in the freedom that each state should<br />
have in shaping the Net as they wish –restricting it, filtering it…making it partial rather than<br />
neutral. In or<strong>de</strong>r to exemplify it, if Iran or China argue that they block Western-value webresources<br />
because they are against their social values 14 , are they breaching neutrality or are they<br />
building up their own Net space, neutral from within according to their societal values, but<br />
partly disconnected from the global public space of the Net? But let us not just focus on China<br />
or Iran, the countries that are most often cited to <strong>de</strong>scribe the jeopardy to Net neutrality; the<br />
US is also creating filters on web content 15 ; so is the UK or Ire<strong>la</strong>nd 16 .<br />
11 Although I have not read anywhere this <strong>la</strong>bel, the multi-stakehol<strong>de</strong>r approach is not new; it is rather<br />
the approach that has been taken by some international organizations, NGos, IT companies and<br />
aca<strong>de</strong>mics. We will present it more in full <strong>la</strong>ter in the paper.<br />
12 Although quite generally we can talk about a “bor<strong>de</strong>rless internet” we cannot disregard that there are<br />
bor<strong>de</strong>rs due to the filters applied in some geographic areas. We will exp<strong>la</strong>in those filters in the following<br />
pages.<br />
13 An example of this view is offe<strong>red</strong> by J. Tully’s work. TULLY, J. (2008). “on <strong>la</strong>w, Democracy and<br />
Imperialism”, in TIERNEY, S. & CHRISToDoULIDIS, E. A. (eds), Political Theory and Public<br />
Law. 1ª ed. London: Ashgate.<br />
14 The promotion of Internet freedom may be seen as a disguised form of aggressive Western imperialism.<br />
Ma Zhaoxu (of the Chinese Foreign Ministry) pointed out after US Secretary of State’s speech<br />
that “We urge the US to respect facts and stop attacking China un<strong>de</strong>r the excuse of the so-called freedom<br />
of Internet.” See www.infowar-monitor.Net/2011/04/the-securitization-nationalization-and-contestation-of-cyberspace.<br />
15 US <strong>la</strong>ws on internet filtering (e.g. applied in public libraries) can be found at: www.ncsl.org.<br />
16 See the case of Internet filtering in Ire<strong>la</strong>nd at www.edri.org (4th May 2011).
the Net as a public space: Is Net-neutrality necessary to preserve on-line freedom of expression?<br />
These cases allow us to move towards the second reason un<strong>de</strong>rpinning the “global<br />
multi-stakehol<strong>de</strong>r approach.” Before that, though, we can conclu<strong>de</strong> this first reasoning by<br />
pointing out that if we want a Net that is neutral and global, the way to shape it will have<br />
to come from an equally neutral and global framework. Here, for neutrality we cannot consi<strong>de</strong>r<br />
a non-biased or aseptic position but one that takes all the diversity connected through<br />
the Net into account. Therefore, supranational agreements will have to be privileged over<br />
national regu<strong>la</strong>tions for the question of the nature of the Net can only be addressed from a<br />
global perspective.<br />
We have asked whether we should consi<strong>de</strong>r having a cyber-agora in the Net; a public<br />
space where any user –regardless of its localization– can step in. We would answer affirmatively<br />
to this question and highlight that it is urgent to ensure these spaces in the Net. This<br />
urge to create and preserve on-line public spaces comes from the “tolerance function” that<br />
has been mentioned. For a society, diversity implies richness but also more costs to allow<br />
individual freedom in the public sphere. The Net is the space with the most diverse society<br />
we have ever seen. Despite we cannot talk of the whole world connected, any space before<br />
has allowed the interaction between individuals and organizations from so many diverse<br />
backgrounds, races, religions, etc. Is not then such a diverse society one that needs even<br />
more to use that “tolerance principle,” to ensure that global encounters maximize individual<br />
freedom without encroaching on anyone’s ability to operate in the same space?<br />
In or<strong>de</strong>r to conclu<strong>de</strong> this section we could sum up the basic elements consi<strong>de</strong><strong>red</strong> until<br />
now and, thus, offer an early <strong>de</strong>finition of the re<strong>la</strong>tionship between network neutrality<br />
and the public space. The optimal in a <strong>de</strong>mocratic society is to have public spaces where<br />
individuals are free to express themselves, facing censorship in very few occasions (for censorship<br />
has to operate only if public morality is really at stake). In or<strong>de</strong>r to express in the<br />
public space, one has to be able to access that space, without barriers whatsoever 17 . When<br />
looking at a simi<strong>la</strong>r space in the Net, we should find one that, first, is open to anyone and,<br />
second, minimizes the possibilities of censorship for only in that case freedom of expression<br />
can flourish. For us, such a space is the one to be called Net Neutral public space. In other<br />
words, Net-Neutrality is the way in which public space is <strong>de</strong>limited in the Net. While in a<br />
city there are certain physical boundaries that <strong>de</strong>termine what is public and what is private,<br />
in the Net, “neutrality” operates as that boun<strong>de</strong>r.<br />
3. i<strong>de</strong>ntifying tHose tHat craft network Public sPaces<br />
This section aims at scrutinizing state and non-state actions against Net neutrality. In<br />
particu<strong>la</strong>r, we will refer to breaches of freedom of expression and access in the Net. By doing<br />
so, we will assess how much the Net is neutral and, consequently, if freedom of expression<br />
in the Net is ensu<strong>red</strong>. We will therefore look at those that are responsible of shaping the Net,<br />
17 See how Zatz contextualizes “access to recipients” as a core ing<strong>red</strong>ient of the public forum doctrine.<br />
See supra footnote 1.<br />
85
86 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
which will help us in two manners. Firstly, it will give us more information about the type<br />
of network we are <strong>de</strong>aling with, for the <strong>la</strong>tter is the result of the needs and objectives of its<br />
crafters. Secondly, it will tell us how human rights and, in particu<strong>la</strong>r freedom of expression,<br />
are <strong>de</strong>fen<strong>de</strong>d, promoted or encroached in the Net.<br />
3.1. The role of states against net neutrality<br />
Human rights have been coined as a tool to protect citizens from power abuses of<br />
public authorities. This led civil and political rights to appear as well as keeps on being the<br />
major function of human rights at a national and international levels. We have started this<br />
paper equating the Net to a public space and, thus, to a space where citizens may encounter,<br />
direct or indirectly, boundaries established by public authorities. As a result, our point of<br />
<strong>de</strong>parture is that human rights vio<strong>la</strong>tions by states can also happen in the Net. The most<br />
visible of these vio<strong>la</strong>tions is when states have tried to censor communications. Freedom of<br />
expression is thus one civil liberty that can easily be compromised, particu<strong>la</strong>rly since states<br />
have started to pass antiterrorist legis<strong>la</strong>tion 18 . The European Union, the Council of Europe<br />
and their member states respectively, have these regu<strong>la</strong>tions 19 . Moreover, we have had clear<br />
examples of states silencing the Net such as China (with its known “Great Firewall”) and<br />
more recently Egypt 20 . These states exemplify the re<strong>la</strong>tively small group of countries that<br />
are able to censor internet content and that have proved to use such faculty. Although the<br />
network changes substantially from one country to another, in all cases such restriction of<br />
the freedom of expression in the Net is possible due to the power that state authorities have<br />
upon ISPs 21 .<br />
one can often have the impression that the constraints on the freedom of expression<br />
in the Net onlyconcern those countries that, are known for imposing serious restrictions on<br />
this right in the “physical world”. Differently, this paper wishes to give visibility to indicators<br />
that some non-profit organizations and aca<strong>de</strong>mics are trying to bring our attention to,<br />
which <strong>de</strong>scribe a rather different scenario. These indicators present a network always more<br />
restricted, less open and neutral at a global scale rather than localized in these states with<br />
the reputation of being totalitarian. In particu<strong>la</strong>r, the open Net Initiative (oNI) has been<br />
18 For a well-documented and argued account on censorship through anti-terrorist legis<strong>la</strong>tion see Banisar,<br />
D. (2008). Speaking of terror. A survey of the effects of counter-terrorism legis<strong>la</strong>tion on freedom of the<br />
media in Europe. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.<br />
19 In this context, some regu<strong>la</strong>tions have been highly problematic. An example is the Directive for Data<br />
Retention in Telecommunications Traffic (EC Directive 2006/24/EC ). The <strong>la</strong>tter and its implementation<br />
in many member states have been challenged for their encroachments on the rights to privacy<br />
and freedom of expression –see e.g. ECJ’s ruling 2009/C 82/03 of 10th February 2009 and BVerfG, 1<br />
BvR 256/08 vom 2.3.2010, Absatz-Nr. (1 - 345).<br />
20 A brief but well documented <strong>de</strong>scription of these cases (and other simi<strong>la</strong>r ones) can be found at: www.<br />
yaleglobal.yale.edu.<br />
21 Sometimes, also upon oSPs such as happens with Google and Yahoo in China or, more recently<br />
Facebook.
the Net as a public space: Is Net-neutrality necessary to preserve on-line freedom of expression?<br />
assessing the freedom of the Net in several countries. This study has showed that not to see<br />
governments openly using filtering techniques does not mean that censorship is not there; it<br />
means that the mechanisms for censoring are rapidly changing in the <strong>la</strong>st years—becoming<br />
less apparent and, thus, more difficult to monitor (by human rights <strong>de</strong>fen<strong>de</strong>rs), and that<br />
their use is becoming more attractive to governments. In fact, the <strong>la</strong>tter are being seduced by<br />
these new techniques for two main reasons; the first one re<strong>la</strong>tes to their international reputation,<br />
for the use of less obvious tools to control the internet allows them to avoid carrying<br />
the same <strong>la</strong>bel that is currently attached to China or Iran when it comes to their restriction<br />
of the Net 22 . The other has to do with the facilities to circumvent Net censorship when the<br />
<strong>la</strong>tter is done by blocking access to given Net resources. In fact, China or Iran’s blocking of<br />
Net content can be overcome through Tor and other mirrors 23 .<br />
In oNI’s study there is a particu<strong>la</strong>rly helpful c<strong>la</strong>ssification of censor techniques, each<br />
of them appertains to a different generation. Such division has emerged from the study of<br />
RUNET (Рунет in Russian), which is the name given to all internet content in Russian –<br />
which is primarily accessed in Russia and the Commonwealth of In<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nt States (CIS)<br />
that used to be part of the Soviet Union. The division came after analyzing censorship and<br />
finding that only in Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan one could see “Chinese-style” internet<br />
censorship 24 . The question was whether no censorship existed in the other countries and<br />
the results pointed at new generation of filtering techniques. Hence, internet censorship<br />
persisted although disguised in a manner not yet known by most internet users.<br />
Through the study, evi<strong>de</strong>nce was found that other techniques where used, which were<br />
<strong>la</strong>beled as second and third generation control techniques. The first are essentially integrated<br />
by legal norms and technical <strong>de</strong>vices, which allow selecting when and where information<br />
will be <strong>de</strong>nied (as opposed to the first-generation techniques that constantly block certain<br />
internet contents) 25 . Within this second generation techniques, the authors i<strong>de</strong>ntify two<br />
types of tools: those with an “overt” track and those with a “covert” track. The overt track<br />
presents the “soft si<strong>de</strong>” of internet control, which ranges from <strong>de</strong>famation <strong>la</strong>ws to pornography<br />
ones 26 . With the covert track state authorities select the time to act (e.g. elections; an<br />
important summit; an international event such as the olympic games); is a selective interference<br />
on the Net that can vary in its intensity and forms in which it is produced. With this<br />
covert track techniques, <strong>de</strong>vices are set to block particu<strong>la</strong>r targets and allow this blocking<br />
22 oNI talks about China, Burma, North Korea, Cuba and Saudi Arabia as those states that have erected<br />
digital firewalls to restrict the content accessible by their citizens and their freedom of expression.<br />
DEIBERT, R., PALFREY, J., RoHoZINSKI, R. and ZITTRAIN, J. (ed) (2010). Access controlled.<br />
The zapping of Power, Rights, and Rule in Cyberspace. 1ª ed. Massachusetts: MIT, at p. 15.<br />
23 one does not have to be an expert in or<strong>de</strong>r to do so. Some internet freedom organizations provi<strong>de</strong><br />
advice to perform these operations. See e.g. http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org or www.youtube.<br />
com/freedom4internet.<br />
24 See supra footnote at pp. 15 et seq.<br />
25 Id. at p. 24.<br />
26 An example is the Irish case mentioned above. See supra footnote 16.<br />
87
88 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
to appear legitimate due to the over track (legis<strong>la</strong>tion that foresees legitimate internet filtering<br />
or blocking). The i<strong>de</strong>a in short is to create the conditions that allow blocking internet<br />
resources thanks to regu<strong>la</strong>tions that, a priory, are not meant to be used for this purpose. We<br />
can exemplify this through a legis<strong>la</strong>tion that <strong>de</strong>mands any blogger to register its blog and<br />
that allows, when the blogger is registe<strong>red</strong>, to monitor the <strong>la</strong>tter; differently, when the blogger<br />
has not complied with the registration procedure to avoid being monito<strong>red</strong>, he or she<br />
can face his/her blog being blocked for not complying with the registration requirements 27 .<br />
Finally, these third generation techniques also use cyber-warfare techniques (psychological<br />
techniques to confuse internet users), intensifying particu<strong>la</strong>r search results, <strong>de</strong>leting others,<br />
modifying contents, etc 28 .<br />
Although oNI’s study seems to provi<strong>de</strong> a solid ground to argue that Net neutrality and,<br />
in particu<strong>la</strong>r, freedom of expression in the Net faces a difficult future, we do not need to<br />
go far east –to the countries that were surveyed– in or<strong>de</strong>r to see that no state is missing the<br />
chance to regu<strong>la</strong>te internet contents. At a EU level it has been proposed to establish a “virtual<br />
Schengen bor<strong>de</strong>r,” 29 a cyber-bor<strong>de</strong>r that would filter internet contents thanks to b<strong>la</strong>cklists<br />
strategically p<strong>la</strong>ced and, thus, leave outsi<strong>de</strong> the EU those un<strong>de</strong>si<strong>red</strong> contents. Canada<br />
has also established blocking regu<strong>la</strong>tions and even the country that has always stepped in<br />
to <strong>de</strong>fend freedom of expression and the freedom of the Net, the US, has also started regu<strong>la</strong>ting<br />
internet filtering in some spaces (e.g. public libraries) 30 . All these moves from states<br />
towards the regu<strong>la</strong>tion of internet content give us three reasons to worry about the future of<br />
Net neutrality and the freedom of expression in the Net. First, these new techniques are extremely<br />
“difficult to measure and often require in-<strong>de</strong>pth fieldwork to verify.” 31 Second, these<br />
measures “seek to normalize control and the exercise of power in cyberspace;” 32 third, many<br />
of this practices control follow a privatization process which contributes to the fuzziness of<br />
actors that can be responsible for the filtering of internet contents.<br />
27 For the examples that oNI extracts from studying Russia and the CIS see supra footnote 22 at pp.<br />
24 and 25. For an exten<strong>de</strong>d list of examples on Internet control see also the annual study prepa<strong>red</strong> by<br />
Freedom House at www.freedomhouse.org. The <strong>la</strong>ter offers the analysis of 37 countries, among which<br />
several European ones.<br />
28 This shows how much sates are engaged in a cyber-warfare race. See supra footnote 22 at p. 31.<br />
29 See the summary of this proposal in www.edri.org in its bulletin from 4th May 2010.<br />
30 For the Canadian case see supra footnote 22 at p. 5. For the US see supra footnote 15 and MoRo-<br />
ZoV, E. (2011). “Taming Cyberspace.” In<strong>de</strong>x on Censorship, 40, pp. 50-55.<br />
31 See supra footnote 22 at p. 17 and 28 for the particu<strong>la</strong>r example of the internet briga<strong>de</strong>s that exist in<br />
China. These briga<strong>de</strong>s exemplify the difficulties to target the state as responsible form blocking and<br />
filtering since individuals are the ones doing part of the job (posting messages pro regime, opening<br />
blogs to <strong>de</strong>fend the regime, etc.). See also the work done by the Berkman Center for Internet and Society<br />
in their 2010 report on “Distributed Denial of Services Attacks Against In<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nt Media and<br />
Human Rights Sites,” avai<strong>la</strong>ble at www.infowar-monitor.Net/2011/04/ongoing-attacks-on-humanrights-websites-and-the-problem-of-attribution.<br />
32 See supra footnote 22 at p. 6.
the Net as a public space: Is Net-neutrality necessary to preserve on-line freedom of expression?<br />
3.2. The role of private parties against net neutrality<br />
The fuzziness we have just allu<strong>de</strong>d to has to be contextualized in the framework of<br />
a globalized world, where an always fiercer and bor<strong>de</strong>rless capitalism has allowed certain<br />
private entities to have a share on state power. In fact, it is not knew to hear about a disempowe<strong>red</strong><br />
state in a globalized world where the first seems to be no longer the only central<br />
actor in international politics or, at least, not anymore an autonomous actor; one that is able<br />
to impose its will upon its citizens without any other state or non state authority having an<br />
influence on that. Quite the opposite, multinationals, international organizations, particu<strong>la</strong>r<br />
lobbies...there are multiple organizations (public and private) that stir this globalised world<br />
and that have significant chances to influence state politics and, ultimately, the behavior of<br />
state authorities upon its citizens. Among these actors we cannot forget IT companies.<br />
The share in state power of these companies was quite low as they were numerous<br />
and fragmented from one state territory to another. Yet, there is gradually the concern that<br />
these companies are starting to form bigger entities, able to condition quite significantly the<br />
possibilities of accessing the Net, as well as <strong>de</strong>termining the conditions in which the Net is<br />
used. IT companies get to <strong>de</strong>sign most of the world’s network. That is, with the exception of<br />
those countries that keep on restricting the market and excluding ISPs from establishing in<br />
their territories 33 , IT companies have mainly drawn the world from a telecommunications<br />
perspective. In addition, they control the p<strong>la</strong>tform from which people interact for their job,<br />
social re<strong>la</strong>tionships, etc. (e-mail, blogging, social networks). In sum, the powerful position<br />
in which these companies stand cannot be overlooked.<br />
Does the fact that IT companies have power to constrict individual’s use of internet<br />
mean that the first will use it to un<strong>de</strong>rmine freedom of expression? Not necessarily; in fact,<br />
IT companies have interests in maintaining the Net as free and open as possible for, until<br />
now, this is precisely what has ma<strong>de</strong> the Net popu<strong>la</strong>r and a successful business. The problem<br />
appears when states are able to lobby on IT’s and make them act against a free internet. In<br />
this scenario, it is again relevant to mention oNI’s findings for they go beyond the picture<br />
that we have soon in mind. We tend to think that, if states are able to coerce ITs to filter internet<br />
content, this filtering will be done by ISPs. This is true but oNI shows how, more and<br />
more, oSPs are the ones engaging in censorship. From Linked-in to Yahoo, Skype or MSN,<br />
oNI has records on internet filtering performed by these big technological firms. Why do<br />
they do it? And what is at stake? on the one hand, states are gradually regu<strong>la</strong>ting oSPs’ and<br />
ISPs’ liability, which means that not complying with e.g. copyright <strong>la</strong>w would imply for<br />
these companies the need for litigation. As a result, companies start cutting possible conflicts<br />
from scratch, trying to avoid possible state sanctions or litigation. The problem is that those<br />
suffering the IT’s new strategy are internet users. As it has been argued, “freedom of speech<br />
stands no chance in front of the cowboy-style private ISP justice.” 34<br />
33 E.g. Turkmenistan, Id. at p. 22.<br />
34 Following a fictitious case created by a non-profit organization, in or<strong>de</strong>r to assess freedom of expression<br />
in the Nether<strong>la</strong>nds; this organization make several oSPs believe that someone was using their<br />
89
90 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
Bearing in mind the second and third generations of internet controls; in particu<strong>la</strong>r, the<br />
wave of national legis<strong>la</strong>tion that <strong>de</strong>als with illegal internet content –copyright; pornography;<br />
public or<strong>de</strong>r; militant Is<strong>la</strong>mic content in the context of the fight against terrorism; etc–will likely<br />
p<strong>la</strong>ce ISPs and oSPs in the position of voluntarily censoring from the source –at user level– what<br />
they think that would put them in a position of breaching state regu<strong>la</strong>tions. As a result, we can<br />
affirm that, today, freedom of expression in the internet is put at stake not only by public authorities<br />
but also by private parties, which jeopardizes the so-called neutrality of the Net. Having<br />
mapped some of the facts that point towards a less free internet, let us look at how Net neutrality<br />
could be preserved or enhanced and, consequently, freedom of expression in the Net.<br />
4. net neutrality tHrougH a global multi-stakeHol<strong>de</strong>r<br />
aPProacH<br />
Neutrality is some point between multiple points of view, where the first is re<strong>la</strong>ted to<br />
the others [we can say that the neutral point is sympathetic to all other points], but where it<br />
does not engage with one of them in particu<strong>la</strong>r [the neutral perspective cannot engage or be<br />
biased towards one of the other points in a stronger manner than towards the others]. From<br />
such abstract <strong>de</strong>finition one can see how difficult (if not impossible) would be to <strong>de</strong>sign a<br />
neutral network from any cultural, religious, gen<strong>de</strong>r,..perspective.<br />
It is difficult to shape what is to be tolerated in the public forum for any individual of<br />
the p<strong>la</strong>net and, thus, it is difficult to pin down and <strong>de</strong>scribe the concept of neutrality <strong>de</strong>tached<br />
from a particu<strong>la</strong>r context. That it is difficult, though, does not mean that is not <strong>de</strong>sirable<br />
to try to reach international agreements when on-line freedom of expression is at stake.<br />
The route-map towards such an i<strong>de</strong>al, though, cannot be achieved but through a global<br />
multi-stakehol<strong>de</strong>r approach. We have to take into consi<strong>de</strong>ration different users, states and ITs<br />
from around the world if we want to be able to sit on the table for negotiations a quite representative<br />
array of the elements that have to be taken into account to regu<strong>la</strong>te the Net neutrality.<br />
Moreover, we need governments, IT companies and users on board for the equilibrium between<br />
the interests that they represent is intrinsic to any potential international agreement on<br />
Net-neutrality. This i<strong>de</strong>a can also be expressed as follows. Firstly, we do not want governments<br />
to own IT resources for they can substantially control the Net; secondly, we do not want governments<br />
holding too much power over IT companies for they can make the <strong>la</strong>tter act against<br />
Net neutrality as it has been showed. Thirdly, we do not want either IT companies to have too<br />
much power for they could privilege their private (economic) interests over freedom of expression<br />
as much as states can privilege their political agenda over such human right.<br />
Finally, an international norm on Net neutrality would also provi<strong>de</strong> us with a global<br />
common ground for Net regu<strong>la</strong>tors that would avoid the “forum shopping” announced by<br />
services while breaching copyright regu<strong>la</strong>tions. The result was that all oSPs took the information<br />
down after asking the individual to do it him/herself. The case can be found at http://74.125.45.132/<br />
search?q=cache:IKhZFWp5TkcJ:www.bof.nl/docs/researchpaperSANE.pdf
the Net as a public space: Is Net-neutrality necessary to preserve on-line freedom of expression?<br />
many aca<strong>de</strong>mics 35 , which <strong>de</strong>scribes the bad effects of a highly fragmented world map of internet<br />
regu<strong>la</strong>tions (particu<strong>la</strong>rly vis-à-vis regu<strong>la</strong>tion focused on the re<strong>la</strong>tionship between the<br />
Net and crime prevention and human rights protection).<br />
If the global multi-stakehol<strong>de</strong>r approach is the path we have to follow, how should it<br />
be articu<strong>la</strong>ted? We have plenty of examples of international and regional forums specialized<br />
in ITs and the <strong>la</strong>w. Just on freedom of expression and censorship there are multiple<br />
projects going on 36 . Although we welcome these forums for they are responsible for having<br />
p<strong>la</strong>ced the multi-stakehol<strong>de</strong>r approach at the centre of the international agenda, we<br />
believe it is time to go further and start preparing an international treaty on Net neutrality<br />
and the freedom in/of the net. Here, I would like to echo R. Beibert’s words when he<br />
proposes to tackle the internet as the environment 37 . It is surely not very attractive right<br />
from the outset for we all know that environmental protection legis<strong>la</strong>tion and politics is<br />
hard to apply within states and, particu<strong>la</strong>rly, at an international level. Despite the difficulties<br />
that regu<strong>la</strong>ting at an international level Net neutrality and the freedom in/of the Net<br />
will bring [disparities that have been gradually surpassed in the terrain of human rights<br />
and that will gradually be surpassed in environmental <strong>la</strong>w] we have to try and push for<br />
international regu<strong>la</strong>tions on this matter.<br />
In the context of an international agreement we should also consi<strong>de</strong>r the <strong>de</strong>velopment<br />
of certifications that would promote a friendly environment for Net neutrality and<br />
the protection of the freedom of expression in the Net. Certifications would give economic<br />
incentives to ITs to adopt these values, would give certainty to their customers and, finally,<br />
would also oblige states to respect the standards that these certifications oblige an IT to follow<br />
as part of the international agreement. Moreover, since international conventions would<br />
apply to states, these certifications would be the connection between state responsibility and<br />
private sector representatives in the terrain of Net neutrality and the freedom in/of the Net.<br />
Last but not least, we have to bear in mind the problem of legitimacy. We might talk<br />
about “multi-stakehol<strong>de</strong>r” cooperation and point at the different types of organizations that<br />
35 The <strong>la</strong>tter refers to the event in which states would regu<strong>la</strong>te different types of responsibility vis-à-vis<br />
the protection of human rights; children; economic interests (copyright, etc.) in the Net. Thus, users<br />
and ITs would change the state from which they would operate, trying to avoid the <strong>la</strong>w that should<br />
be applicable to them and, at the end of the day, turning those <strong>la</strong>ws useless due to that “forum shopping.”<br />
TERUEL LoZANo, G.M. (2011). “Libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión en internet, control <strong>de</strong> contenidos<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s páginas web y sus garantías constitucionales.” Revista Aranzadi <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>recho y nuevas tecnologías,<br />
Vol. 25, at p. 83. Also HARRIS, C.; RoWBoTHAM, J. and STEVENSoN, K. (2009). “Truth,<br />
<strong>la</strong>w and hate in the virtual marketp<strong>la</strong>ce of i<strong>de</strong>as: perspectives on the regu<strong>la</strong>tion of Internet content.”<br />
Information & Communication Technology Law, 2, at p. 170.<br />
36 one of the upcoming events where this issue will find a forum is the 2011 Internet Governance<br />
Forum that will be held in Nairobi (see www.intgovforum.org/cms). Here, the Global Netwok Initiative<br />
must also be mentioned for it tackles corporate responsibility (in particu<strong>la</strong>r, Google, Yahoo and<br />
Microdoft will un<strong>de</strong>rgo GNI’s assessment in 2011). See at www.globalnetworkinitiative.org.<br />
37 DEIBERT, R. (2010) “Blogging Dangerously.” In<strong>de</strong>x on Censorship, 39, p. 90.<br />
91
92 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
should sit in the negotiations table but, who is really going to sit there? Who holds legitimacy<br />
to engage in the discussion of global standards to endure Net neutrality?<br />
As it came up in the 3rd session of the Council of Europe’s conference on internet Freedom<br />
38 , in the Tunis meeting there is already the <strong>de</strong>finition of the principle of the multi<strong>la</strong>teral<br />
“stakehol<strong>de</strong>r” negotiation—there is a <strong>de</strong>finition of each category (state, private company...).<br />
Nonetheless, there is neither consensus on which is the role of each of the i<strong>de</strong>ntified stakehol<strong>de</strong>rs,<br />
nor on whether the <strong>la</strong>tter hold the legitimacy to speak in the name of a wi<strong>de</strong> range<br />
of individuals and institutions. This is in fact one of the possible reasons for which an early<br />
international regu<strong>la</strong>tion might be compromised from the outset.<br />
This could be solved by arranging systems for accountability and legitimacy within<br />
each stakehol<strong>de</strong>r category. ITs should propose their negotiators; NGos as well and so should<br />
states. Although this could not give the legitimacy that <strong>la</strong>ws tend to have at a national and<br />
international levels, at least would grant us with a <strong>de</strong>parture point from which an international<br />
forum on Net neutrality and freedom of/in the Net could be organized and, luckily,<br />
have an agreement on some general principles.<br />
5. concluding remarks<br />
We have looked at the framework in which individuals express on-line. Such framework<br />
consists of a space that is closely re<strong>la</strong>ted to our public spaces and, thus, where individuals<br />
need to see their freedom of expression protected.<br />
Today, it is more frequent to find practices that seek to restrict on-line content rather than<br />
to promote Net neutrality and freedom of expression in the Net. Due to the global nature<br />
of the Net, its users and regu<strong>la</strong>tors; the fight against internet censorship and an always more<br />
controlled Net has to be soon promoted at the appropriate forum. The <strong>la</strong>tter would be an international<br />
one that, differently from the forums that have been taking p<strong>la</strong>ce up to today, really<br />
offers us an opportunity to have an international regu<strong>la</strong>tion on Net neutrality. This regu<strong>la</strong>tion<br />
should, above all, contain the main precautions to ensure freedom of expression in internet; in<br />
particu<strong>la</strong>r, it should create a framework for a certification system to stimu<strong>la</strong>te private parties<br />
to comply with the principles set in this international regu<strong>la</strong>tion, while also offering to private<br />
parties a global common ground that would give them certainty and protection to offer a free<br />
Net in any state where they operate and that is party to the agreement.<br />
6. bibliograPHy<br />
Banisar, D. (2008). Speaking of terror. A survey of the effects of counter-terrorism legis<strong>la</strong>tion on<br />
freedom of the media in Europe. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.<br />
38 The Conference can be followed at: www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/media-dataprotection/confinternet-freedom/Default_en.asp.
the Net as a public space: Is Net-neutrality necessary to preserve on-line freedom of expression?<br />
Deibert, R., Palfrey, J., Rohozinski, R. and Zittrain, J. (ed) (2010). Access controlled.<br />
The zapping of Power, Rights, and Rule in Cyberspace. 1ª ed. Massachusetts: MIT.<br />
Deibert, R. (2010) “Blogging Dangerously.” In<strong>de</strong>x on Censorship, 39, pp. 88-90.<br />
Harris, C.; Rowbotham, J. and Stevenson, K. (2009). “Truth, <strong>la</strong>w and hate in the virtual<br />
marketp<strong>la</strong>ce of i<strong>de</strong>as: perspectives on the regu<strong>la</strong>tion of internet content.” Information<br />
& Communication Technology Law, 2, pp. 155-184.<br />
International Telecommunication Union (ITU). World Telecommunication / ICT<br />
Development Report 2010. Monitoring the WSIS targets. A mid-term review. Avai<strong>la</strong>ble<br />
at www.itu.int.<br />
Morozov, E. (2011). “Taming Cyberspace.” In<strong>de</strong>x on Censorship, 40, pp. 50-55.<br />
Teruel Lozano, G.M. (2011). “Libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión en internet, control <strong>de</strong> contenidos <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong>s páginas web y sus garantías constitucionales.” Revista Aranzadi <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>recho y nuevas<br />
tecnologías, Vol. 25, pp. 81-103.<br />
Tully, J. (2008). “on <strong>la</strong>w, Democracy and Imperialism”, in Tierney, S. & Christodoulidis,<br />
E. A. (eds), Political Theory and Public Law. 1ª ed. London: Ashgate.<br />
Zatz, N. D. (1998). “Si<strong>de</strong>walks in Cyberspace: Making Space for Public Forums in the<br />
Electronic Environment.” Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 12-1, pp. 149-240.<br />
Zhu, K. (2007). “Bringing neutrality to network neutrality.” Berkeley Technology Law Journal,<br />
Vol. 22, pp. 615-646.<br />
93
sIN NeUtrAlIDAD eN lA reD<br />
¿DóNDe lA lógICA UNIVersAl De lA INNOVACIóN?<br />
Helena Nadal Sánchez<br />
Miembro <strong>de</strong>l Grupo <strong>de</strong> Innovación Docente “Metodología Interdisciplinar Jurídico-Político-Filosófíca” <strong>de</strong>l<br />
Área <strong>de</strong> Filosofía <strong>de</strong>l Derecho <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Universidad <strong>de</strong> Burgos. Doctoranda <strong>de</strong>l Departamento <strong>de</strong> Derecho Público.<br />
Profesora <strong>de</strong>l Curso <strong>de</strong> Postgrado Especialista en Mediación Familiar <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> misma Universidad<br />
resumen: Con <strong>la</strong> posibilidad <strong>de</strong> que los Proveedores <strong>de</strong> Servicios <strong>de</strong> Internet discriminen los accesos<br />
<strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> mediante un nuevo sistema <strong>de</strong> cobro al usuario en función <strong>de</strong> los servicios que éste contrate,<br />
<strong>de</strong>saparece <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>. Augurar todas <strong>la</strong>s implicaciones <strong>de</strong> este hecho es imposible,<br />
pero sí es lícito aventurar algunas consecuencias inmediatas <strong>para</strong> el campo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> innovación y <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
investigación.<br />
Los principales puntos <strong>de</strong> reflexión que articu<strong>la</strong>n este trabajo son: <strong>la</strong> re<strong>la</strong>ción entre capitalismo y<br />
restricciones <strong>de</strong> contenidos en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>, el fin <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> participación ciudadana en nuestras socieda<strong>de</strong>s<br />
poco cohesionadas, el bloqueo <strong>de</strong>l intercambio intelectual como freno a <strong>la</strong> lógica <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> innovación, <strong>la</strong><br />
incapacidad <strong>de</strong> los seres humanos <strong>para</strong> influir en <strong>la</strong> configuración <strong>de</strong>l conocimiento, <strong>la</strong> conversión <strong>de</strong>l<br />
saber en objeto <strong>de</strong> mercado y el atentado contra el <strong>de</strong>recho a escoger el camino preferido <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>sarrollo<br />
científico o intelectual.<br />
Finalmente se <strong>de</strong>staca el hecho <strong>de</strong> que el <strong>de</strong>bate por <strong>la</strong> gestión <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> pone <strong>de</strong> manifiesto nuevamente<br />
<strong>la</strong>s contradicciones entre los valores <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>mocracia y <strong>la</strong> legitimación <strong>de</strong>l crecimiento<br />
económico ilimitado.<br />
pAlAbrAs clAve: neutralidad, acceso a <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>, <strong>de</strong>mocracia, innovación, universal.<br />
introducción<br />
Por primera vez el ser humano pue<strong>de</strong> afirmar que <strong>la</strong> realidad está <strong>de</strong>sdob<strong>la</strong>da. Más allá<br />
<strong>de</strong> trasfondos metafísicos o religiosos que pue<strong>de</strong>n dotar <strong>de</strong> sentido a <strong>la</strong> existencia, hoy en día<br />
no es aventurado <strong>de</strong>cir que el ciberespacio se ha constituido como realidad alternativa y <strong>para</strong><br />
muchos fundante <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> realidad actual. El modo como ha condicionado Internet no sólo a<br />
<strong>la</strong>s culturas <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s cuales se tiene acceso a su <strong>red</strong>, sino indirectamente al resto <strong>de</strong>l p<strong>la</strong>neta<br />
justifica que cada cambio en el<strong>la</strong> sea observado y analizado con especial atención.<br />
Internet como <strong>red</strong> <strong>para</strong>digmática nos pone <strong>de</strong> nuevo ante el <strong>de</strong>safío <strong>de</strong> cómo regu<strong>la</strong>r los<br />
ámbitos humanos. Se constituye así como un campo <strong>de</strong> observación que permite estudiar <strong>la</strong>s<br />
progresivas necesida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> un espacio sin fronteras, que traspasa el po<strong>de</strong>r <strong>de</strong> los diferentes<br />
gobiernos. En este sentido, <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> no sólo está transformando nuestras socieda<strong>de</strong>s sino también<br />
nuestras concepciones <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho, <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> economía y <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> investigación.<br />
El objetivo <strong>de</strong> este trabajo no es tanto analizar cómo se regu<strong>la</strong> Internet sino intentar<br />
vislumbrar <strong>la</strong>s posibles implicaciones que tiene <strong>para</strong> el área <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> investigación y <strong>la</strong> innovación,<br />
el cómo regu<strong>la</strong>rlo.<br />
5
96 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
El potencial <strong>de</strong> Internet se nos escapa <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s mentes. La revolución digital, al igual que<br />
ya ocurriera con otras, como <strong>la</strong> revolución industrial, <strong>de</strong>ja a los hombres <strong>de</strong> su tiempo <strong>la</strong><br />
incógnita <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s consecuencias que traerá ese nuevo giro en <strong>la</strong> historia humana. Por lo que<br />
respecta a <strong>la</strong> investigación y a <strong>la</strong> innovación, Internet ha supuesto principalmente el acceso<br />
fácil a <strong>la</strong> documentación y en consecuencia <strong>la</strong> globalización <strong>de</strong>l conocimiento.<br />
En or<strong>de</strong>n al <strong>de</strong>sarrollo <strong>de</strong>l presente trabajo, el primer apartado está <strong>de</strong>dicado a esc<strong>la</strong>recer<br />
diferentes significados e implicaciones <strong>de</strong> lo que supone una <strong>red</strong> neutral; el segundo<br />
centra el análisis en <strong>la</strong>s pretensiones <strong>de</strong> los Proveedores <strong>de</strong> Servicios <strong>de</strong> Internet <strong>de</strong> discriminar<br />
el acceso a los servicios <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> mediante sistemas <strong>de</strong> pagos diferenciados en función<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s prestaciones que contrate el usuario; en el tercero se reivindica el acceso a Internet<br />
en abierto como una consecución <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s <strong>de</strong>mocracias que no <strong>de</strong>be verse retrocedida; en el<br />
apartado cuarto y final <strong>la</strong> reflexión se centra en <strong>la</strong>s consecuencias que tiene <strong>para</strong> el ámbito<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> innovación y <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> investigación <strong>la</strong> restricción <strong>de</strong>l acceso a Internet. Cierra este estudio<br />
una conclusión <strong>de</strong>dicada a proponer otro modo <strong>de</strong> enten<strong>de</strong>r el crecimiento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> a favor<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s socieda<strong>de</strong>s que <strong>la</strong> hacen posible, es <strong>de</strong>cir: todas.<br />
1. diferentes asPectos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong><br />
La neutralidad en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> consiste en que <strong>la</strong> conexión a Internet incluya todas <strong>la</strong>s páginas<br />
web y servicios por igual o dicho <strong>de</strong> un modo más genérico, una <strong>red</strong> neutral es <strong>la</strong> que permite<br />
<strong>la</strong> comunicación punto a punto sin alterar su contenido1 . Esto implica en líneas generales<br />
que <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> <strong>de</strong> re<strong>de</strong>s se ha convertido en una realidad autónoma que supera <strong>la</strong>s fronteras estatales<br />
y que el usuario <strong>la</strong> entien<strong>de</strong> como un espacio privilegiado <strong>de</strong> liberta<strong>de</strong>s, tanto por lo<br />
que respecta al acceso a servicios como por lo que respecta a <strong>la</strong> difusión y proyección <strong>de</strong> sus<br />
propias producciones i<strong>de</strong>ológicas o intelectuales. “Des<strong>de</strong> algunos puntos <strong>de</strong> vista, Internet<br />
es el espacio <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> libertad. Un lugar exento <strong>de</strong> intervenciones públicas en el que los cibernautas<br />
disfrutan <strong>de</strong> un po<strong>de</strong>r <strong>de</strong> acción ilimitado. Sobre todo <strong>para</strong> comunicar y expresarse,<br />
<strong>para</strong> <strong>de</strong>sarrol<strong>la</strong>r experiencias <strong>de</strong> investigación y culturales <strong>de</strong> cualquier tipo, trascendiendo<br />
o no <strong>la</strong>s fronteras <strong>de</strong> los Estados. Esta libertad no sólo es inmensa sino que tiene muy difícil<br />
limitación” (Muñoz 2000: 151).<br />
El <strong>de</strong>bate sobre si es posible regu<strong>la</strong>r <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> (tanto si lo es <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> el punto <strong>de</strong> vista técnico<br />
como si lo es <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> el punto <strong>de</strong> vista legal) y cómo <strong>de</strong>bería hacerse es can<strong>de</strong>nte en nuestros<br />
días. Chile ha sido pionero en garantizar <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y, <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> postura opuesta,<br />
diversos países como Estados Unidos, España o Francia están legis<strong>la</strong>ndo contra dicha neutralidad.<br />
En el primer caso se entien<strong>de</strong> el espacio cibernético como un logro tecnológico que<br />
permite una completa libertad <strong>para</strong> los usuarios a excepción <strong>de</strong> lo que concierne a controles<br />
parentales que sí están contemp<strong>la</strong>dos por ley. En el segundo, se consi<strong>de</strong>ra en líneas generales<br />
1 “<strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong>”. Wikipedia.
sin neutralidad en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> ¿dón<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> lógica universal <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> innovación?<br />
que <strong>la</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> internet permitirá “satisfacer <strong>la</strong>s necesida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s generaciones presentes<br />
sin comprometer <strong>la</strong>s posibilida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s <strong>de</strong>l futuro <strong>para</strong> aten<strong>de</strong>r sus propias necesida<strong>de</strong>s” 2 .<br />
En España ha entrado en vigor <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> el día 6 <strong>de</strong> marzo <strong>de</strong> 2011 <strong>la</strong> Ley <strong>de</strong> Economía<br />
Sostenible, cuya Disposición final cuadragésimo tercera (más conocida como ‘Ley Sin<strong>de</strong>’) es re<strong>la</strong>tiva<br />
a <strong>la</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> webs y <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> propiedad intelectual. A favor <strong>de</strong> dicha ley 3 se<br />
sitúan quienes argumentan que <strong>la</strong>s <strong>de</strong>scargas sin consentimiento <strong>de</strong>l autor no son legales,<br />
que el canon es <strong>para</strong> compensar <strong>la</strong> copia privada y que es discutible que <strong>la</strong> ‘Ley Sin<strong>de</strong>’ pisotee<br />
<strong>de</strong>rechos fundamentales, ya que finalmente se ha incorporado <strong>la</strong> participación <strong>de</strong> un juez<br />
en diferentes momentos <strong>de</strong>l procedimiento estableciendo un sistema con ciertas garantías<br />
(Gavilán 2011). Joan Navarro (2011) hace notar que “Quienes abogan por <strong>la</strong> ‘libertad’ y <strong>la</strong><br />
‘gratuidad’ en <strong>la</strong> Red, en realidad <strong>de</strong>fien<strong>de</strong>n el lucrativo negocio <strong>de</strong> quienes no pagan por los<br />
contenidos por los que intermedian” y aña<strong>de</strong> “Es falso que exista un <strong>de</strong>bate entre propiedad<br />
intelectual y libertad. Sin libertad no hay creación ni propiedad intelectual, y quien <strong>de</strong>fien<strong>de</strong><br />
los abusos no <strong>de</strong>fien<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> libertad, sino los privilegios (sean éstos tecnológicos o <strong>de</strong> casta)”<br />
<strong>para</strong> culminar exponiendo que “<strong>la</strong> ley Sin<strong>de</strong> no criminaliza a los usuarios <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>, persigue<br />
a quien abusa, oculto tras <strong>la</strong> tecnología o el anonimato, <strong>de</strong>l trabajo, curiosamente siempre<br />
intelectual, <strong>de</strong> <strong>otros</strong>”. En contra <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> mencionada ley 4 se sitúan quienes consi<strong>de</strong>ran que <strong>la</strong><br />
neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> es imprescindible en el acceso, difusión y expresión <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> cultura y que<br />
su eliminación sólo estaría favoreciendo a los intermediarios que se enriquecen a costa <strong>de</strong><br />
hacerse con los <strong>de</strong>rechos <strong>de</strong> los creadores. Aña<strong>de</strong>n que en este sentido <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
<strong>red</strong>, que impulse <strong>la</strong>s alternativas al ‘Copyright’ como <strong>la</strong>s licencias ‘Creative Commons’ como<br />
base <strong>de</strong> una economía libre <strong>de</strong> injerencias y por tanto más mo<strong>de</strong>rna y productiva.<br />
Manuel Castells <strong>de</strong>scribe el problema re<strong>la</strong>tivo al control <strong>de</strong> Internet 5 como una transformación<br />
tecnológica y cultural ante <strong>la</strong> cual:<br />
Los <strong>de</strong>tentores <strong>de</strong>l po<strong>de</strong>r <strong>de</strong> contro<strong>la</strong>r <strong>la</strong> información a lo <strong>la</strong>rgo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> historia, es <strong>de</strong>cir,<br />
los estados y <strong>la</strong>s iglesias, reaccionaron con preocupación y, en los estados no <strong>de</strong>mocráticos,<br />
con hostilidad, tratando <strong>de</strong> restablecer el control administrativo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> expresión<br />
y <strong>la</strong> comunicación. Pero <strong>la</strong> ejecución <strong>de</strong>l proyecto estatista sobre Internet se encuentra<br />
con obstáculos consi<strong>de</strong>rables. En los países <strong>de</strong>mocráticos, Internet se consolida como<br />
instrumento esencial <strong>de</strong> expresión, información y comunicación horizontal entre los<br />
ciudadanos y recibe <strong>la</strong> protección constitucional <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s liberta<strong>de</strong>s. En todos los países,<br />
menos en <strong>la</strong>s teocracias, <strong>la</strong> importancia económica y tecnológica <strong>de</strong> Internet, excluye<br />
que se pueda ignorar o relegar su amplio uso en <strong>la</strong> sociedad. Más aún, <strong>la</strong> i<strong>de</strong>ología <strong>de</strong><br />
progreso mediante <strong>la</strong> tecnología hace <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> promoción <strong>de</strong> Internet un valor legitimador<br />
2 Ley 2/2011, <strong>de</strong> 4 <strong>de</strong> marzo, <strong>de</strong> Economía Sostenible. Artículo 2. Economía sostenible.<br />
3 En el marco político votaron a favor <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> ‘ley Sin<strong>de</strong>’: PSoE, PP y CIU.<br />
4 En el marco político votaron en contra <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> ‘ley Sin<strong>de</strong>’: IU-ICV-EUiA, UpyD, PNV, BNG y Coalición<br />
Canaria.<br />
5 Manuel Castells (2009) trata exhaustivamente los problemas <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> intervención en <strong>la</strong> esfera <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s<br />
comunicaciones.<br />
97
98 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
<strong>para</strong> gobiernos que fundan su estrategia en el <strong>de</strong>sarrollo económico <strong>de</strong>ntro <strong>de</strong>l marco<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> globalización. De ahí el complicado encaje <strong>de</strong> bolillos político entre <strong>la</strong> libertad y<br />
el control por parte <strong>de</strong> los Estados. (Castells 2001:1).<br />
Frente a <strong>la</strong> importancia concedida por Castells a Internet en <strong>la</strong> cohesión social, Jürgen<br />
Habermas 6 argumenta que:<br />
El Internet genera una fuerza centrífuga. Suelta una o<strong>la</strong> anárquica <strong>de</strong> circuitos <strong>de</strong> comunicación<br />
altamente fragmentados que <strong>de</strong> manera infrecuente se tras<strong>la</strong>pan. C<strong>la</strong>ro, <strong>la</strong><br />
naturaleza espontánea e igualitaria <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> comunicación ilimitada pue<strong>de</strong> tener efectos<br />
subversivos en regímenes autoritarios. Pero <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> en sí no produce esfera política alguna.<br />
Su estructura no está hecha <strong>para</strong> enfocar <strong>la</strong> atención <strong>de</strong> un público disperso <strong>de</strong><br />
ciudadanos que forman opiniones <strong>de</strong> manera simultánea en los mismos temas y contribuciones<br />
que han sido escrutados y filtrados por expertos.<br />
Como toda construcción humana, también Internet está ligado no sólo a valores culturales<br />
o políticos, sino también a cuestiones económicas. Si el <strong>de</strong>bate por <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> parece centrarse en <strong>la</strong> conveniencia <strong>de</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ciones como <strong>la</strong> ‘ley Sin<strong>de</strong>’ en España o<br />
<strong>la</strong> ‘ley Hadopi’ en Francia, existe otra faceta <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> cuestionada no ya<br />
<strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> los gobiernos sino por <strong>la</strong> intención <strong>de</strong> los Proveedores <strong>de</strong> Servicios <strong>de</strong> Internet o ISPs<br />
<strong>de</strong> contro<strong>la</strong>r qué servicios <strong>de</strong> Internet ofrecen a sus usuarios y establecer tarifas específicas<br />
por esos servicios. Respecto a esta intención <strong>de</strong> los ISPs se <strong>de</strong>sp<strong>la</strong>za <strong>la</strong> reflexión <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>sarrollo<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> tecnología <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> comunicación <strong>de</strong>l p<strong>la</strong>no político-jurídico al p<strong>la</strong>no económico. Esto<br />
no quiere <strong>de</strong>cir que sus implicaciones sean únicamente económicas, más bien al contrario,<br />
p<strong>la</strong>ntean un problema que <strong>de</strong>riva en múltiples efectos que afectan también al <strong>de</strong>sarrollo <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> innovación y <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> investigación.<br />
De este último fenómeno, es <strong>de</strong>cir, <strong>de</strong> cómo <strong>la</strong> discriminación <strong>de</strong> contenidos y servicios<br />
por parte <strong>de</strong> los ISPs impactan en <strong>la</strong> innovación, el progreso intelectual y el acceso universal<br />
a <strong>la</strong>s Tecnologías <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Información y <strong>la</strong> Comunicación (TICs) se hace cargo este trabajo.<br />
2. <strong>la</strong> discriminación <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> los isP<br />
En líneas generales se pue<strong>de</strong> afirmar que disfrutamos <strong>de</strong> una <strong>red</strong> neutral, es <strong>de</strong>cir, libre<br />
<strong>de</strong> restricciones en el contenido y servicios, por lo que respecta a cómo acce<strong>de</strong>mos a el<strong>la</strong> a<br />
través <strong>de</strong> nuestros ISPs.<br />
Sin embargo los Proveedores <strong>de</strong> Servicios <strong>de</strong> Internet cada vez consi<strong>de</strong>ran mayores<br />
ventajas en <strong>la</strong> discriminación <strong>de</strong> diferentes c<strong>la</strong>ses <strong>de</strong> páginas web, p<strong>la</strong>taformas y servicios. El<br />
país don<strong>de</strong> esta circunstancia ha cobrado mayor relieve es Estados Unidos, don<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Fe<strong>de</strong>ral<br />
Comunications Commision (FCC) analiza <strong>la</strong> conveniencia <strong>de</strong> mantener Internet en abierto<br />
(o neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>) o permitir a los ISP <strong>la</strong> discriminación en los accesos a <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>. Pero<br />
6 Cfr. “Habermas y Castells, dos visiones <strong>de</strong> Internet”. Para un análisis en <strong>de</strong>talle <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> teoría <strong>de</strong> Habermas<br />
sobre Internet véase Froomkin (2003).
sin neutralidad en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> ¿dón<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> lógica universal <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> innovación?<br />
también en Europa diversas compañías <strong>de</strong> telecomunicaciones han seguido <strong>la</strong> i<strong>de</strong>a <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s<br />
norteamericanas y han encargado a <strong>la</strong> consultora A. T. Kearney un estudio sobre mo<strong>de</strong>los<br />
alternativos <strong>de</strong> acceso a Internet en los que se contemp<strong>la</strong> <strong>la</strong> discriminación <strong>de</strong> servicios por<br />
parte <strong>de</strong> los ISPs.<br />
Actualmente el usuario todavía pue<strong>de</strong> utilizar Internet tanto como quiera y como quiera<br />
por lo que respecta a los modos <strong>de</strong> acceso a <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>; sin embargo, si los ISPs llegaran a<br />
contro<strong>la</strong>r dicho acceso entonces podrían legalmente limitar <strong>la</strong>s velocida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> diferentes<br />
páginas web y servicios (<strong>de</strong> hecho ya se está haciendo esto con <strong>de</strong>scargas ilegales) y le cobrarían<br />
al usuario <strong>de</strong>pendiendo <strong>de</strong>l tipo <strong>de</strong> uso que contrate con su proveedor. Yendo más allá,<br />
esto podría suponer que cada ISP llegara a bloquear servicios que ofrecen <strong>otros</strong> proveedores,<br />
como por ejemplo, el correo electrónico, permitiendo únicamente el acceso al suyo propio.<br />
Las razones que sostienen los ISPs a favor <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> discriminación están re<strong>la</strong>cionadas con<br />
el congestionamiento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>. Durante los años 1990, ante el aumento <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>manda <strong>la</strong>s<br />
mayores compañías <strong>de</strong> telecomunicaciones empezaron a proveer <strong>de</strong> un acceso privado a los<br />
usuarios y empezaron a cobrar por este servicio. Con el <strong>de</strong>sarrollo exponencial <strong>de</strong> Internet,<br />
los ISP se vieron obligados a invertir cada vez más en <strong>la</strong> actualización <strong>de</strong> técnica e infraestructuras<br />
con el fin <strong>de</strong> abarcar el aumento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s necesida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>. A día <strong>de</strong> hoy, los<br />
proveedores consi<strong>de</strong>ran que el modo <strong>de</strong> acceso a Internet no discriminado provoca un congestionamiento<br />
cada vez mayor y que este inconveniente lo está sufriendo el propio usuario.<br />
Des<strong>de</strong> theopeninter.net (2010) se ofrece una guía sobre Internet en abierto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> que<br />
<strong>de</strong>stacan una serie <strong>de</strong> razones a favor <strong>de</strong> no discriminación <strong>de</strong> proveedores; tales razones recogen<br />
el sentir <strong>de</strong> quienes están en contra <strong>de</strong> que el acceso a Internet sea selectivo: un acceso<br />
abierto a Internet es <strong>la</strong> gran tecnología unificadora <strong>de</strong> nuestra época y su control no <strong>de</strong>bería<br />
estar a merced <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s corporaciones; a<strong>de</strong>más un acceso abierto a Internet estimu<strong>la</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia,<br />
ayuda a prevenir injusticias en re<strong>la</strong>ción a los precios por su utilización, promueve<br />
<strong>la</strong> innovación, es más digno <strong>de</strong> confianza y más honesto, favorece los negocios y protege <strong>la</strong><br />
libertad <strong>de</strong> conocimiento. Todas estas razones son suficientes <strong>para</strong> abogar a favor <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> no<br />
discriminación <strong>de</strong> los ISP, pero a<strong>de</strong>más hay otras que se estima que se sitúan a <strong>la</strong> base <strong>de</strong>l<br />
problema y <strong>de</strong> el<strong>la</strong>s específicamente trata este trabajo.<br />
Por el contrario en el informe A viable future for Internet, <strong>la</strong> consultora A. T. Kearney<br />
(2011: 1-3) explica cómo Internet, a<strong>de</strong>más <strong>de</strong> proporcionar importantes beneficios sociales<br />
sostiene una parte <strong>de</strong>cisiva <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> actividad económica y justifica su estudio sobre cómo pue<strong>de</strong><br />
continuar el crecimiento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> <strong>de</strong> modo tal que siga asegurando los beneficios mencionados.<br />
La consultora sostiene que el tráfico reciente ha experimentado un crecimiento<br />
pronosticable a medio p<strong>la</strong>zo pero impresionante en un futuro, lo cual implica <strong>de</strong>safíos serios<br />
respecto a <strong>la</strong> viabilidad <strong>de</strong>l mo<strong>de</strong>lo actual <strong>de</strong> Internet <strong>para</strong> lo sucesivo.<br />
Si bien es cierto que <strong>la</strong> tecnología todavía pue<strong>de</strong> proporcionar una parte <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> solución,<br />
incrementando <strong>la</strong> capacidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s o utilizando nuevas técnicas <strong>de</strong> gestión <strong>de</strong>l tráfico,<br />
<strong>de</strong>staca que estas medidas no son suficientes ya que éstas respon<strong>de</strong>n al actual mo<strong>de</strong>lo <strong>de</strong><br />
Internet que conlleva problemas como <strong>la</strong> limitación <strong>de</strong> incentivos económicos <strong>para</strong> los ISPs<br />
(<strong>de</strong>nominados “over the Top”) y que <strong>la</strong> inversión que se <strong>de</strong>stina a dar soluciones <strong>de</strong> congestionamiento<br />
en realidad es débil.<br />
99
100 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
Así que se proponen otras opciones posibles <strong>para</strong> nuevos mo<strong>de</strong>los que puedan resolver<br />
los problemas <strong>de</strong>scritos y asegurar, <strong>de</strong> una manera a<strong>de</strong>cuada, el progresivo incremento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
<strong>red</strong> en beneficio <strong>de</strong> todos.<br />
La consultora propone cuatro opciones no excluyentes, que consisten en: incrementar<br />
los precios al usuario con <strong>la</strong> probabilidad <strong>de</strong> aumentar el volumen <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s <strong>de</strong>scargas en el caso<br />
<strong>de</strong> que éste lo necesite, que los comerciantes paguen por el tráfico que genera su actividad,<br />
ofrecer mayor cantidad <strong>de</strong> servicios contratados directamente con el proveedor, como es el<br />
caso <strong>de</strong> los servicios Premium o aumentar servicios propios <strong>de</strong>l proveedor que operen en<br />
<strong>para</strong>lelo con el actual mo<strong>de</strong>lo <strong>de</strong> Internet.<br />
En cualquier caso, y ese es el dato esencial <strong>de</strong>l informe <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> consultora, se sostiene <strong>la</strong><br />
i<strong>de</strong>a <strong>de</strong> que in<strong>de</strong>pendientemente <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s posibilida<strong>de</strong>s que se elijan tanto <strong>la</strong> estructura como el<br />
tipo <strong>de</strong> facturación <strong>de</strong> los cargos <strong>de</strong>bería evolucionar bajo <strong>la</strong>s fuerzas <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia legal<br />
<strong>para</strong> alcanzar un equilibrio como ocurre en <strong>otros</strong> mercados bi<strong>la</strong>terales.<br />
3. reiVindicando un acceso en abierto<br />
Nuestra sociedad tecnológica se rige por tres principios: capitalismo, <strong>de</strong>mocracia y hedonismo<br />
moral. Los tres han dado consistencia a nuestra postmo<strong>de</strong>rnidad, nos han servido<br />
<strong>de</strong> referencia. Sin embargo, los problemas que p<strong>la</strong>ntea <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> rompen el<br />
equilibrio <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> tríada y abren una escisión entre cada uno <strong>de</strong> ellos.<br />
La i<strong>de</strong>a <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> consultora <strong>de</strong> i<strong>de</strong>ntificar a Internet con un producto <strong>de</strong> mercado nos<br />
recuerda que nos regimos por los principios económicos <strong>de</strong> capitalismo. Su pretensión <strong>de</strong><br />
que los pagos por el acceso a <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> se regulen por <strong>la</strong>s leyes <strong>de</strong>l mercado convierten a <strong>la</strong> “gran<br />
tecnología unificadora” en una propiedad, en una mercancía que queda incluida bajo el<br />
<strong>para</strong>digma <strong>de</strong> que toda re<strong>la</strong>ción social <strong>de</strong>be regirse por re<strong>la</strong>ciones <strong>de</strong> compra-venta; aunque<br />
esto ponga en contradicción los aspectos cuantitativos y cualitativos <strong>de</strong>l progreso humano.<br />
Con <strong>la</strong> técnica bajo el capitalismo suce<strong>de</strong> lo mismo que con cualquier otro aspecto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
cultura actual: el capitalismo <strong>la</strong> ha hecho posible y <strong>la</strong> ha adulterado, ha abierto <strong>la</strong>s puertas<br />
a <strong>la</strong> creatividad, al bienestar y a <strong>la</strong> belleza y ha procurado siempre someterlo todo a<br />
<strong>la</strong> ley <strong>de</strong>l máximo beneficio. Por suerte o por <strong>de</strong>sgracia, <strong>la</strong> tecnología como <strong>la</strong> pintura,<br />
<strong>la</strong> literatura, <strong>la</strong> religión o el <strong>de</strong>porte ni son ajenas al resto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s activida<strong>de</strong>s sociales ni se<br />
limitan a reflejar mecánicamente <strong>la</strong>s necesida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> otras partes <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> estructura social.<br />
La tecnología actual es inse<strong>para</strong>ble <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> ciencia y <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> industria, y estas es una <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s<br />
principales activida<strong>de</strong>s económicas. Pero estaríamos ciegos, si pretendiéramos <strong>red</strong>ucir<br />
todos los problemas <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>sarrollo tecnológico y también todos los valores o disvalores<br />
que en él se encierran a los problemas <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> economía y a los valores o disvalores <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
actividad económica. (Quintanil<strong>la</strong> 2005: 140)<br />
Nos movemos a<strong>de</strong>más en <strong>la</strong> tesitura <strong>de</strong>l <strong>para</strong>digma teórico <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>mocracia liberal<br />
formal, que el Estado or<strong>de</strong>naba <strong>la</strong> sociedad mediante reg<strong>la</strong>s <strong>de</strong> no interferencia entre los<br />
individuos. “El objetivo <strong>de</strong>l Estado <strong>de</strong>mocrático en este <strong>para</strong>digma era, o bien proteger <strong>de</strong>rechos<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> persona que se consi<strong>de</strong>raban universales y consustanciales a <strong>la</strong> naturaleza humana
sin neutralidad en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> ¿dón<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> lógica universal <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> innovación?<br />
101<br />
y, en consecuencia, anteriores al Estado, e inalienables –en <strong>la</strong> versión contractualista <strong>de</strong>l<br />
liberalismo–, o bien al esfera <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> acción <strong>de</strong> los individuos como seres sociales libres frente a<br />
<strong>la</strong> amenaza <strong>de</strong> sus semejantes o <strong>la</strong> arbitrariedad <strong>de</strong> los gobernantes –en <strong>la</strong> versión utilitarista<br />
<strong>de</strong>l liberalismo–, o bien ambas cosas al mismo tiempo” (Caminal 2010: 211).<br />
Ambas cosas a un tiempo es lo que asumen los ISPs: por una parte entien<strong>de</strong>n <strong>la</strong> propiedad<br />
como un <strong>de</strong>recho inherente a <strong>la</strong> condición humana y que todo es susceptible <strong>de</strong><br />
ser poseído, incluso un posible bien social como Internet. Des<strong>de</strong> el <strong>para</strong>digma neoliberal<br />
trascien<strong>de</strong>n <strong>la</strong> i<strong>de</strong>a inicial <strong>de</strong> sociedad mercantil como sociedad abierta. Locke puso límites<br />
a esa sociedad, “(…) al libre juego <strong>de</strong>l uso privado <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> propiedad. Se trata, c<strong>la</strong>ro está, <strong>de</strong><br />
límites i<strong>de</strong>ológicos, que no serían respetados en posteriores mo<strong>de</strong>los liberales <strong>de</strong> inspiración<br />
lockeana. Locke creía en una moralidad individual, <strong>de</strong> corte agrarista, que <strong>de</strong>terminaría los<br />
intercambios <strong>de</strong> mercado; creía que el hombre tiene <strong>de</strong>beres <strong>para</strong> consigo mismo, <strong>de</strong>terminados<br />
por <strong>la</strong> ley <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> naturaleza; consi<strong>de</strong>raba <strong>la</strong> exigencia moral <strong>de</strong> poner límites a <strong>la</strong> apropiación<br />
privada (c<strong>la</strong>úsu<strong>la</strong> lockeana). En cambio los neoliberales contemporáneos no hab<strong>la</strong>n<br />
<strong>de</strong> virtu<strong>de</strong>s ni <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>beres, <strong>de</strong>smoralizan el vínculo social, liberan el <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> propiedad<br />
<strong>de</strong> toda cláusu<strong>la</strong> legitimadora” (Bermudo 2001: II-219); por otra, entien<strong>de</strong>n su pretensión<br />
como un <strong>de</strong>recho <strong>de</strong> todo ser libre que no <strong>de</strong>be verse amenazado por terceros.<br />
Capitalismo y <strong>de</strong>mocracia en el sentido neoliberal <strong>de</strong>l término sirven a los intereses<br />
<strong>de</strong> los ISPs, pero <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>mocracia también es el punto <strong>de</strong> partida <strong>de</strong> quienes <strong>de</strong>fien<strong>de</strong>n <strong>la</strong> no<br />
discriminación por parte <strong>de</strong> los proveedores. Entendida ahora como el gobierno que encarna<br />
<strong>la</strong> voluntad general, <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>rechos y liberta<strong>de</strong>s se reconvierte en una exigencia <strong>de</strong><br />
no comerciar con bienes públicos, <strong>de</strong>ntro <strong>de</strong> los cuales se consi<strong>de</strong>ra Internet, dicha protección<br />
“contiene los elementos sustentadores <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> organización <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong>mocrática<br />
y pluralista, <strong>de</strong>fensora <strong>de</strong> expectativas <strong>de</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> conciencia, <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>rechos humanos y <strong>de</strong><br />
igualdad <strong>de</strong> todos los ciudadanos” (López 2009: 290).<br />
Esta postura a favor <strong>de</strong> Internet en abierto es fruto no <strong>de</strong> una consi<strong>de</strong>ración arbitraria<br />
sino porque el TCP/IP fue <strong>de</strong>sarrol<strong>la</strong>do <strong>para</strong> una <strong>red</strong> neutral, sin restricción <strong>de</strong> contenidos<br />
y servicios, y si bien es cierto que progresivamente los padres <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> <strong>de</strong> estos protocolos,<br />
Vint Cerf y Tim Beners-Lee, han ido estimando <strong>la</strong> conveniencia <strong>de</strong> una posible vigi<strong>la</strong>ncia o<br />
<strong>red</strong>ireccionamiento, no han estimado oportuno <strong>la</strong> discriminación <strong>de</strong> los ISPs 7 , sino que consi<strong>de</strong>ran<br />
que los ISPs <strong>de</strong>ben tarificar en re<strong>la</strong>ción a <strong>la</strong> velocidad y no a <strong>la</strong> capacidad, <strong>de</strong> forma<br />
que así se <strong>de</strong>fienda <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> 8 .<br />
Parale<strong>la</strong>mente ocurre que problemas como este son tratados por <strong>la</strong> opinión pública<br />
<strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> el p<strong>red</strong>ominante hedonismo moral al que nos tiene acostumbrada <strong>la</strong> sociedad tecnificada.<br />
Lejos <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>batir <strong>la</strong>s cuestiones <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> supuestos ético-políticos enten<strong>de</strong>mos que el<br />
p<strong>la</strong>cer es el modo <strong>de</strong> vida que satisface todos nuestros <strong>de</strong>seos; enten<strong>de</strong>mos que <strong>la</strong> sociedad<br />
es un conjunto <strong>de</strong> individuos que buscan <strong>la</strong> gratificación personal sustentada en <strong>la</strong> adquisición<br />
constante <strong>de</strong> bienes. En este mo<strong>de</strong>lo, el consumo <strong>de</strong>ja <strong>de</strong> ser causa <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia<br />
7 Goldman (2005)<br />
8 Contreras (2009)
102 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
económica <strong>para</strong> serlo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia psicológica entre individuos y <strong>la</strong> discriminación <strong>de</strong><br />
los ISPs <strong>de</strong>ja <strong>de</strong> enfocarse como un asunto social que pue<strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong>ucir beneficios comunes <strong>para</strong><br />
consi<strong>de</strong>rarlo una afrenta contra una especie <strong>de</strong> regalo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> tecnología hecho <strong>para</strong> el hombre<br />
postmo<strong>de</strong>rno que está al servicio <strong>de</strong> sus nuevas necesida<strong>de</strong>s. La competencia psicológica se<br />
constituye <strong>de</strong>ntro <strong>de</strong> una cultura <strong>de</strong> consumo masivo <strong>de</strong> bienes y posibilida<strong>de</strong>s que hasta<br />
ahora se habían consi<strong>de</strong>rado inaccesibles. Este hecho hace que lo los significados <strong>de</strong> términos<br />
como ‘<strong>de</strong>rechos’ y ‘liberta<strong>de</strong>s’ se acomo<strong>de</strong>n a perspectivas hedonistas y pierdan <strong>la</strong> fuerza reivindicativa<br />
que han tenido a lo <strong>la</strong>rgo <strong>de</strong> su historia. De hecho, frecuentemente se i<strong>de</strong>ntifica<br />
<strong>la</strong> legitimidad <strong>de</strong> nuestros gobernantes con su capacidad <strong>de</strong> mantener nuestro bienestar<br />
económico exclusivamente.<br />
Y sin embargo este es un problema crucial porque <strong>la</strong> diferencia tecnológica marca <strong>la</strong><br />
diferencia social y el acceso discriminado a <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> <strong>red</strong>undará en un <strong>de</strong>sigual progreso cultural,<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> innovación y <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> difusión <strong>de</strong> los logros alcanzados por esta última. El dominio <strong>de</strong><br />
Internet trae consigo el dominio <strong>de</strong>l conocimiento a nivel mundial; recuér<strong>de</strong>se que técnicamente,<br />
<strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> no posee fronteras. Si <strong>la</strong> tecnología nació con el objetivo <strong>de</strong> cubrir <strong>la</strong>s necesida<strong>de</strong>s<br />
p<strong>la</strong>nteadas por <strong>la</strong> sociedad, con <strong>la</strong> discriminación <strong>de</strong> proveedores habremos conseguido<br />
un paso más en <strong>la</strong> inversión <strong>de</strong> ese objetivo, en favor <strong>de</strong> que el propio medio genere más necesida<strong>de</strong>s<br />
y con ello más <strong>de</strong>sigualda<strong>de</strong>s en el acceso a <strong>la</strong> información. Falta frecuentemente el<br />
recurso a los “<strong>de</strong>rechos <strong>de</strong> participación social en el aseguramiento <strong>de</strong> un mínimo vital y en<br />
<strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>fensa <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> calidad <strong>de</strong> vida” (Belloso 1999: 209) que asegura el Estado Social <strong>de</strong> Derecho.<br />
Únicamente el acceso a <strong>la</strong> información nos permite avanzar como socieda<strong>de</strong>s porque<br />
es <strong>la</strong> base <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> discusión abierta en torno a problemas, necesida<strong>de</strong>s, implicaciones y alternativas.<br />
Sólo <strong>la</strong> discusión abierta fortalece <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>mocracia y <strong>la</strong> libera <strong>de</strong>l control económico y<br />
tecnocrático. En consecuencia, el acceso a <strong>la</strong> información es el primer principio <strong>de</strong>mocrático.<br />
otra cuestión es si nuestras socieda<strong>de</strong>s, asentadas en una moral hedonista están reivindicando<br />
dicho acceso siendo conscientes <strong>de</strong> que <strong>la</strong> información es <strong>la</strong> base <strong>para</strong> influir en <strong>la</strong><br />
configuración <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s socieda<strong>de</strong>s y no un mero bien <strong>de</strong> satisfacción individual.<br />
Pero el acceso a <strong>la</strong> información no es pi<strong>la</strong>r únicamente <strong>de</strong> una sociedad <strong>de</strong>mocrática<br />
sino también un elemento fundamental en <strong>la</strong> lógica <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> innovación científica e intelectual,<br />
que a su vez también es <strong>la</strong> base <strong>de</strong>l progreso social.<br />
Ya en el siglo XVIII <strong>la</strong>s socieda<strong>de</strong>s científicas se crearon con el fin <strong>de</strong> poner en común<br />
los trabajos <strong>de</strong> los científicos, entendiendo que con ello se favorecían futuras innovaciones,<br />
pero a<strong>de</strong>más, como es el caso <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s Aca<strong>de</strong>mias Inconformistas <strong>de</strong> Ing<strong>la</strong>terra, conectaron <strong>la</strong>s<br />
investigaciones con el <strong>de</strong>sarrollo industrial (Mason 2001-3: 32). Des<strong>de</strong> entonces <strong>la</strong> forma <strong>de</strong><br />
evolucionar el conocimiento no ha cambiado en lo sustancial: <strong>la</strong> innovación necesita también<br />
<strong>de</strong>l contacto entre investigadores, aunque contamos con ventajas sustanciales. Indudablemente<br />
<strong>la</strong> rapi<strong>de</strong>z con <strong>la</strong> que nos suministrara información <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>la</strong> enorme cantidad <strong>de</strong><br />
datos que nos proporciona han revolucionado <strong>la</strong> producción <strong>de</strong>l conocimiento, pero sobre<br />
todo contamos con el potencial que tiene el ciberespacio a <strong>la</strong> hora <strong>de</strong> poner en contacto a<br />
los investigadores; si bien en los siglos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s socieda<strong>de</strong>s científicas (XVIII y XIX) <strong>la</strong> ciencia<br />
y los avances en el conocimiento se podrían calificar <strong>de</strong> nacionales, hoy disponemos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
técnica <strong>para</strong> convertirlos en universales. “Durante el siglo dieciocho, los filósofos naturales
sin neutralidad en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> ¿dón<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> lógica universal <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> innovación?<br />
103<br />
<strong>de</strong> Francia y Gran Bretaña fueron los más importantes <strong>de</strong>l mundo científico. (…) Sus activida<strong>de</strong>s<br />
fueron complementarias, inclinándose los franceses hacia <strong>la</strong> interpretación teórica<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> naturaleza y los ingleses, hacia <strong>la</strong> investigación empírica. (…) En <strong>la</strong>s primeras décadas<br />
<strong>de</strong>l siglo diecinueve los franceses estaban a <strong>la</strong> cabeza <strong>de</strong>l mundo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> ciencia, pero no mantuvieron<br />
su impulso y <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> década <strong>de</strong> los cincuenta y los sesenta los británicos se hal<strong>la</strong>ban<br />
<strong>de</strong> nuevo a <strong>la</strong> cabeza. Con todo, <strong>la</strong> primacía británica no duró mucho, pues <strong>para</strong> finales <strong>de</strong><br />
siglo Alemania había superado a Ing<strong>la</strong>terra y a Francia por lo que <strong>la</strong> ciencia se refiere” (Mason<br />
2001-4: 59).<br />
4. consecuencias Para <strong>la</strong> lógica <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> innoVación<br />
El bloqueo <strong>de</strong>l intercambio intelectual que sobrevendría ante <strong>la</strong> explotación <strong>de</strong>l ciberespacio<br />
por los ISPs supondría un freno a <strong>la</strong> lógica <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> innovación, <strong>de</strong>ntro <strong>de</strong>l ámbito académico<br />
indudablemente, pero también a <strong>la</strong> innovación en general. Sólo en apariencia el conferir<br />
mayores ventajas a <strong>de</strong>terminados servicios favorecería <strong>la</strong> especialización y el <strong>de</strong>sarrollo <strong>de</strong>l<br />
conocimiento. No se cuestiona que tener un acceso más rápido, más eficaz y más específico<br />
a <strong>de</strong>terminadas instituciones o áreas <strong>de</strong> documentación como Universida<strong>de</strong>s, Institutos <strong>de</strong><br />
Investigación o publicaciones on-line implicaría a corto p<strong>la</strong>zo mayores facilida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>para</strong> el<br />
investigador siempre que pudiera acce<strong>de</strong>r a el<strong>la</strong>s. Al fin y al cabo, estamos acostumbrados a<br />
pagar por el conocimiento y <strong>para</strong> realizar activida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> investigación. La cuestión es si es lo<br />
i<strong>de</strong>al y si esto no ha sido al fin y a <strong>la</strong> postre restrictivo <strong>para</strong> quienes no han podido acce<strong>de</strong>r a<br />
estos medios. Si <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> había venido a facilitar <strong>la</strong> generalización <strong>de</strong>l conocimiento ¿por qué<br />
dar un paso atrás en esta cuestión?<br />
Si se <strong>de</strong>fien<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> i<strong>de</strong>a según <strong>la</strong> cual <strong>la</strong> innovación o <strong>la</strong> investigación <strong>de</strong>ben quedar relegadas<br />
a una élite económica, eliminando el acceso universal a estos ámbitos es posible que no<br />
haya tenido en cuenta reflexiones <strong>de</strong>l tipo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> que sostiene Cañas (2008: 13)<br />
En <strong>la</strong> soledad <strong>de</strong> sus <strong>de</strong>spachos o ro<strong>de</strong>ados <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s a<strong>la</strong>banzas y los ha<strong>la</strong>gos <strong>de</strong> sus subordinados,<br />
los directores generales, los inversores po<strong>de</strong>rosos, los ingenieros imprescindibles<br />
en un proyecto o los investigadores solicitados por todas <strong>la</strong>s universida<strong>de</strong>s pue<strong>de</strong>n pensar<br />
que <strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>n sólo <strong>de</strong> sí mismos, <strong>de</strong> sus méritos, <strong>de</strong> sus conocimientos, <strong>de</strong> su valía,<br />
<strong>de</strong> su competencia, <strong>de</strong> su voluntad inquebrantable… (…) Están equivocados. Des<strong>de</strong><br />
antes <strong>de</strong> nacer y hasta el preciso momento en que morimos, los humanos <strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>mos<br />
<strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>más en muchos sentidos, unos muy manifiestos y <strong>otros</strong> más sutiles. Este es un<br />
hecho básico, crucial <strong>para</strong> aplicar <strong>la</strong> razón a <strong>la</strong> conducta humana.<br />
La innovación obe<strong>de</strong>ce o <strong>de</strong>be obe<strong>de</strong>cer primordialmente a <strong>la</strong>s <strong>de</strong>mandas <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> sociedad.<br />
Durante el siglo XIX <strong>la</strong> industria química alemana incrementó sus beneficios vincu<strong>la</strong>ndo<br />
sus necesida<strong>de</strong>s tecnológicas con <strong>la</strong> p<strong>la</strong>nificación científica. A partir <strong>de</strong> ese momento el<br />
saber empezó a conectarse con <strong>la</strong>s necesida<strong>de</strong>s reales, hecho que culminó durante <strong>la</strong> segunda<br />
mitad <strong>de</strong>l siglo XX con <strong>la</strong> I+D (Innovación y Desarrollo) financiada por diversos gobiernos.<br />
La innovación pasó así <strong>de</strong> ser una actividad autónoma a estar al servicio <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s necesida<strong>de</strong>s<br />
estatales por <strong>la</strong>s que era dirigida. Progresivamente este mo<strong>de</strong>lo <strong>de</strong> financiación estatal fue
104 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
incluyendo a otras empresas productoras <strong>de</strong> tecnología y con el<strong>la</strong>s a <strong>la</strong> propia ciudadanía en<br />
<strong>la</strong> toma <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>cisiones. A <strong>la</strong> par se ha ido imponiendo el concepto capitalista <strong>de</strong> ‘competencia’<br />
aplicado al ámbito <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> innovación entendiendo ésta como no como <strong>la</strong> actividad <strong>de</strong>stinada<br />
a resolver necesida<strong>de</strong>s sociales sino a incrementar beneficios económicos.<br />
Si el acceso abierto a <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> podría consi<strong>de</strong>rarse una innovación <strong>de</strong> carácter mayoritariamente<br />
social (entendiendo por tal que <strong>de</strong> el<strong>la</strong> se beneficia una gran parte <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> sociedad), con<br />
el control <strong>de</strong> su acceso por parte <strong>de</strong> los proveedores <strong>de</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong> Internet, su <strong>de</strong>sarrollo se<br />
incluiría en los mo<strong>de</strong>los <strong>de</strong> innovación tecnológica al servicio <strong>de</strong> los beneficios <strong>de</strong> empresas<br />
privadas. Esto, que en nuestra sociedad es frecuente y no necesariamente perjudicial sí lo<br />
sería en este caso ya que los ISPs estarían contro<strong>la</strong>ndo el canal principal <strong>de</strong> divulgación <strong>de</strong>l<br />
conocimiento.<br />
También es cierto que estas empresas <strong>de</strong> telecomunicaciones han asumido los costes<br />
financieros <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> innovación necesaria <strong>para</strong> <strong>de</strong>sarrol<strong>la</strong>r estas estructuras que han permitido el<br />
crecimiento <strong>de</strong> Internet hasta convertir<strong>la</strong> en lo que hoy conocemos. Frente a <strong>la</strong> innovación<br />
básica, es <strong>de</strong>cir, a <strong>la</strong>rgo p<strong>la</strong>zo, que es <strong>la</strong> que suelen asumir los propios gobiernos, estas empresas<br />
<strong>de</strong>sarrol<strong>la</strong>n tecnologías más rentables a medio y corto p<strong>la</strong>zo. Sin embargo, una cosa<br />
es invertir en el <strong>de</strong>sarrollo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y otra distinta es convertir<strong>la</strong> en objeto <strong>de</strong> su propiedad y<br />
someter<strong>la</strong> a <strong>la</strong>s leyes <strong>de</strong>l mercado. El impacto que esto provocaría en <strong>la</strong> sociedad, <strong>la</strong> política<br />
y <strong>la</strong> cultura es difícil <strong>de</strong> evaluar pero innegablemente provocaría <strong>la</strong> incapacidad <strong>de</strong> los ciudadanos<br />
<strong>para</strong> influir conscientemente en <strong>la</strong> configuración <strong>de</strong>l conocimiento.<br />
De ahí a convertir el saber en objeto <strong>de</strong> mercado sólo hay un paso. De ello, al menos<br />
en el mundo académico vamos teniendo algunos indicios, ya antes <strong>de</strong> que se haya impuesto<br />
<strong>la</strong> discriminación <strong>de</strong> proveedores. El acceso a los principales bancos <strong>de</strong> datos es prohibitivo<br />
y por tanto discriminatorio <strong>para</strong> un usuario privado, que únicamente pue<strong>de</strong> utilizar estos<br />
servicios formando parte <strong>de</strong> alguna <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s instituciones que pue<strong>de</strong>n financiar dichos accesos,<br />
como por ejemplo <strong>la</strong>s universida<strong>de</strong>s; en caso contrario el investigador en cuestión se encontrará<br />
en una situación <strong>de</strong> franca <strong>de</strong>sventaja <strong>de</strong>ntro <strong>de</strong> esta “cultura universitaria tecnomeritocrática,<br />
es <strong>de</strong>cir, <strong>la</strong> cultura <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> investigación por <strong>la</strong> investigación. (…) <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> apertura<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> investigación y <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> i<strong>de</strong>a <strong>de</strong> que lo más importante es <strong>la</strong> excelencia académica y <strong>la</strong><br />
excelencia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> investigación” (Castells 2002: 4). La <strong>para</strong>doja es que <strong>la</strong>s propias productoras<br />
<strong>de</strong> innovación y conocimiento son <strong>la</strong>s que posteriormente tienen que pagar por acce<strong>de</strong>r a<br />
esas producciones; por eso, <strong>la</strong> publicación <strong>de</strong> trabajos <strong>de</strong> investigación y tesis doctorales en<br />
abierto y <strong>de</strong>ntro <strong>de</strong> los repositorios <strong>de</strong> cada universidad es una medida a<strong>de</strong>cuada <strong>para</strong> paliar<br />
el comercio <strong>de</strong>l conocimiento.<br />
Con todo ello no se está sosteniendo una visión utópica <strong>de</strong> Internet según <strong>la</strong> cual <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong><br />
“aporta un arrol<strong>la</strong>dor o im<strong>para</strong>ble potencial <strong>para</strong> el <strong>de</strong>sarrollo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunida<strong>de</strong>s en vías <strong>de</strong><br />
liberación, <strong>para</strong> el crecimiento exponencial <strong>de</strong>l capital humano y social y <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> realización<br />
<strong>de</strong> una plena participación <strong>de</strong>mocrática <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s personas en toda <strong>de</strong>cisión política”, <strong>la</strong>s bonda<strong>de</strong>s<br />
<strong>de</strong> Internet no han “erradicado <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> humanidad el azote <strong>de</strong>l odio, los prejuicios, <strong>la</strong><br />
venganza, <strong>la</strong> pobreza ni <strong>la</strong> enfermedad, ni los erradicará” (Katz y Rice 2005: 15). Únicamente<br />
se está <strong>de</strong>stacando el valor <strong>de</strong> mantener Internet en abierto como modo más universal <strong>de</strong><br />
acceso al conocimiento <strong>de</strong>l que actualmente disponemos.
sin neutralidad en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> ¿dón<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> lógica universal <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> innovación?<br />
5. conclusiones<br />
105<br />
Cada vez más <strong>la</strong>s socieda<strong>de</strong>s se adaptan a <strong>la</strong>s exigencias <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> técnica y no al contrario,<br />
como fue en un principio. Se pue<strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>cir que los parámetros <strong>de</strong>l crecimiento económico<br />
han <strong>de</strong>jado <strong>de</strong> estar en pugna con los valores <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>mocracia <strong>para</strong> prácticamente sustituirlos<br />
y <strong>la</strong> innovación tecnológica llevada a cabo por empresas privadas ha terminado prácticamente<br />
aca<strong>para</strong>ndo <strong>la</strong> técnica y <strong>la</strong> innovación tecnológica en su propio beneficio.<br />
El <strong>de</strong>bate sobre <strong>la</strong> gestión <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> p<strong>la</strong>ntea al usuario, pero también al ciudadano en<br />
general <strong>la</strong> oportunidad <strong>de</strong> recuperar los valores <strong>de</strong>mocráticos, esto es, <strong>de</strong> reivindicar intereses<br />
colectivos frente <strong>la</strong>s pretensiones <strong>de</strong> los ISPs. A pesar <strong>de</strong> que nuestra sociedad se <strong>de</strong>fine como<br />
‘<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información’ o ‘<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> comunicación’ en realidad esto no <strong>la</strong> convierte en una sociedad<br />
tan cohesionada como pudiera parecer, sus intereses se encuentran muy sectorizados y <strong>la</strong><br />
esfera pública es débil, lo cual no <strong>de</strong>be confundirse con <strong>la</strong> tan <strong>de</strong>stacada capacidad <strong>de</strong> convocatoria<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>.<br />
La verda<strong>de</strong>ra <strong>de</strong>mocratización se da en <strong>la</strong> esfera pública y no en <strong>la</strong> sintonía <strong>de</strong> múltiples<br />
fragmentos sociales. Si los ISPs discriminan los accesos a Internet están dividiendo<br />
aún más a <strong>la</strong> ciudadanía. Si bien es cierto que, a pesar <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s innegables ventajas que ofrece<br />
<strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>, ya se han constatado indicios <strong>de</strong> ais<strong>la</strong>miento entre usuarios habituales y si aquel<strong>la</strong><br />
queda sectorizada, este efecto podría multiplicarse, siendo así que no sólo el <strong>de</strong>sarrollo <strong>de</strong>l<br />
conocimiento sino <strong>la</strong> actividad <strong>de</strong> otras áreas humanas quedarían a merced <strong>de</strong> los intereses<br />
mercantiles <strong>de</strong> cada proveedor y el ciudadano se vería aún más <strong>de</strong>scohesionado y con ello<br />
<strong>de</strong>finitivamente más <strong>de</strong>bilitado <strong>para</strong> organizarse y hacer frente a cualquier amenaza o abuso<br />
<strong>de</strong> carácter global.<br />
Los valores <strong>de</strong>mocráticos, pues, emergen cuando <strong>la</strong> gestión <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> <strong>de</strong>ja <strong>de</strong> verse como<br />
el modo <strong>de</strong> aumentar sin límites <strong>la</strong>s posibilida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> Internet, ya que es precisamente ahí, en<br />
<strong>la</strong> aparente necesidad <strong>de</strong> aumento sin límites <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s prestaciones <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> don<strong>de</strong> los ISPs encuentran<br />
<strong>la</strong> mayor justificación <strong>para</strong> imponer su i<strong>de</strong>a <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> discriminación <strong>de</strong> servicios. Ante<br />
un crecimiento ilimitado <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>manda <strong>de</strong> los usuarios, como está sucediendo en <strong>la</strong> actualidad,<br />
los proveedores encuentran al campo abonado <strong>para</strong> incrementar dichas prestaciones<br />
a cambio <strong>de</strong> asumir <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> como un valor <strong>de</strong> mercado aunque con ello acaben con uno <strong>de</strong><br />
los gran<strong>de</strong>s logros <strong>de</strong> Internet: hacer posible el acceso a <strong>la</strong> información <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> prácticamente<br />
cualquier parte <strong>de</strong>l mundo.<br />
Ciertamente, este y <strong>otros</strong> logros <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> <strong>de</strong> re<strong>de</strong>s han sido posibles gracias a <strong>la</strong> inversión<br />
en infraestructuras que han venido realizando los propios proveedores, pero si como ha<br />
ocurrido con el <strong>de</strong>sarrollo <strong>de</strong> casi todo avance tecnológico, nos acabamos encontrando con<br />
el dilema <strong>de</strong> si <strong>para</strong> aumentar el progreso y el bienestar, <strong>la</strong> propia especie humana <strong>de</strong>ja <strong>de</strong><br />
ser beneficiaria <strong>para</strong> ser pagana. Así <strong>la</strong>s cosas parece más razonable <strong>de</strong>batir no tanto sobre si<br />
es legal y/o <strong>de</strong>seable que los ISPs puedan hacerse dueños <strong>de</strong>l acceso a <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>, sino más bien<br />
sobre si es posible someter el crecimiento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> a parámetros <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>sarrollo sostenible que<br />
<strong>la</strong> conviertan verda<strong>de</strong>ramente en un instrumento generalizado a favor <strong>de</strong>l progreso humano<br />
y con un crecimiento más ajustado a <strong>la</strong>s necesida<strong>de</strong>s humanas y no tanto a <strong>la</strong>s <strong>de</strong>l mercado.
106 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
Si los proveedores <strong>de</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong> Internet logran finalmente discriminar el acceso a <strong>la</strong><br />
que podría ser <strong>la</strong> principal fuente <strong>de</strong> información y comunicación, no quedará lugar entonces<br />
<strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> soberanía individual ni <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>mocrática al estar este fértil modo <strong>de</strong> acceso al<br />
conocimiento y a <strong>la</strong> realidad pre<strong>de</strong>terminado por los intereses económicos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s gran<strong>de</strong>s<br />
compañías.<br />
6. bibliografÍa citada<br />
A. T. Kearney, Inc. (2010): A viable future mo<strong>de</strong>l for the Internet. Chicago: Marketing &<br />
Communications [www.atkearney.com][Fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta: 05/05/11].<br />
Belloso, Nuria (1999). «Del Estado <strong>de</strong> Bienestar a <strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong> Bienestar: <strong>la</strong> reconstrucción<br />
filosófico-política <strong>de</strong> su legitimidad» en Belloso, Nuria (coord.).Para que algo cambie<br />
en <strong>la</strong> teoría jurídica. Burgos: Universidad <strong>de</strong> Burgos.<br />
Bermudo, José Manuel (2001): Filosofía política. Barcelona: Ediciones <strong>de</strong>l Serbal. Vol. II.<br />
Caminal, Miquel (1996): Manual <strong>de</strong> ciencia política. Madrid: Tecnos. D.L. 2010.<br />
Castells, Manuel (2006). «Internet, libertad y sociedad: una perspectiva analítica». [http://<br />
www.uoc.edu/web/esp/<strong>la</strong>universidad/inaugural01/intro_conc_imp.html]. [Fecha <strong>de</strong><br />
consulta: 20/04/11].<br />
Ibid. (2002). «La dimensión cultural <strong>de</strong> Internet» [http://www.uoc.edu/culturaxxi/esp/articles/castells0502/castells0502_imp.html].<br />
Institut <strong>de</strong> cultura: Debates culturales. UoC<br />
[Fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta: 11/05/11].<br />
Ibid. (2009). Comunicación y po<strong>de</strong>r. Madrid: Alianza.<br />
Contreras, Rufino (2009): «Vinton Cerf y Tim Beners-Lee abogan por <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong><br />
Internet» [http://www.computing.es/Noticias/200904210013/Vinton-Cerf-y-Tim-<br />
Berners-Lee-abogan-por-<strong>la</strong>-neutralidad-<strong>de</strong>-Internet.aspx]. Computing.es. Fecha <strong>de</strong><br />
consulta: 10/05/11].<br />
Froomkin, Michael A. (2003): «Habermas@discourse.net:Toward a critical theory of Cyberspace».<br />
Harvard Law Review. Vol. 116. January 2003. Nr. 3.<br />
Gavilán, Pablo (2011). «Yo estoy a favor <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> ley Sin<strong>de</strong>».[http://pablogavi<strong>la</strong>n.com/ 2011/02/<br />
yo-estoy-a-favor-<strong>de</strong>-<strong>la</strong>-ley-sin<strong>de</strong>/]. [Fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta: 10/04/11].<br />
Goldman, Albert (2005). «Cerf Says Symmetry is Beautiful» [http://www.isp-p<strong>la</strong>net.com/<br />
news/2005/cerf-f2c.html.]. ISP-P<strong>la</strong>net. [Fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta: 15/05/11].<br />
Katz, James E., Rice, Ronald E. (2002). Consecuencias sociales <strong>de</strong>l uso <strong>de</strong> Internet. Barcelona:<br />
Editorial UoC. D.L. 2005.<br />
Mason, Stephen E. (1985). Historia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s ciencias. Madrid: Alianza. D.L. 2001.<br />
López, Miguel ángel (2009).«Laicismo día tras día. Para una fundamentación filosóficopolítica»<br />
en Nuñez, Paloma, Espinosa, Javier (coords.).Filosofía y política en el siglo XXI.<br />
Europa y el nuevo or<strong>de</strong>n cosmopolita. Madrid: Akal.
sin neutralidad en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> ¿dón<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> lógica universal <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> innovación?<br />
107<br />
Navarro, Joan (2011). «A favor <strong>de</strong> Internet… y <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> ‘ley Sin<strong>de</strong>’». El País.com. [http://elpais.<br />
com/artículo/opinión/favor/Internet/ley/sin<strong>de</strong>/elpepiopi/20110127_12/Tes?print=1]<br />
[Fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta: 30/03/11].<br />
Muñoz,Santiago (2000). La regu<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong>. Po<strong>de</strong>r y Derecho en Internet. Madrid: Taurus.<br />
Quntanil<strong>la</strong>, Miguel Ángel (1989). Tecnología: un enfoque filosófico y <strong>otros</strong> ensayos <strong>de</strong> filosofía<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> tecnología. México: Fondo <strong>de</strong> Cultura Económica. D.L. 2005<br />
«A Gui<strong>de</strong> to the open Internet” (2010) [http://theopeninter.net]. [Fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta:<br />
01/05/11].<br />
«Habermas y Castells: dos visiones <strong>de</strong> Internet» (2011). Nexos en línea [http://<strong>red</strong>accion.<br />
nexos.com.nex/?p=1350]. [Fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta: 19/05/11].<br />
Ley 2/2011, <strong>de</strong> 4 <strong>de</strong> marzo, <strong>de</strong> Economía sostenible. BoE. Núm. 55. Sec. I. Pág. 25033.<br />
«<strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong>». Wikipedia. La enciclopedia libre.[http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/<strong>Neutralidad</strong>_<strong>de</strong>_<strong>red</strong>]<br />
[Fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta: 01/04/11].
INterNet ABIertA, NeUtrAlIDAD De lA reD<br />
y DefeNsA De lA COmPeteNCIA<br />
Jose Manuel Pérez Marzabal<br />
Abogado. Co<strong>la</strong>borador Docente, Universitat Oberta <strong>de</strong> Catalunya<br />
AbstrAct: La <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Red está <strong>de</strong> actualidad tanto en EEUU como en Europa y, <strong>la</strong><br />
Comisión Europea ha pedido al organismo <strong>de</strong> Regu<strong>la</strong>dores Europeos <strong>de</strong> Comunicaciones Electrónicas<br />
(BEREC) que lleve a cabo un análisis <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> situación respecto a cuestiones cruciales <strong>para</strong> conseguir<br />
una Internet abierta y neutral, como <strong>la</strong>s barreras al cambio <strong>de</strong> operador, el bloqueo o el estrangu<strong>la</strong>miento<br />
<strong>de</strong>l tráfico por Internet. En <strong>la</strong> presente comunicación se ofrece una rápida y somera visión<br />
sobre <strong>la</strong>s disposiciones re<strong>la</strong>tivas a <strong>la</strong> <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Red <strong>de</strong>l marco regu<strong>la</strong>dor <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión Europea y<br />
<strong>la</strong>s posibles aplicaciones <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>fensa <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia al objeto <strong>de</strong> preservar <strong>la</strong> <strong>Neutralidad</strong><br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Red. Existen varios mercados implicados en el ecosistema <strong>de</strong> Internet <strong>de</strong> acuerdo a su diseño:<br />
mercados <strong>de</strong> infraestructuras <strong>de</strong> re<strong>de</strong>s y servicios <strong>de</strong> comunicación electrónica, mercados <strong>de</strong> servicios<br />
re<strong>la</strong>cionados con <strong>la</strong> organización <strong>de</strong> Internet, mercados <strong>de</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información<br />
y mercados <strong>de</strong> contenidos. En cada una <strong>de</strong> estas capas <strong>de</strong>berá aplicarse <strong>la</strong> normativa “antitrust”. Esta<br />
ponencia se centra en contextualizar <strong>la</strong>s implicaciones legales <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> perspectiva <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
competencia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> arquitectura <strong>de</strong> Internet, así como el rol <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> política <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>fensa <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia<br />
al objeto <strong>de</strong> preservar <strong>la</strong> <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Red y el ecosistema <strong>de</strong> innovación generado por su<br />
arquitectura.<br />
pAlAbrAs clAve: neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Red, Internet, <strong>de</strong>fensa <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia, antitrust, innovación,<br />
re<strong>de</strong>s, regu<strong>la</strong>ción, telecomunicaciones, comunicaciones electrónicas.<br />
1. introducción<br />
“I will take a backseat to no one in my commitment to network neutrality,<br />
because once provi<strong>de</strong>rs start to privilege some applications or web sites over others,<br />
then the smaller voices get squeezed out, and we all lose.<br />
The Internet is perhaps the most open network in history. We have to keep it that way.”<br />
Barack obama, Presi<strong>de</strong>nte <strong>de</strong> EE.UU., en su campaña electoral <strong>de</strong> Noviembre <strong>de</strong> 2007<br />
La <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Red está en primera página <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> actualidad en Internet tanto<br />
en EE.UU. como en Europa a raíz <strong>de</strong>l compromiso <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comisión Europea <strong>para</strong> asegurar<br />
que el principio <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Internet abierta se aplica en <strong>la</strong> práctica, así como <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>c<strong>la</strong>ración <strong>de</strong><br />
Julius Genachowski, Presi<strong>de</strong>nte <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comisión Fe<strong>de</strong>ral <strong>de</strong> Comunicaciones (“FCC”, en su<br />
6
110 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
acrónimo en inglés), ante un subcomité <strong>de</strong>l Congreso <strong>de</strong> los EE.UU acerca <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>bate <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
<strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Red 1 .<br />
El <strong>de</strong>bate se <strong>de</strong>be a que los operadores <strong>de</strong> telefonía y cable perciben que tienen una<br />
c<strong>la</strong>ra oportunidad comercial <strong>de</strong> aumentar sus ingresos y ampliar su mo<strong>de</strong>lo <strong>de</strong> negocio si<br />
pudiesen contro<strong>la</strong>r el acceso a <strong>la</strong>s infraestructuras <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> telecomunicaciones 2 , repercutiendo<br />
costes en función <strong>de</strong>l ancho <strong>de</strong> banda consumido, como <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>nominada “tasa<br />
Google”, y ofrecer niveles diferenciados <strong>de</strong> servicio a sus clientes, justificados por lo que<br />
consi<strong>de</strong>ran un uso extensivo <strong>de</strong> sus infraestructuras, aspectos <strong>de</strong> seguridad, y por el ritmo<br />
creciente <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>manda <strong>de</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong> banda ancha que según los expertos pue<strong>de</strong> provocar<br />
un co<strong>la</strong>pso <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> infraestructura <strong>de</strong> Internet 3 . obviando que el pago <strong>de</strong> los usuarios por acceso<br />
cubre todos los costes.<br />
Esta ponencia se centra en contextualizar <strong>la</strong>s implicaciones legales <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> perspectiva<br />
<strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> arquitectura <strong>de</strong> Internet o, por mejor <strong>de</strong>cir, interre<strong>la</strong>ción<br />
entre <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Red y antitrust, así como <strong>la</strong> posible aplicación <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia<br />
al objeto <strong>de</strong> preservar una Internet abierta y el ecosistema <strong>de</strong> innovación generado<br />
por su arquitectura 4 .<br />
El objeto <strong>de</strong> este estudio presenta notables dificulta<strong>de</strong>s por su complejidad intrínseca.<br />
Sin embargo, preten<strong>de</strong> afrontar un consi<strong>de</strong>rable nivel <strong>de</strong> amplitud y profundidad en todas<br />
1 “…while critically important, antitrust <strong>la</strong>ws alone would not a<strong>de</strong>quately preserve the freedom and openness<br />
of the Internet or provi<strong>de</strong> enough certainty and confi<strong>de</strong>nce to drive investment in our innovation<br />
future. Antitrust enforcement is expensive to pursue, takes a long time, and kicks in only after damage is<br />
done. Especially for start-ups in a fast-moving area like the Internet, that’s not a practical solution”. Asimismo,<br />
el Presi<strong>de</strong>nte <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> FCC replicó a <strong>la</strong> propuesta <strong>de</strong>l Partido Republicano <strong>de</strong> promulgar normativa<br />
antitrust específica <strong>para</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>r <strong>la</strong> <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Red: “Some have suggested that Congress adopt new<br />
antitrust <strong>la</strong>ws addressing Internet openness. But that too would be a problematic approach, ill-suited to the<br />
fast-changing nature of Internet technology. As the Supreme Court has pointed out, while statutes are hard<br />
to change in light of new <strong>de</strong>velopments in network technology or markets, expert administrative agencies<br />
have flexible processes for <strong>de</strong>aling with the unexpected and are, accordingly, better suited for handling this<br />
particu<strong>la</strong>r issue”. Se pue<strong>de</strong> acce<strong>de</strong>r a su <strong>de</strong>c<strong>la</strong>ración completa en http://transition.fcc.gov/commissioners/<br />
genachowski/statements.html [Fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta: 17 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011].<br />
2 Más opaco es el mo<strong>de</strong>lo <strong>de</strong> negocio basado en obtención <strong>de</strong> ingresos vía publicidad <strong>de</strong> algunos prestadores<br />
<strong>de</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong> Internet vía Phorm. Vi<strong>de</strong> Mars<strong>de</strong>n, C.T. (2010) Net Neutrality. Towards a<br />
Co-regu<strong>la</strong>tory Solution. Bloomsbury Aca<strong>de</strong>mic. Londres. pp. 77-81; The Phorm Files. The Register.<br />
29 <strong>de</strong> febrero <strong>de</strong> 2008. Disponible en http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/29/phorm_roundup/<br />
[Fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta, 23 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011].<br />
3 En EEUU <strong>la</strong> p<strong>la</strong>taforma <strong>de</strong> vi<strong>de</strong>o en streaming Netflix ya supera al protocolo <strong>para</strong> intercambio <strong>de</strong><br />
ficheros <strong>de</strong> igual a igual (“P2P”, en su acrónimo en inglés) BitTorrent y los sitios web http en el uso<br />
<strong>de</strong> tráfico <strong>de</strong> Internet: Schonfeld, E. (2011) Netflix Now the Largest Single Source of Internet Traffic<br />
in North America. Disponible en http://techcrunch.com/2011/05/17/netflix-<strong>la</strong>rgest-internet-traffic/<br />
[Fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta, 21 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011].<br />
4 En este sentido, vi<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s excelentes monografías: Tuomi, I. (2002) Networks of Innovation. Change<br />
and Meaning in the Age of the Internet. oxford University Press. New York; Van Schewick, B. (2010)<br />
Internet Architecture and Innovation. The MIT Press. Cambridge.
Internet abierta, <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>de</strong>fensa <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia<br />
111<br />
<strong>la</strong>s cuestiones abordadas. A<strong>de</strong>más quisiera servir <strong>de</strong> reflexión y aportar i<strong>de</strong>as en el amplio<br />
<strong>de</strong>bate respecto a <strong>la</strong> <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Red 5 , toda vez que existen elementos comunes entre <strong>la</strong><br />
regu<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones electrónicas y <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>fensa <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia en este sector<br />
específico pero también intereses divergentes que requieren <strong>de</strong> una armonización <strong>para</strong> su<br />
coherente aplicación.<br />
Expuesto el enfoque que proponemos, el artículo se estructurará como sigue: en primer<br />
término, se <strong>de</strong>sarrol<strong>la</strong>rá sucintamente el contexto tecnológico y social <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> Red; tomando este contexto como referencia, en <strong>la</strong> segunda parte, explicaremos el marco<br />
regu<strong>la</strong>torio actual <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones electrónicas y el statu quo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>nominada Agenda<br />
Digital 6 . En <strong>la</strong> tercera parte, se formu<strong>la</strong>n brevemente una propuesta <strong>de</strong> medidas al objeto<br />
<strong>de</strong> que <strong>la</strong> Agenda Digital venga acompañada <strong>de</strong> una armonización <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> política <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia<br />
y <strong>la</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción específica <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones electrónicas al objeto <strong>de</strong> preservar<br />
una Internet abierta y <strong>la</strong> <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Red. Finalmente, cerramos el presente artículo<br />
con nuestras conclusiones.<br />
2. el <strong>de</strong>bate sobre <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong><br />
2.1. antece<strong>de</strong>ntes y convergencia <strong>de</strong> re<strong>de</strong>s<br />
Algunos <strong>de</strong> los acontecimientos recientes más emocionantes y <strong>de</strong>safiantes han surgido<br />
en el sector <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> alta tecnología. Parte <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> doctrina, me atrevería a <strong>de</strong>cir también <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
industria, tien<strong>de</strong> a analizar Internet <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> un ina<strong>de</strong>cuado nivel <strong>de</strong> abstracción, centrándose<br />
en Internet como un mero “medio”, cuando -por diseño- casi todas <strong>la</strong>s innovaciones y aplicaciones<br />
se encuentran a nivel <strong>de</strong> aplicación y protocolos asociados 7 .<br />
La historia nos <strong>de</strong>muestra que <strong>la</strong>s innovaciones tecnológicas implican a medio y <strong>la</strong>rgo<br />
p<strong>la</strong>zo cambios profundos en <strong>la</strong>s estructuras sociales. Ello es especialmente cierto en el caso<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> revolución <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s tecnologías <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información y <strong>la</strong> comunicación que ha marcado <strong>la</strong><br />
transición al siglo XXI y cuyo potencial se aglutina en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> <strong>de</strong> re<strong>de</strong>s. Ello no obstante, los<br />
principios <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> experiencia nos invita a tener caute<strong>la</strong>. Los <strong>de</strong>sastres <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> infraestructura <strong>de</strong><br />
fibra óptica, y el escaso rendimiento <strong>de</strong> los servicios 3G en telefonía móvil, a<strong>de</strong>más <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
explosión <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> burbuja tecnológica en los mercados financieros, nos han enseñado que no<br />
siempre el mercado alcanza <strong>la</strong>s expectativas previamente generadas.<br />
5 Para algunas opiniones críticas con <strong>la</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción al objeto <strong>de</strong> preservar <strong>la</strong> <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Red, vi<strong>de</strong><br />
Farber D. y Katz M. (2007) Hold off on Network Neutrality, Washington Post. 19 <strong>de</strong> enero. Disponible<br />
en http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/18/AR2007011801508.<br />
html [Fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta, 23 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011]; Baumol, W. J., et al. (2007) Economists’ Statement<br />
on Network Neutrality Policy. AEI-Brookings Joint Center Working Paper N. RP07-08.<br />
6 http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/digital-agenda/in<strong>de</strong>x_en.htm<br />
7 Wu, T. (1999). Internet v Application: An Introduction to Application-Cente<strong>red</strong> Internet Analysis,<br />
Virginia Law Review 86.
112 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
En este contexto, <strong>la</strong> responsabilidad social corporativa y el comportamiento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s empresas<br />
más potentes en el mercado son cada vez más discutidas sin que se hayan <strong>de</strong>terminado<br />
unas c<strong>la</strong>ras reg<strong>la</strong>s <strong>de</strong>l juego al respecto por parte <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s autorida<strong>de</strong>s competentes, lo que repercute<br />
negativamente en <strong>la</strong> innovación. En todo caso, parece c<strong>la</strong>ro que <strong>la</strong> economía digital<br />
requiere un soporte <strong>institucional</strong> y regu<strong>la</strong>torio <strong>para</strong> un óptimo funcionamiento.<br />
Los progresos técnicos recientes contribuyen a difuminar <strong>la</strong>s barreras entre <strong>la</strong>s telecomunicaciones,<br />
<strong>la</strong> televisión, e Internet. Mientras que <strong>la</strong> tecnología con conmutador <strong>de</strong> circuito<br />
es substituida pau<strong>la</strong>tinamente por <strong>la</strong> interconexión <strong>de</strong> re<strong>de</strong>s IP 8 , se producen cambios<br />
significativos en los mo<strong>de</strong>los <strong>de</strong>l negocio, <strong>la</strong> conducta <strong>de</strong> los operadores económicos y su<br />
estructura empresarial. Esto requiere nuevas formas <strong>de</strong> organización y <strong>de</strong> interre<strong>la</strong>ción entre<br />
los actores <strong>de</strong>l mercado, tales como los operadores <strong>de</strong> telecomunicaciones, los prestadores <strong>de</strong><br />
servicios <strong>de</strong> valor añadido y <strong>de</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong> aplicaciones web inteligentes.<br />
Nuevas cuestiones relevantes aparecen en <strong>la</strong> agenda como <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>la</strong>tivas al acceso a <strong>la</strong>s<br />
re<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> nueva generación y <strong>la</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> los servicios Internet <strong>de</strong> nueva generación 9 , así<br />
como nuevas formas <strong>de</strong> discriminación potencial y <strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>ncia tecnológica en el ámbito<br />
<strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>bate sobre <strong>la</strong> “<strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Red”. Todo ello tiene mucho que ver con <strong>la</strong> misma<br />
estructura <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Red, que es neutral. Eso significa que toda <strong>la</strong> información que viaja por el<strong>la</strong><br />
es tratada en condiciones <strong>de</strong> igualdad, in<strong>de</strong>pendientemente <strong>de</strong> quien <strong>la</strong> emita y <strong>la</strong> reciba y<br />
<strong>de</strong> cuál sea su contenido, como es el caso <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> telefonía por Internet.<br />
El centro <strong>de</strong> gravedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> computación sigue alejándose <strong>de</strong>l or<strong>de</strong>nador personal en<br />
dirección a Internet, un cambio <strong>de</strong> <strong>para</strong>digma que incrementa <strong>la</strong> trascen<strong>de</strong>ncia <strong>de</strong>l acceso<br />
a Internet. La Red es un espacio universal y <strong>de</strong>scentralizado. Esa es su gran virtud, y está<br />
basada originalmente en una especie <strong>de</strong> axioma, o <strong>de</strong> ley no vincu<strong>la</strong>nte, que rige sus protocolos<br />
<strong>de</strong> programación: el principio <strong>de</strong>l “end-to-end”, que pue<strong>de</strong> significar <strong>de</strong> terminal a<br />
terminal 10 , <strong>de</strong> usuario a usuario, o entre colegas (“P2P”, en su acrónimo en inglés).<br />
Este principio, que es el cimiento <strong>de</strong>l juego internacional <strong>de</strong> protocolos (“ITP”, en su<br />
acrónimo en inglés), conmina a los programadores a situar los controles lo más cerca posible<br />
<strong>de</strong> los usuarios, o <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> fuente y el usuario. Los protocolos que rigen el intercambio <strong>de</strong> información<br />
<strong>de</strong>ben estar en los márgenes <strong>de</strong>l sistema, por <strong>de</strong>cirlo <strong>de</strong> forma gráfica.<br />
La neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> ha permitido hasta el presente, que cualquiera pueda poner en<br />
marcha un nuevo servicio o innovación sin pedir autorización previa. Por ejemplo, los servi-<br />
8 Protocolo <strong>de</strong> Internet, IP <strong>de</strong> sus sig<strong>la</strong>s en inglés Internet Protocol<br />
9 Al respecto, vi<strong>de</strong> Lemley, M. A. y Lessig, L. (2001). The End of End-to-End: Preserving the Architecture<br />
of the Internet in the Broadband Era, University of California Los Angeles Law Review, 48, pp. 925-972.<br />
10 Para una perspectiva visual <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>bate acerca <strong>de</strong> los implicaciones <strong>de</strong>l principio <strong>de</strong>l “end-to-end”, vi<strong>de</strong><br />
Benkler, Y., e2e Map, 1 <strong>de</strong> Diciembre <strong>de</strong> 2000, disponible en http://cyber<strong>la</strong>w.stanford.edu/e2e/e2e_<br />
map.html [Fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta: 23 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011]; Para un estudio más profundo, vi<strong>de</strong> Blumenthal,<br />
M., S., End-to-End and Subsequents Paradigms, Law Review Michigan State University-Detroit<br />
C.L. 709, 717, 2002; Lessig, L., The Architecture of Innovation, 51 Duke Law Journal 1783, 2002;<br />
Lemley, M., A., Lessig, L., The End of End-to-End: Preserving the Architecture of the Internet in the<br />
Broadband Era, 48 UCLA Law Review 925, 2001.
Internet abierta, <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>de</strong>fensa <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia<br />
113<br />
cios <strong>de</strong> radio, ví<strong>de</strong>o, streaming, VoIP, P2P o los protocolos <strong>de</strong> http [el protocolo <strong>para</strong> acce<strong>de</strong>r<br />
a los or<strong>de</strong>nadores remotos] o el ssh [el protocolo <strong>para</strong> acce<strong>de</strong>r a or<strong>de</strong>nadores remotos], pero<br />
no ocurre lo mismo en Internet por móvil, don<strong>de</strong> no existe tal neutralidad.<br />
Asimismo, <strong>la</strong> convergencia 11 digital también ha tenido efectos indirectos en <strong>la</strong> creación <strong>de</strong><br />
una sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información que <strong>de</strong>safía sectores tradicionales como los <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> publicación, radiodifusión,<br />
y contenidos. Todo ello anticipa <strong>la</strong> génesis <strong>de</strong> nuevos mo<strong>de</strong>los <strong>de</strong> negocio emergentes<br />
en el ámbito <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> nueva generación que permitirán <strong>la</strong> segregación <strong>de</strong>l acceso a <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> transmisión <strong>de</strong> contenidos. Ello implicará un potencial ataque a <strong>la</strong>s estructuras actuales <strong>de</strong><br />
integración vertical <strong>de</strong> los operadores <strong>de</strong> comunicaciones electrónicas y, tal vez, permitan fragmentar<br />
<strong>la</strong>s estructuras <strong>de</strong> monopolio, duopolio u oligopolio que todavía persisten en el sector <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong>s telecomunicaciones 12 . En resumen, nos encontramos ante una cuestión realmente compleja.<br />
Las revoluciones tecnológicas no es un tema <strong>de</strong> solución evi<strong>de</strong>nte, y llevan implícitas<br />
dos aspectos relevantes que <strong>de</strong>finen su presente y futuro: por un <strong>la</strong>do, los estándares tecnológicos<br />
y por otro, <strong>de</strong>cisiones políticas profundas. Detrás <strong>de</strong> estas <strong>de</strong>cisiones encontraremos<br />
el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet, que probablemente <strong>de</strong>je <strong>de</strong> ser <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> <strong>de</strong> re<strong>de</strong>s tal cual es conocida hoy<br />
<strong>para</strong> convertirse en el medio por don<strong>de</strong> se brindarán distintos servicios: tales como, telefonía,<br />
datos, vi<strong>de</strong>o, televisión, y cable 13 .<br />
A título ilustrativo, hay distintos actores que incidirán directamente en el <strong>de</strong>sarrollo <strong>de</strong><br />
VoIP: por ejemplo, los operadores <strong>de</strong> telecomunicaciones incumbentes, <strong>la</strong>s entrantes en el<br />
mercado, los proveedores <strong>de</strong> tecnología, los usuarios y el Estado. La tecnología ya está disponible,<br />
sólo resta que los actores continúen con el proceso <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>sregu<strong>la</strong>ción iniciado en 2000,<br />
discutan sobre <strong>la</strong>s tarifas <strong>de</strong>l servicio <strong>de</strong> Internet y piensen <strong>la</strong> tecnología en una c<strong>la</strong>ve política.<br />
Algunos están <strong>de</strong> acuerdo con que el Estado fije <strong>la</strong>s reg<strong>la</strong>s <strong>de</strong> juego, mientras que los más<br />
liberales no quieren saber nada <strong>de</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción. VoIP es una <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s tecnologías disruptivas que<br />
está generando y generará muchos cambios en el mercado y en <strong>la</strong> sociedad, tal cual ocurrió<br />
con <strong>la</strong> invención <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> telefonía fija. En este contexto, una cuestión subyacente que asusta al<br />
mercado es: ¿se convertirá Internet en un servicio público?<br />
2.2. métrica <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>bate sobre <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong><br />
Como ya hemos apuntado previamente, <strong>la</strong> <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Red está <strong>de</strong> actualidad<br />
tanto en EEUU como en Europa a raíz <strong>de</strong> que los gran<strong>de</strong>s operadores <strong>de</strong> telefonía y cable<br />
11 La Comisión Europea, tras admitir <strong>la</strong> dificultad <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>finir<strong>la</strong>, <strong>de</strong>termina que <strong>la</strong> convergencia es <strong>la</strong> capacidad<br />
<strong>de</strong> diferentes p<strong>la</strong>taformas <strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong> <strong>de</strong> transportar tipos <strong>de</strong> servicios esencialmente simi<strong>la</strong>res, o <strong>la</strong><br />
aproximación <strong>de</strong> dispositivos <strong>de</strong> consumo tales como el teléfono, <strong>la</strong> televisión y el or<strong>de</strong>nador personal.<br />
Hacia una economía europea dinámica. Libro ver<strong>de</strong> sobre el <strong>de</strong>sarrollo <strong>de</strong> un mercado común <strong>de</strong><br />
servicios y equipos <strong>de</strong> telecomunicaciones, CoM(87)290, Bruse<strong>la</strong>s, 30 <strong>de</strong> junio <strong>de</strong> 1987.<br />
12 Szyszczak, E. (2007) The Regu<strong>la</strong>tion of the State in Competitive Markets in the EU. Hart Publishing.<br />
Port<strong>la</strong>nd. Pág. 150.<br />
13 Pérez Marzabal, J.M. (2007) Convergencia digital, interconexión <strong>de</strong> re<strong>de</strong>s IP y otras (r)evoluciones<br />
tecnológicas. Revista <strong>de</strong> Contratación Electrónica. N. 79. Pág. 8.
114 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
se han dado cuenta <strong>de</strong> que su mo<strong>de</strong>lo <strong>de</strong> negocio se incrementaría si pudiesen contro<strong>la</strong>r el<br />
acceso a <strong>la</strong>s infraestructuras <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> telecomunicaciones, imponiendo un pago en función<br />
<strong>de</strong>l ancho <strong>de</strong> banda consumido, y ofrecer niveles diferenciados <strong>de</strong> servicio a sus clientes,<br />
que justifican por lo que consi<strong>de</strong>ran un uso extensivo <strong>de</strong> sus infraestructuras y por el ritmo<br />
creciente <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>manda <strong>de</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong> banda ancha que según los expertos pue<strong>de</strong> provocar<br />
un co<strong>la</strong>pso <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> arquitectura <strong>de</strong> Internet.<br />
Estas <strong>de</strong>mandas contrastan con <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>nominada <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Red que existe <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong><br />
el origen <strong>de</strong> Internet. Una <strong>red</strong> universal en <strong>la</strong> que <strong>la</strong> información circu<strong>la</strong> en paquetes que<br />
pue<strong>de</strong>n tomar diversas rutas <strong>para</strong> posteriormente unirse en el punto <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>stino, con total in<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>ncia<br />
<strong>de</strong> su contenido. A efectos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>, todos los paquetes, sin importar su origen,<br />
son exactamente iguales.<br />
La <strong>red</strong> es una infraestructura completamente neutra, sin intermediario alguno entre<br />
quien envía y recibe. Gracias a este escaso grado <strong>de</strong> control y regu<strong>la</strong>ción, <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> ha sido capaz<br />
<strong>de</strong> alumbrar un ecosistema <strong>de</strong> innovación y se ha convertido en el vehículo <strong>de</strong> transmisión<br />
<strong>de</strong> información más eficiente <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> historia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> humanidad, y ha permitido que microempresas<br />
y start-ups compitan directamente con <strong>la</strong>s gran<strong>de</strong>s multinacionales.<br />
Aunque no se conoce una <strong>de</strong>finición formal <strong>de</strong> dicho término a nivel comunitario,<br />
“<strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Red” 14 , el artículo 8, apartado 4, letra g), <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Directiva marco15 , exige<br />
que <strong>la</strong>s autorida<strong>de</strong>s nacionales <strong>de</strong> reg<strong>la</strong>mentación promuevan los intereses <strong>de</strong> los ciudadanos<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión Europea favoreciendo <strong>la</strong> capacidad <strong>de</strong> los usuarios finales <strong>para</strong> acce<strong>de</strong>r y distribuir<br />
<strong>la</strong> información o utilizar <strong>la</strong>s aplicaciones y los servicios <strong>de</strong> su elección.<br />
Las discusiones sobre <strong>la</strong> <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Red comenzaron en EE.UU, en torno a cual<br />
<strong>de</strong>bía ser <strong>la</strong> función <strong>de</strong>l gobierno norteamericano hacia aquellos prestadores <strong>de</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong><br />
Internet que quisieran ofrecer diferentes niveles <strong>de</strong> servicio a diferentes precios. Resultó ser<br />
un <strong>de</strong>bate <strong>de</strong> extrema complejidad dado su carácter transversal, puesto que combina argumentos<br />
técnicos, económicos, legales e incluso i<strong>de</strong>ológicos.<br />
La esencia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Red y <strong>la</strong>s cuestiones fundamentales <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>bate se<br />
refieren, ante todo, a <strong>la</strong> mejor manera <strong>de</strong> mantener <strong>la</strong> apertura <strong>de</strong> esta p<strong>la</strong>taforma y <strong>de</strong> garantizar<br />
que pueda seguir prestando servicios <strong>de</strong> alta calidad a todo el mundo y facilitando<br />
<strong>la</strong> innovación16 , al tiempo que contribuye al disfrute <strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>rechos fundamentales, tales<br />
como <strong>la</strong> libre expresión y <strong>la</strong> libre actividad empresarial, y al respeto <strong>de</strong> los mismos.<br />
14 La acepción mo<strong>de</strong>rna <strong>de</strong>l término “<strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Red” traducción <strong>de</strong> su homónimo inglés network<br />
neutrality u open Internet, fue introducido en 2005 por Tim Wu, Profesor <strong>de</strong> Columbia. Vi<strong>de</strong><br />
su FAQ Network Neutrality en http://www.timwu.org/network_neutrality.html [Fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta<br />
17 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011].<br />
15 Directiva 2002/21/CE <strong>de</strong>l Par<strong>la</strong>mento Europeo y <strong>de</strong>l Consejo, <strong>de</strong> 7 <strong>de</strong> marzo <strong>de</strong> 2002 (Directiva<br />
marco).<br />
16 A modo <strong>de</strong> ejemplo, vi<strong>de</strong> Wu, T. (2003) Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination. Journal on<br />
Telecommunications and High Technology. N. 2. L. 141, 151.
Internet abierta, <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>de</strong>fensa <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia<br />
115<br />
Buena parte <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>bate sobre <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> se centrará en <strong>la</strong> gestión <strong>de</strong>l tráfico<br />
y en <strong>la</strong>s condiciones en que resulta razonable. Se acepta generalmente que los operadores<br />
<strong>de</strong> re<strong>de</strong>s tienen que adoptar ciertas prácticas <strong>de</strong> gestión <strong>de</strong>l tráfico <strong>para</strong> garantizar un uso<br />
eficiente <strong>de</strong> sus re<strong>de</strong>s y que ciertos servicios IP, como por ejemplo <strong>la</strong> IPTV en tiempo real y<br />
<strong>la</strong> vi<strong>de</strong>oconferencia, pue<strong>de</strong>n exigir una gestión particu<strong>la</strong>r <strong>de</strong>l tráfico a fin <strong>de</strong> garantizar una<br />
calidad <strong>de</strong>l servicio elevada y pre<strong>de</strong>finida. Sin embargo, el hecho <strong>de</strong> que algunos operadores,<br />
por razones que nada tienen que ver con <strong>la</strong> gestión <strong>de</strong>l tráfico, puedan bloquear o <strong>de</strong>gradar<br />
servicios legales (en particu<strong>la</strong>r los <strong>de</strong> voz sobre IP) que compiten con sus propios servicios<br />
pue<strong>de</strong> consi<strong>de</strong>rarse contrario al carácter abierto <strong>de</strong> Internet.<br />
La transparencia constituye asimismo una parte esencial <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>bate sobre <strong>la</strong> neutralidad<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>. Una información a<strong>de</strong>cuada sobre <strong>la</strong>s posibles limitaciones o sobre <strong>la</strong> gestión <strong>de</strong>l<br />
tráfico permite a los consumidores elegir con conocimiento <strong>de</strong> causa.<br />
2.3. contexto internacional<br />
En EEUU, <strong>la</strong> Comisión Fe<strong>de</strong>ral <strong>de</strong> Comunicaciones (“FCC”, en su acrónimo en<br />
inglés) 17 ha <strong>de</strong>c<strong>la</strong>rado reiteradamente su compromiso con <strong>la</strong> preservación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> apertura <strong>de</strong><br />
Internet 18 . A tal efecto, en 2005 adoptó cuatro principios c<strong>la</strong>ve que básicamente establecen<br />
que los operadores <strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong> no podrán impedir a los usuarios acce<strong>de</strong>r a todo contenido legal,<br />
aplicaciones o servicios <strong>de</strong> su elección, ni podrán prohibir a los usuarios que conecten a <strong>la</strong><br />
<strong>red</strong> dispositivos que no resulten perjudiciales <strong>para</strong> ésta, y que fomentan <strong>la</strong> competencia entre<br />
los proveedores <strong>de</strong> re<strong>de</strong>s, servicios y contenidos 19 .<br />
Sin embargo, todo este entramado <strong>de</strong> principios parecía que se <strong>de</strong>rrumbaba con <strong>la</strong><br />
sentencia <strong>de</strong>l Tribunal <strong>de</strong> Ape<strong>la</strong>ciones <strong>de</strong>l Distrito <strong>de</strong> Columbia, “el caso Comcast” 20 , que<br />
afirmaba que <strong>la</strong> Comisión Fe<strong>de</strong>ral <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s Comunicaciones carece <strong>de</strong> autoridad <strong>para</strong> sancionar<br />
a Comcast por haber llevado a cabo prácticas <strong>de</strong> discriminación <strong>de</strong> tráfico en su <strong>red</strong>. Pero,<br />
en realidad, <strong>la</strong> sentencia se limita a resaltar <strong>la</strong> necesidad <strong>de</strong> una norma legal que reconozca el<br />
principio <strong>de</strong> neutralidad <strong>para</strong> que pueda ser exigible jurídicamente, no bastando <strong>la</strong>s meras<br />
<strong>de</strong>c<strong>la</strong>raciones <strong>institucional</strong>es.<br />
En diciembre <strong>de</strong> 2010, <strong>la</strong> FCC emitió una resolución que introduce nuevas normas en<br />
materia <strong>de</strong> transparencia y ac<strong>la</strong>ra cuáles son los tipos <strong>de</strong> bloqueo permitidos <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> banda<br />
ancha fija y móvil. En principio, los proveedores <strong>de</strong> banda ancha fija no pue<strong>de</strong>n bloquear los<br />
contenidos y servciios lícitos ni los dispositivos y aplicaciones no perjudiciales, incluidos los<br />
que compiten con sus propios servicios telefónicos <strong>de</strong> voz o ví<strong>de</strong>o. En el caso <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> banda an-<br />
17 http://www.fcc.gov/<br />
18 Como ejemplo <strong>de</strong>l compromiso <strong>de</strong> transparencia, <strong>la</strong> FCC inauguró el sitio web http://www.openInternet.gov<br />
<strong>para</strong> facilitar <strong>la</strong> participación <strong>de</strong>l público.<br />
19 FCC (2005) Policy paper on network management and neutrality. Disponible en http://hraunfoss.<br />
fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-151A1.pdf [Fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta 22 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011].<br />
20 Comcast Corp v. Fe<strong>de</strong>ral Communications Commission and United States, No. 08-1291, 2010.
116 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
cha móvil, se optó por un p<strong>la</strong>nteamiento gradual. Es <strong>de</strong>cir, por el momento, sólo se impi<strong>de</strong><br />
específicamente a los proveedores bloquear los sitios web lícitos y <strong>la</strong>s aplicaciones VoIP o <strong>de</strong><br />
vi<strong>de</strong>otelefonía que compitan con sus propios servicios telefónicos <strong>de</strong> voz o ví<strong>de</strong>o.<br />
<strong>otros</strong> países han adoptado directrices no vincu<strong>la</strong>ntes con re<strong>la</strong>ción a <strong>la</strong> <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
Red. En Noruega, <strong>la</strong> Autoridad <strong>de</strong> Correos y Telecomunicaciones (“NPT” 21 , en su acrónimo<br />
en inglés), en co<strong>la</strong>boración con <strong>la</strong>s partes interesadas, adoptó en febrero <strong>de</strong> 2009 un acuerdo<br />
voluntario que otorgaba a los usuarios el <strong>de</strong>recho a disfrutar <strong>de</strong> una conexión a Internet 22 :<br />
i) <strong>de</strong> capacidad y calidad pre<strong>de</strong>finidas,<br />
ii) que les permita usar los contenidos, servicios y aplicaciones que elijan, y<br />
iii) en <strong>la</strong> que no haya discriminación re<strong>la</strong>cionada con el tipo <strong>de</strong> aplicación, servicio o contenido.<br />
Mientras tanto, en Canadá, <strong>la</strong> Comisión <strong>de</strong> Radiotelevisión y Telecomunicaciones<br />
(“CRTC” 23 , en su acrónimo en inglés) publicó en octubre <strong>de</strong> 2009 un nuevo marco sobre<br />
neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> que impone a los proveedores <strong>de</strong> Internet unas obligaciones reforzadas<br />
en materia <strong>de</strong> transparencia y sólo les permite emplear <strong>la</strong>s técnicas <strong>de</strong> gestión <strong>de</strong>l tráfico<br />
como último recurso 24 . Sin embargo, los operadores <strong>de</strong> telecomunicaciones canadienses han<br />
implementado, entre otras medidas 25 , <strong>la</strong> gestión <strong>de</strong>l tráfico vía límites <strong>de</strong> acceso 26 .<br />
Chile parece ser el primer país que ha abordado directamente el principio <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>Neutralidad</strong><br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Red en su legis<strong>la</strong>ción. En agosto <strong>de</strong> 2010, su Par<strong>la</strong>mento adoptó una nueva ley que 27 ,<br />
en esencia, restringe el <strong>de</strong>recho <strong>de</strong> los proveedores <strong>de</strong> Internet a gestionar los contenidos, al<br />
tiempo que refuerza <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> los proveedores <strong>de</strong> contenidos y los usuarios <strong>de</strong> Internet.<br />
21 Sitio web <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> NPT en http://www.npt.no/portal/page/portal/PG_NPT_No_No/PAG_NPT_<br />
No_HoME [Fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta 17 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011].<br />
22 NPT (2009) Network Neutrality. Gui<strong>de</strong>lines for network neutrality. Version 1.0. 24 <strong>de</strong> febrero <strong>de</strong><br />
2009. Accesible en http://www.npt.no/portal/page/portal/PG_NPT_No_EN/PAG_NPT_EN_<br />
HoME/PAG_SEARCH [Fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta 17 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011].<br />
23 Telecom Regu<strong>la</strong>tory Policy CRTC 2009-657 (Review of the Internet traffic management practices<br />
of Internet service provi<strong>de</strong>rs). 21 <strong>de</strong> octubre <strong>de</strong> 2009, accesible en http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/homeaccueil.htm<br />
[Fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta 17 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011].<br />
24 http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2009/2009-657.htm [Fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta 17 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011].<br />
25 La <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Red se perturba en <strong>la</strong> práctica con técnicas tan distintas como gestión <strong>de</strong> tráfico,<br />
diferentes calida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> servicio, discriminación en precios, priorizaciones <strong>de</strong> tráficos, <strong>de</strong>gradación y<br />
bloqueo <strong>de</strong> aplicaciones.<br />
26 Doctorow, C. (2011). Welcome to the Canadian Internet, now stop using it. Boing Boing http://boingboing.net/2011/02/02/welcome-to-the-canad.html<br />
[Fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta 17 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011]. Para un resumen<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s prácticas constatadas hasta <strong>la</strong> fecha en el ámbito <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> UE, vi<strong>de</strong> Comunicación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comisión<br />
al Par<strong>la</strong>mento Europeo, al Consejo, al Comité Económico y Social Europeo y al Comité <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s Regiones.<br />
La internet abierta y <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> en Europa. CoM(2011) 222 final. pp. 6-8; y, Mars<strong>de</strong>n, C. T.<br />
(2008) Net Neutrality: The European Debate. Journal of Internet Law. Vol. 12. N. 2. pp 1 y ss.<br />
27 Vi<strong>de</strong> el Boletín 4915 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Cámara <strong>de</strong> Diputados <strong>de</strong> Chile en http://www.camara.cl/pley/pley_<strong>de</strong>talle.<br />
aspx?prmID=5300&prmBL=4915-19 [Fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta 17 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011].
Internet abierta, <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>de</strong>fensa <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia<br />
3. asPectos regu<strong>la</strong>torios<br />
3.1. antece<strong>de</strong>ntes y liberalización <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s telecomunicaciones<br />
117<br />
Sin duda el primer campo <strong>de</strong> acción <strong>para</strong> fomentar <strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información y el<br />
mercado electrónico es el <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s telecomunicaciones y, en particu<strong>la</strong>r, el <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones<br />
electrónicas.<br />
El XXXI Informe <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comisión sobre Política <strong>de</strong> Competencia <strong>de</strong> 2001 apuntaba <strong>la</strong><br />
existencia <strong>de</strong> problemas <strong>de</strong> competencia en <strong>la</strong> infraestructura <strong>de</strong> telecomunicaciones utilizada<br />
<strong>para</strong> el tráfico <strong>de</strong> Internet, especialmente en los mercados <strong>de</strong> acceso a Internet, <strong>de</strong> banda<br />
ancha y <strong>de</strong> banda estrecha, y en los mercados re<strong>la</strong>cionados con <strong>la</strong> conectividad e Internet 28 .<br />
En los albores y primeros <strong>de</strong>sarrollos <strong>de</strong> Internet era especialmente l<strong>la</strong>mativa <strong>la</strong> falta<br />
<strong>de</strong> competencia existente en sectores c<strong>la</strong>ve <strong>de</strong> infraestructura, como son <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s troncales<br />
(“backbone networks”) o re<strong>de</strong>s principales a <strong>la</strong>s que se comunican <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s secundarias <strong>para</strong><br />
que pueda circu<strong>la</strong>r por todo el mundo el inmenso tráfico <strong>de</strong> datos <strong>de</strong> Internet, y el bucle<br />
local <strong>de</strong> abonado (“local loop”), que permite el acceso <strong>de</strong> esa sucesión <strong>de</strong> re<strong>de</strong>s que es Internet<br />
a todos los hogares.<br />
Para superar estos problemas ha sido y es fundamental <strong>la</strong> intensiva política <strong>de</strong> liberalización<br />
en el sector <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s telecomunicaciones, con especial inci<strong>de</strong>ncia en el <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones<br />
electrónicas. Y también <strong>la</strong> promulgación <strong>de</strong> normas específicas <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>fensa <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> competencia en el sector <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s telecomunicaciones, <strong>de</strong> aplicación prioritaria a <strong>la</strong>s normas<br />
generales sobre competencia, y cuyo principal objetivo es permitir un control ex ante <strong>de</strong> los<br />
operadores que dispongan <strong>de</strong> un peso significativo en el mercado.<br />
La liberalización <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s telecomunicaciones y <strong>la</strong>s obligaciones impuestas a los operadores<br />
dominantes, here<strong>de</strong>ros <strong>de</strong> los antiguos monopolios públicos, <strong>para</strong> que (con base en <strong>la</strong><br />
doctrina jurispru<strong>de</strong>ncial <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s “essential facilities” 29 ) permitan a operadores competidores el<br />
acceso a su infraestructura <strong>de</strong> re<strong>de</strong>s en condiciones transparentes, equitativas y no discriminatorias,<br />
a fin <strong>de</strong> que puedan prestar libremente en el mercado servicios <strong>de</strong> telecomunicación<br />
(como el acceso a Internet), han incrementado extraordinariamente <strong>la</strong> competencia en este<br />
sector básico (mo<strong>de</strong>rando el po<strong>de</strong>r <strong>de</strong> los operadores dominantes), lo cual ha servido a posteriori<br />
<strong>para</strong> fomentar <strong>la</strong> inversión en infraestructuras <strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong> y en servicios <strong>de</strong> acceso a <strong>la</strong> misma<br />
por parte <strong>de</strong> los operadores que han ido entrando en el mercado. Todo ello ha permitido, a<br />
<strong>la</strong> postre, un acceso cada vez más fácil y rápido a Internet y a <strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información<br />
<strong>para</strong> todos los ciudadanos, los que incluye <strong>la</strong> transmisión <strong>de</strong> datos y <strong>la</strong> creación <strong>de</strong> espacios<br />
propios <strong>para</strong> el almacenamiento y transmisión <strong>de</strong> información.<br />
28 Punto 214.<br />
29 La “essential facilities doctrine” surgió en <strong>la</strong> jurispru<strong>de</strong>ncia estadouni<strong>de</strong>nse sobre <strong>de</strong>recho “antitrust” y,<br />
aunque no existe una <strong>de</strong>finición c<strong>la</strong>ra <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> misma, con el<strong>la</strong> quiere indicarse el mandato o imposición<br />
a un operador económico titu<strong>la</strong>r <strong>de</strong> una prestación (producto o servicio) esencial (escasa) en un mercado<br />
concreto <strong>para</strong> que permita el acceso <strong>de</strong> terceros a esa prestación a un precio razonable. Para una<br />
explicación extensa <strong>de</strong> esta doctrina en diferentes países, véase el documento oCDE/GD(96)113.
118 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
Las instituciones comunitarias han sido perfectamente conscientes <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> importancia<br />
<strong>de</strong> incidir en <strong>la</strong> política <strong>de</strong> liberalización <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s telecomunicaciones <strong>para</strong> conseguir el <strong>de</strong>sarrollo<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Información, garantizando <strong>la</strong> aparición y consolidación <strong>de</strong> operadores<br />
alternativos a los <strong>de</strong>tentadores <strong>de</strong> los antiguos monopolios estatales, <strong>la</strong> protección<br />
<strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>rechos <strong>de</strong> los usuarios y <strong>la</strong> intervención mínima <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Administración en el sector,<br />
sin perjuicio <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s imprescindibles <strong>la</strong>bores <strong>de</strong> supervisión en aspectos re<strong>la</strong>cionados con el<br />
servicio público, el dominio público y <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>fensa <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia. Esto se ha traducido en<br />
<strong>la</strong> creación <strong>de</strong> un complejo marco regu<strong>la</strong>dor <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s telecomunicaciones en el subsector <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s<br />
comunicaciones electrónicas, <strong>de</strong>stacando <strong>la</strong>s siguientes disposiciones.<br />
No obstante, como ya se ha insistido en repetidas ocasiones, <strong>la</strong> liberalización no se<br />
traduce en una absoluta <strong>de</strong>sregu<strong>la</strong>ción, sino más bien en una neorregu<strong>la</strong>ción. Para proteger<br />
<strong>la</strong> libre competencia en este importante sector, entre otras medidas, se refuerzan <strong>la</strong>s competencias<br />
y faculta<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s autorida<strong>de</strong>s nacionales regu<strong>la</strong>torias en re<strong>la</strong>ción con <strong>la</strong> supervisión<br />
y regu<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> los mercados, mediante un sistema por el cual estos organismos realizarán<br />
análisis periódicos <strong>de</strong> los distintos mercados <strong>de</strong> referencia, <strong>de</strong>tectando aquellos que no se<br />
estén <strong>de</strong>sarrol<strong>la</strong>ndo en un contexto <strong>de</strong> competencia efectiva e imponiendo en ese caso, obligaciones<br />
específicas a los operadores con po<strong>de</strong>r significativo en el mercado.<br />
Resulta especialmente novedoso en este terreno el cambio en <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>finición <strong>de</strong> este tipo <strong>de</strong><br />
operadores, pasando <strong>de</strong> un concepto formal, basado en <strong>la</strong> superación <strong>de</strong> una <strong>de</strong>terminada cuota<br />
<strong>de</strong> mercado (<strong>de</strong>l 25%), a otro material, basado en <strong>la</strong> posición <strong>de</strong> dominio o <strong>de</strong> fuerza <strong>de</strong>l operador<br />
que le permite actuar con in<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>ncia <strong>de</strong> sus competidores o <strong>de</strong> los consumidores que sean<br />
personas físicas y usuarios (y por lo tanto más cercano al tradicional <strong>de</strong>recho <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia).<br />
De esta normativa <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> época <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> liberalización <strong>de</strong>be enfatizarse <strong>la</strong> importancia <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> imp<strong>la</strong>ntación <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho <strong>de</strong> acceso <strong>de</strong> terceros a <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> 30 , <strong>de</strong>cisivo <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> constitución <strong>de</strong><br />
nuevas iniciativas y servicios en el marco <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s infraestructuras <strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong> mundiales que, así,<br />
pue<strong>de</strong>n conectarse con los servidores europeos. Su regu<strong>la</strong>ción primera está muy próxima a<br />
<strong>la</strong> doctrina norteamericana <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s facilida<strong>de</strong>s esenciales (“essential facilities”) 31 , que proce<strong>de</strong><br />
30 Decisiones como <strong>la</strong> recaída en el asunto Worldcom/MCI afrontó un problema <strong>de</strong> infraestructura<br />
en se<strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong> los famosos prestadores <strong>de</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong> Internet, recurriendo, entre <strong>otros</strong> argumentos a <strong>la</strong><br />
doctrina <strong>de</strong> los “recursos esenciales”. Asunto IV/M 1069 [1999], oJ L 116/1.<br />
31 La doctrina sobre <strong>la</strong>s essential facilities proce<strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong> un venerable principio anglosajón que <strong>de</strong>fien<strong>de</strong><br />
que el acceso a <strong>de</strong>terminados recursos, activos y propieda<strong>de</strong>s que esté afectado por el interés público<br />
sea abierto. Vi<strong>de</strong> Hamilton, W., H., Affection with Public Interest, 39 YALE L.J. 1089, 1100-01<br />
(1930). Vi<strong>de</strong> también Pitofsky, R., Patterson, D., Hooks, J., The Essential Facilites Doctrine un<strong>de</strong>r<br />
U.S. Antitrust Law, Antitrust Law Journal 70, 2002, págs. 443-462. Para un estudio más profundo <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> doctrina <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s essential facilities en EEUU y <strong>la</strong> Unión Europea, vi<strong>de</strong> Díez Estel<strong>la</strong>, F., La doctrina<br />
<strong>de</strong>l abuso en los mercados conexos: <strong>de</strong>l “monopoly leveraging” a <strong>la</strong>s “essential facilities”, Law Journal<br />
439, 1994. Ridyard, Essential Facilities and the opoly leveraging” a <strong>la</strong>s “essential facilites”, Revista <strong>de</strong><br />
Derecho Mercantil, nº 248, 2003, págs.. 584-604. Areeda, Essential Facilities: An Epithet in Need of<br />
Limiting Principles, 58 Antitrust Law Journal 841, 1990. Temple Lang, Defining Legitimatte Competition:<br />
Companies’ Duties to Supply Competitors and Access to Essential Facilites, 18 Fordham International<br />
Law Journal 439. Ridyard, Essential Facilities and the obligation to Supply Competitors
Internet abierta, <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>de</strong>fensa <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia<br />
119<br />
<strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho antitrust <strong>de</strong> principios <strong>de</strong>l siglo XX y se vincu<strong>la</strong>, en <strong>la</strong> actualidad, al artículo 102<br />
(antiguo 82) <strong>de</strong>l Tratado CE. Se ha aplicado a todos los supuestos en que se contro<strong>la</strong> una<br />
infraestructura esencial por un monopolista, el competidor es incapaz <strong>de</strong> duplicar o emu<strong>la</strong>r<br />
<strong>la</strong> infraestructura esencial y el monopolista niega el uso <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> infraestructura.<br />
La regu<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> estas situaciones se acompaña <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s objeciones que pue<strong>de</strong>n oponerse<br />
por el operador dominante (en esencia, que resulte imposible técnica o económicamente el<br />
empleo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> por otro) y <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s condiciones <strong>de</strong> acceso. La reg<strong>la</strong> se incorporó al Derecho<br />
comunitario inmediatamente, antes incluso <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> liberalización <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s telecomunicaciones (a<br />
modo <strong>de</strong> ejemplo, sentencias <strong>de</strong>l Tribunal <strong>de</strong> Justicia comunitario en los asuntos Commercial<br />
Solvents, <strong>de</strong> 6 <strong>de</strong> marzo <strong>de</strong> 1974 32 ; United Brands, <strong>de</strong> 14 <strong>de</strong> febrero <strong>de</strong> 1978 33 ).<br />
3.2. marco regu<strong>la</strong>dor <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s telecomunicaciones modificado<br />
La apertura <strong>de</strong>l mercado <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s telecomunicaciones a <strong>la</strong> competencia tuvo un efecto catalizador<br />
en un sector antes reservado a los monopolios u oligopolios. Con el fin <strong>de</strong> encauzar<br />
esta evolución, <strong>la</strong>s instancias responsables europeas han adoptado una legis<strong>la</strong>ción que está en<br />
consonancia con el progreso tecnológico y con <strong>la</strong>s exigencias <strong>de</strong>l mercado. Esta evolución se<br />
ha traducido en <strong>la</strong> adopción <strong>de</strong> un marco regu<strong>la</strong>dor <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones electrónicas cuyo<br />
objetivo principal es reforzar <strong>la</strong> competencia, facilitando <strong>la</strong> entrada en el mercado <strong>de</strong> nuevos<br />
operadores, y estimu<strong>la</strong>r <strong>la</strong> inversión en este sector.<br />
En Julio <strong>de</strong> 2006 <strong>la</strong> Comisión Europea requirió bajo el concepto <strong>de</strong> “neutralidad <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>” que los regu<strong>la</strong>dores podían imponer un requisito <strong>de</strong> mínimo nivel <strong>de</strong> calidad <strong>de</strong>l<br />
servicio al objeto <strong>de</strong> preservar <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>rechos <strong>de</strong> los consumidores y usuarios.<br />
Posteriormente, <strong>la</strong> Comisión Europea puso en marcha una consulta pública 34 sobre <strong>la</strong><br />
Internet abierta y <strong>la</strong> <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Red en Europa, que tuvo lugar entre el 30 <strong>de</strong> junio y<br />
un<strong>de</strong>r UK and EC Competition, 17 European Competition Law Review 438, 1996. Lipsky, Sidak,<br />
Essential Facilities, 51 Stanford Law Review 1187, 1999. Korah, Access to Essential Facilities un<strong>de</strong>r<br />
the Commerce Act in the Light of Experience in Australia, The European Union and the United States,<br />
31 Victoria University of Wellington Law Review 231, 2000. Capobianco, The Essential Facility<br />
Doctrine: Simi<strong>la</strong>rities and Differences between the American and European Approaches, 26 EL Rev<br />
548, 2001. Doherty, Just What are Essential Facilities?, 38 Common Market Law Review 397, 2001.<br />
Pitofsky, Patterson, Hooks, The Essential Facilities Doctrine un<strong>de</strong>r US Antitrust Law, 70 Antitrust<br />
Law Journal 443, 2002. Bavasso, Essential Facilities in EC Law: the Rise of an “Epithet” and the<br />
Consolidation of a Doctrine in the Communications Sector, Yearbook of European Law, oxford<br />
University Press, editores Eeckhout and Tridimas, 2003, cap. 2.<br />
32 Sentencia <strong>de</strong>l Tribunal <strong>de</strong> Justicia <strong>de</strong> 6 <strong>de</strong> marzo <strong>de</strong> 1974, Asuntos acumu<strong>la</strong>dos 6 y 7-73, Istituto Chemioterapico<br />
Italiano S.P.A. y Comercial Solvents Corporation contra Comisión <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s Comunida<strong>de</strong>s<br />
Europeas.<br />
33 Sentencia <strong>de</strong>l Tribunal <strong>de</strong> Justicia <strong>de</strong> 14 <strong>de</strong> febrero <strong>de</strong> 1978, Asunto Plátanos Chiquita 27/76, United<br />
Brands Company y United Brands Continental BV contra Comisión <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s Comunida<strong>de</strong>s Europeas.<br />
34 El documento <strong>de</strong> consulta figura en http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/ecomm/library/<br />
public_consult/net_neutrality/in<strong>de</strong>x_en.htm [Fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta 17 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011]
120 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
el 30 <strong>de</strong> septiembre <strong>de</strong> 2010, que ha sido objeto <strong>de</strong> una Comunicación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comisión Europa<br />
al Par<strong>la</strong>mento Europeo 35 presentado por Neelie Kroes 36 , Vicepresi<strong>de</strong>nta <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comisión<br />
Europea y responsable <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Agenda Digital 37 , el pasado 19 <strong>de</strong> abril <strong>de</strong> 2011 38 .<br />
La Comunicación <strong>de</strong>staca <strong>la</strong> necesidad <strong>de</strong> asegurar que los ciudadanos y <strong>la</strong>s empresas<br />
puedan acce<strong>de</strong>r fácilmente a una Internet abierta y neutral. Asimismo, afirma que <strong>la</strong> Comisión<br />
Europea se mantendrá vigi<strong>la</strong>nte <strong>para</strong> que <strong>la</strong>s nuevas normas <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión Europea<br />
en el ámbito <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones electrónicas sobre transparencia, calidad <strong>de</strong>l servicio y<br />
capacidad <strong>de</strong> cambiar <strong>de</strong> operador, que está previsto que entren en vigor el 25 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong><br />
2011, se apliquen <strong>de</strong> manera que que<strong>de</strong> asegurado en <strong>la</strong> práctica el respeto al principio <strong>de</strong><br />
una Internet abierta y neutral.<br />
A modo <strong>de</strong> ejemplo, <strong>la</strong> Comisión Europea prestará especial atención a <strong>la</strong> concurrencia<br />
<strong>de</strong> restricciones generalizadas <strong>de</strong> servicios y aplicaciones legales y a que <strong>la</strong>s conexiones <strong>de</strong><br />
banda ancha <strong>de</strong> los ciudadanos y <strong>la</strong>s empresas <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión Europea sean tan rápidas como<br />
se anuncia en <strong>la</strong> publicidad <strong>de</strong> los prestadores <strong>de</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong> Internet.<br />
La Comisión ha pedido al organismo <strong>de</strong> Regu<strong>la</strong>dores Europeos <strong>de</strong> Comunicaciones<br />
Electrónicas (BEREC) que lleve a cabo un ejercicio riguroso <strong>de</strong> análisis <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> situación respecto<br />
a cuestiones críticas <strong>para</strong> preservar una Internet abierta y neutral, como <strong>la</strong>s barreras al<br />
cambio <strong>de</strong> operador, el bloqueo o el estrangu<strong>la</strong>miento <strong>de</strong>l tráfico por Internet (por ejemplo,<br />
los servicios <strong>de</strong> transmisión <strong>de</strong> voz <strong>de</strong>l protocolo <strong>de</strong> Internet), <strong>la</strong> transparencia y <strong>la</strong> calidad<br />
<strong>de</strong>l servicio.<br />
Asimismo, se establece en <strong>la</strong> Comunicación que <strong>la</strong> Comisión Europea se reserva el<br />
<strong>de</strong>recho <strong>de</strong> evaluar, a <strong>la</strong> luz <strong>de</strong> los artículos 101 y 102 <strong>de</strong>l TFUE, cualquier comportamiento<br />
re<strong>la</strong>cionado con <strong>la</strong> gestión <strong>de</strong> tráfico que pueda restringir o falsear <strong>la</strong> competencia. A pesar<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s críticas <strong>de</strong> los activistas <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Red, hay que precisar que <strong>la</strong> Comunicación<br />
no excluye <strong>la</strong> posibilidad <strong>de</strong> adoptar un marco regu<strong>la</strong>torio ad hoc.<br />
35 Comunicación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comisión al Par<strong>la</strong>mento Europeo, al Consejo, al Comité Económico y Social<br />
Europeo y al Comité <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s Regiones <strong>de</strong> 19 <strong>de</strong> abril <strong>de</strong> 2011 [CoM(2011) 222] (La Internet abierta<br />
y <strong>la</strong> <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Red en Europa) [Fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta 16 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011]<br />
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/<br />
com/2011/0222/CoM_CoM(2011)0222_ES.pdf<br />
36 Sus últimas conferencias acerca <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Red están accesibles en http://europa.eu/rapid/<br />
pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/10/153 y http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.<br />
do?reference=SPEECH/11/285 [Fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta 16 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011].<br />
37 Sitio web <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Agenda Digital en http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/digital-agenda/in<strong>de</strong>x_<br />
en.htm [Fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta 16 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011].<br />
38 Los activistas pro <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Red han criticado <strong>la</strong> Comunicación por <strong>la</strong> falta <strong>de</strong> medidas efectivas<br />
a pesar <strong>de</strong> haberse i<strong>de</strong>ntificado casos <strong>de</strong> bloqueo o restriccion <strong>de</strong> ciertos tipos <strong>de</strong> tráfico (a modo<br />
<strong>de</strong> ejemplo, vi<strong>de</strong> este artículo don<strong>de</strong> La Quadrature da Net, un grupo que aboga por los <strong>de</strong>rechos y<br />
liberta<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> los ciudadanos en Internet, critican el posicionamiento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comisión Europea en<br />
http://www.<strong>la</strong>quadrature.net/en/net-neutrality-the-european-commission-gives-up-on-users-andinnovators<br />
[Fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta 16 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011]).
Internet abierta, <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>de</strong>fensa <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia<br />
121<br />
Abundando, el marco modificado en 2009 tien<strong>de</strong> a favorecer <strong>la</strong> conservación <strong>de</strong>l carácter<br />
abierto y neutral <strong>de</strong> Internet. De acuerdo a <strong>la</strong> normativa revisada, a partir <strong>de</strong>l 25 <strong>de</strong><br />
mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011, será requisito legal en <strong>la</strong> legis<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> UE que <strong>la</strong>s autorida<strong>de</strong>s nacionales<br />
<strong>de</strong> reg<strong>la</strong>mentación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s telecomunicaciones faciliten que los usuarios <strong>de</strong> Internet puedan<br />
“acce<strong>de</strong>r y distribuir <strong>la</strong> información o utilizar <strong>la</strong>s aplicaciones y los servicios <strong>de</strong> su elección” 39 .<br />
otras normas importantes <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Red son los nuevos requisitos<br />
sobre transparencia hacia los consumidores 40 que tienen <strong>de</strong>recho a elegir a su proveedor <strong>de</strong><br />
Internet basándose en información a<strong>de</strong>cuada sobre posibles restricciones al acceso a <strong>de</strong>terminados<br />
servicios, velocida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> conexión reales y posibles límites <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s velocida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong><br />
Internet. Específicamente, los prestadores <strong>de</strong> servicios estarán obligados a informar a los<br />
consumidores, con carácter previo a <strong>la</strong> firma <strong>de</strong>l contrato, <strong>de</strong>l carácter exacto <strong>de</strong>l servicio<br />
al que se suscriben, incluidas <strong>la</strong>s técnicas <strong>de</strong> gestión <strong>de</strong>l tráfico y su efecto en <strong>la</strong> calidad <strong>de</strong>l<br />
servicio, así como <strong>de</strong> otras limitaciones (a modo <strong>de</strong> ejemplo, cualquier restricción que limite<br />
el acceso a servicios o aplicaciones, o <strong>la</strong> cuestión <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s velocida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> conexión).<br />
En lo que se refiere al cambio <strong>de</strong> operador, los consumidores podrán efectuarlo, conservando<br />
sus números, en el p<strong>la</strong>zo <strong>de</strong> un día hábil. A<strong>de</strong>más, los operadores tienen que ofrecer a<br />
los usuarios <strong>la</strong> posibilidad <strong>de</strong> firmar un contrato <strong>de</strong> una duración máxima <strong>de</strong> 12 meses. La<br />
nueva normativa garantiza también que <strong>la</strong>s condiciones y procedimientos <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> resolución<br />
<strong>de</strong>l contrato no constituyan un factor disuasorio <strong>para</strong> cambiar <strong>de</strong> proveedor <strong>de</strong> servicios 41 .<br />
Asimismo, se faculta a los regu<strong>la</strong>dores nacionales, previa consulta con <strong>la</strong> Comisión, <strong>para</strong><br />
intervenir fijando unos requisitos mínimos <strong>de</strong> calidad <strong>para</strong> los servicios <strong>de</strong> transmisión <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>red</strong> 42 , garantizando así un buen nivel <strong>de</strong> calidad <strong>de</strong>l servicio.<br />
Todas estas disposiciones, contenidas en el marco regu<strong>la</strong>dor revisado <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> UE, <strong>de</strong>berán<br />
haber sido incorporadas por los Estados miembros a su Derecho interno el 25 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong><br />
2011 a más tardar. A<strong>de</strong>más, <strong>la</strong> legis<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> UE protege a <strong>la</strong>s personas físicas con re<strong>la</strong>ción<br />
al tratamiento <strong>de</strong> sus datos personales, en particu<strong>la</strong>r cuando se adopten <strong>de</strong>cisiones que afectan<br />
significativamente a <strong>la</strong>s personas sobre <strong>la</strong> base <strong>de</strong> un tratamiento automatizado <strong>de</strong> sus datos<br />
personales. Cualquier actividad re<strong>la</strong>cionada con el bloqueo o <strong>la</strong> gestión <strong>de</strong>l tráfico que tenga<br />
esa base <strong>de</strong>berá respetar, en consecuencia, los requisitos en materia <strong>de</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos 43 .<br />
Por último, los Estados miembros <strong>de</strong>ben respetar <strong>la</strong> Carta <strong>de</strong> Derechos Fundamentales <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> UE cuando apliquen <strong>la</strong> legis<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> UE, y esto también afecta a <strong>la</strong> aplicación <strong>de</strong>l marco<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s telecomunicaciones revisado, que podría afectar al ejercicio <strong>de</strong> algunos <strong>de</strong> esos <strong>de</strong>rechos 44 .<br />
39 Art. 8, apartado 4, letra g), <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Directiva Marco sobre Telecomunicaciones, Directiva 2002/21/CE,<br />
modificada por <strong>la</strong> Directiva 2009/140/EC.<br />
40 Artículo 21 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Directiva <strong>de</strong> servicio universal.<br />
41 Art. 30, apartado 6, <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Directiva <strong>de</strong> servicio universal.<br />
42 Artículo 22, apartado 3, <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Directiva <strong>de</strong> servicio universal.<br />
43 Directivas sobre protección <strong>de</strong> datos (95/46/CE) y sobre intimidad (2002/58/CE).<br />
44 En consonancia con <strong>la</strong> “Estrategia <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> aplicación efectiva <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Carta <strong>de</strong> los Derechos Fundamentales<br />
por <strong>la</strong> Unión Europea” CoM(2010) 573 final <strong>de</strong> 19 <strong>de</strong> octubre <strong>de</strong> 2010.
122 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
Ello no obstante, el <strong>de</strong>sarrollo legis<strong>la</strong>tivo hasta el presente ha generado tres sistemas regu<strong>la</strong>dores<br />
bien diferenciados: un sistema muy regu<strong>la</strong>do <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones electrónicas<br />
que enfocan <strong>red</strong> y servicios; otro sistema menos regu<strong>la</strong>do <strong>para</strong> los contenidos, y un sistema<br />
aun menos sometido a regu<strong>la</strong>ción sectorial específico como es el <strong>de</strong> los servicios <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
<strong>de</strong> nueva generación.<br />
En estos mercados cabe distinguir entre re<strong>de</strong>s y servicios, que en ocasiones adoptan una<br />
re<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> integración vertical, con el consiguiente peligro a <strong>la</strong> competencia. Frente a dicho<br />
peligro, como veremos a continuación, tenemos no sólo el viejo <strong>de</strong>recho <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia,<br />
sino <strong>otros</strong> instrumentos que pue<strong>de</strong>n ser más efectivos <strong>de</strong>pendiendo <strong>de</strong>l caso, como es <strong>la</strong> propia<br />
regu<strong>la</strong>ción y <strong>la</strong> competencia sucesiva <strong>de</strong> tecnologías como proceso <strong>de</strong> creación empresarial 45 .<br />
En el contexto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> convergencia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s “viejas” telecomunicaciones y los contenidos<br />
mediante <strong>la</strong>s nuevas ten<strong>de</strong>ncias <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> interconexión <strong>de</strong> re<strong>de</strong>s IP, los “operadores <strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong>” que<br />
facilitan <strong>la</strong>s infraestructuras, construidas en gran medida gracias a los subsidios gubernamentales,<br />
intentan sacar partido <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> explosión <strong>de</strong> banda ancha en <strong>la</strong> que invierten miles <strong>de</strong><br />
millones y asegurarse que recuperan su inversión, pidiendo regu<strong>la</strong>ciones que les concedan<br />
más libertad en sus re<strong>la</strong>ciones versus los “usuarios” <strong>de</strong> su <strong>red</strong>. Por otra parte, <strong>la</strong>s empresas<br />
cuyo negocio se basa en <strong>la</strong> innovación sobre <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> pero que necesitan <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s y <strong>la</strong>s infraestructuras<br />
<strong>para</strong> proporcionar sus servicios 46 (A modo <strong>de</strong> ejemplo 47 , Amazon, Google 48 , eBay,<br />
Intel, Microsoft, Skype, y Yahoo) 49 , <strong>de</strong>fien<strong>de</strong>n <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> 50 .<br />
En vista <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s evoluciones técnicas en el ámbito <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> discusión regu<strong>la</strong>dora, parece haber<br />
una cierta presión por adaptar el marco regu<strong>la</strong>dor 51 . La dualidad entre un sector histórico<br />
45 Vi<strong>de</strong> Lessig, L., Innovation, Regu<strong>la</strong>tion, and the Internet, The American Prospect, Vol. 11, N. 10, 27<br />
<strong>de</strong> marzo <strong>de</strong> 2000.<br />
46 La propia Comisión, con ocasión <strong>de</strong>l asunto Vizzavi, se ve forzada a reconocer que se encuentra ante<br />
un mercado, el <strong>de</strong> los portales, en <strong>la</strong> frontera entre <strong>la</strong> infraestructura y el comercio electrónico, XXX<br />
Informe sobre <strong>la</strong> política <strong>de</strong> competencia 2000, SEC (2001) 694 final, ap. 212, en este caso concreto,<br />
entre <strong>la</strong> infraestructura técnica y <strong>la</strong> provisión <strong>de</strong> contenidos.<br />
47 Dos nuevos mo<strong>de</strong>los empiezan a emerger en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>, aunque aún <strong>de</strong>ben <strong>de</strong>mostrar que hacen dinero:<br />
<strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s sociales <strong>de</strong> usuarios (como MySpace, el sitio web más visitado <strong>de</strong> EEUUU) y los motores <strong>de</strong><br />
recomendación <strong>de</strong> contenidos (como <strong>la</strong> españo<strong>la</strong> Mystrands).<br />
48 En el supuesto <strong>de</strong> Google, po<strong>de</strong>mos mantener algunas reservas a raíz <strong>de</strong> su acuerdo con el operador <strong>de</strong><br />
telecomunicaciones Verizon. Vi<strong>de</strong> The official Google Blog (12 <strong>de</strong> agosto <strong>de</strong> 2010) Facts about our<br />
network neutrality policy proposal. Disponible en http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/factsabout-our-network-neutrality.html<br />
[Fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta: 23 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011].<br />
49 Vi<strong>de</strong> sitios web como http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq con el soporte, entre <strong>otros</strong>, <strong>de</strong> Microsoft.<br />
La visión <strong>de</strong> Google al respecto se encuentra en http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html.<br />
50 Para comprobar el nivel <strong>de</strong> profundidad <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>bate <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> en los Estados Unidos,<br />
vi<strong>de</strong> Network Neutrality in the United States en http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality_<br />
in_the_US<br />
51 Las compañías <strong>de</strong> contenidos (como Google, Ebay o Yahoo) y <strong>la</strong>s gran<strong>de</strong>s empresas <strong>de</strong> telecomunicaciones<br />
discuten <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> hace meses en el Senado estadouni<strong>de</strong>nse si <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Red <strong>de</strong>be<br />
garantizarse por ley, como quieren <strong>la</strong>s primeras, o si se <strong>de</strong>be permitir a <strong>la</strong>s operadoras cobrar más a
Internet abierta, <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>de</strong>fensa <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia<br />
123<br />
fuertemente regu<strong>la</strong>do y que precisa <strong>de</strong> gran<strong>de</strong>s inversiones, con el emergente mercado libre y<br />
gratuito <strong>de</strong> Internet, ha provocado un choque <strong>de</strong> mo<strong>de</strong>los <strong>de</strong> negocio <strong>de</strong>l que asistimos sólo<br />
a sus comienzos. En lo que ambos contendientes están <strong>de</strong> acuerdo es que el principal motor<br />
<strong>de</strong> crecimiento será el intercambio por Internet.<br />
La ten<strong>de</strong>ncia resulta en una serie <strong>de</strong> conflictos entre el mundo tecnológicamente neutro<br />
pero intensamente regu<strong>la</strong>do <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s telecomunicaciones y el mundo tecnológicamente menos<br />
neutro, pero también menos regu<strong>la</strong>do <strong>de</strong>l mundo <strong>de</strong> Internet. El <strong>de</strong>bate acerca <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> neutralidad<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> es resultado <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s perspectivas divergentes <strong>de</strong> los actores en el mercado y <strong>la</strong><br />
forma en que intervención <strong>de</strong>bería tomar o no parte.<br />
4. internet abierta, neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>de</strong>fensa <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
comPetencia<br />
4.1. consi<strong>de</strong>raciones generales<br />
Hemos dicho que <strong>la</strong> convergencia e integración <strong>de</strong> servicios es una <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s ten<strong>de</strong>ncias<br />
<strong>de</strong> reestructuración que caracterizan hoy <strong>la</strong> evolución <strong>de</strong>l sector referido. La integración <strong>de</strong><br />
servicios <strong>de</strong> telecomunicaciones nos lleva, a su vez, a una realidad más amplia, los nuevos<br />
mercados tecnológicos, que abarcan telecomunicaciones, informática, radiodifusión y contenidos,<br />
pero también servicios financieros, comercio electrónico, etcétera. Todo integrado<br />
en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> <strong>de</strong> re<strong>de</strong>s que es Internet. De esta forma, <strong>la</strong> integración <strong>de</strong> nuevos servicios tecnológicos,<br />
utilizando diversas p<strong>la</strong>taformas electrónicas <strong>para</strong> su distribución a los consumidores es<br />
una vía fundamental <strong>para</strong> el crecimiento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>nominada “nueva economía” 52 .<br />
Ante esta realidad, ha surgido una polémica <strong>de</strong> carácter general: ¿cómo <strong>de</strong>be ser <strong>la</strong> política<br />
<strong>de</strong> competencia en los sectores <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> nueva economía? Los pronunciamientos al respecto,<br />
extrapo<strong>la</strong>bles al contexto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Red, surgidos en torno al <strong>de</strong>bate sobre<br />
Microsoft 53 o sobre <strong>la</strong> pretérita fusión AoL-Time Warner 54 , se divi<strong>de</strong>n en dos posturas casi<br />
quien consuma más ancho <strong>de</strong> banda, incluidos los usuarios que intercambian archivos mediante re<strong>de</strong>s<br />
P2P. El <strong>de</strong>bate ya ha saltado el charco, y Telefónica ha <strong>la</strong>nzado el primer aviso <strong>para</strong> navegantes. Si<br />
el regu<strong>la</strong>dor <strong>la</strong> obliga a compartir <strong>la</strong>s nuevas infraestructuras <strong>de</strong> fibra óptica que está tendiendo <strong>para</strong><br />
aten<strong>de</strong>r <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>manda <strong>de</strong> capacidad, habrá que estudiar limitar <strong>la</strong>s <strong>de</strong>scargas <strong>de</strong> Internet, bien <strong>red</strong>uciendo<br />
<strong>la</strong> velocidad o bien cobrando más a quien realice un uso intensivo.<br />
52 Vi<strong>de</strong> Posner, R., A. (2001) Antitrust in the New Economy, 68, Antitrust L.J. 925, 925. En este artículo,<br />
el autor se refiere a <strong>la</strong> “nueva economía” como <strong>la</strong> convergencia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s industrias <strong>de</strong> Internet, <strong>la</strong><br />
computación y el software, y <strong>la</strong>s telecomunicaciones.<br />
53 Para un estudio más <strong>de</strong>tal<strong>la</strong>do <strong>de</strong>l caso en Estados Unidos, vi<strong>de</strong> Cuervo García, A., Sandulli, F.D.,<br />
Creación empresarial y dominio <strong>de</strong> mercado: el caso <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>partamento <strong>de</strong> justicia <strong>de</strong> los Estados<br />
Unidos contra Microsoft, ICE, Julio 2003, N. 808, págs. 217-234.<br />
54 AoL/Time Warner (2000, Asunto IV/M. 1845, AoL/Time Warner). AoL, el proveedor <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
más importante <strong>de</strong> EEUU en ese momento y único con presencia paneuropea, se integraba con Time<br />
Warner, una <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s mayores empresas <strong>de</strong> medios <strong>de</strong> comunicación y entretenimiento. Por otra parte,
124 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
antagónicas: los que <strong>de</strong>fien<strong>de</strong>n una aplicación más estricta <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>fensa <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia,<br />
y aquellos más liberales, que <strong>de</strong>fien<strong>de</strong>n una visión más permisiva 55 . Cuando repasamos los<br />
conceptos legales y jurispru<strong>de</strong>nciales con que se ha e<strong>la</strong>borado el <strong>de</strong>recho <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>fensa <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
competencia tanto en Estados Unidos como en Europa, se constata que <strong>la</strong> mayoría <strong>de</strong> ellos<br />
no resultan pacíficamente aplicables al sector <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s telecomunicaciones.<br />
Mientras tanto, como hipótesis <strong>de</strong> trabajo, <strong>la</strong>s autorida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>fensa <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia<br />
podrían llevar a cabo <strong>la</strong> supervisión y seguimiento continuado <strong>de</strong> diferentes mercados,<br />
examinando <strong>de</strong> manera constante grados <strong>de</strong> concentración y competencia en los mismos,<br />
acuerdos que se celebren por los operadores en dichos mercados y cualquier otro elemento<br />
que sugiriera una ten<strong>de</strong>ncia al oligopolio. En todo caso, ello exige dotar <strong>de</strong> más medios a <strong>la</strong>s<br />
autorida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>fensa <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia 56 .<br />
A<strong>de</strong>más, se presentan serias dudas sobre <strong>la</strong> capacidad y medios <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s autorida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
competencia <strong>para</strong> llevar a cabo un efectivo control continuado <strong>de</strong> un sector específico tan complejo<br />
como el <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comuninaciones electrónicas. Tal operación presenta pocas posibilida<strong>de</strong>s<br />
<strong>de</strong> éxito y ciertamente unos costes muy importantes. No obstante, su “contribución al fortalecimiento<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> los consumidores”, 57 podría compensar todos sus inconvenientes.<br />
Aunque este estudio se refiere fundamentalmente a <strong>la</strong> aplicación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> normativa sobre<br />
competencia en el contexto <strong>de</strong> <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Red en el sector <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones<br />
electrónicas, <strong>la</strong>s premisas que contienen son igualmente válidas, mutatis mutandis, a <strong>la</strong> Internet<br />
móvil 58 .<br />
4.2. Principios <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>fensa <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia en el contexto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong><br />
La competencia constituye uno <strong>de</strong> los principales rectores <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> economía <strong>de</strong> mercado<br />
y una <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s primeras manifestaciones <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> empresa o iniciativa económica. La<br />
competencia beneficia a todos los que participan en el mercado, especialmente a los consumidores<br />
y también al interés público en el funcionamiento eficiente <strong>de</strong>l mercado que<br />
favorece el progreso social, tecnológico y económico.<br />
inicialmente estaba previsto llevar a cabo en <strong>para</strong>lelo <strong>la</strong> fusión <strong>de</strong> Time Warner y EMI, una <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s<br />
empresas lí<strong>de</strong>res <strong>de</strong>l panorama discográfico mundial. La fusión sólo consiguió ser aprobada tras el<br />
abandono <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> operación <strong>para</strong>le<strong>la</strong> Time Warner/EMI y <strong>la</strong> asunción <strong>de</strong> importantes compromisos, en<br />
particu<strong>la</strong>r, los re<strong>la</strong>tivos a terminar los vínculos entre Bertelsmann y AoL.<br />
55 En este sentido, Yoo. C. S. (2007) What Can Antitrust Law Contribute to the Network Neutrality<br />
Debate. International Journal of Communication. Pág. 517.<br />
56 Precisamente, es en el ámbito <strong>institucional</strong> encuentra Richard Posner <strong>la</strong> mayor <strong>de</strong>bilidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> política<br />
<strong>de</strong> competencia. A <strong>la</strong> rápida evolución <strong>de</strong>l medio, que dificulta su comprensión, se une <strong>la</strong> falta <strong>de</strong><br />
recursos técnicos <strong>para</strong> aprehen<strong>de</strong>r el nuevo medio. Posner, R., A., Antitrust in the New Economy, 68<br />
Antitrust Law Journal, N.3, 2001, págs. 925-943.<br />
57 Art. 3 t) <strong>de</strong>l Tratado Constitutivo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comunidad Europea.<br />
58 Para un análisis <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Red y <strong>la</strong> Internet móvil, vi<strong>de</strong> Mars<strong>de</strong>n, C.T. (2010) Net Neutrality.<br />
Towards a Co-regu<strong>la</strong>tory Solution. op. cit. Cap. 7.
Internet abierta, <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>de</strong>fensa <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia<br />
125<br />
En los mercados competitivos, <strong>la</strong> producción es mayor y el uso <strong>de</strong> recursos más eficiente,<br />
obligando a los operadores económicos a ajustar sus costes y ofrecer mejores prestaciones<br />
a precios más <strong>red</strong>ucidos <strong>para</strong> atraer el favor <strong>de</strong> los consumidores, árbitros <strong>de</strong>l sistema competitivo.<br />
En último término, los principales beneficiarios <strong>de</strong> un sistema competitivo eficiente<br />
son los consumidores y <strong>la</strong> sociedad en su conjunto. Por eso se hace necesaria una política <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>de</strong>fensa <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia que combata <strong>de</strong> forma eficaz <strong>la</strong>s prácticas anticompetitivas.<br />
Aplicada <strong>para</strong>le<strong>la</strong>mente al marco regu<strong>la</strong>dor ex ante, <strong>la</strong> legis<strong>la</strong>ción sobre competencia ha<br />
contribuido a <strong>la</strong> eficiencia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> entrada en el mercado combatiendo los abusos <strong>de</strong> posición<br />
dominante <strong>de</strong> los operadores regu<strong>la</strong>dos. Ello no obstante, <strong>la</strong> idoneidad <strong>de</strong>l marco competitivo<br />
como garante <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> apertura <strong>de</strong> Internet pue<strong>de</strong> verse afectada por <strong>la</strong> posible existencia <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>de</strong>ficiencias <strong>de</strong>l mercado, prácticas oligopolistas, puntos <strong>de</strong> estrangu<strong>la</strong>miento que dificultan<br />
<strong>la</strong> prestación <strong>de</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong> alta calidad a los consumidores, y asimetría en <strong>la</strong> información 59 .<br />
¿Cuál <strong>de</strong>be ser el papel <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> política <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia en este contexto?<br />
Un sistema económico que parte <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> empresa y basado en <strong>la</strong> libre competencia,<br />
en <strong>la</strong> existencia <strong>de</strong> una competencia no falseada, exige que los operadores económicos<br />
puedan acce<strong>de</strong>r al mercado y competir en él en condiciones <strong>de</strong> igualdad. Para ello <strong>de</strong>ben<br />
eliminarse los obstáculos <strong>para</strong> el acceso al mercado por parte <strong>de</strong> todos los participantes que<br />
así lo <strong>de</strong>seen, sin perjuicio <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> posibildiad <strong>de</strong> introducir restricciones mínimas, justificadas<br />
por razones <strong>de</strong> interés general y am<strong>para</strong>das por una ley. En este sentido, <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
estructura <strong>de</strong>l mercado aparece como una finalidad fundamental <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia.<br />
Así, en British Airways el Tribunal <strong>de</strong> Primera Instancia estableció que “El <strong>de</strong>recho <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> competencia se dirige a proteger <strong>la</strong> estructura <strong>de</strong>l mercado contra <strong>la</strong>s distorsiones artificiales<br />
y protege así lo mejor posible los intereses <strong>de</strong> los consumidores a medio y <strong>la</strong>rgo p<strong>la</strong>zo” 60 .<br />
En el caso <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Red, <strong>la</strong>s autorida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>fensa <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia<br />
pue<strong>de</strong>n p<strong>la</strong>ntearse <strong>la</strong>s siguientes cuestiones:<br />
• ¿Es a<strong>de</strong>cuada <strong>la</strong> política <strong>de</strong> competencia <strong>para</strong> perseguir estos fines?<br />
• ¿Cuál es el rol apropiado <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong>s autorida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>fensa <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia respecto a<br />
<strong>la</strong> <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Red?<br />
• ¿Se impi<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> entrada al mercado <strong>de</strong> empresas eficientes sin <strong>la</strong> <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Red?<br />
• ¿Qué ocurriría si una p<strong>la</strong>taforma con posición <strong>de</strong> dominio en Internet pagase <strong>para</strong><br />
garantizar que el funcionamiento <strong>de</strong> su p<strong>la</strong>taforma se hace con un retraso mínimo,<br />
mientras que <strong>la</strong>s <strong>de</strong> sus competidores no lo garantizan? ¿No incrementaría su notoria<br />
posición <strong>de</strong> dominio?<br />
59 Comunicación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comisión al Par<strong>la</strong>mento Europeo, al Consejo, al Comité Económico y Social<br />
Europeo y al Comité <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s Regiones. La internet abierta y <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> en Europa.<br />
CoM(2011) 222 final. Pág. 4.<br />
60 Apartado 264 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Sentencia <strong>de</strong> 17 <strong>de</strong> diciembre <strong>de</strong> 2003, British Airways vs. Comisión Europea (As.<br />
T-219/99. Rec. P. II-05917).
126 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
• ¿En un entorno <strong>de</strong> convergencia digital se consi<strong>de</strong>ran los contenidos <strong>de</strong> Internet como<br />
un mercado conexo al <strong>de</strong> acceso?<br />
Hemos visto cómo uno <strong>de</strong> los objetivos básicos <strong>de</strong>l Derecho comunitario es potenciar<br />
<strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> acceso y prestación <strong>de</strong> servicios a mercados <strong>de</strong> infraestructuras y <strong>de</strong> prestación<br />
<strong>de</strong> servicios en línea, en un entorno abierto <strong>de</strong> libre competencia. Se trata <strong>de</strong> garantizar <strong>la</strong><br />
competencia en un espacio global que es <strong>de</strong> por sí altamente competitivo. Y precisamente<br />
por ese carácter fuertemente competitivo y por <strong>la</strong>s peculiarida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong>l medio, es un espacio<br />
comercial susceptible <strong>de</strong> verse amenazado por comportamientos que pue<strong>de</strong>n lesionar o falsear<br />
<strong>la</strong> libre competencia. Por eso, conviene que el <strong>de</strong>recho “antitrust” se aplique sin reservas<br />
a cualesquiera comportamientos realizados en los mercados <strong>de</strong> Internet susceptibles <strong>de</strong> encajar<br />
en cualquiera <strong>de</strong> los ilícitos tipificados en <strong>la</strong> legis<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>fensa <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia.<br />
En el entorno <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s infraestructuras <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Red y <strong>de</strong> los servicios <strong>de</strong> telecomunicación<br />
<strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> transmisión <strong>de</strong> datos, que se concreta en el sector <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones electrónicas,<br />
resulta crítico el libre acceso al mercado en términos <strong>de</strong> libre competencia al objeto <strong>de</strong> garantizar<br />
el <strong>de</strong>sarrollo <strong>de</strong>l mercado electrónico y <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información. En un entorno<br />
competitivo, se incentiva a los operadores a que adapten sus precios y se abstengan <strong>de</strong> imponer<br />
restricciones a aplicaciones popu<strong>la</strong>res entre los usuarios, como es el caso <strong>de</strong> los servicios <strong>de</strong> voz<br />
sobre el protocolo Internet (“VoIP”, en su acrónimo en inglés) o el vi<strong>de</strong>o bajo <strong>de</strong>manda.<br />
Parece necesario por tanto, proseguir el camino iniciado hacia <strong>la</strong> “libertad plena” <strong>de</strong><br />
Adam Smith 61 , y avanzar en los procesos <strong>de</strong> liberalización en sectores como el <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s telecomunicaciones,<br />
en <strong>la</strong>s reformas estructurales y, también, en <strong>la</strong> consi<strong>de</strong>ración <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> justicia<br />
material en los análisis <strong>de</strong> los expedientes referidos a conductas restrictivas <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia,<br />
así como el uso <strong>de</strong> elementos cuantitativos y <strong>la</strong> aplicación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s herramientas <strong>de</strong>l análisis<br />
económico <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho 62 .<br />
A<strong>de</strong>más <strong>de</strong> los principios <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> política <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>fensa <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia, <strong>la</strong> innovación y<br />
<strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> los consumidores, justifican <strong>la</strong> oportunidad <strong>de</strong> que <strong>la</strong>s administraciones públicas<br />
continúen promoviendo <strong>la</strong> competencia y <strong>la</strong> eliminación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción ineficiente,<br />
resuelvan los problemas p<strong>la</strong>nteados y refuercen <strong>la</strong>s autorida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>fensa <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia.<br />
Su relevancia, y el problema <strong>de</strong> su ejecución, requieren una mejora <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s dotaciones humanas,<br />
tecnológicas, y materiales <strong>de</strong> sus órganos.<br />
4.3. neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>de</strong>fensa <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia<br />
La competencia juega su papel más relevante en los sectores en los que <strong>la</strong> innovación<br />
es dinámica y <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>manda crece rápidamente como es el caso <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones elec-<br />
61 Smith, A. (1961). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, reimpreso en C.<br />
Edwin (editor), Methuen, UK, 1961.<br />
62 Para un estudio <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> relevancia <strong>de</strong>l análisis económico en <strong>la</strong> normativa antitrust, vi<strong>de</strong> Hylton, K., N.<br />
(2003) Antitrust Law. Economic Theory and Common Law Evolution, Cambridge University Press,<br />
Cambridge.
Internet abierta, <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>de</strong>fensa <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia<br />
127<br />
trónicas. Asimismo, <strong>la</strong> jurispru<strong>de</strong>ncia <strong>de</strong>l Tribunal Jurídico <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s Comunida<strong>de</strong>s Europeas<br />
muestra una creciente voluntad <strong>de</strong> aplicar el <strong>de</strong>recho <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia al sector <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s<br />
comunicaciones electrónicas. A modo <strong>de</strong> ejemplo, <strong>la</strong> sentencia Deutsche Telekom, mientras<br />
que en los EE.UU. será más complicado aplicar el <strong>de</strong>recho antitrust 63 a prácticas objeto<br />
<strong>de</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción por parte <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> FCC como estableció el TS norteamericano en <strong>la</strong> Sentencia<br />
Trinko que trataba <strong>de</strong> obligar a un operador a compartir <strong>la</strong> utilización <strong>de</strong> una infrestructura<br />
con competidores 64 .<br />
En dicha sentencia, se establece que <strong>la</strong> mera posición <strong>de</strong> dominio y <strong>la</strong> conducta concomitante<br />
consistente en cargar precios elevados no sólo no es ilegal, sino que a<strong>de</strong>más constituye<br />
un importante elemento <strong>de</strong> un sistema <strong>de</strong> libre mercado, ya que atrae el talento empresarial,<br />
incentiva <strong>la</strong> asunción <strong>de</strong> riesgos que genera <strong>la</strong> innovación y el crrecimiento económico.<br />
El asunto Trinko pone <strong>de</strong> manifiesto que <strong>la</strong> afirmación realizada respecto <strong>de</strong> los precios inequitativos<br />
es extensible a <strong>otros</strong> casos <strong>de</strong> abuso <strong>de</strong> posición dominante tales como <strong>la</strong> negativa<br />
a facilitar el acceso a una infraestructura esencial 65 .<br />
Así, el TS americano seña<strong>la</strong> que <strong>la</strong> posición <strong>de</strong> dominio <strong>la</strong> obtiene <strong>la</strong> empresa, entre<br />
otras formas lícitas, cuando configura una infraestructura que <strong>la</strong> coloca en una posición<br />
única <strong>para</strong> aten<strong>de</strong>r a sus clientes. En consecuencia, <strong>de</strong> acuerdo al TS americano, obligar a<br />
estas empresas a compartir lo que constituye su ventaja competitiva entra en contradicción<br />
con <strong>la</strong> finalidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s normas antitrust, porque pue<strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>sincentivar al monopolista o su<br />
competidor, <strong>para</strong> invertir en infraestructuras 66 .<br />
63 Para consultar direcciones relevantes en <strong>la</strong> World Wi<strong>de</strong> Web <strong>de</strong> algunos organismos re<strong>la</strong>cionados con<br />
el <strong>de</strong>recho <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia o “antitrust” véase en http://europa.eu.int/ (El servidor <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comisión<br />
Europea dispone <strong>de</strong> un buscador); http://europa.eu.int/en/comm/dg04/dg4home.htm (La página<br />
Web <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Dirección General <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Competencia (DGIV); http://www.open.gov.uk/oft/ofthome.htm<br />
(La página web <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> office of Fair Trading); http://www.open.gov.uk/mmc/mmchome.htm (La página<br />
web <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Monopolies and Mergers Commission); http://www.bmwi.<strong>de</strong>/bka.html (La página<br />
web <strong>de</strong>l Bun<strong>de</strong>skartel<strong>la</strong>mt facilita información sobre el <strong>de</strong>recho alemán y su praxis, así como <strong>de</strong> su<br />
jurispru<strong>de</strong>ncia); http://www.usdoj.gov/ (La página web <strong>de</strong>l Department of Justice <strong>de</strong> los EE.UU.);<br />
http://www.ftc.gov/ (La dirección <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> página web <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Fe<strong>de</strong>ral Tra<strong>de</strong> Commission <strong>de</strong> los EE.UU.);<br />
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/in<strong>de</strong>x.html (La dirección <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> página web <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Antitrust Division <strong>de</strong> los<br />
EE.UU.); http://www.meh.es/dgpedc/dc/ (En esta dirección <strong>de</strong>l Ministerio <strong>de</strong> Economía y Hacienda<br />
se acce<strong>de</strong> a los recursos <strong>de</strong>l Servicio <strong>de</strong> Defensa <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Competencia).<br />
64 Verizon Communications Inv. V. Law office of Curtis V. Trinko (124 S.Ct. 872, 2004); Para un<br />
análisis <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> sentencia, vi<strong>de</strong> Jones, A., y Sufrin, B. (2011). EU Competition Law. Text, Cases, and<br />
Materials. 4ª Ed. oxford University Press. New York. pp. 524-525.<br />
65 Águi<strong>la</strong>-Real, J. A. Delimitación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> noción <strong>de</strong> abuso <strong>de</strong> una posición <strong>de</strong> dominio en Martínez Lage,<br />
S., y Petitbó, J. A. (Directores). (2006) El abuso <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> posición <strong>de</strong> dominio. Marcial Pons. Madrid.<br />
Pág. 204.<br />
66 “Compelling [firms with unique facilities] to share the source of their advantage is in some tension<br />
with the un<strong>de</strong>rlying purpose of antitrust <strong>la</strong>w, since it may lessen the incentive for the monopolist,<br />
the rival, or both to invest in those economically beneficial facilities. Enforced sharing also requires<br />
antitrust courts to act as central p<strong>la</strong>nners, i<strong>de</strong>ntifying the proper price, quantity, and other terms of<br />
<strong>de</strong>aling –a role for which they are ill-suited.”. 540 US 396 (2004), <strong>para</strong>. 407.
128 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
El caso Trinko refleja bien <strong>la</strong> tensión entre <strong>la</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong>l sector <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones<br />
electrónicas y el <strong>de</strong>recho <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia 67 . El TS norteamericano ha establecido que<br />
si <strong>la</strong> conducta <strong>de</strong>l dominante es objeto <strong>de</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> criterios <strong>de</strong> competencia –como<br />
suce<strong>de</strong> con <strong>la</strong>s leyes <strong>de</strong> telecomunicaciones y <strong>la</strong> conducta <strong>de</strong>l monopolista <strong>de</strong>l bucle local- no<br />
<strong>de</strong>bería aplicarse el Derecho <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia a<strong>de</strong>más afirmándose que <strong>la</strong> conducta <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s<br />
empresas en los sectores regu<strong>la</strong>dos <strong>de</strong>be enjuiciarse <strong>de</strong> acuerdo con <strong>la</strong> legis<strong>la</strong>ción específica 68 .<br />
La sentencia Trinko ha sido objeto <strong>de</strong> críticas y, como hemos apuntado previamente, refleja<br />
una visión diferente a <strong>la</strong> mantenida en Europa don<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comisión Europea, en el asunto<br />
Deutsche Telekom 69 , afirmó que <strong>la</strong> existencia <strong>de</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción no justificaba <strong>la</strong> inaplicación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s<br />
normas sobre competencia. En ese caso, se acusó a Deutsche Telekom <strong>de</strong> fijar unas tarifas a sus<br />
clientes finales tan bajas en com<strong>para</strong>ción con el precio que cobraba a los competidores por el<br />
acceso al bucle local (<strong>de</strong>l cual es el propietario exclusivo) que hacía imposible <strong>para</strong> éstos obtener<br />
un beneficio revendiendo los servicios a los consumidores. Deutsche Telekom se <strong>de</strong>fendió<br />
afirmando que sus tarifas habían sido aprobadas por <strong>la</strong> Administración alemana.<br />
La Comisión utilizó <strong>la</strong> doctrina tradicional aplicable a cualquier conducta regu<strong>la</strong>da: el<br />
Derecho <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia encuentra aplicación siempre que <strong>la</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong>je espacio <strong>para</strong><br />
una conducta autónoma por parte <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> empresa, lo que ocurría, respecto a <strong>la</strong>s tarifas, en el<br />
caso <strong>de</strong> Deutsche Telekom, <strong>de</strong> modo que <strong>la</strong> Comisión impuso una multa a esta empresa por<br />
“exprimir los márgenes” <strong>de</strong> los competidores.<br />
En el caso Deutsche Telekom 70 , y a diferencia <strong>de</strong> lo que sucedió en el caso Trinko,<br />
resultaba incomprensible que <strong>la</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción nacional (o <strong>la</strong> aplicación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> misma por parte<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s autorida<strong>de</strong>s alemanas) permitiera al incumbente “exprimir el margen” <strong>de</strong> sus rivales.<br />
La diferencia entre EEUU y <strong>la</strong> Unión Europea se entien<strong>de</strong> si se tiene en consi<strong>de</strong>ración<br />
que en el sector <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones electrónicas seguimos en presencia <strong>de</strong> una multiplicidad<br />
<strong>de</strong> mercados nacionales y siguen existiendo multiplicidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>rechos especiales<br />
atribuidos por los Estados a operadores <strong>de</strong>terminados, regu<strong>la</strong>ciones que, a menudo, incitan<br />
a estas empresas a explotar <strong>la</strong> posición <strong>de</strong> dominio generada a su favor.<br />
67 Vi<strong>de</strong> Weiser, P., J. (2005) The Re<strong>la</strong>tionship of Antitrust and Regu<strong>la</strong>tion In a Deregu<strong>la</strong>tory Era. Antitrust<br />
Bulletin. 20. pp. 1 y ss., seña<strong>la</strong>ndo <strong>la</strong>s limitaciones a <strong>la</strong>s faculta<strong>de</strong>s sancionadoras <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> FCC;<br />
Nuechterlein, J. E., Weiser, P. J. (2007) Digital Crossroads. American Telecommunications Policy in<br />
the Internet Age. MIT Press. Cambridge. pp. 417-419; Yoo, C. S., op. cit., pág. 530.<br />
68 Crítico con este mo<strong>de</strong>lo Wu, T. (2010) The Master Switch. The Rise and Fall of Information Empires.<br />
Random House. London. pp. 312-313.<br />
69 Decisión, 2003/707/CE <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comisión, <strong>de</strong> 21 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2003, en un procedimiento con arreglo<br />
al artículo 82 <strong>de</strong>l Tratado CE (Asunto CoMP/ C-1/37.451, 37.578, 37.579 –Deutsche Telekom<br />
AG) (Do L 263, p. 9).<br />
70 Sentencia <strong>de</strong>l Tribunal <strong>de</strong> Primera Instancia, <strong>de</strong> 10 <strong>de</strong> abril <strong>de</strong> 2008, en el asunto T-271/03, Deutche<br />
Telekom/Comisión; El Recurso <strong>de</strong> Casación interpuesto por Deutsche Telekom fue posteriormente<br />
<strong>de</strong>sestimado. Sentencia <strong>de</strong>l Tribunal <strong>de</strong> Justicia (Sa<strong>la</strong> Segunda), <strong>de</strong> 14 <strong>de</strong> octubre <strong>de</strong> 2010 – Deutsche<br />
Telekom AG/Comisión Europea, Vodafone D2 GmbH, anteriormente Vodafone AG & Co. KG,<br />
anteriormente Arcor AG & Co. KG y <strong>otros</strong>.
Internet abierta, <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>de</strong>fensa <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia<br />
129<br />
Hay que recordar que los titu<strong>la</strong>res <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s gran<strong>de</strong>s infraestructuras <strong>de</strong> telecomunicaciones<br />
son hoy en su mayoría los operadores históricos más importantes <strong>de</strong> cada uno <strong>de</strong> los Estados<br />
miembros. De ahí que el Derecho <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia y, en particu<strong>la</strong>r, el art. 102, tenga<br />
un papel relevante con re<strong>la</strong>ción al art. 106 <strong>de</strong>l Tratado <strong>para</strong> asegurar que los operadores así<br />
favorecidos por los po<strong>de</strong>res públicos nacionales no adopten medidas o se comportan <strong>de</strong> forma que<br />
distorsionan el funcionamiento competitivo <strong>de</strong>l mercado europeo.<br />
Las evoluciones tecnológicas y <strong>la</strong> preeminencia <strong>de</strong> Internet han supuesto <strong>para</strong> los regu<strong>la</strong>dores<br />
un reto y una oportunidad al mismo tiempo 71 . Sería positivo que lo aprovechasen<br />
<strong>para</strong> adoptar una aproximación coherente a <strong>la</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones electrónicas<br />
y facilitar <strong>la</strong> convergencia entre <strong>la</strong> política <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia y <strong>la</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción específica <strong>de</strong>l<br />
nuevo escenario. Di<strong>la</strong>tar en el tiempo este cambio necesario podría llevarnos a un círculo<br />
perverso en el que, en vez <strong>de</strong> adaptar <strong>la</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción y sus objetivos a <strong>la</strong> situación <strong>de</strong> los mercados,<br />
<strong>la</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción sea una traba <strong>para</strong> que los mercados superen cuanto antes <strong>la</strong> herencia aún<br />
muy visible <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> situación monopolística <strong>de</strong> partida.<br />
5. a modo <strong>de</strong> conclusión<br />
El <strong>de</strong>bate <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> está vincu<strong>la</strong>do a un conflicto <strong>de</strong> intereses económicos<br />
<strong>de</strong> los gran<strong>de</strong>s operadores <strong>de</strong> telecomunicaciones con los proveedores <strong>de</strong> contenidos y<br />
servicios <strong>de</strong> Internet. Asimismo, <strong>la</strong> convergencia <strong>de</strong> re<strong>de</strong>s p<strong>la</strong>ntea cuestiones que tienen una<br />
respuesta óptima a <strong>la</strong>rgo p<strong>la</strong>zo, que <strong>de</strong>be i<strong>de</strong>ntificarse, y unas razones <strong>de</strong> oportunidad que<br />
<strong>de</strong>ben estar bien presentes en cada momento <strong>para</strong> ir adoptando medidas que favorezcan el<br />
progreso hacia una situación estable.<br />
La gran novedad <strong>de</strong>l nuevo marco regu<strong>la</strong>dor <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones electrónicas radica,<br />
fundamentalmente y como se ha venido <strong>de</strong>scribiendo, en <strong>la</strong> adopción sistemática <strong>de</strong><br />
conceptos e instrumentos teóricos <strong>de</strong>l Derecho <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Competencia. A nuestro enten<strong>de</strong>r el<br />
Derecho <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Competencia dispone <strong>de</strong> instrumentos suficientemente sólidos y, al mismo<br />
tiempo, flexibles, <strong>para</strong> afrontar <strong>la</strong> problemática <strong>de</strong>l nuevo entorno. El proceso <strong>de</strong> adaptación<br />
se centrará en <strong>la</strong> aplicación <strong>de</strong> esos instrumentos, como tantas otras veces ha sucedido en <strong>la</strong><br />
historia <strong>de</strong>l Derecho Comunitario.<br />
Si nuestro punto <strong>de</strong> partida es <strong>la</strong> asunción <strong>de</strong> que <strong>la</strong> liberalización y <strong>la</strong> preservación <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> neutralidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> o “Internet abierta” suponen el mo<strong>de</strong>lo más eficiente <strong>de</strong> asignación<br />
<strong>de</strong> recursos y <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>sarrollo <strong>de</strong>l propio sector, este nuevo enfoque es positivo. Una aplicación,<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> manera más eficiente, rápida y transparente posible, <strong>de</strong>l nuevo mo<strong>de</strong>lo regu<strong>la</strong>dor,<br />
favorecerá el <strong>de</strong>sarrollo, no sólo <strong>de</strong>l nivel <strong>de</strong> competencia sectorial, sino <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>nominada<br />
Sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Información en <strong>la</strong> Unión Europea.<br />
71 Weiser se refiere a <strong>la</strong> “Internet-centric Network”, Weiser, P., J., Toward A Next Generation Regu<strong>la</strong>tory<br />
Strategy, Loyo<strong>la</strong> University Law Journal, Vol. 35, págs. 41-85; Weiser, P., J., Law and Information<br />
P<strong>la</strong>tforms, J. Telecom & High Technology L, 2002, págs. 1-35 en http://www.colorado.edu/<strong>la</strong>w/jthtl/<br />
WeiserInformationP<strong>la</strong>tforms.pdf
130 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
En un contexto marcado por <strong>la</strong> intensa innovación tecnológica y <strong>la</strong> constante transformación<br />
en <strong>la</strong> estructura competitiva <strong>de</strong> los mercados <strong>de</strong> telecomunicaciones que tienen<br />
un notable impacto en <strong>la</strong>s economías <strong>de</strong> los mercados y en <strong>la</strong> convergencia <strong>de</strong> mo<strong>de</strong>los <strong>de</strong><br />
negocio previamente se<strong>para</strong>dos, el <strong>de</strong>bate en torno a <strong>la</strong> <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Red muestra que<br />
<strong>la</strong> batal<strong>la</strong> por <strong>la</strong> primera posición en <strong>la</strong> era <strong>de</strong> Internet tendrá lugar entre los operadores <strong>de</strong><br />
re<strong>de</strong>s y los prestadores <strong>de</strong> servicios y contenidos. La aparición <strong>de</strong> conglomerados transnacionales<br />
<strong>de</strong> medios <strong>de</strong> comunicación, software y comunicaciones electrónicas, así como el surgimiento<br />
<strong>de</strong> nuevos monopolios, no sólo afecta a <strong>la</strong> competencia económica en los mercados<br />
<strong>de</strong> productos y servicios, sino que también afecta a <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong>l individuo 72 .<br />
En consecuencia, <strong>la</strong>s cuestiones subyacentes al <strong>de</strong>bate son los costes económicos y el retorno<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> inversión realizada por los operadores <strong>de</strong> re<strong>de</strong>s. Internet es <strong>de</strong>masiado importante<br />
<strong>para</strong> <strong>de</strong>jarlo en manos <strong>de</strong> los operadores y <strong>la</strong>s gran<strong>de</strong>s empresas <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> industria <strong>de</strong> contenidos.<br />
Abundando, <strong>la</strong>s acciones <strong>de</strong> los operadores dominantes también pue<strong>de</strong>n generar efectos anticompetitivos<br />
en lo que se conoce como mercados re<strong>la</strong>cionados o adyacentes. Por todo ello,<br />
<strong>la</strong> <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Red es esencial <strong>para</strong> preservar el ecosistema <strong>de</strong> Internet y <strong>la</strong>s liberta<strong>de</strong>s<br />
en el nuevo mo<strong>de</strong>lo social y empresarial <strong>de</strong> Web2.0 73 .<br />
Todo ello p<strong>la</strong>ntea importantes <strong>retos</strong> en cuanto a <strong>la</strong> necesidad <strong>de</strong> reforzar los instrumentos<br />
disponibles <strong>para</strong> luchar contra <strong>la</strong>s prácticas restrictivas <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia y realizar un<br />
buen seguimiento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s conductas empresariales. Resulta c<strong>la</strong>ra <strong>la</strong> necesidad <strong>de</strong> contar con<br />
un marco a<strong>de</strong>cuado <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> coordinación <strong>de</strong> ambas políticas y <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s instituciones que <strong>la</strong>s<br />
aplican <strong>para</strong> que, utilizando los instrumentos disponibles <strong>de</strong> forma consistente, se promueva<br />
<strong>la</strong> competencia efectiva en estos mercados.<br />
Abundando, parece que el <strong>de</strong>bate regu<strong>la</strong>torio, en plena efervescencia en los EEUU y<br />
Europa tendrá por tanto una continuación en torno a <strong>la</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> los mercados <strong>de</strong> Internet.<br />
Nuevos tipos <strong>de</strong> acceso, (no) discriminación, regu<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> calidad <strong>de</strong> los servicios, y<br />
fijación <strong>de</strong> precios serán cuestiones que <strong>de</strong>ban tratarse con <strong>de</strong>tenimiento en un futuro inmediato.<br />
En nuestra opinión, estas cuestiones adquirirán especial trascen<strong>de</strong>ncia y necesitarán<br />
<strong>de</strong> un tratamiento sólido, coherente y “neutral” <strong>para</strong> no perjudicar al <strong>de</strong>sarrollo económico,<br />
<strong>la</strong> innovación, y el bienestar <strong>de</strong> los consumidores en <strong>la</strong> era <strong>de</strong> Internet.<br />
¿Qué po<strong>de</strong>mos concluir <strong>de</strong> todo lo anterior? Resulta complejo aportar un final concluyente<br />
a <strong>la</strong>s consi<strong>de</strong>raciones que prece<strong>de</strong>n cuando <strong>la</strong>s cuestiones tratadas son tan amplias, y<br />
sobre todo, cuando se refiere a cuestiones cuya trascen<strong>de</strong>ncia <strong>de</strong>sborda ampliamente el ámbito<br />
jurídico o económico y se sitúa en el núcleo mismo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> sociedad, <strong>de</strong>l mercado y <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>la</strong>ciones<br />
entre los agentes que queremos configurar en un entorno <strong>de</strong> convergencia <strong>de</strong> re<strong>de</strong>s.<br />
No obstante, pue<strong>de</strong>n aventurarse al menos algunas reflexiones finales:<br />
72 Elkin-Koren, N., Salzberger, M. (2004) Law, Economics and Cyberspace. The Effects of Cyberspace<br />
on the Economic Analysis of Law, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pág. 140.<br />
73 Para una <strong>de</strong>finición <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Web2.0 y sus implicaciones, vi<strong>de</strong> o’Reilly, T. (2007) What is Web2.0:<br />
Design Patterns and Business Mo<strong>de</strong>ls for the Next Generation of Software. Communications &<br />
Strategies. N. 1. Primer Trimestre. Pág. 17.
Internet abierta, <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>de</strong>fensa <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia<br />
131<br />
En mi opinión los sistemas y arquitecturas abiertos <strong>de</strong> Internet no sólo son positivos, sino que<br />
también son <strong>la</strong> manera <strong>de</strong> promover <strong>la</strong> competencia en un mundo interconectado. El valor social<br />
<strong>de</strong> Internet resi<strong>de</strong> en su capacidad <strong>para</strong> facilitar <strong>la</strong> interoperabilidad y ello implica, entre <strong>otros</strong>, que<br />
Internet esté sujeta a los efectos <strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong> 74 , tanto a nivel <strong>de</strong> infraestructura como <strong>de</strong> aplicaciones. En<br />
mi opinión, los sistemas y arquitecturas abiertos <strong>de</strong> Internet no sólo son positivos, sino que también<br />
son <strong>la</strong> manera <strong>de</strong> promover <strong>la</strong> innovación y <strong>la</strong> competencia en un mundo interconectado.<br />
En estos supuestos, <strong>la</strong> normativa sectorial y <strong>la</strong> aplicación <strong>de</strong>l Derecho <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia<br />
forman una realidad que no po<strong>de</strong>mos contemp<strong>la</strong>r se<strong>para</strong>da si <strong>de</strong>seamos hacer un análisis jurídico<br />
con rigor. El ecosistema <strong>de</strong> Internet, a su vez argumenta a favor <strong>de</strong>l acceso abierto a <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong><br />
o, dicho <strong>de</strong> otro modo, <strong>la</strong> preservación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Red. Tales resultados pue<strong>de</strong>n lograrse<br />
a través <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción, a través <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> legis<strong>la</strong>ción sobre competencia, o preferiblemente<br />
ambas cosas. I<strong>de</strong>almente, el entorno competitivo y el marco regu<strong>la</strong>torio permitirán que prevalezca<br />
<strong>la</strong> competencia <strong>de</strong>l mercado, y <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>fensa <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia no requiera su aplicación ex<br />
post más allá que <strong>para</strong> garantizar que <strong>la</strong> <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Red no es <strong>de</strong> alguna manera subvertida.<br />
Adquiriendo gran relevancia <strong>la</strong> doctrina <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s essential facilities y <strong>de</strong> los mercados conexos.<br />
La segunda lección que po<strong>de</strong>mos apren<strong>de</strong>r, creo, es que <strong>la</strong> jurispru<strong>de</strong>ncia <strong>de</strong>l Tribunal<br />
Jurídico <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s Comunida<strong>de</strong>s Europeas muestra una creciente voluntad <strong>de</strong> aplicar el <strong>de</strong>recho<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia al sector <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones electrónicas. A modo <strong>de</strong> ejemplo,<br />
<strong>la</strong> sentencia Deutsche Telekom, mientras que los EE.UU. será más complicado aplicar el<br />
<strong>de</strong>recho antitrust a prácticas objeto <strong>de</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción por parte <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> FCC como estableció el TS<br />
norteamericano, en <strong>la</strong> Sentencia Trinko que trataba <strong>de</strong> obligar a un operador a compartir <strong>la</strong><br />
utilización <strong>de</strong> una infrestructura con competidores.<br />
La diferencia entre EEUU y <strong>la</strong> Unión Europea se entien<strong>de</strong> si se tiene en consi<strong>de</strong>ración<br />
<strong>la</strong> ten<strong>de</strong>ncia regu<strong>la</strong>toria comunitaria 75 , así como <strong>la</strong> realidad <strong>de</strong> que en el sector <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones<br />
electrónicas seguimos en presencia <strong>de</strong> una multiplicidad <strong>de</strong> mercados nacionales<br />
y siguen existiendo multiplicidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>rechos especiales atribuidos por los Estados a operadores<br />
<strong>de</strong>terminados, regu<strong>la</strong>ciones que, a menudo, incitan a estas empresas a explotar <strong>la</strong><br />
posición <strong>de</strong> dominio generada a su favor.<br />
6. bibliografÍa<br />
Benkler, Y. (2006). The Wealth of Networks. How Social Production Transforms Markets<br />
and Freedom. New Haven. Yale University Press.<br />
74 Para una <strong>de</strong>finición <strong>de</strong> “efectos <strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong>”, vi<strong>de</strong> Katz, Shapiro, C. (1985). Network Externalities, Competition,<br />
and Compatibility. American Economic Review. N. 75(3). Pág. 424; Para un análisis <strong>de</strong> los efectos <strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong><br />
en el contexto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> bienes digitales, vi<strong>de</strong> Shapiro, C., y Varian, H. Information Rules. A Strategic Gui<strong>de</strong><br />
to the Network Economy. Harvard Business School Press. Boston. 1999. Capítulos 7-9.; Para un análisis<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s implicaciones legales <strong>de</strong> los efectos económicos <strong>de</strong> <strong>red</strong>, vi<strong>de</strong> Lemley, M., y McGowan (1998). Legal<br />
Implications of Network Economic Effects. California Law Review. Núm 86(3). pp. 479-611.<br />
75 Vi<strong>de</strong> arriba epígrafe, “Aspectos regu<strong>la</strong>torios”.
132 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
Buendía Sierra, J.L. (2005) Access issues in the Internet area: betweeen competition <strong>la</strong>w<br />
and sector-specific regu<strong>la</strong>tion, Derecho <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia europeo y español. Volumen<br />
VI, Edición a cargo <strong>de</strong> Luis ortiz B<strong>la</strong>nco y Álvaro Ramos Gómez, Ed. Dykinson.<br />
Boyle, J. (2008). The Public Domain. Enclosing the Commons of the Mind. New Haven.<br />
Yale University Press.<br />
Cuervo García, A., Sandulli, F.D. (Julio 2003) Creación empresarial y dominio <strong>de</strong> mercado:<br />
el caso <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>partamento <strong>de</strong> justicia <strong>de</strong> los Estados Unidos contra Microsoft. ICE.<br />
N. 808, págs. 217-234.<br />
Economi<strong>de</strong>s, N., y Täg, J. (2007). Net Neutrality on the Internet: A Two-si<strong>de</strong>d Market<br />
Analysis. Working Paper 07-45, NET Institute.<br />
Elkin-Koren, N., Salzberger, M. (2004) Law, Economics and Cyberspace. The Effects of<br />
Cyberspace on the Economic Analysis of Law, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.<br />
Geist, M. (2005). Telecommunications Policy Review Submission. University of ottawa<br />
Faculty of Law.<br />
Gue<strong>la</strong>r, F. (Martes, 21 <strong>de</strong> enero <strong>de</strong> 2003) Comunicaciones electrónicas: Un marco regu<strong>la</strong>dor<br />
europeo “competitivo”, La Ley, Año XXIV, N. 5701.<br />
Jones, A., y Sufrin, B. (2011) EU Competition Law. Text, Cases, and Materials. 4ª Edición.<br />
oxford. oxford University Press.<br />
Kusbalija, J. (2010) Internet Governance. 4ª Edición. Ginebra. Diplofoundation.<br />
Lemley, M. A. y Lessig, L. (2001). The End of End-to-End: Preserving the Architecture of the<br />
Internet in the Broadband Era, University of California Los Angeles Law Review, 48,<br />
pp. 925-972.<br />
Lessig, L. (2001). The Future of I<strong>de</strong>as. The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World.<br />
New York. Vintage Books.<br />
Mac Sithigh, D. (2011). Regu<strong>la</strong>ting the Medium: Reactions to Network Neutrality in<br />
the European Union and Canada. Journal of Internet Law. Vol. 14, Núm. 8. pp. 3-12.<br />
Mars<strong>de</strong>n, C.T., (2007). Net Neutrality and Consumer Access to Content. 4:4 SCRIPTed<br />
407 http://www.<strong>la</strong>w.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/script-ed/vol4-4/mars<strong>de</strong>n.asp [Fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta:<br />
15 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011].<br />
Mars<strong>de</strong>n, C.T. (2008). Net Neutrality: The European Debate. Journal of Internet Law. Vol.<br />
12, Núm. 2. pp. 1-11.<br />
Mars<strong>de</strong>n, C.T. (2010). Net Neutrality. Towards a Co-regu<strong>la</strong>tory Solution. New York.<br />
Bloomsbury Aca<strong>de</strong>mic.<br />
Martínez, P. (2010). <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>. El País. 5 <strong>de</strong> Noviembre. http://www.elpais.<br />
com/articulo/tecnologia/<strong>Neutralidad</strong>/<strong>red</strong>/elpeputec/20100511elpeputec_10/Tesc<br />
[Fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta: 16 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011].<br />
Nuechterlein, J.E., y Weiser, P.J. (2007) Digital Crossroads. American Telecommunications<br />
Policy in the Internet Age. Cambridge, Massachussetts. The MIT Press.<br />
o’Reilly, T. (2007) What is Web2.0: Design Patterns and Business Mo<strong>de</strong>ls for the Next<br />
Generation of Software. Communications & Strategies. N. 1. Primer Trimestre. Pág. 17.
Internet abierta, <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>de</strong>fensa <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia<br />
133<br />
Martínez Lage, S., y Petitbò, A., J. (Directores). (2006) El abuso <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> posición <strong>de</strong> dominio.<br />
Marcial Pons. Madrid.<br />
Pérez Marzabal, J.M. (2007). Convergencia Digital, interconexión <strong>de</strong> re<strong>de</strong>s IP, y otras (r)<br />
evoluciones tecnológicas: hacia <strong>la</strong> convergencia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>fensa <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> competencia y <strong>la</strong><br />
regu<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones electrónicas en <strong>la</strong> sociedad en <strong>red</strong>. Revista <strong>de</strong> Contratación<br />
Electrónica. Número 79, pp. 3-44.<br />
Posner, R., A. (2001) Antitrust in the New Economy, 68, Antitrust Law Journal 925 - 943<br />
Sidak, J. G. (2006). A Consumer-Welfare Approach to Network Neutrality Regu<strong>la</strong>tion of<br />
the Internet. Journal of Competition Law & Economics, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 349-474.<br />
Szyszczak, E. (2007) The Regu<strong>la</strong>tion of the State in Competitive Markets in the EU. Hart<br />
Publishing.<br />
Tuomi, I. (2002) Networks of Innovation. Change and Meaning in the Age of the Internet.<br />
New York. oxford University Press.<br />
Van Schewick, B. (2007). Towards an Economic Framework for Network Neutrality Regu<strong>la</strong>tion.<br />
Journal on Telecommunications and High Technology Law. Vol. 5. pp. 329-391.<br />
Van Schewick, B. (2010). Internet Architecture and Innovation. Cambridge, Massachusetts.<br />
The MIT Press.<br />
Varios autores. (2010). <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> Red. Efecto sobre el marco regu<strong>la</strong>torio actual y<br />
sobre <strong>la</strong>s actuaciones <strong>de</strong> los principales agentes <strong>de</strong>l sector. Deloitte.<br />
Weiser, P. (2011) Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and the Information Age. Journal of Telecommunications<br />
and High Technology Law. Vol. 9. N. 2011.<br />
Weiser, P., J. (2005) The Re<strong>la</strong>tionship of Antitrust and Regu<strong>la</strong>tion In a Deregu<strong>la</strong>tory Era.<br />
Antitrust Bulletin. 20. pp. 1 y ss.<br />
Wu, T. (1999). Internet v Application: An Introduction to Application-Cente<strong>red</strong> Internet Analysis,<br />
Virginia Law Review 86.<br />
Wu, T. (2003). Network Neutrality. Broadband Discrimination. Journal of Telecommunications<br />
and High Technology Law. Vol. 2. Pág. 141.<br />
Wu, T. (2010) The Master Switch. The Rise and Fall of Information Empires. Random<br />
House. London.<br />
Zittrain, J. (2009). The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It. Yale University Press.<br />
Yoo, C. S. (2004). Would Mandating Broadband Network Neutrality Help or Hurt Competition?<br />
A Comment on the End-to-End Debate. Journal of Telecommunications and<br />
High Technology Law, Vol. 3.<br />
Yoo, C.S. (2007). What Can Antitrust Contribute to the Network Neutrality Debate? International<br />
Journal of Communication. pp. 493-530.
COMUNICACIONES SOBRE<br />
PROPIEDAD INTELECTUAL EN INTERNET
‘PIRACY. IT’S A CRIME.’ – THE CRIMINALISATION PROCESS<br />
OF DIGITAL COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT<br />
7<br />
Benjamin Farrand<br />
European University Institute<br />
AbstrAct: This paper seeks to analyse the trend in copyright protection legis<strong>la</strong>tion in the EU.<br />
Taking into account an increasingly evi<strong>de</strong>nt ‘shift’ in the discourse of policy-makers regarding online<br />
copyright infringement, this paper will evaluate the <strong>de</strong>velopment of increasingly restrictive and<br />
prohibitive digital copyright <strong>la</strong>ws, <strong>de</strong>monstrating how copyright infringement, an area traditionally<br />
associated with civil penalties, is subject to a creeping discourse of criminal liability and security rhetoric.<br />
Increasingly, digital piracy is being associated with more serious issues such as organised crime<br />
and terrorism, as well as being used interchangeably with counterfeiting, leading to confusion and<br />
misinformation in the piracy <strong>de</strong>bate.<br />
Whereas research in this field has traditionally focused on legal <strong>de</strong>velopments as they occur and expost<br />
assessments of the legis<strong>la</strong>tion in question, this paper seeks to establish the existence of a trend,<br />
taking into account why and how this trend has <strong>de</strong>veloped. In or<strong>de</strong>r to achieve this aim, this paper<br />
will not only consi<strong>de</strong>r key legal documents and cases, but will also look at policy-forming documents<br />
such as Commission Reports, as well as press releases of non-governmental actors in the field of copyright<br />
such as music industry representatives. In particu<strong>la</strong>r, these documents will be analysed in or<strong>de</strong>r<br />
to <strong>de</strong>termine how copyright infringement is phrased, showing the change in the perception of the<br />
problem being one of internal market regu<strong>la</strong>tion into one of crime and security. Finally, these findings<br />
will be applied to recent <strong>de</strong>velopments at the EU level such as the European Commission proposal for<br />
a Directive for Criminal Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, in or<strong>de</strong>r to <strong>de</strong>monstrate how<br />
these anti-piracy measures have grave ramifications for the Internet and Internet users.<br />
1. The ConCepT and <strong>de</strong>velopmenT of digiTal CopyrighT<br />
The popu<strong>la</strong>rity of downloading music on the Internet has <strong>la</strong>rgely coinci<strong>de</strong>d with, and<br />
is also partly responsible for the wi<strong>de</strong>spread popu<strong>la</strong>rity of the Internet. As one author has<br />
stated, ‘the digitisation of content, in fact, combined with the increasing adoption of broadband<br />
distribution technologies, represents a revolution and a challenge that may be the greatest opportunity<br />
for the growth of new business and the transformation of the traditional distribution mo<strong>de</strong>ls’ 1 .<br />
As Professor Samuelson has stated, digital media has six primary characteristics, which by<br />
their nature both allow for the mass distribution of media in a way not previously possible,<br />
and pose potential challenges for contemporary Intellectual Property regimes 2 . These<br />
1 Lucchi, N. (2006) ‘Digital Media & Intellectual Property’, Springer at p.11.<br />
2 See Samuelson, P. (1990) ‘Digital Media and the Changing Face of Intellectual Property Law’[1990]<br />
16 Rutgers Computer & Tech LJ 323.
138 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
characteristics inclu<strong>de</strong> the ease of digital replication, the ease of transmission, compactness<br />
of works in digital form and new ‘search and link’ capabilities. This means that the average<br />
MP3 file enco<strong>de</strong>d at 192kbps can be copied in less than a second, transfer<strong>red</strong> (given current<br />
average download speeds) in un<strong>de</strong>r a minute, and sto<strong>red</strong> on a different computer, consuming<br />
only 5MB of a 90GB hard-drive. Furthermore, using search engines such as Google,<br />
legal and illicit downloads of this music can be easily i<strong>de</strong>ntified in a search, and subsequently<br />
downloa<strong>de</strong>d.<br />
There are two major arguments in favour of copyright protection. The first is that of<br />
economic efficiency –this theory consi<strong>de</strong>rs that copyrightable works such as music have a<br />
value to society, and without copyright protection, the production of such works would fail<br />
to happen at an optimal level. For example, recording an album involves consi<strong>de</strong>rable costs,<br />
including the recording itself in a studio, production and advertising. If that work was to<br />
then be copied at little cost to the copier, and then <strong>red</strong>istributed on a mass scale in such a<br />
way as the original would not be bought, these costs could not be recouped. This becomes<br />
particu<strong>la</strong>rly pertinent given the ease at which music can be digitally copied and distributed<br />
through the Internet. The legal protection given by copyright is inten<strong>de</strong>d to rectify this<br />
“market failure” by providing incentives that encourage the production and dissemination<br />
of works...’(providing) a legal means by which those who invest time and <strong>la</strong>bour in producing...<br />
goods can be confi<strong>de</strong>nt that they will not only be able to recoup that investment, but also reap a<br />
profit proportional to the popu<strong>la</strong>rity of their work’ 3 . The second of these arguments focuses on<br />
the rights of the author themselves. One principle of an authors right is that it is fair and<br />
equitable that the author be rewar<strong>de</strong>d for the time and effort that went into the production<br />
of the work; while this appears to mirror the economic efficiency justification for copyright<br />
protection, it re<strong>la</strong>tes instead to what the author may ‘<strong>de</strong>serve’, rather than what is economically<br />
viable.<br />
1.1. napster opens the floodgates: - infringement goes digital<br />
Rather than viewing this technology as an innovative and exciting way to open up a<br />
new market for the distribution of copyrighted works, the creative industries <strong>la</strong>rgely saw the<br />
Internet as a serious threat to an existing business mo<strong>de</strong>l. With music companies slow on<br />
the uptake, the first major music distribution service was created and run by a college stu<strong>de</strong>nt<br />
with a strong interest in music, a peer-to-peer music distribution p<strong>la</strong>tform infamously<br />
known as Napster. By installing the software and creating a profile, users could share their<br />
music library with other users. The <strong>de</strong>tails of their avai<strong>la</strong>ble music files was contained on<br />
Napster’s centralised database system, allowing users to browse other users’ libraries, and if<br />
a user was online, download songs from that library. Going public in June 1999, Napster<br />
was the first popu<strong>la</strong>r programme for the distribution of digital media. By January 2000, 5<br />
million Internet users had downloa<strong>de</strong>d the software and 60% of the University of Indiana’s<br />
3 Bentley, L. and Sherman. B.(2004) ‘Intellectual Property Law’, 6 th Ed, Oxford University Press at<br />
p.35.
‘Piracy. It’s a crime.’ - The criminalisation process of digital copyright infringement<br />
139<br />
bandwidth was being taken up by Napster-based file transfers 4 . By the end of the year, music<br />
file transfers had increased exponentially 5 , with a host of copycats releasing their own versions<br />
of the media p<strong>la</strong>tform. At its peak in 2001, Napster had 26.4 million users accessing<br />
the service, representing 85% of the estimated online popu<strong>la</strong>tion at that time 6 . In the words<br />
of one writer, ‘copyright now faced a technology which dramatically reimagined how and by<br />
whom culture is produced, sold, distributed, and consumed. At the same moment, those industries<br />
most invested in copyright found themselves scrambling to keep up with the accelerated states of<br />
the so-called knowledge economy’ 7 . Through the use of such technology, it was possible for<br />
consumers of creative content to be the distributors of such content as well, cutting the right<br />
hol<strong>de</strong>rs out of the supply chain.<br />
Inevitably, the first copyright infringement <strong>la</strong>wsuits were quick to materialise – in a<br />
case brought in 2000 and <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong>d in February 2001, A&M Records, Inc brought an action<br />
against Napster on the grounds that Napster’s users were directly infringing the record<br />
<strong>la</strong>bel’s copyright over many of the works being distributed, and that Napster was guilty of<br />
contributory and vicarious infringement of the copyright through making possible the infringement<br />
by Napster users. A&M Records believed that merely the creation and making<br />
avai<strong>la</strong>ble of the software was enough to constitute contributory infringement. In the case of<br />
A&M Records Inc v Napster Inc 8 , it was ultimately <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong>d by the US Court of Appeals for the<br />
Ninth Circuit that Napster was in fact guilty of contributory and vicarious infringement 9 .<br />
Refusing to or<strong>de</strong>r the service to cease, the Court instead stated that the operators of Napster<br />
had a duty to police the service, preventing the downloading of unauthorised material. Unable<br />
to do so, the operators <strong>de</strong>activated the service in July 2001. Nevertheless, the cat was<br />
now out of the virtual bag –once Napster went offline, several new services established themselves,<br />
including eMule, LimeWire, Soulseek and Grokster. Furthermore, non-centralised<br />
methods of distributing content were <strong>de</strong>veloped, such as BitTorrent, which allows for users<br />
to download directly from each-other, with no central database, making tracking infringement<br />
more complicated. Websites would not host any content, but hosted ‘Trackers’, which<br />
would provi<strong>de</strong> the BitTorrent software with information telling it where such digital content<br />
may be avai<strong>la</strong>ble. The Pirate Bay, for example, operated a tracker service, rather than<br />
a content-hosting service. The threat of piracy took on a greater meaning for the creative<br />
industries –no longer was piracy an issue of international tra<strong>de</strong>, limited to the enforcement<br />
4 Topham, G. (27/07/2000) ‘Napster’, The Guardian, accessible at http://www.guardian.co.uk/<br />
world/2000/jul/27/qanda.cybercinema (<strong>la</strong>st accessed 27/04/2011).<br />
5 Net News, (15/10/2000) ‘No Killing the Napster Hydra’, The Observer, accessible at http://www.<br />
guardian.co.uk/technology/2000/oct/15/business.theobserver (<strong>la</strong>st accessed 27/04/2011).<br />
6 Press Release,(20/07/2001) ‘Global Napster usage plummets but new file-sharing alternatives gaining<br />
ground, reports Jupiter Media Matrix’, ComScore, accessible at http://www.comscore.com/press/<br />
release.asp?id=249 (<strong>la</strong>st accessed 27/04/2011).<br />
7 Gillespie, T.(2007) ‘Wi<strong>red</strong> Shut: - Copyright and the shape of digital culture’, MIT Press at p.5.<br />
8 A&M Records, Inc (and others) v Napster, Inc, 239 F.3d 1004 (9 th Cir. 2001).<br />
9 Ibid at p.1027 of the judgement.
140 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
of IP rights in other States, but now represented an ‘enemy within’. Previously frequent<br />
purchasers of content were now downloading that content for free, with the result that what<br />
was once a p<strong>red</strong>ominantly external issue was quickly <strong>de</strong>veloping a pervasive internal element.<br />
1.2. european digital copyright legis<strong>la</strong>tion<br />
Copyright has traditionally been consi<strong>de</strong><strong>red</strong> as an issue of civil <strong>la</strong>w rather than of criminal<br />
<strong>la</strong>w. As such, measures taken to harmonise aspects of copyright <strong>la</strong>w at the European level<br />
have usually been based on market integration justifications. Commission consi<strong>de</strong><strong>red</strong> this<br />
as being a priority was ma<strong>de</strong> apparent in a Green Paper released in the <strong>la</strong>te 1980s entitled<br />
‘Copyright and the Challenge of Technology’ 10 . This Green Paper stated that:<br />
‘the Community must ensure the proper functioning of the common market. To the maximum<br />
extent possible, creators and provi<strong>de</strong>rs of copyright goods and services should be able<br />
be able to treat the Community as a single internal market. This requires the elimination of<br />
obstacles and legal differences that substantially disrupt the functioning of the market…’ 11 .<br />
Perhaps the first step towards the creation of an EU copyright co<strong>de</strong> 12 came with the<br />
passing of the Information Society Directive in 2001 (hereby the InfoSoc Directive) 13 . The<br />
InfoSoc Directive implements the international Tra<strong>de</strong> Re<strong>la</strong>ted Aspects of Intellectual Property<br />
Rights Agreement (hereby the TRIPS agreement) which ente<strong>red</strong> into force in January<br />
1995, as well as the World Intellectual Property Organisation Copyright Treaty (WCT) and<br />
World Intellectual Property Organisation Performance and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT)<br />
which were both ratified in 1996. According to one author, the TRIPS agreement represents<br />
‘the first comprehensive intellectual property agreement ever executed by most of the world’s trading<br />
nations which establishes minimum standards of protection (and enforcement) for practically<br />
all categories of IP rights...the adopted standards mirror those in force in the industrialised<br />
countries...’ 14 . The key <strong>de</strong>velopments brought about by the InfoSoc Directive re<strong>la</strong>te to the exploitation<br />
of rights on the Internet. During the mid-1990s, some businesses and legis<strong>la</strong>tures<br />
saw the potential commercial interests that the Internet could foster, as well as potential<br />
for the creation of new types of commercial service. So too did they recognise that the <strong>la</strong>w<br />
should be adapted in or<strong>de</strong>r to meet the challenges of this new environment. Therefore, the<br />
intention of the InfoSoc Directive, as stated in the preamble, was to ensure that barriers to<br />
cross-bor<strong>de</strong>r internet tra<strong>de</strong> would be avoi<strong>de</strong>d. While the Directive implements the TRIPS<br />
10 Commission of the European Communities’Green Paper on Copyright and the Challenge of Technology<br />
– Copyright Issues Requiring Immediate Action’ COM/88/172 of 7th June 1998<br />
11 Ibid, at s.1.3.2.<br />
12 Tritton, G.(2008) ‘Intellectual Property Law in Europe’, 3rd Ed, Sweet and Maxwell, at p.531.<br />
13 Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and re<strong>la</strong>ted rights in the<br />
information society [2001] OJ L167/10.<br />
14 Moncayo von Hase, A.’The Application and Interpretation of the Agreement on Tra<strong>de</strong>-Re<strong>la</strong>ted<br />
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights’, to be found in Correa, C.M. & Yusuf, A.A. (eds) (1998)<br />
‘Intellectual Property and International Tra<strong>de</strong>: The TRIPS Agreement’, Kluwer Law International at p.83.
‘Piracy. It’s a crime.’ - The criminalisation process of digital copyright infringement<br />
141<br />
agreement’s requirements for the protection of Technical Protection Measures (or, ensuring<br />
non-circumvention of Digital Rights Management technologies) in or<strong>de</strong>r to ensure the protection<br />
of a right-hol<strong>de</strong>rs copyright, nowhere in the Directive is crime mentioned as being a<br />
justification for legis<strong>la</strong>tion, nor as a threat to intellectual property protection.<br />
In 2004, the Community passed Directive 2004/48/EC, otherwise known as the Enforcement<br />
Directive 15 , in or<strong>de</strong>r to harmonise measures, procedures and remedies appropriate<br />
to, and relevant to, proceedings re<strong>la</strong>ting to intellectual property infringement. In doing<br />
so, it stated that ‘at the international level...the Community...is bound by the TRIPS agreement...(which)<br />
contains in particu<strong>la</strong>r provisions on the means of enforcing intellectual property<br />
rights, which are common standards applicable at international level...’ 16 . While primarily basing<br />
the need for enforcement mechanisms on the requirement to implement the enforcement<br />
provisions of the TRIPS agreement, the Enforcement Directive is the first piece of<br />
European copyright legis<strong>la</strong>tion that specifically makes reference to crime; in the preamble at<br />
<strong>para</strong>graph 9, it is stated that ‘infringements of intellectual property rights appear to be increasingly<br />
linked to organised crime’, although the preamble p<strong>red</strong>ominantly focuses on the harmonisation<br />
of civil enforcement measures within the remit of Community competence, and<br />
Article 3(c) states that the Directive will not affect national criminal legis<strong>la</strong>tion in respect of<br />
infringement.Although in a 2003 Press Release concerning the Directive, it was stated that<br />
‘the Proposed Directive would not introduce tougher sanctions against individuals...(but applies<br />
only) to infringements carried out for commercial purposes’ 17 , the Directive itself in setting out<br />
the possibility of damages being awar<strong>de</strong>d to right-hol<strong>de</strong>rs at Article 13, does not appear to<br />
distinguish between ‘distinguish between <strong>la</strong>rge-scale commercial infringement and counterfeiting<br />
enterprises from unintentional, non-commercial infringement of individuals’ 18 . While this<br />
legis<strong>la</strong>tion did not per se introduce criminal sanctions for copyright infringement online, it<br />
did nevertheless appear to represent a change in the perception of copyright infringement at<br />
the level of the Commission. Yet how did this change of perception <strong>de</strong>velop?<br />
2. piraTes on The digiTal seas: - CriminalisaTion enforCemenT<br />
meChanisms<br />
It is safe to say that <strong>de</strong>spite strong and effective implementation of copyright <strong>la</strong>w at a<br />
multi<strong>la</strong>teral level, piracy is still very much perceived as being an issue by certain right-hol<strong>de</strong>rs<br />
and European institutions. According to the International Fe<strong>de</strong>ration for the Phonographic<br />
Industry (IFPI, an international lobbying organisation for the recording industry, simi<strong>la</strong>r to<br />
15 Directive 2004/48 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights [2004] OJ L195/16.<br />
16 Enforcement Directive, Recitals 4-5.<br />
17 Europa Press Release, ‘Proposed Directive on enforcement of intellectual property rights – frequently<br />
asked questions’, MEMO/03/20 (30/01/2003).<br />
18 Kierkegaard, S.(2005) ‘Taking a sledge-hammer to crack the nut: - The EU Enforcement Directive’,<br />
Computer Law and Security Report 21(5) 488 at p.491.
142 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
the Recording Industry Association of America), ‘over 95% of music downloads are illegal and<br />
unpaid for’ 19 . With the implementation of substantive provisions apparently completed with<br />
the InfoSoc and Enforcement Directives, the Council and Commission are now focusing<br />
on improving the enforcement of these <strong>la</strong>ws to combat what it sees as a growing epi<strong>de</strong>mic of<br />
piracy.This article seeks to exp<strong>la</strong>in the how and why questions; how is copyright policy being<br />
shaped at the European (and in<strong>de</strong>ed, national and international) level, and why lobbyists<br />
and policy-makers are pursuing a certain course of action. In or<strong>de</strong>r to address these issues,<br />
this section will look at two issues: - what lobbying bodies such as IFPI are saying, and how<br />
this influences the legis<strong>la</strong>tive response.<br />
2.1. from prose to policy: - how lobbyist rhetoric appears to shape copyright <strong>la</strong>w and<br />
policy, or, ‘piracy is killing music’<br />
In or<strong>de</strong>r to address the rhetoric of the music industry with regard to copyright, it is<br />
first necessary to refer to the first section of this article, and the traditionally stated aim of<br />
copyright <strong>la</strong>w. After all, the legal protection granted to creative works through copyright<br />
was inten<strong>de</strong>d to correct a market failure and ensure that creative artists continued to create<br />
–in other words, provi<strong>de</strong> an incentive for the continuing cultural production consi<strong>de</strong><strong>red</strong> as<br />
beneficial to society. Nevertheless, there are certain f<strong>la</strong>ws in this argument, particu<strong>la</strong>rly as<br />
lobbying groups representing artists and record <strong>la</strong>bels portray it. In<strong>de</strong>ed, it does not appear<br />
to be the individual artists who <strong>la</strong>rgely benefit from increases in copyright protection, but<br />
the record <strong>la</strong>bels (although these issues are outsi<strong>de</strong> of the remit of this paper).<br />
It would appear, upon consultation with press releases and other documents from lobbyist<br />
and industry pressure groups that author incentivisation arguments are being reinforced<br />
with, and in some instances rep<strong>la</strong>ced by, a rhetoric based in crime and security rather<br />
than being purely about artist incentivisation and discussion of civil liability for infringement.<br />
Excerpts from reports by music industry representative groups appear to <strong>de</strong>monstrate<br />
the <strong>de</strong>velopment of a crime and security-based discourse, intimating harm to both the State<br />
and consumers as well as to individual artists. In one of the first IFPI Piracy Reports from<br />
2000, it is stated that ‘evi<strong>de</strong>nce of the link between music piracy and organised crime became<br />
apparent in the <strong>la</strong>te 1990s as the CD format offe<strong>red</strong> crime syndicates a simple, cheap and highly<br />
lucrative entry into a mass-scale illegal tra<strong>de</strong>’ 20 . There are significant problems with the methodology<br />
linking music piracy to organised crime more generally, but this falls outsi<strong>de</strong> of the<br />
remit of this paper, which focuses specifically on Internet-re<strong>la</strong>ted copyright issues21 . The re-<br />
19 IFPI (16/01/09) ‘IFPI publishes digital music report 2009’, accessible at http://www.ifpi.org/content/<br />
section_resources/dmr2009.html (<strong>la</strong>st accessed 27/04/2011).<br />
20 IFPI, (2000) ‘Music Piracy Report 2000’, at p.3.<br />
21 For more information on this, however, please see Farrand, B. & Carrapico, H.’Copyright <strong>la</strong>w as a<br />
matter of (inter)national security? – The attempt to securitise commercial infringement and its spill-over<br />
onto individual liability’ (to be published in 2011).
‘Piracy. It’s a crime.’ - The criminalisation process of digital copyright infringement<br />
port mentioned that Internet piracy spread ‘dramatically’ 22during the year, but ma<strong>de</strong> no links<br />
to crime, organised or otherwise. Interestingly, the report focused mainly on the risk posed<br />
to the industry through CD writers and the CD-R. Simi<strong>la</strong>r views are held in the 2001 report,<br />
although it <strong>de</strong>dicates a page to Internet-based piracy, stating that ‘Internet piracy...severely<br />
hin<strong>de</strong>rs the <strong>de</strong>velopment of legitimate online services’ 23 , but no link is ma<strong>de</strong> between Internet<br />
piracy and crime. This trend continues throughout the 200224 and 2003 reports, although<br />
most interestingly, the 2003 report states in a footnote that it does not cover ‘cover private<br />
copying by consumers or the distribution of unauthorised files on the Internet’ 25 .<br />
A change is palpable when consi<strong>de</strong>ring the report from 2004, where it is stated that<br />
the ‘illegal music tra<strong>de</strong> is benefitting international organised crime’ 26 . Although it does not talk<br />
about Internet piracy specifically in this instance, it can be perceived as the beginning of<br />
a ‘damnation by association’ process in the consi<strong>de</strong>ration of Internet piracy issues. A report<br />
released by IFPI in the same year, which also provi<strong>de</strong>s tenuous links between music piracy<br />
and terrorist organisations, states that ‘a series of raids was conducted in the UK, resulting in<br />
the arrest of nine individuals for organising the distribution of massive quantities of illegal material<br />
(music, films, software and paedophilia) on the Internet’ 27 . The report goes on to state that<br />
‘the most extreme form of organised crime affecting society today is that of terrorism...evi<strong>de</strong>nce and<br />
intelligence is avai<strong>la</strong>ble to prove that these groups are involved in the fabrication, distribution<br />
and sale of counterfeit music... 28 ’Here, we see a linking of something which up until this point<br />
was generally consi<strong>de</strong><strong>red</strong> as being an issue of civil infringement being linked to much more<br />
serious criminal offences. This linking is important, as will be <strong>de</strong>monstrated when consi<strong>de</strong>ring<br />
the legis<strong>la</strong>tive response.<br />
As some authors note, it is at this point when advertisements begin to be run by movie<br />
and record <strong>la</strong>bels and associated organisations, such as the infamous campaign in the<br />
UK, known as ‘FACT’. FACT, or the Fe<strong>de</strong>ration Against Copyright Theft, ran a campaign<br />
in which an almost caricature-esque ‘evil’ bran<strong>de</strong>r <strong>de</strong>stroys collections of CDs and DVDs,<br />
while a voiceover states that ‘piracy funds organised crime, and will <strong>de</strong>stroy our music and<br />
publishing industries...piracy funds terrorism, and will jeopardise our safety, and your future<br />
enjoyment’ 29 . Another well known campaign states ‘you wouldn’t steal a car, you wouldn’t steal<br />
a handbag, you wouldn’t steal a television, you wouldn’t steal a movie. Downloading pirated<br />
143<br />
22 IFPI, supra 72.<br />
23 IFPI, (2001) ‘Music Piracy Report 2001’, at p.8.<br />
24 See, for example IFPI, (2002) ‘Music Piracy Report 2002’, at p.10.<br />
25 IFPI, (2003) ‘Music Piracy Report 2003’, at p.3.<br />
26 IFPI, (2004) ‘Music Piracy Report 2004’, at p.2.<br />
27 IFPI, (2005) ‘Music Piracy: - Serious, Violent and Organised Crime’ at p.6.<br />
28 Ibid at p.3.<br />
29 An example of this advertisement can be found on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/<br />
watch?v=BLBY4qzUMNw (<strong>la</strong>st accessed 27/04/2011).
144 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
material is stealing. Stealing is against the <strong>la</strong>w’ 30 .Here, it is possible to <strong>de</strong>monstrate the way<br />
in which individual acts of civil infringement are linked to more serious criminal acts. In<br />
doing so, industry representatives seek to ‘equate file-sharing with commercial piracy and<br />
counterfeiting’ 31 , creating a link between conduct online and serious issues such as organised<br />
crime and terrorism.As one aca<strong>de</strong>mic notes,<br />
‘while the entertainment industry has long engaged in a battle against ‘piracy’, this type of<br />
piracy is different: - rather than using the term to refer to <strong>la</strong>rge-scale commercial infringement<br />
operations...it is used in the digital copyright <strong>de</strong>bate to <strong>de</strong>scribe individual copying,<br />
private conduct that is not for profit...such shifting of the rhetoric toward hyperbole serves<br />
to obscure the differences between organised criminal activity on a massive scale and private<br />
offences’ 32 .<br />
The author goes on to exp<strong>la</strong>in that in this way, entertainment companies ‘suggest connections<br />
between criminals of much more dangerous crimes and participation on peer-to-peer<br />
file-sharing networks’ 33 . However, as Dr Matthew David states, the attempts to link piracy<br />
with terrorism and other serious crimes ‘involves numerous <strong>de</strong>ceptive c<strong>la</strong>ims and associations’ 34 ;<br />
when pressed by the United States House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Courts,<br />
the Internet and Intellectual Property to give evi<strong>de</strong>nce linking Internet based piracy with<br />
organised crime or terrorism, John Malcom of the Department of Justice ‘sought to equate<br />
file-sharing networks with organised crime on the basis that they were international networks<br />
and they were enabling illegal activity’ 35 . However, it must be stated that in general, peer-topeer<br />
file sharing does not involve the exchange of money, which one would expect of an<br />
international organised crime network. When consi<strong>de</strong>ring the EU <strong>de</strong>finition of organised<br />
crime, it also appears that in and of itself, acts of piracy by individuals on the Internet cannot<br />
be found to constitute an organised crime network, even when using peer-to-peer software.<br />
According to the Framework Decision on organised crime, an organised crime network is:<br />
‘ a structu<strong>red</strong> association, established over a period of time, of more than two persons acting<br />
in concert with a view to committing offences which are punishable by <strong>de</strong>privation of liberty<br />
or a <strong>de</strong>tention or<strong>de</strong>r of a maximum of at least four years or a more serious penalty, to obtain,<br />
directly or indirectly, a financial or other material benefit’ 36 .<br />
30 This advertisement can be found on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmZm8vNHBSU<br />
(<strong>la</strong>st accessed 27/04/2011).<br />
31 David, M. (2010) ‘Peer to Peer and the Music Industry: - The Criminalisation of Sharing’, Sage at p.98.<br />
32 Reyman, J. (2010) ‘The Rhetoric of Intellectual Property: - Copyright Law and the Regu<strong>la</strong>tion of Digital<br />
Culture’, Routledge pp.61-62.<br />
33 Ibid at p.69.<br />
34 David, M. supra 31 at p.97.<br />
35 Ibid at p.99.<br />
36 Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA of 24 October 2008 on the fight against organised<br />
crime, OJ L 300 (11/11/2008) pp.42-45 at Article 1.
‘Piracy. It’s a crime.’ - The criminalisation process of digital copyright infringement<br />
145<br />
While it may be argued that benefit is bestowed upon downloa<strong>de</strong>rs, even if not in the<br />
form of direct financial gain, it is difficult to <strong>de</strong>termine how they could constitute members<br />
of an organised crime network insofar as the associations are not structu<strong>red</strong>, nor established<br />
over a period of time. Furthermore, and most importantly, individual acts of infringement<br />
are not a criminal offence un<strong>de</strong>r existing EU legis<strong>la</strong>tion, and <strong>de</strong>finitely not punishable by<br />
at least four years imprisonment. However, by phrasing Internet piracy in such terms, it is<br />
possible that industry representatives and policy makers may be able to change perceptions<br />
of the risks posed by Internet piracy. In the next sub-section of this article, the link between<br />
industry rhetoric and policy-making will be <strong>de</strong>monstrated.<br />
2.2. The legis<strong>la</strong>tive response, or, how discourse shapes policy<br />
One of the first instances in which copyright is refer<strong>red</strong> to as being more than an<br />
issue of pure market integration occur<strong>red</strong> in a 1998 Green Paper, in which it was stated<br />
that: -<br />
‘Counterfeiting and piracy likewise have damaging effects...in addition to the harm it does<br />
to the economy, the phenomenon is a veritable danger to society as a whole, inasmuch as it<br />
may affect public health (counterfeiting of medicinal products, adulterated alcoholic beverages)<br />
and safety (counterfeiting of toys or of car or aircraft components)’ 37 .<br />
While this issue does not <strong>de</strong>al with Internet-re<strong>la</strong>ted infringement specifically, it does<br />
suggest that the Commission consi<strong>de</strong><strong>red</strong> the issue of infringement more generally to be a<br />
serious issue. However, it does so by means of ‘damnation by association’ –linking counterfeiting,<br />
the creation of products inten<strong>de</strong>d to mislead the purchaser into consi<strong>de</strong>ring them<br />
genuine, to (in this instance) copied CDs. In doing so, the Commission creates a mental<br />
link between the two issues, <strong>de</strong>spite the risks associated with each being significantly different;<br />
whereas counterfeit aircraft components or fake medications may well pose serious<br />
threats to public health and safety, it is difficult to argue that a copied CD poses significant<br />
threats to public health38 . However, rather than consi<strong>de</strong>ring the issues in terms of individual<br />
acts of infringement, the Green Paper appears to consi<strong>de</strong>r the problem insofar as it re<strong>la</strong>tes to<br />
commercial-scale infringements. A Follow-Up to the Green Paper makes the link to Internet-re<strong>la</strong>ted<br />
infringement explicit; while reiterating that counterfeiting and piracy are serious<br />
issues, and stating that action must be taken, for the first time the Commission appears to<br />
consi<strong>de</strong>r the issue of piracy not only as serious in itself, but serious in its association to other<br />
activities. The Commission stated that ‘apart from the economic and social consequences, the<br />
37 Commission of the European Communities, ‘Green Paper on Combating Counterfeiting and Piracy in<br />
the Single Market’, (15/10/1998) COM(98)569 final at p.11.<br />
38 This is an interesting issue in itself, but a<strong>la</strong>s outsi<strong>de</strong> of the remit of this paper, and so I will not go<br />
into much more <strong>de</strong>tail. However, I have consi<strong>de</strong><strong>red</strong> the issue in much more <strong>de</strong>pth with a colleague,<br />
in Farrand, B. & Carrapico, H. cited at FN.21.
146 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
phenomenon appears to be increasingly linked to organised crime and is <strong>de</strong>veloping in new ways<br />
with the Internet’ 39 .<br />
With regard to the 2004 Enforcement Directive, mentioned in section 1, part of<br />
the impetus for strong enforcement mechanisms for intellectual property more generally,<br />
and copyright specifically, was ma<strong>de</strong> explicit in the preceding Commission Proposal 40 . It<br />
was <strong>de</strong>termined that stronger harmonised procedures were necessary not only to ensure<br />
the good functioning of the single market, but also as ‘this phenomenon (of piracy) appears<br />
to be increasingly linked to organised crime’ 41 , a statement repeated in the preamble of<br />
the Enforcement Directive. Furthermore, the Proposal argued, the ‘increasing use of the<br />
Internet enables pirated products to be distributed instantly around the globe’ 42 . In a section<br />
of the Proposal entitled ‘Ensuring the Maintenance of Public Or<strong>de</strong>r’, the Commission<br />
appears to be moving towards the consi<strong>de</strong>ration of piracy not only being a matter for the<br />
internal market, but also a matter of security: - ‘in the context of the Internet, the rapidity<br />
of illegal operations and the difficulty of tracking the operations further <strong>red</strong>uce the risks for the<br />
criminal....piracy (and counterfeiting) thus appears to be a factor in promoting crime, including<br />
terrorism’ 43 . Yet how did the Commission <strong>de</strong>termine that this is the case? According<br />
to the Proposal, this information came from consultation with ‘interested parties’, which<br />
exposed the ‘links between counterfeiting and piracy and organised crime’ 44 . These interested<br />
parties, according to a press release from 1999 inclu<strong>de</strong>d ‘tra<strong>de</strong> associations, intellectual<br />
property right-hol<strong>de</strong>rs, companies, <strong>la</strong>wyers, aca<strong>de</strong>mics, national administrations...(and) other<br />
EU institutions’ 45 . However, there is no mention of any civil society or consumer rights<br />
groups being represented, and unfortunately, it does not appear possible to find a list of<br />
the participants on the Europa website. Therefore, we must conclu<strong>de</strong>, that ‘as ever, the<br />
threatening statistics emanated from tra<strong>de</strong> groups and lobbyists’ 46 . There is some suspicion<br />
as to the validity and verifiability of these links as posited by the industry lobbyists; this<br />
39 Commission of the European Communities’Communication from the Commission to the Council,<br />
the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee Follow-up to the Green Paper on combating<br />
counterfeiting and piracy in the single market’ (30/11/2000) COM(2000) 789 final at <strong>para</strong>graph<br />
1 of the introduction.<br />
40 Commission of the European Communities’Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament<br />
and of the Council on measures and procedures to ensure the enforcement of intellectual property rights’<br />
(30/01/2003) COM(2003) 46 final.<br />
41 Ibid at p.3.<br />
42 Ibid.<br />
43 Ibid at p.12.<br />
44 Ibid.<br />
45 Single Market News, ‘Counterfeiting and Piracy: - Munich hearing endorses need for EU action’, DG Internal<br />
Market, (July 1999), accessible at http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/smn/smn17/s17mn37.<br />
htm (<strong>la</strong>st accessed 27/04/2011).<br />
46 Tapper, C. ‘Criminality and Copyright’, to be found in Vaver, D. & Bently, L. (eds) ‘Intellectual Property<br />
in the New Millennium: - Essays in Honour of William R. Cornish’ (2004) Cambridge at p.276
‘Piracy. It’s a crime.’ - The criminalisation process of digital copyright infringement<br />
147<br />
article however seeks to <strong>de</strong>monstrate how policy is influenced, rather than looking at the<br />
economic evi<strong>de</strong>nce itself 47 . Therefore, although press releases from IFPI only begin to<br />
speak of the links between organised crime and copyright infringement in 2004, it appears<br />
that lobbyists have influenced policy in this manner much earlier. However, linking<br />
the issue of Internet specifically to organised crime and terrorism appears to occur for the<br />
first time in a Commission release in this document.<br />
Rather than culminating with the passing of the 2004 Directive, rhetoric based strongly<br />
in the need to increase enforcement mechanisms to combat a real and present security<br />
threat appears to have continued unabated in the Commission. Although argued as disproportionate<br />
on its own merits, the Directive had nevertheless shied away from criminal liability<br />
for infringement as a general principle. However, in July 2005, a Commission statement<br />
consi<strong>de</strong>ring the need for the imposition of criminal sanctions by means of a Directive stated<br />
that: -<br />
‘counterfeiting and piracy...are a constantly growing phenomenon which nowadays has<br />
an international dimension...(and) they are a serious threat to national economies and<br />
governments(emphasis of the author)...increasing use of the Internet enables pirated products<br />
to be distributed instantly around the globe. Lastly, this phenomenon appears to be<br />
increasingly linked to organised crime’ 48 .<br />
Again, we can see here that the Commission is linking the issue of digital infringement<br />
by individuals being linked to the spectres of counterfeiting and mass-scale commercial<br />
piracy, with no distinction being ma<strong>de</strong> between the seriousness of the offences. As such, the<br />
Commission makes it clear in a subsequent document that ‘a Directive which could ensure<br />
that all intentional infringements of an intellectual property right on a commercial scale, and<br />
attempting, aiding or abetting and inciting such infringements are treated as criminal offences’ 49 is<br />
necessary in or<strong>de</strong>r to protect right-hol<strong>de</strong>rs. The Council agreed with the Commission, stating<br />
in 2006 that ‘the protection of intellectual property rights is of the utmost importance’ 50 . Interestingly,<br />
and once again showing the changing rhetoric and focus of intellectual property<br />
rights protection, the Council met to discuss the need for such sanctions un<strong>de</strong>r the Justice<br />
and Home Affairs pil<strong>la</strong>r, not the Community pil<strong>la</strong>r.<br />
47 Although see, for example, Professor James Boyle’s commentary at Boyle, J. ‘Fantasy and Reality<br />
in Intellectual Property’, (01/12/2010) accessible at James Boyle’s personal website at http://www.<br />
thepublicdomain.org/2010/12/01/fantasy-reality-in-intellectual-property-policy/ (<strong>la</strong>st accessed<br />
48<br />
27/04/2011), where it is stated that often ‘there is no methodology, there is no study…and <strong>de</strong>spite their<br />
baselessness…these statistics continue to be referenced by various industry and government sources as evi<strong>de</strong>nce<br />
of the significance of the counterfeiting and piracy problem’.<br />
European Commission, Previous initial legis<strong>la</strong>tive document COM/2005/0276 (12/07/2005).<br />
49 Commission Impact Assessment Document annexed to the procedure SEC/2005/0848 (12/07/2005).<br />
50 Criminal measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights, Council Activities<br />
COD/2005/0127 (05/10/2006).
148 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
Legis<strong>la</strong>tive efforts began with the publishing of a proposal for a Directive on Criminal<br />
Measures 51 , which aimed to harmonise the enforcement of criminal sanctions against copyright<br />
infringers involved in counterfeit and piracy. The Council sought to justify this on the<br />
grounds that ‘the TRIPS agreement <strong>la</strong>ys down minimum provisions on means of enforcing tra<strong>de</strong>re<strong>la</strong>ted<br />
intellectual property rights...these inclu<strong>de</strong> the implementation of criminal procedures and<br />
criminal penalties, but there are still major disparities in the legal situation in the Community<br />
which do not allow the hol<strong>de</strong>rs of intellectual property rights to benefit from an equivalent level of<br />
protection throughout the Community’ 52 . The draft accepted in April 2007 caused a great <strong>de</strong>al of<br />
concern to not only consumer advice groups, but also to national governments. The Article<br />
of TRIPS refer<strong>red</strong> to by the Council is Article 61, which dictates that Member States should<br />
provi<strong>de</strong> for criminal procedures and penalties in cases of wilful tra<strong>de</strong>mark counterfeiting or<br />
copyright piracy on a commercial scale. The Proposal, on the other hand, stated at Article 3<br />
that ‘all intentional infringements of an intellectual property right on a commercial scale’ should be<br />
punishable by criminal sanctions. Furthermore, Articles 4 and 5 seek to harmonise the nature<br />
and extent of penalties, such as a maximum of four years imprisonment for the most serious<br />
offences. This posed one particu<strong>la</strong>r problem – the Community did not at that time have the<br />
competence to harmonise matters of criminal <strong>la</strong>w in the Member States. This ren<strong>de</strong><strong>red</strong> the<br />
scope of the Proposal far greater than that of the TRIPS agreement, and outsi<strong>de</strong> the remit of<br />
the Community’s powers. However, due to the protests from some national governments that<br />
the proposed Directive went beyond the competences of the Community, the Directive was<br />
put on in<strong>de</strong>finite hiatus. The discourse, on the other hand, was not.<br />
In a statement at a conference on counterfeiting and piracy in Brussels in 2008, (then)<br />
Commissioner McCreevy stated that ‘I would like to begin by <strong>de</strong>aling with piracy. I have<br />
always had a problem with this term – it is too soft for what it <strong>de</strong>fines...but as all of you here<br />
today know, there is nothing romantic about the theft of material illegally downloa<strong>de</strong>d from the<br />
internet’ 53 . In this statement, it is <strong>de</strong>monstrated that the Commissioner for the Internal Market<br />
does not refer to copyright infringement as a civil ‘wrong’ with civil sanctions, but specifically<br />
as theft, using strong discourse to <strong>de</strong>nounce ‘thieves’ – a concept incorporated from<br />
criminal <strong>la</strong>w. In 2010, the Commission ma<strong>de</strong> it clear that they consi<strong>de</strong><strong>red</strong> infringement a<br />
criminal issue rather than a civil one; in a policy-initiating document inten<strong>de</strong>d to revive the<br />
Directive on Criminal Enforcement, it was stressed that: -<br />
‘ Counterfeiting and piracy appears to be increasingly linked to organised crime raising security<br />
and safety concerns and is also proven to be spreading over the Internet...the Commis-<br />
51 Amen<strong>de</strong>d Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and Council on Criminal Measures<br />
Aimed at Ensuring the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, COM/2006/0168 final COD<br />
2005/0127.<br />
52 Ibid, ‘Justification for the proposal’.<br />
53 Commissioner McCreevy (13/05/2008), speaking at the Conference on Counterfeiting and Piracy,<br />
Brussels, 13th May 2008, SPEECH/08/237 accessible at http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.<br />
do?reference=SPEECH/08/237&format=HTML&aged=0&<strong>la</strong>nguage=EN&guiLanguage=en (<strong>la</strong>st<br />
accessed 04/04/2011).
‘Piracy. It’s a crime.’ - The criminalisation process of digital copyright infringement<br />
149<br />
sion is currently analysing to what extent protection of intellectual property rights through<br />
criminal <strong>la</strong>w via a harmonized directive on criminal measures is necessary to supplement<br />
the enforcement of intellectual property rights through civil <strong>la</strong>w...’ 54<br />
It would therefore seem apparent that the Commission at least has adopted the securityre<strong>la</strong>ted<br />
rhetoric used by industry representatives, which helps to exp<strong>la</strong>in the current attempts<br />
to revitalise attempts to pass a Directive imposing criminal sanctions for infringement of<br />
intellectual property rights. It is equally apparent from the documents that the Commission<br />
does not appear to distinguish between counterfeiting, commercial scale physical piracy, and<br />
individual acts of infringement by Internet users, linking these issues together thematically<br />
by references to organised crime. In doing so, it would appear that the Commission is fully<br />
intent on reviving the ‘IPRED2’ Directive on criminal sanctions for intellectual property<br />
rights infringement, making the argument forcefully on the basis of a security threat, rather<br />
than on the basis of market harmonisation. Given the possibility of approximating criminal<br />
sanctions granted un<strong>de</strong>r Article 83 TFEU and the col<strong>la</strong>pse of the pil<strong>la</strong>r structure of the<br />
EU, it may also be the case that such a change is now well within the competences of the<br />
European Union.<br />
2.3. The cross-pollination of actors<br />
It is possible to consi<strong>de</strong>r that these beliefs arise not just because of lobbying on the<br />
behalf of creative industries, and the ‘evi<strong>de</strong>nce’ they provi<strong>de</strong> to European policy-makers<br />
(this evi<strong>de</strong>nce shall be given further consi<strong>de</strong>ration in the next chapter). In<strong>de</strong>ed, perhaps<br />
one potential reason for the significant weight of creative industries on policy direction in<br />
copyright <strong>la</strong>w can also be attributed to the ‘cross-pollination’ that occurs between the two<br />
groups of actors. One noteworthy example has occur<strong>red</strong> as recently as March 2011, when<br />
Maria Martin-Prat was appointed to the European Commission. Ms. Martin-Prat, prior to<br />
the appointment, was Deputy General Counsel, Director of Legal Policy and Regu<strong>la</strong>tory<br />
Affairs at IFPI 55 . According to Swedish MEP for the Pirate Party Christian Engström, Ms.<br />
Martin-Prat was appointed as Head of Unit for copyright and enforcement issues, and ‘will<br />
be coordinating the revision of the 2004/48/EG directive, otherwise known as the enforcement directive<br />
IPRED’ 56 . This could be consi<strong>de</strong><strong>red</strong> as an example of corporate regu<strong>la</strong>tory capture – a<br />
high-ranking industry lobbyist in a position focusing on strengthening right-hol<strong>de</strong>r protections<br />
appointed to a position where she is highly influential in dictating copyright enforce-<br />
54 Commission Staff Working Document, ‘Analysis of the application of Directive 2004/48/EC of the<br />
European Parliament and the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights<br />
in the Member States’ SEC(2010) 1589 final (22/12/2010) at p.25.<br />
55 IFPI Press Release (27/05/2004),’IFPI Director of Licensing and Litigation appointed’ IFPI accessible<br />
at http://www.ifpi.org/content/section_news/20040527c.html (<strong>la</strong>st accessed 27/04/2011)<br />
56 Engström, C.(30/03/2011) ‘IFPI lobbyist new head of ACTA and IPRED at the EU Commission’<br />
WordPress Blog, accessible at http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/2011/03/30/ifpi-lobbyistnew-head-of-acta-and-ip<strong>red</strong>-at-the-eu-commission/<br />
(<strong>la</strong>st accessed (27/04/2011).
150 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
ment policy and the drafting of a highly controversial Directive which may impose criminal<br />
sanctions for infringement. As Christian Engström states, it appears that ‘big business lobby<br />
organizations are calling most of the shots at the Commission...I guess the only real news is that<br />
they don’t even bother to try to hi<strong>de</strong> it any more’ 57 . Of particu<strong>la</strong>r concern to Engström and other<br />
MEPs, Maria Martin-Prat has been known previously for a significantly restrictive view of<br />
copyright, and has previously argued that ‘private copying had no reason to exist and should be<br />
limited further than it is. She c<strong>la</strong>imed that it was incompatible with the three-step test’ 58 . This<br />
perception, it is difficult to argue that any reform of the Enforcement Directive or new<br />
Directive will legitimately protect the interests of consumers, but may be p<strong>red</strong>icted to be<br />
even more restrictive than the already criticised system. It must be stated that this does not<br />
appear to be a special nor iso<strong>la</strong>ted inci<strong>de</strong>nt; recently, there have been two equally significant<br />
examples of this cross-pollination in the US. In one example, a former RIAA lobbyist was<br />
appointed as a US District Circuit judge, and less than ten days <strong>la</strong>ter <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong>d a significant<br />
copyright case in favour of the right-hol<strong>de</strong>r 59 . In this case, Judge Beryl Howell <strong>de</strong>termined<br />
that right-hol<strong>de</strong>rs, rather than bringing individual actions against individual infringers, were<br />
permitted to bring mass-action <strong>la</strong>w suits against groups of infringers (and thereby lower<br />
their costs), <strong>de</strong>spite several other <strong>de</strong>cisions in other courts stating that such actions were not<br />
permissible 60 . While her <strong>de</strong>cision may have been impartial, the fact that prior to her position<br />
as a judge in this type of case the judge was a lobbyist registe<strong>red</strong> as working on ‘legis<strong>la</strong>tion<br />
concerning copyright <strong>la</strong>ws as applied to digital music’ 61 , this impartiality can nevertheless be<br />
questioned, and may help to suggest why copyright <strong>la</strong>w tends towards a particu<strong>la</strong>r direction.<br />
Simi<strong>la</strong>r questions may be raised regarding the appointment of ex-Senator Chris Dodd as<br />
head of the MPAA, months after stating that he would not un<strong>de</strong>r any circumstance take<br />
a lobbying position once leaving the Senate 62 . Mr Dodd stated in his new position that he<br />
would lobby extensively for further extensions to copyright and restrictions of user rights,<br />
stating that: -<br />
57 Ibid.<br />
58 Love, J.(30/03/2011) ‘Maria Martin-Prat reported to rep<strong>la</strong>ce Tilman Lue<strong>de</strong>r as head of unit for copyright<br />
at European Commission’, Knowledge Economy International accessible at http://keionline.org/<br />
no<strong>de</strong>/1105 (<strong>la</strong>st accessed (27/04/2011).<br />
59 News (28/03/2011), ‘BitTorrent Case Judge Is a Former RIAA Lobbyist and Pirate Chaser’, TorrentFreak<br />
accessible at http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-case-judge-is-a-former-riaa-lobbyist-and-pirate-chaser-110328/<br />
(<strong>la</strong>st accessed 27/04/2011).<br />
60 An<strong>de</strong>rson, N.(28/03/2011) ‘RIAA lobbyist becomes fe<strong>de</strong>ral judge, rules on file-sharing cases’, Ars Technica,<br />
accessible at http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/riaa-lobbyist-becomes-fe<strong>de</strong>raljudge-rules-on-file-sharing-cases.ars<br />
(<strong>la</strong>st accessed 27/04/2011).<br />
61 Ibid.<br />
62 Masnick, M. (22/02/2011) ‘Chris Dodd Breaking Promise Not To Become A Lobbyist Just Weeks After<br />
Leaving Senate; Joining MPAA As Top Lobbyist’, TechDirt accessible at http://www.techdirt.com/<br />
articles/20110221/14490613193/chris-dodd-breaking-promise-not-to-become-lobbyist-just-weeksafter-leaving-senate-joining-mpaa-as-top-lobbyist.shtml<br />
(<strong>la</strong>st accessed 27/04/2011).
‘Piracy. It’s a crime.’ - The criminalisation process of digital copyright infringement<br />
151<br />
‘You know if you walk down main street people would arrest you if you walk into a retail<br />
store and stole items...it’s called looting in some cases. That’s exactly what is happening with intellectual<br />
property. It’s being looted and that needs to stop’ 63 .<br />
I refer to this process as ‘cross-pollination’ as i<strong>de</strong>as are taken from ‘p<strong>la</strong>nt’ to ‘p<strong>la</strong>nt’, or<br />
in this instance, from institution to institution, rather than being a one-way process. Lobbyists<br />
may take their preconceptions or policy objectives from their position as lobbyists,<br />
and convert this objective to legal policy upon becoming part of a <strong>la</strong>w-making institution.<br />
Furthermore, a policy-maker moving to a lobbying position may then use the knowledge<br />
and contacts gained in that institution and use it in their lobbying activities, combining<br />
knowledge of the political system with industry rhetoric. It is for reasons such as these that<br />
Directives such as those proposed for criminal sanctions for copyright infringement may<br />
well be passed; the apparent recycling of ‘arguments and proposals directly fed by the entertainment<br />
industry’ 64 , and the power and influence of lobbyists both within and without the system<br />
may help to exp<strong>la</strong>in how we reach a situation where ‘this legis<strong>la</strong>tion has provi<strong>de</strong>d for the<br />
mo<strong>de</strong>rn electronic publishing and entertainment industries a level of protection thought excessive<br />
for publishers of printed books nearly three centuries ago’ 65 .<br />
3. ConClusions and final remarks<br />
It appears to be the case from the analysis of legis<strong>la</strong>tive trends in this area that the EU<br />
is moving towards the consi<strong>de</strong>ration of IP infringement generally and digital copyright specifically<br />
as being issues of criminality. Lobbyist rhetoric may also help to exp<strong>la</strong>in the shift to<br />
a discourse based in security. The linking of copyright infringement to much more serious<br />
offences, ranging from child pornography offences to organised crime and terrorism seek to<br />
increase the perception of copyright infringement as a serious issue in its own right, through<br />
a form of guilt, or damnation, by association. This discourse appears to be accepted at the<br />
policy-maker level in a <strong>de</strong>monstrable way, with policy documents often repeating c<strong>la</strong>ims<br />
ma<strong>de</strong> by industry lobbyists verbatim, and an increasing level of security discourse being<br />
used in the push for criminal sanctions for infringement. It is further argued that crosspollination<br />
between lobbyist organisations and legal institutions such as the Commission<br />
help in the <strong>de</strong>velopment and acceptance of such i<strong>de</strong>as at the European level, and help to<br />
further shape policy.<br />
63 Block, A.B. (01/03/2011) ‘Official: - Chris Dodd to lead MPAA’, The Hollywood Reporter accessible<br />
at http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/official-chris-dodd-lead-mpaa-162817 (<strong>la</strong>st accessed<br />
27/04/2011).<br />
64 Zimmermann, J. & Aigrain, P.(05/04/2011) ‘European Copyright Law: - Collusion for the Control of<br />
the Net’, La Quadrature Du Net accessible at http://www.<strong>la</strong>quadrature.net/en/european-copyright<strong>la</strong>w-collusion-for-the-control-of-the-net<br />
(<strong>la</strong>st accessed 27/04/2011).<br />
65 Tapper, C. supra 46 at p.276.
152 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
Furthermore, it may well be the case that such discourse also has an impact on the<br />
<strong>de</strong>velopment of national and international <strong>la</strong>ws in this field, such as the HADOPI legis<strong>la</strong>tion<br />
in France, and the Anti-Counterfeiting Tra<strong>de</strong> Agreement (ACTA) being negotiated<br />
internationally. It is worth noting that ACTA, which bears some simi<strong>la</strong>rities to the<br />
Criminal Enforcement Directive Proposal and also inclu<strong>de</strong>s elements of the ‘graduated response’<br />
of HADOPI (a policy of potential disconnection for repeated infringements) was<br />
negotiated secretly, and most known information about the agreement came from leaks.<br />
This was confirmed when another activist organisation, Knowledge Ecology International<br />
(KEI), attempted to ensure the disclosure of the agreement through a Freedom of Information<br />
Act request, and was subsequently refused. According to the letter received by<br />
KEI, documents re<strong>la</strong>ting to the agreement were ‘being withheld in full pursuant to 5 U.S.C.<br />
s.522(b)(1), which pertains to information that is properly c<strong>la</strong>ssified in the interest of national<br />
security...’66. Simi<strong>la</strong>rly a leaked document from the Presi<strong>de</strong>ncy of the EU revealed that<br />
the EU ACTA negotiator was pushing for new criminal sanctions in the negotiations –<br />
indicating that the securitisation drive was not solely a US feature of the negotiations, but<br />
sha<strong>red</strong> by the EU institutions 67 . This process of criminalisation of copyright infringement<br />
could have potentially negative effects on Internet users. Conduct increasingly viewed as<br />
commonp<strong>la</strong>ce may be consi<strong>de</strong><strong>red</strong> as criminal, with significant repercussions, both penal<br />
and <strong>de</strong>prival; the possibility of imprisonment, and the possibility of a loss of Internet<br />
connection.<br />
4. BiBliography<br />
primary sources: legis<strong>la</strong>tive acts (chronologically)<br />
Agreement on Tra<strong>de</strong>-Re<strong>la</strong>ted Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, 1995.<br />
WIPO Copyright Treaty, adopted in Geneva on December 20, 1996.<br />
WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, adopted in Geneva on December 20, 1996.<br />
Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and re<strong>la</strong>ted<br />
rights in the information society [2001] OJ L167/10.<br />
Directive 2004/48 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights [2004] OJ L195/16.<br />
Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA of 24 October 2008 on the fight against organised<br />
crime, OJ L 300 (11/11/2008).<br />
66 Letter from the Executive Office of the Presi<strong>de</strong>nt, Office of the United States Tra<strong>de</strong> Representative,<br />
March 10 2009 at p2. accessible at http://www.keinonline.org/misc-docs/3/ustr_foia_<strong>de</strong>nial.pdf (<strong>la</strong>st<br />
accessed 04/08/2010).<br />
67 News (24/06/2010),’Leaks: - EU pushes for criminalising non-commercial usages in ACTA’ La Quadrature<br />
Du Net, accessible at http://www.<strong>la</strong>quadrature.net/en/leak-eu-pushes-for-criminalizing-noncommercial-usages-in-acta<br />
(<strong>la</strong>st accessed 27/04/2011).
‘Piracy. It’s a crime.’ - The criminalisation process of digital copyright infringement<br />
primary sources: pre-legis<strong>la</strong>tive documents, working papers etc. (chronologically)<br />
153<br />
Commission of the European Communities’Green Paper on Copyright and the Challenge<br />
of Technology – Copyright Issues Requiring Immediate Action’ COM/88/172 of 7 th June<br />
1998.<br />
Commission of the European Communities, ‘Green Paper on Combating Counterfeiting<br />
and Piracy in the Single Market’, (15/10/1998) COM(98)569 final.<br />
Commission of the European Communities’Communication from the Commission to the<br />
Council, the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee Follow-up to<br />
the Green Paper on combating counterfeiting and piracy in the single market’ (30/11/2000)<br />
COM(2000) 789 final.<br />
Commission of the European Communities’Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament<br />
and of the Council on measures and procedures to ensure the enforcement of intellectual<br />
property rights’ (30/01/2003) COM(2003) 46 final.<br />
European Commission, Previous initial legis<strong>la</strong>tive document COM/2005/0276 (12/07/2005).<br />
Commission Impact Assessment Document annexed to the procedure SEC/2005/0848<br />
(12/07/2005).<br />
Criminal measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights, Council<br />
Activities COD/2005/0127 (05/10/2006).<br />
Commission Staff Working Document, ‘Analysis of the application of Directive 2004/48/<br />
EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of<br />
intellectual property rights in the Member States’ SEC(2010) 1589 final (22/12/2010).<br />
primary sources: Case-<strong>la</strong>w (Chronologically)<br />
A&M Records, Inc (and others) v Napster, Inc, 239 F.3d 1004 (9 th Cir. 2001).<br />
primary sources: press releases and advertising (Chronologically)<br />
Single Market News (July 1999), ‘Counterfeiting and Piracy: - Munich hearing endorses<br />
need for EU action’, DG Internal Market, accessible at http://ec.europa.eu/internal_<br />
market/smn/smn17/s17mn37.htm (<strong>la</strong>st accessed 27/04/2011).<br />
Press Release,(20/07/2001) ‘Global Napster usage plummets but new file-sharing alternatives<br />
gaining ground, reports Jupiter Media Matrix’, ComScore, accessible at http://www.<br />
comscore.com/press/release.asp?id=249 (<strong>la</strong>st accessed 27/04/2011).<br />
Europa Press Release, ‘Proposed Directive on enforcement of intellectual property rights – frequently<br />
asked questions’, MEMO/03/20 (30/01/2003).<br />
IFPI, (2000) ‘Music Piracy Report 2000’.<br />
IFPI, (2001) ‘Music Piracy Report 2001’.<br />
IFPI, (2002) ‘Music Piracy Report 2002’.<br />
IFPI, (2003) ‘Music Piracy Report 2003’.
154 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
IFPI, (2004) ‘Music Piracy Report 2004’.<br />
IFPI Press Release (27/05/2004),’IFPI Director of Licensing and Litigation appointed’ IFPI<br />
accessible at http://www.ifpi.org/content/section_news/20040527c.html (<strong>la</strong>st accessed<br />
27/04/2011).<br />
IFPI, (2005) ‘Music Piracy: - Serious, Violent and Organised Crime’.<br />
Commissioner McCreevy (13/05/2008), speaking at the Conference on Counterfeiting<br />
and Piracy, Brussels, 13 th May 2008 SPEECH/08/237 accessible at http://europa.eu/<br />
rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/08/237&format=HTML&aged=0<br />
&<strong>la</strong>nguage=EN&guiLanguage=en (<strong>la</strong>st accessed 04/04/2011).<br />
IFPI (16/01/09) ‘IFPI publishes digital music report 2009’, accessible at http://www.ifpi.org/<br />
content/section_resources/dmr2009.html (<strong>la</strong>st accessed 27/04/2011).<br />
Letter from the Executive Office of the Presi<strong>de</strong>nt, Office of the United States Tra<strong>de</strong> Representative,<br />
March 10 2009 at p2. accessible at http://www.keinonline.org/misc-docs/3/<br />
ustr_foia_<strong>de</strong>nial.pdf (<strong>la</strong>st accessed 04/08/2010).<br />
secondary sources: Books (alphabetically by author)<br />
Bentley, L. and Sherman. B.(2004) ‘Intellectual Property Law’, 6 th Ed, Oxford University<br />
Press.<br />
David, M. (2010) ‘Peer to Peer and the Music Industry: - The Criminalisation of Sharing’, Sage.<br />
Gillespie, T.(2007) ‘Wi<strong>red</strong> Shut: - Copyright and the shape of digital culture’, MIT Press.<br />
Lucchi, N. (2006) ‘Digital Media & Intellectual Property’, Springer.<br />
Moncayo von Hase, A.’The Application and Interpretation of the Agreement on Tra<strong>de</strong>-<br />
Re<strong>la</strong>ted Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights’, to be found in Correa, C.M. & Yusuf,<br />
A.A. (eds) (1998) ‘Intellectual Property and International Tra<strong>de</strong>: The TRIPS Agreement’,<br />
Kluwer Law International.<br />
Reyman, J. (2010) ‘The Rhetoric of Intellectual Property: - Copyright Law and the Regu<strong>la</strong>tion<br />
of Digital Culture’, Routledge.<br />
Tapper, C. ‘Criminality and Copyright’, to be found in Vaver, D. & Bently, L. (eds) ‘Intellectual<br />
Property in the New Millennium: - Essays in Honour of William R. Cornish’ (2004)<br />
Cambridge.<br />
Tritton, G.(2008) ‘Intellectual Property Law in Europe’, 3 rd Ed, Sweet and Maxwell.<br />
secondary sources: articles (alphabetically by author)<br />
An<strong>de</strong>rson, N.(28/03/2011) ‘RIAA lobbyist becomes fe<strong>de</strong>ral judge, rules on file-sharing cases’,<br />
Ars Technica, accessible at http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/riaa-lobbyist-becomes-fe<strong>de</strong>ral-judge-rules-on-file-sharing-cases.ars<br />
(<strong>la</strong>st accessed 27/04/2011).<br />
Block, A.B. (01/03/2011) ‘Official: - Chris Dodd to lead MPAA’, The Hollywood Reporter<br />
accessible at http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/official-chris-dodd-leadmpaa-162817<br />
(<strong>la</strong>st accessed 27/04/2011).
‘Piracy. It’s a crime.’ - The criminalisation process of digital copyright infringement<br />
155<br />
Boyle, J. ‘Fantasy and Reality in Intellectual Property’, (01/12/2010) accessible at James<br />
Boyle’s personal website at http://www.thepublicdomain.org/2010/12/01/fantasy-reality-in-intellectual-property-policy/<br />
(<strong>la</strong>st accessed 27/04/2011).<br />
Engström, C. (30/03/2011) ‘IFPI lobbyist new head of ACTA and IPRED at the EU<br />
Commission’ WordPress Blog, accessible at http://christianengstrom.wordpress.<br />
com/2011/03/30/ifpi-lobbyist-new-head-of-acta-and-ip<strong>red</strong>-at-the-eu-commission/<br />
(<strong>la</strong>st accessed (27/04/2011).<br />
Farrand, B. & Carrapico, H.’Copyright <strong>la</strong>w as a matter of (inter)national security? –<br />
The attempt to securitise commercial infringement and its spill-over onto individual<br />
liability’(to be published in 2011).<br />
Kierkegaard, S.(2005) ‘Taking a sledge-hammer to crack the nut: - The EU Enforcement<br />
Directive’, Computer Law and Security Report 21(5) 488.<br />
Love, J.(30/03/2011) ‘Maria Martin-Prat reported to rep<strong>la</strong>ce Tilman Lue<strong>de</strong>r as head of unit<br />
for copyright at European Commission’, Knowledge Economy International accessible at<br />
http://keionline.org/no<strong>de</strong>/1105 (<strong>la</strong>st accessed (27/04/2011).<br />
Masnick, M. (22/02/2011) ‘Chris Dodd Breaking Promise Not To Become A Lobbyist Just<br />
Weeks After Leaving Senate; Joining MPAA As Top Lobbyist’, TechDirt accessible at http://<br />
www.techdirt.com/articles/20110221/14490613193/chris-dodd-breaking-promisenot-to-become-lobbyist-just-weeks-after-leaving-senate-joining-mpaa-as-top-lobbyist.<br />
shtml (<strong>la</strong>st accessed 27/04/2011).<br />
Net News, (15/10/2000) ‘No Killing the Napster Hydra’, The Observer, accessible at http://<br />
www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2000/oct/15/business.theobserver (<strong>la</strong>st accessed<br />
27/04/2011).<br />
News (24/06/2010),’Leaks: - EU pushes for criminalising non-commercial usages in ACTA’ La<br />
Quadrature Du Net, accessible at http://www.<strong>la</strong>quadrature.net/en/leak-eu-pushes-forcriminalizing-non-commercial-usages-in-acta<br />
(<strong>la</strong>st accessed 27/04/2011).<br />
News (28/03/2011), ‘BitTorrent Case Judge Is a Former RIAA Lobbyist and Pirate Chaser’,<br />
TorrentFreak accessible at http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-case-judge-is-a-formerriaa-lobbyist-and-pirate-chaser-110328/<br />
(<strong>la</strong>st accessed 27/04/2011).<br />
Samuelson, P. (1990) ‘Digital Media and the Changing Face of Intellectual Property<br />
Law’[1990] 16 Rutgers Computer & Tech LJ 323.<br />
Topham, G. (27/07/2000) ‘Napster’, The Guardian, accessible at http://www.guardian.<br />
co.uk/world/2000/jul/27/qanda.cybercinema (<strong>la</strong>st accessed 27/04/2011).<br />
Zimmermann, J. & Aigrain, P.(05/04/2011) ‘European Copyright Law: - Collusion for<br />
the Control of the Net’, La Quadrature Du Net accessible at http://www.<strong>la</strong>quadrature.<br />
net/en/european-copyright-<strong>la</strong>w-collusion-for-the-control-of-the-net (<strong>la</strong>st accessed<br />
27/04/2011).
COPyrIgHt At A POlICy CrOss-rOADs<br />
– ONlINe eNfOrCemeNt, tHe teleCOms PACkAge<br />
AND tHe DIgItAl eCONOmy ACt<br />
Dr. Monica Horten<br />
Author of the book The Copyright Enforcement Enigma - Internet Politics and the “Telecoms Package<br />
AbstrAct: The EU Telecoms Package and the matter of copyright created a puzzle for policy studies.<br />
The matter arose in the context of peer-to-peer file-sharing and copyright enforcement, and a small<br />
number of amendments that were apparently about copyright which were inserted into the EU telecoms<br />
framework. The policy problem concerns both telecoms and copyright scho<strong>la</strong>rs, and the un<strong>de</strong>rlying<br />
question to be posed is exactly why and in what ways could telecoms <strong>la</strong>w be targetted for<br />
copyright?<br />
This paper is written in two parts. The first part addresses the policy rationale behind copyright enforcement<br />
on broadband networks, and it exp<strong>la</strong>ins why the Telecoms Package was in fact, the appropriate<br />
policy instrument. The paper draws on a cross-disciplinary policy study conducted un<strong>de</strong>r the<br />
auspices of the author’s doctoral research, which analysed over 200 EU documentary sources.<br />
The aim of the amendments to the Telecoms Package was to provi<strong>de</strong> at EU level the necessary elements<br />
which would enable Member States to move forward with national copyright enforcement<br />
measures for the Internet.<br />
The second part of the paper attempts to <strong>de</strong>-construct one of the policies now being put in p<strong>la</strong>ce to<br />
enforce copyright against peer-to-peer file-sharing, namely the UK’s Digital Economy Act 2010. Using<br />
insights from the EU Telecoms Package, it discusses the structure inherent in the UK’s Digital<br />
Economy Act 2010, and the policy logic embed<strong>de</strong>d in it. This account will be brought right up to date<br />
by examining the arguments presented in the context of the Judicial Review of the Digital Economy<br />
Act in March 2011, where it can be seen how the rationale uncove<strong>red</strong> in the Telecoms Package analysis<br />
is reinforced.<br />
Keywords: telecoms Package; copyright enforcement; Digital Economy Act; copyright; internet;<br />
judicial review.<br />
The issue of peer-to-peer file-sharing and the distribution of creative works online presents<br />
a new policy dilemna. From the perspective of the industries who own the copyright<br />
to those works, there is a problem of enforcement of that right. From the perspective of the<br />
industries who own distribution networks, there is an established principle that they do not<br />
interfere with their customers’ communications. And a third perspective, that of citizens,<br />
presents another set of rights, including that of freedom of expression and due process,<br />
which must be guaranteed un<strong>de</strong>r European <strong>la</strong>w.<br />
The solution to the problem should enable a ba<strong>la</strong>nce to be found between these three<br />
conflicting sets of interests. However, the solutions being proposed focus on the enforcement<br />
of copyright, and leave the ba<strong>la</strong>nce of other interests somewhat hanging. For example,<br />
8
158 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
the so-called ‘graduated response’, where broadband provi<strong>de</strong>rs will be asked to take certain<br />
actions such as the transmission of warning notices on behalf of rights-hol<strong>de</strong>rs 1 , and the<br />
imposition of civil and criminal sanctions –such as suspension or termination of (cutting<br />
off) Internet access– without a court or<strong>de</strong>r.<br />
Such measures risk altering the liabilities of the broadband provi<strong>de</strong>rs, which will have<br />
spill-overs into other aspects of telecommunications policy. The potential incursions into<br />
fundamental rights complicate the matter further, especially since communications networks<br />
un<strong>de</strong>rpin one of the most precious of those fundamental rights, the right to freedom<br />
of expression 2 .<br />
Thus, whilst the problem re<strong>la</strong>tes to copyright policy, solutions such as graduated response<br />
impact seriously on telecoms policy. The cross-roads between the two policies of<br />
copyright and telecoms is a hitherto unexplo<strong>red</strong> issue and imposes new complexities for<br />
policy studies, as the technicalities of both areas of policy become intertwined.<br />
The first part of this paper draws on the travaux of the EU Telecoms Package to gain<br />
insights into this policy cross-roads and exposes three possibilities for amending telecoms<br />
<strong>la</strong>w to support copyright enforcement. The second part of the paper uses these insights to<br />
examine the UK’s Digital Economy Act 2010. This legis<strong>la</strong>tion sets out new measures <strong>de</strong>signed<br />
to support graduated response measures for copyright enforcement, and yet amends<br />
national telecommunications <strong>la</strong>w.<br />
1. tHe telecoms Package<br />
The EU Telecoms Package 3 was a review of European telecommunications framework<br />
<strong>la</strong>w which passed through the legis<strong>la</strong>ture in 2007-2009. It comprised the Framework, Access<br />
and Authorisation directives, the Universal Services and Users’ Rights Directive and the<br />
E-Privacy directive. The framework encompassed policy regarding the nature of the services<br />
provi<strong>de</strong>d, the commercial and societal obligations of communications service provi<strong>de</strong>rs, as<br />
well as the re<strong>la</strong>tionships between the provi<strong>de</strong>rs and their subscribers. The ‘users’ rights in this<br />
context re<strong>la</strong>te, not to fundamental rights, but to contractual rights between the subscribers<br />
and the provi<strong>de</strong>rs.<br />
The review became controversial for the attempted insertion of amendments in the<br />
European Parliament to support copyright enforcement measures, specifically graduated<br />
response. Copyright policy was of course, outsi<strong>de</strong> the scope of all of the directives un<strong>de</strong>r<br />
1 ‘Rights-hol<strong>de</strong>rs’ refers to those organisations in the creative industries which either own copyright or<br />
represent copyright owners.<br />
2 See the <strong>de</strong>cision of the French Constitutional Council of 10 June 2009 (Conseil Constitutionel, 2009)<br />
3 Framework, Access and Authorisation directives - 2009/140/EC; Universal Services and Users’ Rights,<br />
and E-Privacy Directives - 2009/136/EC;
Copyright at a policy cross-roads – online enforcement, the telecoms package and the digital economy act 159<br />
review. 4 However, the attempted amendments were cleverly written and attempted to work<br />
around that legal restriction. The amendments did not specify any direct policy for copyright,<br />
rather they called for actions on the part of the broadband provi<strong>de</strong>rs which would<br />
have the effect of supporting <strong>de</strong>si<strong>red</strong> policies for copyright. In some cases, they did not even<br />
contain the word ‘copyright’ but their aim was clear when the justifications were examined.<br />
Moreover, links can be established between the amendments and the wi<strong>de</strong>r policy agenda, in<br />
which the rights-hol<strong>de</strong>rs objectives are <strong>la</strong>id out. The amendments were not all carried into<br />
<strong>la</strong>w, some were rejected and others were themselves amen<strong>de</strong>d and ma<strong>de</strong> optional, however,<br />
an examination of the travaux and the policy agenda reveals how they could have fitted<br />
within the telecoms framework, and suggests further insights into how telecoms <strong>la</strong>w may be<br />
used to support copyright policies in respect of the Internet in the Member States.<br />
The amendments in question addressed three factors of telecoms policy. Firstly, they<br />
sought to establish a general obligation on the broadband provi<strong>de</strong>rs to take action for enforcement<br />
of copyright. Secondly, they <strong>de</strong>man<strong>de</strong>d a contractual obligation to be imposed by<br />
the provi<strong>de</strong>rs on their Internet subscribers. And thirdly, they sought access to personal data<br />
of Internet subscribers.<br />
1.1. a general obligation on broadband provi<strong>de</strong>rs<br />
The objective of a general obligation on the broadband provi<strong>de</strong>rs to take action for the<br />
enforcement of copyright, was to create a provision which would be legally bind them to<br />
do so. It does not in itself imply any specific measures, but it is a necessary pre-requisite for<br />
implementing online copyright enforcement measures. Its effect would be to create a new<br />
kind of liability for telecoms provi<strong>de</strong>rs in respect of the content carried on their networks,<br />
where the liability is not a direct responsibility for the content, but an indirect –or secondary–<br />
liability to punish or prevent alleged infringements.<br />
From the rights-hol<strong>de</strong>rs’ perspective, an obligation of this kind would enable them to<br />
ask broadband provi<strong>de</strong>rs to take actions with the force of the <strong>la</strong>w behind them. Having the<br />
obligation at a European level, would have given them the legal authority to put pressure on<br />
Member States, who would have been bound to implement the obligation in domestic <strong>la</strong>w.<br />
of course, from the broadband provi<strong>de</strong>rs’ perspective, it had other legal implications, not<br />
least of which was how it might encroach on their mere conduit5 status.<br />
In the Telecoms Package, two different attempts were ma<strong>de</strong> to create such an obligation.<br />
The first attempt was the insertion into the Authorisation directive of a condition<br />
which would have mandated broadband provi<strong>de</strong>rs to enforce copyright. It did so by asking<br />
them to comply with national measures implementing the copyright directive and the IP<br />
4 It was explicitly exclu<strong>de</strong>d un<strong>de</strong>r the 2002 Framework directive Article 2 2002/21/EC , Recital 5.<br />
5 Ecommerce directive 2000/31/EC Article 12.
160 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
Enforcement directive 6 . This was the provision in Annex 1 of the directive, inserting a Point<br />
19 7 which stated.<br />
“Compliance with national measures implementing Directive 2001/29/EC of the<br />
Parliament and the Council, and Directive 2004/48/EC of the Parliament and the<br />
Council”.<br />
The directives referenced are the 2001 Copyright directive, and the 2004 Intellectual<br />
Property Rights enforcement directive. The list of conditions in the Annex effectively<br />
equates to licence conditions – whilst provi<strong>de</strong>rs do not have to individually apply for licences,<br />
they do have to comply with the terms set out in the Authorisation directive as part<br />
of their entitlement to offer communications services in an EU Member State 8 . The intention<br />
of the amendment was to create a general obligation on the broadband provi<strong>de</strong>rs, to<br />
the extent that they could forfeit their right to tra<strong>de</strong> if they failed to enforce copyright. It<br />
is notable that the rights-hol<strong>de</strong>rs gave the provision their whole-hearted support, and they<br />
reinforced the objective of the provision to “facilitate the distribution of copyright protected<br />
content online” 9 in or<strong>de</strong>r to “establish a link between the legis<strong>la</strong>tion in the telecoms sector and<br />
respect for intellectual property’ 10 :<br />
“…it fully recognises that apart from their role as operators of telecoms infrastructure,<br />
the network operators are implicated in the means of distribution and access to content,<br />
among which is content protected by droit d’auteur’ 11<br />
This amendment was rejected by the European Parliament, and the rejection led to a<br />
second attempt to create a general obligation on broadband provi<strong>de</strong>rs. This was an amendment<br />
tabled in the European Parliament and aimed at “co-operation” between those provi<strong>de</strong>rs<br />
and the copyright hol<strong>de</strong>rs12 :<br />
‘ensuring that un<strong>de</strong>rtakings providing electronic communications services and networks<br />
cooperate with the sectors concerned with the protection and promotion of<br />
<strong>la</strong>wful content on electronic communications networks’.<br />
6 Directive 2001/29/EC and 2004/48/EC<br />
7 European Commission (2007a) - Proposal for a directive CoM (2007) 697 Final, Authorisation directive,<br />
Annex 1, Point 19.<br />
8 Administrative Court, (2011b.) Judgement regarding the Judicial Review of the Digital Economy Act.<br />
See Point 172.<br />
9 Eurocinema (2008a)<br />
10 Eurocinema (2008b )<br />
11 Eurocinema (2008a ). Trans<strong>la</strong>ted by the author from the original French: “ reconnaît pleinement qu’en<br />
<strong>de</strong>hors du rôle déterminant <strong>de</strong>s opérateurs <strong>de</strong> télécoms dans le secteur <strong>de</strong>s infrastructures, ces <strong>de</strong>rniers sont<br />
impliqués dans les moyens <strong>de</strong> distribution et d’accès aux contenus et, parmi ceux-ci, aux contenus légalement<br />
protégés par le droit d’auteur.”<br />
12 See Trautmann (2008) Amendment 308
Copyright at a policy cross-roads – online enforcement, the telecoms package and the digital economy act 161<br />
This ‘co-operation’ amendment was targeted at the Framework directive 13 in a section<br />
concerning the duties of regu<strong>la</strong>tors. The intention was to anchor co-operation between<br />
rights-hol<strong>de</strong>rs and broadband provi<strong>de</strong>rs, in the Telecoms Framework. The amendment as<br />
originally tabled, would have given the regu<strong>la</strong>tor a duty to ensure that the broadband provi<strong>de</strong>rs<br />
would work with rights-hol<strong>de</strong>rs for the enforcement of copyright. The rationale was<br />
that if an obligation could not be p<strong>la</strong>ced directly as a term for the broadband provi<strong>de</strong>r to<br />
conduct business, then it should be a regu<strong>la</strong>tory duty to impose such an obligation onto the<br />
provi<strong>de</strong>r on the basis that it is only with such ‘co-operation that procedures which enforce<br />
copyright can be established: 14<br />
“It p<strong>la</strong>ces on electronic communications services… an obligation to co-operate with<br />
intellectual property rights hol<strong>de</strong>rs (authors, producers, performers) to work out common<br />
ways and means of protecting and promoting copyrighted works. Enforcement of<br />
this obligation is entrusted to the national regu<strong>la</strong>tory authority…” 15<br />
Interestingly, the co-operation amendment was positioned among the duties of regu<strong>la</strong>tors<br />
to protect citizens, and it is notable that from the rights-hol<strong>de</strong>rs’ perspective, copyright<br />
is a fundamental right16 and its protection is a public policy objective.<br />
In fact, the co-operation amendment as originally tabled to the Framework directive17 ,<br />
was rejected by the European Parliament. What happened was that it was moved out of the<br />
Framework directive and into another directive, the Universal Services and Users Rights<br />
Directive, 18 and positioned within an Article that concerned dialogue with citizens and other<br />
interested groups. The new amendment read:<br />
“national regu<strong>la</strong>tory authorities ...shall...promote cooperation between un<strong>de</strong>rtakings<br />
providing electronic communications networks and/or services and the sectors interested<br />
in the protection and promotion of <strong>la</strong>wful content’ 19<br />
Although it contained simi<strong>la</strong>r <strong>la</strong>nguage, the re-positioning arguably could weaken it to<br />
be nothing more than ‘talking’ and lowers the obligation on regu<strong>la</strong>tors or provi<strong>de</strong>rs to take<br />
13 Directive 2002/21/EC Article 8.4 which sets out the duties of regu<strong>la</strong>tors to protect the interests of European<br />
citizens.<br />
14 Eurocinema (2008b) Trans<strong>la</strong>ted by the author from the original French : Ce n’est que dans <strong>la</strong> mesure où<br />
créateurs et producteurs <strong>de</strong> contenus d’une part et prestataires d’accès et <strong>de</strong> distribution <strong>de</strong> contenus d’autre part<br />
coopéreront pleinement que <strong>de</strong>s modalités respectueuses du droit d’auteur pourront être établies et que <strong>de</strong>s offres<br />
légales <strong>de</strong> contenus pourront se développer. Pour qu’elle soit pleinement effective, cette coopération doit s’inscrire<br />
dans le cadre <strong>de</strong>s tâches légales <strong>de</strong>s autorités nationales <strong>de</strong> régu<strong>la</strong>tion, telles que visées à l’article 8 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> directive<br />
cadre.<br />
15 Trautmann (2008) Amendment 308, Justification .<br />
16 European Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 17.2 where Article 17 is the right to property.<br />
17 Ibid 9 Amendment 308 to the Trautmann report of July 2008, (Trautmann, 2008)<br />
18 2002/22/EC .<br />
19 The provision as carried is Article 33.3 of Directive 2009/136/EC
162 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
any action 20 . It was also slightly re-drafted in the final version, so that it optional – Member<br />
States and regu<strong>la</strong>tors do not have to implement it. on the other hand, it leaves the<br />
door open for those which do wish to proceed with online copyright enforcement measures.<br />
From a policy perspective, it illustrates an attempt to work around the exclusion of copyright<br />
from the scope of the directive, by giving the broadband provi<strong>de</strong>rs a general instruction to<br />
‘co-operate’ with another industry, without specifying what that co-operation should be.<br />
However, the interpretation is open to legal test.<br />
1.2. a contractual obligation on internet subscribers<br />
The second policy factor revealed by a study of the Telecoms Package travaux is a contractual<br />
obligation on broadband subscribers to respect copyright. Specifically, the contract<br />
should state that the provi<strong>de</strong>r will take any action requi<strong>red</strong> if the subscriber is <strong>de</strong>emed to<br />
have infringed copyright, and specify what that action is. Examples of such actions could be<br />
suspension of the access for a period of time, or termination of the contract, or slowing the<br />
speed of the connection. 21 The contract should also inclu<strong>de</strong> the grounds for <strong>de</strong>termining<br />
whether the action applied. Traditionally, this would mean receipt of a court or<strong>de</strong>r. Un<strong>de</strong>r<br />
some other new system, it could mean that the provi<strong>de</strong>r was advised in some other way, such<br />
as via a notice from a rights-hol<strong>de</strong>r, or was legally entitled to take such <strong>de</strong>cisions itself. The<br />
insertion of such a provision would ensure that there could be a legal basis for cutting off<br />
subscribers who infringed copyright. In other words, the subscriber’s contract could become<br />
the mechanism for broadband provi<strong>de</strong>rs to cut off access. Had it been inserted in the Telecoms<br />
Package, it would have had the effect of harmonising the contractual requirement in<br />
all 27 EU Member States.<br />
What happened was that the Telecoms Package arrived in the European Parliament,<br />
incorporating the following provision:<br />
“Member States shall ensure that where contracts are conclu<strong>de</strong>d between subscribers<br />
and un<strong>de</strong>rtakings providing communications services…, subscribers are informed in<br />
advance of the conclusion of the contract and regu<strong>la</strong>rly thereafter of their obligations<br />
to respect copyright and re<strong>la</strong>ted rights… this inclu<strong>de</strong>s the obligation to inform subscribers<br />
of the most common acts of infringement and their legal consequences”. 22<br />
This provision was rejected by the European Parliament, on the grounds that the liability<br />
implied for broadband provi<strong>de</strong>rs was out of scope of the directive23 . However, a<br />
compromise was formu<strong>la</strong>ted which satisfied the political <strong>de</strong>mands of factions within the Par-<br />
20 This was the position taken by the rapporteur, and the interpretation given here follows discussions with<br />
the author in March 2011.<br />
21 Digital Economy Act 2010, Article 9.3 a-d.<br />
22 CoM(2007) 698 final , European Commission, 2007b, Universal Services Directive, Article 20.6<br />
23 See for example, <strong>de</strong>letion amendments: 164 and 165, in the Rapporteur’s amendments of 15 May 2008.<br />
(Harbour 2008)
Copyright at a policy cross-roads – online enforcement, the telecoms package and the digital economy act 163<br />
liament which wanted to see the introduction of online copyright enforcement measures at<br />
a European level, and the factions which were keen to protect the liability of the broadband<br />
provi<strong>de</strong>rs. The compromise was drafted across two linked provisions, Article 20 (Contracts)<br />
and Article 21 (Transparency).<br />
“Article 20. The contract shall specify […] any conditions limiting access to and or use<br />
of services and applications. […] Member States may also require that the contract<br />
inclu<strong>de</strong> any information which may be provi<strong>de</strong>d by the relevant public authorities […]<br />
refer<strong>red</strong> to in Article 21.4(a).”<br />
“Article 21.4(a) the most common uses of electronic communications services to engage<br />
in un<strong>la</strong>wful activities, particu<strong>la</strong>rly where it may prejudice the rights and freedoms<br />
of others, including infringements of copyright and re<strong>la</strong>ted rights and their legal consequences.”<br />
The compromise can be read two ways, and once again, its interpretation may be subject<br />
to legal test in the courts at some point. It can be read as imposing a very simi<strong>la</strong>r requirement<br />
to the <strong>de</strong>leted Article 20.624 , except that, in its final form, it is optional and therefore<br />
it is up to the Member States individually to <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong> whether to implement it. The alternative<br />
reading, and that inten<strong>de</strong>d by the rapporteur25 , is that it only requires the broadband<br />
provi<strong>de</strong>r to transmit messages of a general nature which must be sent to all subscribers, and<br />
which will be drafted by the national regu<strong>la</strong>tor. Un<strong>de</strong>r this alternative interpretation, it may<br />
not be used to support the sending of warning notices to individual subscribers.<br />
Either way, the message for policy studies remains that a key mechanism for Internet<br />
copyright enforcement measures will be the broadband provi<strong>de</strong>r’s contract, where subscribers<br />
can be cut off or their connection restricted un<strong>de</strong>r the terms of the contract, without the<br />
involvement of a court, and that such a mechanism can imply a new form of liability for<br />
broadband provi<strong>de</strong>rs.<br />
1.3. access to subscribers’ data<br />
The third factor of online copyright enforcement policies revealed by the Telecoms<br />
Package travaux was a requirement for access to Internet subscribers’ personal data. In a<br />
nutshell, if online copyright enforcement policy requires sanctions to be applied against<br />
individual Internet subscribers, it follows that there would be a need to know the i<strong>de</strong>ntity<br />
of those subscribers.<br />
From a public policy perspective, in the EU, access to subscriber i<strong>de</strong>ntifying data<br />
would create problems. The political issue was that the European privacy <strong>la</strong>w, notably the<br />
24 Eurocinema, 2008 : La commission du marché intérieur et <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> protection <strong>de</strong>s consommateurs a adopté ces<br />
dispositions en les modifiant quelque peu mais en conservant <strong>la</strong> cohérence d’ensemble. Nous soutenons donc les<br />
dispositions introduites par les compromis 2 et 3 visant les articles 20 et 21 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> directive service universel<br />
25 Author’s discussions with the rapporteur in March 2011.
164 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
E-privacy directive 26 working together with the Data Protection directive 27 , preclu<strong>de</strong>d the<br />
broadband provi<strong>de</strong>rs giving out personal information, and arguably did not permit them to<br />
retain traffic data for any purpose connected with copyright. Article 15.1 of the E-privacy<br />
directive <strong>de</strong>tails certain purposes for which data can be retained, and provi<strong>de</strong>s a hook into<br />
the Data Retention directive, which provi<strong>de</strong>s for retention only for serious crime and national<br />
security. It does not list copyright as one of the purposes. Moreover, Article 5 of the<br />
E-privacy directive establishes the confi<strong>de</strong>ntiality of traffic data 28 . For this reason, there was<br />
a <strong>de</strong>mand to change the <strong>la</strong>w, but there was also a huge resistance. Privacy <strong>la</strong>w is a strong<br />
principle un<strong>de</strong>r European <strong>la</strong>w, and policy-makers are inclined, if anything, to strengthen it,<br />
making data more difficult to access, rather than weaken it.<br />
Whether or not broadband provi<strong>de</strong>rs should hand over subscriber data was put to the<br />
test in the European Court of Justice, in the case of Promusicae v Telefonica. It was filed<br />
in 2006 by the collecting society Productores <strong>de</strong> Musica <strong>de</strong> Espana (Promusicae) against<br />
the Spanish network provi<strong>de</strong>r, Telefonica. on 29 January 2008, the ECJ ruled that EU <strong>la</strong>w<br />
would not forbid the Spanish court from asking Telefonica to hand over the data, backing<br />
up the rights-hol<strong>de</strong>rs argument, but also that there was nothing in EU <strong>la</strong>w which obligated<br />
the national court to force broadband provi<strong>de</strong>rs to disclose the data. Effectively, the ECJ left<br />
the matter to the Member States 29 , asking them to establish a fair ba<strong>la</strong>nce between the right<br />
to privacy on the one hand, and the right to intellectual property and a fair remedy, on the<br />
other.<br />
Hence, two amendments were tabled to the Telecoms Package, seeking to address the<br />
accessibility of data for copyright purposes. one was a recital - for guidance only - which reiterated<br />
the Promusicae judgement, and arguably, given the equivocal nature of that judgement,<br />
could be used to support a case for either rights-hol<strong>de</strong>rs or broadband provi<strong>de</strong>rs 30 . The<br />
second privacy amendment addressed Article 15.1 of the E-privacy directive and sought to<br />
give rights-hol<strong>de</strong>rs access to retained communications data, by including the words ‘ and the<br />
protection of the rights and freedoms of others’ to a list of purposes for which communications<br />
traffic data may be retained 31 . The intention of the amendment was ‘to increase legal certainty<br />
in the context of the recent ECJ judgment (C-275/06)’ 32 and this was requi<strong>red</strong> “with a view to<br />
safeguarding the rights and freedoms of others and thus ensuring enhanced protection for intellectual<br />
property rights in connection with electronic communication networks.” 33 It was rejected<br />
26 Directive 2002/58/EC<br />
27 Directive 95/46/EC<br />
28 EDPS, 2008, p4, point 15.<br />
29 For further discussion of the Promusicae case see Cou<strong>de</strong>rt and Werkers, 2008; and Peguera, 2009,<br />
pp493-494.<br />
30 Harbour 2008b, Amendment 35; Promusicae amendment .<br />
31 Harbour 2008a, Amendment 291 by Jacques Toubon<br />
32 Harbour 2008a, Justification to Amendment 291<br />
33 See Alvaro (2008) Amendment 81 tabled by Patrick Gaubert, and its justification.
Copyright at a policy cross-roads – online enforcement, the telecoms package and the digital economy act 165<br />
by the European Parliament, giving a clear message that such a change was not acceptable<br />
at European level 34 .<br />
There was also an attempt to extend the ability to process traffic data for security purposes.<br />
This attempt took the form of an amendment to Article 6 of the E-privacy directive 35<br />
which governs the processing of traffic data. It was re<strong>la</strong>ted to a different policy agenda which<br />
did not concern copyright, however, its effect could have benefited those who wanted to see<br />
online copyright enforcement measures, in that it would potentially have ma<strong>de</strong> avai<strong>la</strong>ble a<br />
<strong>la</strong>rger pool of traffic data to mine for copyright enforcement purposes 36 . The amendment<br />
was rejected by the Council of Ministers, following pressure from the German government 37 .<br />
1.4. linking to the policy agenda<br />
These amendments remain something of a puzzle until we put them together with the<br />
wi<strong>de</strong>r policy agenda. They were a puzzle because they were not part of the Telecoms policy<br />
agenda, and had not been discussed in the consultations which prece<strong>de</strong>d the drafting of the<br />
legis<strong>la</strong>tion. Specifically, the Commission’s Impact Assessment makes no mention whatsoever<br />
of copyright 38 .<br />
To state the obvious, the policy agenda for online enforcement of copyright falls un<strong>de</strong>r<br />
the remit of the units in the European Commission which have responsibility for copyright<br />
39 . Copyright does not fall un<strong>de</strong>r the remit of those responsible for telecoms. Therefore,<br />
if we want to un<strong>de</strong>rstand this agenda, examining the policy documents, consultations, hearings<br />
and statements for telecoms may not be so helpful. Instead we have to examine those<br />
which were generated through the copyright policy processes.<br />
In this regard, we turn to the European Commission’s Consultation for Creative Content<br />
online, which inclu<strong>de</strong>d a <strong>de</strong>tailed discussion of online copyright enforcement measures.<br />
The consultation questions cove<strong>red</strong> three aspects – co-operation between rights-hol<strong>de</strong>rs and<br />
34 The French Creation and Internet <strong>la</strong>w establishing a graduated response system does alter privacy <strong>la</strong>w<br />
to this effect. Note Article 14, which modifies the Co<strong>de</strong> of Posts and Telecommunications. (Legifrance,<br />
2009).<br />
35 Directive 2002/58/EC Article 6. The Amendment 181, which incorporated the text: traffic data may<br />
be processed for the legitimate interest of the data controller for the purpose of implementing technical<br />
measures to ensure the network and information security. See European Parliament, 2008, Amendment<br />
181.<br />
36 Thanks to Professor Lilian Edwards for helping me analyse this.<br />
37 The German citizens’ advocacy group AK Vorrat led the campaign against the Amendment to Article 6.<br />
See AK Vorrat 2009.<br />
38 European Commission Impact Assessment 13 November 2007, SEC(2007) 1472 (European Commission,<br />
2007c )<br />
39 DG Internal Market, Directorate D, Knowledge-based Economy. At the time of the Telecoms Package,<br />
copyright was being addressed by DG Information Society, Audio-visual and Media Directorate. Telecoms<br />
was, and still is, addressed by DG Information Society, Telecoms Unit B1.
166 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
broadband provi<strong>de</strong>rs; the French ‘Mission olivennes’ proposals for graduated response 40 ;<br />
and content filtering 41 . The responses from the rights-hol<strong>de</strong>rs reveal the factors <strong>de</strong>scribed<br />
above in the context of the Telecoms Package as well as the rationale behind them. Firstly,the<br />
Creative Content online responses show how the rights-hol<strong>de</strong>rs <strong>de</strong>man<strong>de</strong>d a general obligation<br />
on the broadband provi<strong>de</strong>rs to enforce copyright, which was sometimes expressed using<br />
the word ‘co-operation’ – and hence the word ‘co-operation’ in this context has arguably<br />
acqui<strong>red</strong> a loa<strong>de</strong>d meaning. Secondly, the responses illustrate the measures <strong>de</strong>man<strong>de</strong>d by<br />
rights-hol<strong>de</strong>rs, known as graduated response, which entailed a system of warnings being<br />
transmitted to Internet users via the broadband provi<strong>de</strong>rs, and if those notices were not<br />
hee<strong>de</strong>d, then the system would inclu<strong>de</strong> sanctions that could be applied. The sanction which<br />
was being <strong>de</strong>man<strong>de</strong>d was that subscribers’ Internet access would be cut off, and the rightshol<strong>de</strong>rs<br />
wanted the broadband provi<strong>de</strong>rs to do it un<strong>de</strong>r the terms of their contract:<br />
“one of the most effective steps an ISP could take is to warn infringing subscribers and<br />
thereafter to suspend and, eventually, terminate services to subscribers who are repeatedly<br />
abusing the service to infringe copyright..”. 42<br />
Thirdly, the Creative Content online responses highlight how privacy <strong>la</strong>w was an obstacle<br />
to achieving the graduated response system which the rights-hol<strong>de</strong>rs wanted.<br />
overall, the responses indicated that the rights-hol<strong>de</strong>rs were targetting the Telecoms<br />
Package review for legal changes. The Motion Picture Association (MPA), which represents<br />
the Hollywood film studios 43 , said that the Telecoms Package was an opportunity to ‘set<br />
the ground-rules’ for stakehol<strong>de</strong>r co-operation 44 and signal the will at European level to fight<br />
piracy on the Internet. Moreover, the ‘need for a level p<strong>la</strong>ying field thus clearly justifies EUintervention<br />
in this matter.’ 45<br />
The French collecting society, the SACD 46 , lobbied for “an obligation for the electronic<br />
communication networks and services to cooperate with copyright hol<strong>de</strong>rs… for the protection<br />
and promotion of <strong>la</strong>wful content” … to be inclu<strong>de</strong>d in the Framework directive. The SACD<br />
and Eurocinema additionally argued for an amendment to alter the E-privacy directive, and<br />
enable rights-hol<strong>de</strong>rs to get access to retained communications traffic data. They argued that<br />
it would ‘<strong>red</strong>ress the ba<strong>la</strong>nce’ between the right to privacy and copyright 47 .<br />
40 As outlined in the report Mission olivennes (2007)<br />
41 European Commission, Information Society and Media directorate (2008 ), p 11.<br />
42 IFPI, 2008, p11.<br />
43 Paramount Pictures Corporation; Sony Pictures Entertainment; Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation;<br />
Universal City Studios; Walt Disney Studios; Warner Bros. Entertainment.<br />
44 MPA (2008) p 9.<br />
45 IFPI, 2008, p11<br />
46 Lobbying letter addressed to MEPs. See SACD 2008.<br />
47 Eurocinema (2008a)
Copyright at a policy cross-roads – online enforcement, the telecoms package and the digital economy act 167<br />
The need for subscriber i<strong>de</strong>ntity data concerned the need to know which users had<br />
been allocated IP addresses collected by surveil<strong>la</strong>nce of users on peer-to-peer file-sharing<br />
networks. The subscriber contact <strong>de</strong>tails would enable litigation, or some other sanction,<br />
such as asking the broadband provi<strong>de</strong>r to cut off the user’s access.<br />
The un<strong>de</strong>rlying intention of the graduated response measures was to avoid the court<br />
process. The measures would enable sanctions to be applied against Internet subscribers<br />
without a court or<strong>de</strong>r being obtained first. Such extra-judicial measures suggest a regime<br />
of private or<strong>de</strong>rings ‘where ISPs are or<strong>de</strong><strong>red</strong> to co-operate with rights-hol<strong>de</strong>rs to monitor users’.<br />
48 The final draft of the Telecoms Package contains a measure which attempts to preclu<strong>de</strong><br />
Member States from implementing such regimes of private or<strong>de</strong>rings, by <strong>de</strong>scribing the<br />
court process and reminding governments that they are un<strong>de</strong>r an obligation to provi<strong>de</strong><br />
guarantees to individual citizens, in this case to Internet subscribers, un<strong>de</strong>r the EU legal<br />
framework of fundamental rights. This provision –Article 1.3a of the Framework directive 49 –<br />
inten<strong>de</strong>d to protect the right to due process. It did so within the limitations of European<br />
<strong>la</strong>w, where telecoms comes un<strong>de</strong>r the economic framework and hence telecoms <strong>la</strong>w may not<br />
address legal processes.<br />
2. tHe digital economy act<br />
In <strong>para</strong>llel with the Telecoms Package passing through the Brussels legis<strong>la</strong>ture, the<br />
British government began work on a policy which had the objective of enforcing copyright<br />
online. This became the Digital Economy Act 2010.<br />
The Act is complex in its structure and confusingly drafted. However, it is arguable<br />
that the factors i<strong>de</strong>ntified in the Telecoms Package are instructive for <strong>de</strong>veloping an un<strong>de</strong>rstanding<br />
of it. In particu<strong>la</strong>r, how it seeks to address the requirements of the policy agenda<br />
for copyright enforcement by applying a form of graduated response. It provi<strong>de</strong>s for an<br />
extra-judicial sanction which works around privacy <strong>la</strong>w by means of a series of ‘co-operation’<br />
obligations imposed on the broadband provi<strong>de</strong>rs combined with a new duty p<strong>la</strong>ced on the<br />
regu<strong>la</strong>tor.<br />
2.1. a suite of obligations imposed on broadband provi<strong>de</strong>rs and the regu<strong>la</strong>tor<br />
The Digital Economy Act 2010, Sections 3-18, sets out new rules for <strong>de</strong>aling with<br />
copyright enforcement online. It amends the Communications Act 2003, and specifically, it<br />
amends that part of the Communications Act which <strong>de</strong>als with telecommunications regu<strong>la</strong>-<br />
48 Kaminski (2010) p37. Kaminsky introduces the notion of private or<strong>de</strong>rings in the context of graduated<br />
response and the ACTA ( Anti-counterfeiting Tra<strong>de</strong> Agreement). See also p7, p 21, p43. The notion of<br />
privately or<strong>de</strong><strong>red</strong> graduated response is also discussed in Bridy (2010).<br />
49 The Framework directive as amen<strong>de</strong>d by Directive 2009/140/EC
168 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
tion. It is slotted in to Article 124, which addresses premium rate services 50 . The Act does<br />
not in this instance, amend copyright <strong>la</strong>w. Strangely, it does not even <strong>de</strong>fine what a copyright<br />
infringement is 51 .<br />
What it does do, is <strong>de</strong>fine a series of processes for enforcing copyright in the specific<br />
context of infringement of copyright which may take p<strong>la</strong>ce using the Internet or an electronic<br />
communications service. It is based on the presumption that the broadband provi<strong>de</strong>rs<br />
must be obligated to take certain actions on behalf of rights-hol<strong>de</strong>rs 52 who are given the<br />
entitlement to specify without going to court, that an infringement has taken p<strong>la</strong>ce.<br />
Drawing on our un<strong>de</strong>rstanding of the rights-hol<strong>de</strong>rs agenda from the Telecoms Package,<br />
it can be seen how the Digital Economy Act is <strong>de</strong>signed to function by imposing not<br />
one, but a suite of three, core obligations onto the broadband provi<strong>de</strong>rs. They are the Obligation<br />
to notify subscribers of copyright infringement reports; the Obligation to provi<strong>de</strong> copyright<br />
infringement lists to copyright owners; and the Obligation to Limit Internet Access 53 .<br />
The first two obligations mandate the broadband provi<strong>de</strong>r to implement the system of<br />
warning notices, and to maintain a list of subscribers to whom they are asked to send repeat<br />
notices The third obligation <strong>de</strong>mands that the broadband provi<strong>de</strong>rs apply an extra-judicial<br />
sanction against their own subscribers 54 .<br />
The Act then mandates two different courses of action. The first course of action obliges<br />
the broadband provi<strong>de</strong>rs to supply the rights-hol<strong>de</strong>rs with lists of the subscribers who have<br />
received repeat notices (these are refer<strong>red</strong> to as ‘repeat infringers’ lists). The rights-hol<strong>de</strong>rs<br />
are then permitted to apply for a court or<strong>de</strong>r to obtain the personal data of the subscribers.<br />
In the UK, this is known as a Norwich Pharmacal or<strong>de</strong>r 55 , which enables information to<br />
be obtained from intermediaries who have p<strong>la</strong>yed no role in the offence but who may hold<br />
information re<strong>la</strong>ted to the offence. Having obtained the personal data, the rights-hol<strong>de</strong>rs are<br />
free to litigate against those subscribers.<br />
The second course of action, which will only be implemented as a minimum one<br />
year after the initial measures have commenced, entails the Obligation to Limit Internet<br />
50 It is not clear why the drafters chose to use this particu<strong>la</strong>r Article which does not seem to be entirely<br />
appropriate.<br />
51 The Digital Economy Act <strong>de</strong>fines an ‘apparent infringement’ in Article 16 which sets out <strong>de</strong>finitions, but<br />
does not <strong>de</strong>fine infringement.<br />
52 The Digital Economy Act uses the term ‘copyright owners’.<br />
53 Digital Economy Act 2010 2010 Article 3 and Article 4, inserting new sections 124A and 124B into the<br />
Communications Act 2003, and Article 10, inserting a new Article 124H.<br />
54 Note that these obligations were relied on by BT and TalkTalk in their challenge to the Act. The judgement<br />
(Administrative Court, 2011) does not disagree that such obligations are p<strong>la</strong>ced on broadband<br />
provi<strong>de</strong>rs, but relies instead on ‘legal effect’ – whether or not they are <strong>de</strong>emed to be in force at the time<br />
of the court challenge.<br />
55 Administrative Court 2011, Point 238 (Judgement in the matter of the Judicial Review of the Digital<br />
Economy Act)
Copyright at a policy cross-roads – online enforcement, the telecoms package and the digital economy act 169<br />
Access. This obligation mandates the broadband provi<strong>de</strong>r to implement a sanction directly<br />
against their subscribers, without a court or<strong>de</strong>r. The sanction is <strong>de</strong>fined as a ‘technical<br />
measure’, which, as specified by the Act, will ‘limit the speed of the connection, prevent a subscriber<br />
from using the service to access particu<strong>la</strong>r material, or suspend the service. In practice,<br />
technical measures mean the broadband provi<strong>de</strong>r may be asked to suspend Internet access<br />
altogether, the slow the speed of the connection, or to filter the Internet service against<br />
criteria which may be the type protocol or the type of content permitted 56 . Suspension<br />
of the service is what is commonly known as ‘cutting off’, since it means the subscriber<br />
would not be able to gain access to the Internet through their connection for a specified<br />
period of time 57 .<br />
Sanctions based on technical measures would be applied to those subscribers which are<br />
on the ‘repeat infringers list’, using criteria yet to be <strong>de</strong>termined, but which are likely to be<br />
<strong>de</strong>termined by the number of repeat notices which have been sent. It is likely that the sanction<br />
will beapplied after the third warning notice has been sent58 If all three of these obligations<br />
on broadband provi<strong>de</strong>rs are taken together, they equate to an obligation to impose a<br />
graduated response scheme of warnings, followed by a sanction.<br />
The Digital Economy Act additionally gives the regu<strong>la</strong>tor, ofcom, a number of duties<br />
to oversee and enforce compliance by the broadband provi<strong>de</strong>rs with these obligations. Notably,<br />
the Act carries the threat of a fine of up to £250,000 which may be imposed by ofcom<br />
on any broadband provi<strong>de</strong>r who fails to comply. 59<br />
2.2. implied contractual changes<br />
Interestingly, the Digital Economy Act does not mandate any changes to the broadband<br />
provi<strong>de</strong>r contract 60 , but it does imply such changes:<br />
“The regime created by the DEA fundamentally alters the nature of the legal<br />
and contractual re<strong>la</strong>tionships which currently exist in re<strong>la</strong>tion to internet service<br />
provision”. 61<br />
56 Digital Economy Act 2010, Article 9 and Article 10, inserting new sections 124H and 124I into the<br />
Communications Act 2003.<br />
57 In Britain, the term ‘suspension’ served to cause confusion as to the true purpose of ‘technical measures’.<br />
The word suspension is also used in the French <strong>la</strong>w , referring directly to the measure for cutting off<br />
Internet access, and there is no confusion as to what it means. See Legifrance, 2009b, Article 7.<br />
58 ofcom, 2010, p 26, point 6.4<br />
59 Digital Economy Act 2010, Article 14, inserting new sections 124L into the Communications Act 2003.<br />
The fine does also apply to non-compliant rights-hol<strong>de</strong>rs.<br />
60 By comparison, the French <strong>la</strong>w implementing graduated response does specify a change to the contract.<br />
See Creation and Internet <strong>la</strong>w of 13 June 2009 (Legifrance 2009) Article 331-35.<br />
61 BT 2010 p 10
170 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
In particu<strong>la</strong>r, where it obligates the broadband provi<strong>de</strong>rs to apply sanctions, and does<br />
not work through the courts 62 , it has to operate using the subscriber contract. There is an<br />
implied change to the contract, that it should inclu<strong>de</strong> a term concerning possible legal<br />
consequences of any alleged infringement. In fact, the <strong>la</strong>rge broadband provi<strong>de</strong>rs do already<br />
have a term in their contract which enables them to cut off subscribers who infringe copyright,<br />
as has been noted by the rights-hol<strong>de</strong>rs:<br />
“…both BT and TalkTalk expressly provi<strong>de</strong> in their terms and conditions that the<br />
internet connection must not be used for un<strong>la</strong>wful means. In particu<strong>la</strong>r they draw<br />
attention to the possibility of P2P file sharing involving copyright infringement, and<br />
they add: if we find out you’re doing this, we’ll cut off your connection…” 63<br />
But, un<strong>de</strong>r the <strong>la</strong>w as it previously stood, this would only be activated following a court<br />
ruling:<br />
“TalkTalk will not consent to any disclosure or<strong>de</strong>r and we will require that it is <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong>d<br />
upon by a judge based on its merits” 64<br />
The rights-hol<strong>de</strong>rs were entitled to obtain such a ruling, using a Norwich Pharmacal<br />
or<strong>de</strong>r to obtain the private data 65 . The Obligations to Limit Internet Access, if implemented,<br />
will create a new legal process which omits the role of the court in applying<br />
sanctions.<br />
2.3. subscriber data<br />
The Telecoms Package has informed us how privacy <strong>la</strong>w was, from the rights-hol<strong>de</strong>rs<br />
perspective, an obstacle to online copyright enforcement measures, and how they tried, and<br />
failed, to get European <strong>la</strong>w changed to help them get access to traffic data.<br />
The Digital Economy Act has attempted to set up a process which works around the<br />
most obvious privacy issues. By mandating the broadband provi<strong>de</strong>rs to manage all communications<br />
with their subscribers regarding alleged breaches of copyright, it obviates the<br />
need for personal data to be passed to third parties; and the Initial obligations mandate a<br />
court or<strong>de</strong>r before that data is transfer<strong>red</strong>. The second phase, introducing technical measures,<br />
obligates the broadband provi<strong>de</strong>r to apply the sanction, again obviating the need to transfer<br />
data to a third party.<br />
62 Administrative Court 2011, Point 228 exp<strong>la</strong>ins this where ‘the current arrangements” is a reference to<br />
the court process and a fair trial.<br />
63 This quote is taken from the court transcript, Case No: Co/7354/2010, the Queen (on the Application<br />
of) British Telecommunications Plc and Talktalk Telecom Group Plc and the Secretary of State for Business,<br />
Innovation and skills,. The speaker is the Counsel ( barrister) for the rights-hol<strong>de</strong>rs who intervened<br />
in the case, Pushpin<strong>de</strong>r Saini.<br />
64 TalkTalk 2009, p 7<br />
65 Copyright Designs and Patents Act, S. 97a
Copyright at a policy cross-roads – online enforcement, the telecoms package and the digital economy act 171<br />
However, privacy remains an issue and formed a core element of the legal challenge by the<br />
two <strong>la</strong>rgest provi<strong>de</strong>rs, BT and TalkTalk 66 . They argued that the processing of traffic data requi<strong>red</strong><br />
un<strong>de</strong>r the DE Act would infringe the E-privacy directive 67 , in particu<strong>la</strong>r that it called for processing<br />
of the data “beyond mere retention and disclosure” 68 . In this context, they cited ensuring<br />
that they are able to routinely and accurately match IP addresses to subscriber <strong>de</strong>tails across entire<br />
customer databases; sending notices to their subscribers, compiling and retaining the database of<br />
notices for an unspecified period, and disclosing data to rights-hol<strong>de</strong>rs on request.<br />
The government relied on the Promusicae judgement (see above) - as its legal basis for<br />
asking provi<strong>de</strong>rs to release personal data. BT and TalkTalk respon<strong>de</strong>d that Promusicae only<br />
applied in the context of civil judicial proceedings and as the DE Act did not incorporate<br />
any judicial proceedings, it did not provi<strong>de</strong> any mandate for the government to rely on. 69<br />
They also argued that the Digital Economy Act would need to provi<strong>de</strong> an express authorisation<br />
for rights-owners to have access to the data, which it does not do 70 . Furthermore, they<br />
highlighted that the Promusicae judgement recognised that any obligation to disclose confi<strong>de</strong>ntial<br />
data had to respect the rights to privacy and protection of personal data un<strong>de</strong>r the<br />
European Convention of Human rights, Article 7 and 8.<br />
Furthermore, at least one of the technical measures proposed would entail filtering of<br />
subscriber communications and such filtering is likely to breach Article 5 of the E- privacy<br />
directive <strong>la</strong>w as well as the mere conduit provision in the E-commerce directive 71 .<br />
2.4. due process<br />
The inclusion in the Telecoms Package of a provision reminding national governments<br />
of their duty to guarantee the right to due process , had the immediate effect of forcing the<br />
British government to make a change to the Digital Economy Act 72 . The first draft of the<br />
Bill did not inclu<strong>de</strong> any means for subscribers to <strong>de</strong>fend themselves or be heard. The government<br />
had ma<strong>de</strong> no secret of the fact that the Act was inten<strong>de</strong>d to bypass the courts. For<br />
example, this was Lord Young of Norwood Green, who was then government spokesman in<br />
the House of Lords, in January 2010:<br />
“on the surface, requiring a court to make the <strong>de</strong>cision whether or not to apply technical<br />
measures may seem a reasonable safeguard for consumer interests; certainly we have a duty<br />
66 Case No: Co/7354/2010, the Queen (on the Application of) British Telecommunications Plc and<br />
Talktalk Telecom Group Plc and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and skills. See Adminsitrative<br />
Court 2010.<br />
67 Adminsitrative court, p53, point 169 and 170<br />
68 Adminsitrative court, p55=56, point 179<br />
69 Adminsitrative court, 2010, p54, point 172, 173, 174, 175.<br />
70 Administrative Court, 2010, point 177<br />
71 Directive 2000/31/EC, Article 12.<br />
72 Author’s conversations with administrative staff in Brussels and London.
172 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
to ensure that the position of the ordinary subscriber is properly protected. However, in<br />
practice, we believe that this would be slow, cumbersome and expensive, causing unacceptable<br />
<strong>de</strong><strong>la</strong>y when speed is nee<strong>de</strong>d, and probably causing additional stress to subscribers-after<br />
all, a court ruling is no small thing. It would also risk putting a bur<strong>de</strong>n on the courts.” 73<br />
The Telecoms Package forced something of a re-think and the British government’s<br />
response was to <strong>de</strong>sign an appeals process. This process did not provi<strong>de</strong> for an oral hearing<br />
(ofcom, 2010, p29, (7.8) but it did provi<strong>de</strong> for an in<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nt body, which was se<strong>para</strong>te<br />
from ofcom, to <strong>de</strong>termine subscriber appeals 74 against <strong>de</strong>cisions re<strong>la</strong>ted to the repeat infringers<br />
list (un<strong>de</strong>r the Initial obligations Co<strong>de</strong>) and the initial appeals against technical<br />
measures. Subscribers unhappy with an appeal <strong>de</strong>cision about technical measures could<br />
take it further to a First Tier Tribunal. The Act stated that technical measures may not be<br />
actioned until the full appeals process has been exhausted. 75 The grounds for appeal, as established<br />
by ofcom inclu<strong>de</strong> challenges to the evi<strong>de</strong>nce concerning the alleged infringement,<br />
and also that the alleged infringement was carried out by someone else, even though the<br />
subscriber had taken reasonable steps to prevent other people using the connection 76 . The<br />
<strong>la</strong>tter raises the dilemna of presumption of guilt, since the onus is p<strong>la</strong>ced on the subscriber<br />
to prove their innocence, rather than on the c<strong>la</strong>imant to prove guilt:<br />
“to be found guilty of copyright infringement requires proof that the subscriber themselves<br />
infringed copyright whereas to appeal successfully requires the subscriber to<br />
<strong>de</strong>monstrate that they did not infringe copyright themselves and also that they protected<br />
the connection” . 77<br />
It remains however, that this appeals process is of course, not a judicial process, and<br />
that no judicial process forms part of the measures envisaged un<strong>de</strong>r either the Initial obligations<br />
co<strong>de</strong> or the co<strong>de</strong> to Limit Internet Access which rely on the subscriber contract 78 . This<br />
would appear to be contrary to the spirit, if not the letter, of what the European Parliament<br />
inten<strong>de</strong>d with its amendment to the Telecoms Framework in Article 1.3a 79 .<br />
3. conclusions<br />
This paper has discussed some ways in which measures for enforcement of copyright<br />
online may be applied by amending telecoms legis<strong>la</strong>tion. The critical factors have been i<strong>de</strong>n-<br />
73 House of Lords Mansard, 26 Jan 2010, Column 1335, Lord Young of Norwood Green who was at the<br />
time the government spokesman on the Digital Economy Act in the House of Lords.<br />
74 Digital Economy Act 2010 Article 13. 2 b, c and d<br />
75 Digital Economy Act 2010, Article 13.10 and 13.11<br />
76 ofcom 2010, pp28-29.<br />
77 TalkTalk 2010, p14 ; See also BT, 2010, p24.<br />
78 Administrative court, (2010) p 54 (173)<br />
79 Directive 2009/140/EC Article 1.3a
Copyright at a policy cross-roads – online enforcement, the telecoms package and the digital economy act 173<br />
tified by studying the travaux of the EU Telecoms Package: a general obligation on broadband<br />
provi<strong>de</strong>rs, an obligation in subscriber contracts, and a weakening of privacy <strong>la</strong>w. The<br />
wi<strong>de</strong>r European policy agenda informs us of the kind of policies which such legal changes<br />
could be inten<strong>de</strong>d to support, in particu<strong>la</strong>r, graduated response. The Digital Economy Act<br />
illustrates how such an amendment of telecoms <strong>la</strong>w by an EU Member State may be formu<strong>la</strong>ted,<br />
with a series of obligations on broadband provi<strong>de</strong>rs, an implied contractual change for<br />
subscribers and a questionable work-around of privacy <strong>la</strong>w.<br />
Both cases suggest that amending telecoms <strong>la</strong>w in this way is problematic. The imposition<br />
of such obligations on broadband provi<strong>de</strong>rs to impose punishments for infringement<br />
not only creates a new form of liability on the provi<strong>de</strong>rs, but also reflect a shift in copyright<br />
enforcement from civil and criminal co<strong>de</strong>s onto contract <strong>la</strong>w. Furthermore, such shifts imply<br />
incursions on the right to privacy, as well as the right to due process. These are issues<br />
which policy-makers will have to wrestle with as they attempt to find the appropriate ba<strong>la</strong>nce<br />
for copyright online.<br />
4. bibliograPHy<br />
Administrative Court (2010), Case number: Co 7354/2010, STATEMENT oF FACTS<br />
AND GRoUNDS [The Queen, on the Application of 1/ British Telecommunications<br />
PLC 2/ TalkTalk Group Telecom PLC (c<strong>la</strong>imants) and The Secretary of State for Business,<br />
Innovation and Skills (Defendants)].<br />
Administrative Court (2011), Case number: Co 7354/2010, APPRoVED JUDGE-<br />
MENT The Queen, on the Application of 1/ British Telecommunications PLC 2/<br />
TalkTalk Group Telecom PLC (c<strong>la</strong>imants) and The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation<br />
and Skills (Defendants)].<br />
AK Vorrat (2009), Press release: , EU proposal puts confi<strong>de</strong>ntial communications data<br />
at risk (28 Jan 2009); Avai<strong>la</strong>ble at: http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.<strong>de</strong>/content/<br />
view/295/79/<br />
Alvaro, Alexan<strong>de</strong>r PE405.782v02-00, Amendments 29-93 Draft opinion on the proposal<br />
for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive<br />
2002/22/EC , Directive 2002/58/EC and Regu<strong>la</strong>tion (EC) No 2006/2004.<br />
Bridy, Annemarie (2010) ACTA and the specter of graduated response , PIJIP Research Paper<br />
Series, American University Washington College of Law Avai<strong>la</strong>ble at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=research<br />
BT , (2010) online Infringement of Copyright and the Digital Economy Act 2010 Draft<br />
Initial obligations Co<strong>de</strong> ofcom Consultation document response from BT 30 July<br />
2010.<br />
Conseil Constitutionel (2009a) Decision n° 2009-580 DC - 10 Juin 2009, Loi favorisant<br />
<strong>la</strong> diffusion et <strong>la</strong> protection <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> création sur internet.
174 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
Cou<strong>de</strong>rt, Fanny and Werkers, Evi (2008) In the aftermath of the Promusicae case: how<br />
to strike the ba<strong>la</strong>nce? In International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 25<br />
october 2008, doi:10.1093/ijlit/ean015 , Avai<strong>la</strong>ble at: http://ijlit.oxfordjournals.org/<br />
cgi/content/abstract/ean015v1<br />
EDPS (European Data Protection Supervisor ) (2008) EDPS comments on selected<br />
issues that arise from the IMCo report on the review of directive 2002/22/EC (Universal<br />
Service0 and Directive 2002/58/EC (ePrivacy) 1 September 2008.<br />
Eurocinema (2008a) , Révision du Paquet télécoms, 30 Avril 2008 http://www.eurocinema.<br />
eu/docs/Telecoms_Position_EURoCINEMA_FR_avril08.pdf<br />
Eurocinema (2008b) Lettre_<strong>de</strong>pute_juillet08_final, Bruxelles, le 30 Juillet 2008., http://<br />
www.eurocinema.eu/docs/Lettre_<strong>de</strong>pute_juillet08_final.pdf<br />
European Commission, (2007a), CoM(2007) 697 final, Proposal for a Directive of The<br />
European Parliament And of The Council amending Directives 2002/21/EC on a<br />
common regu<strong>la</strong>tory framework for electronic communications networks and services,<br />
2002/19/EC on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks<br />
and services, and 2002/20/EC on the authorisation of electronic communications<br />
networks and services) 13 November 2007.<br />
European Commission (2007b), CoM(2007) 698 final Proposal for a Directive of The<br />
European Parliament And of The Council amending Directive 2002/22/EC on universal<br />
service and users’ rights re<strong>la</strong>ting to electronic communications networks, Directive<br />
2002/58/EC concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of<br />
privacy in the electronic communications sector and Regu<strong>la</strong>tion (EC) No 2006/2004<br />
on consumer protection cooperation 13 November 2007.<br />
European Commission (2007c), SEC(2007) 1472, Commission Staff Working Document,<br />
Impact Assessment 13 November 2007.<br />
European Commission, Information Society and Media Directorate (2008 ) , CoM<br />
(2007) 836 FINAL , Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament,<br />
the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee<br />
of the Regions on Creative Content online in the Single Market 3 January 2008.<br />
European Parliament (2008), P6_TA(2008)0452), Texts Adopted By Parliament Wednesday,<br />
24 September 2008 - Brussels Provisional edition Electronic communications networks<br />
and services, protection of privacy and consumer protection 24 September 2008.<br />
Harbour, Malcolm (2008a), PE406.037v01-00, Amendments 61 - 292 Draft Report<br />
Malcolm Harbour on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of<br />
the Council amending Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users’ rights re<strong>la</strong>ting<br />
to electronic communications networks, Directive 2002/58/EC concerning the<br />
processing of person al data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications<br />
sector and Regu<strong>la</strong>tion (EC) No 2006/2004 on consumer protection cooperation<br />
15 May 2008.<br />
Harbour, Malcolm ( 2008b) PE404.659v02-00, Report on the proposal for a directive<br />
of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2002/22/EC on
Copyright at a policy cross-roads – online enforcement, the telecoms package and the digital economy act 175<br />
universal service and users’ rights re<strong>la</strong>ting to electronic communications networks, Directive<br />
2002/58/EC concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of<br />
privacy in the electronic communications sector and Regu<strong>la</strong>tion (EC) No 2006/2004<br />
on consumer protection cooperation 18 July 2008.<br />
IFPI (2008 ) Creative Content online IFPI response to the Commission Consultation 29<br />
February 2008.<br />
Kaminsky, Margot (2011), 1 January 2011 , An Overview and the Evolution of the Anti-<br />
Counterfeiting Tra<strong>de</strong> Agreement (ACTA), PIJIP Research Paper Series, American University<br />
Washington College of Law Avai<strong>la</strong>ble at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.<br />
edu/research/17/<br />
Legifrance (2009a) Loi n° 2009-669 du 12 juin 2009 favorisant <strong>la</strong> diffusion et <strong>la</strong> protection<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> création sur internet 13 June 2009.<br />
Legifrance (2009b) , NoR: JUSX0913484L , Loi n° 2009-1311 du 28 octobre 2009 re<strong>la</strong>tive<br />
à <strong>la</strong> protection pénale <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> propriété littéraire et artistique sur internet 28 october<br />
2009.<br />
Mission olivennes (2007) Le <strong>de</strong>veloppement et <strong>la</strong> protection <strong>de</strong>s oeuvres culturelles sur les<br />
nouveaux reseaux. Rapport au ministre <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> culture et <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> communication 23 November<br />
2007.<br />
MPA (2008 ) Public Consultation on Creative Content online in the Single Market – Submission<br />
of the “Motion Picture Association” (MPA) in response to the Questionnaire<br />
of the European Commission regarding Policy/Regu<strong>la</strong>tory issues<br />
ofcom, (2010) online Infringement of Copyright and the Digital Economy Act 2010<br />
Draft Initial obligations Co<strong>de</strong>.<br />
Peguera, Miquel (2009) The DMCA Safe Harbors and their European Counterparts: A<br />
Com<strong>para</strong>tive Analysis of Some Common Problems , In The Columbia Journal of Law<br />
and the Arts, Vol 32, No4, Summer 2009.<br />
SACD (2008) Examen <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> revision du Paquet telecom par le Parlement Europeen , March<br />
2008 Avai<strong>la</strong>ble at: www.<strong>la</strong>quadrature.net/files/notesacd-paquet-telecom.doc<br />
TalkTalk (2010) ofcom Consultation online Infringement of Copyright and the Digital<br />
Economy Act 2010 Draft Initial obligations Co<strong>de</strong> TalkTalk Group response July 2010.<br />
TalkTalk (2009) BIS Consultation Legis<strong>la</strong>tion to address illicit peer-to-peer file-sharing<br />
TalkTalk Group response September 2009.<br />
Trautmann, Catherine (2008) PE407.630v01-00, Amendments 203-317 (30.05.08) 30<br />
May 2008, 30 May 2008.
“NeUtrAlIty” test ON weB 2.0 PlAtfOrm fOr Its<br />
INtermeDIAry lIABIlIty IN CHINA AND IN eUrOPe<br />
Qian Tao 1<br />
Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies of Pisa (Italian: Scuo<strong>la</strong> Superiore di Studi<br />
Universitari e di Perfezionamento Sant’Anna)<br />
AbstrAct: In this user-led content generation, there are more and more national and international<br />
cases regarding the liability of web 2.0 p<strong>la</strong>tform for infringing content generated by users. From the<br />
existing rules and cases in Europe and China, we can see that it’s generally recognised that web 2.0<br />
p<strong>la</strong>tform is a kind of intermediary, neither a publisher like newspaper nor a broadcaster like TV in<br />
the traditional sense. This affords web publishing a form of immunity from liability for user generated<br />
content or a kind of special treatment, but most importantly, this “safe harbor” requires the p<strong>la</strong>tform<br />
in question to be neutral without involvement with third-party content. The Chinese approach to the<br />
“neutrality” test is not the same with the European one, which may result in different court <strong>de</strong>cisions<br />
for simi<strong>la</strong>r cases. I will introduce the legal status of web 2.0 p<strong>la</strong>tform in each legal framework along<br />
with case <strong>de</strong>cisions, and then I will conduct a com<strong>para</strong>tive study on existing cases from which we can<br />
see how courts ma<strong>de</strong> the operating mo<strong>de</strong>l analysis and financial benefit analysis of web 2.0 p<strong>la</strong>tform<br />
when <strong>de</strong>ciding its liability for user generated content. These two factors, which have a great influence<br />
on <strong>de</strong>ciding if the neutral status is disqualified, have been repeatedly examined by both Chinese and<br />
European courts.<br />
Keywords: web 2.0 p<strong>la</strong>tform, user-generated content, neutrality, operating mo<strong>de</strong>l, financial<br />
benefit. 1*<br />
1. introduction<br />
In the web 2.0 era, a staggering amount of information is transmitted on internet<br />
intermediary p<strong>la</strong>tforms each minute. Some of these files may contain un<strong>la</strong>wful or questionable<br />
content, such as <strong>de</strong>famatory texts, cyber stalking, cyber harassment, cyber ostracism,<br />
impersonation, <strong>de</strong>nigration, and content vio<strong>la</strong>ting others’ copyright or right to privacy,<br />
name, image etc. There is no doubt that those who have created or generated the materials<br />
should bear direct liability. Nevertheless, many scho<strong>la</strong>rs have embarked on a <strong>de</strong>bate<br />
concerning the indirect liability of internet intermediaries. When <strong>de</strong>ciding whether an<br />
internet intermediary shall be liable for user-generated content, the first step is to examine<br />
if the p<strong>la</strong>tform is neutral during its operation and in the re<strong>la</strong>tionship with users. The question<br />
is which role the internet intermediary actually p<strong>la</strong>ys: infringer, filter, editor, publisher,<br />
broadcaster, gigantic copying machine, reactive policeman or proactive gatekeeper?<br />
1 The author wishes to thank Stephen Edwards for <strong>la</strong>nguage revision.<br />
9
178 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
The European Directive refers these web 2.0 p<strong>la</strong>tforms as hosting service provi<strong>de</strong>rs and<br />
gives them safe harbor protection, while the Chinese Tort Liability Law also provi<strong>de</strong>s safe<br />
harbor for internet service provi<strong>de</strong>rs in addition to the notice-and-take-down procedure.<br />
Both request the provi<strong>de</strong>rs to be of neutrality if they hope to benefit from an exemption<br />
from liability. Net neutrality is the principle that data packets on the Internet should<br />
be moved impartially, without regard to content, <strong>de</strong>stination or source. Net neutrality<br />
is sometimes refer<strong>red</strong> to as the “First Amendment of the Internet” 2 . In this paper, after<br />
introducing each legal framework, I will exp<strong>la</strong>in by case studies how the courts give the<br />
“neutrality” test and how the operating mo<strong>de</strong>l analysis and financial benefit analysis were<br />
ma<strong>de</strong> in China and in European countries. For the European cases, I will focus on mainly<br />
French and Spanish cases in the following part.<br />
2. legal status of web 2.0 P<strong>la</strong>tforms<br />
2.1. legal framework<br />
The Chinese Tort Liability Law, which came into force on 1 July 2010, contains an<br />
article especially for infringements on the internet. It adopts a general <strong>de</strong>finition “internet<br />
service provi<strong>de</strong>r” without making further c<strong>la</strong>ssification or se<strong>para</strong>te liability rules. It leaves<br />
judges to <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong> the neutral status of each service provi<strong>de</strong>r in each individual case. In the<br />
case that an internet service provi<strong>de</strong>r p<strong>la</strong>ys a role as publisher or broadcaster, the first <strong>para</strong>graph<br />
of article 36 shall be applied and direct liability shall be imposed, otherwise, joint<br />
liability provi<strong>de</strong>d by the <strong>la</strong>st two <strong>para</strong>graphs would be imposed on the basis of the fault and<br />
damage being confirmed.<br />
“An internet user or an internet service provi<strong>de</strong>r who infringes upon the civil right or interest<br />
of another person on the internet shall bear liability. When an internet user conducts un<strong>la</strong>wful<br />
acts by using the internet service, the victim has the right to notify the internet service<br />
provi<strong>de</strong>r to take necessary measures such as taking down the content in dispute, blocking access<br />
to the content, disconnecting the link to the content and the like. The provi<strong>de</strong>r shall bear<br />
joint liability with the internet user within the scope of further loss due to the failure of taking<br />
necessary measures expeditiously upon receiving the notification of c<strong>la</strong>imed infringement.<br />
The internet service provi<strong>de</strong>r shall bear joint liability with the internet user if it knows that<br />
the internet user is conducting illegal activity by using its internet service and it doesn’t take<br />
any necessary measures.”<br />
In addition, in the Regu<strong>la</strong>tion for the Protection of Information Network Dissemination<br />
Rights (2006) issued by the State Council, which is an administrative regu<strong>la</strong>tion especially<br />
for copyright protection in the information society, there are se<strong>para</strong>te provisions for<br />
internet access service, internet reference service, online storage, caching etc. When a web<br />
2 This <strong>de</strong>finition was ma<strong>de</strong> by TechTarget Company. See http://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/<strong>de</strong>finition/Net-neutrality,<br />
<strong>la</strong>st accessed on 20 May 2011.
“Neutrality” test on web 2.0 P<strong>la</strong>tform for its intermediary liability in China and in europe<br />
179<br />
2.0 p<strong>la</strong>tform c<strong>la</strong>ims safe harbor protection, it has to pass the “neutrality” test that the service<br />
it provi<strong>de</strong>s to the recipient of the service is information storage space, moreover, it has not<br />
alte<strong>red</strong> the content provi<strong>de</strong>d by the recipient of the service nor has it obtained a financial<br />
benefit directly attributable to the content.<br />
Unlike Chinese Tort Liability Law, the E-Commerce Directive 3 is especially for information<br />
society services, the <strong>de</strong>finition of which covers any service normally provi<strong>de</strong>d for<br />
remuneration, at a distance, by means of electronic equipment for the processing (including<br />
digital compression) and storage of data, and at the individual request of a recipient of<br />
a service. The E-Commerce Directive also c<strong>la</strong>ssifies internet information service as mere<br />
conduit, caching and hosting, and <strong>de</strong>fines them explicitly. Article 14 is for hosting service<br />
provi<strong>de</strong>r which can benefit from the liability exemption when it can meet three cumu<strong>la</strong>tive<br />
conditions: (1) absence of actual or constructive knowledge; (2) prompt reaction to take<br />
down the illicit content upon such knowledge; and (3) absence of control or authority over<br />
the recipient or user of the service.<br />
Web 2.0 p<strong>la</strong>tform is consi<strong>de</strong><strong>red</strong> to be a kind of “host”. However, there is still legal<br />
uncertainty. The main argument is about the qualification as “host”. It is unclear un<strong>de</strong>r<br />
which conditions a web 2.0 p<strong>la</strong>tform qualifies as a hosting service in the sense of<br />
article14 of the Directive 4 . The E-Commerce Directive <strong>de</strong>fines the hosting services as<br />
that “consist of the storage of information provi<strong>de</strong>d by a recipient of the service”. Some<br />
member countries have also ma<strong>de</strong> their own <strong>de</strong>finitions of “hosting”. For instance, article<br />
6-1 of the French Law for Confi<strong>de</strong>nce in the Digital Economy 5 <strong>de</strong>fines an internet<br />
host as an entity that ensures, even free of charge, storage of signals, written data, images,<br />
sounds or messages of any nature, provi<strong>de</strong>d by recipients of these services so that it may<br />
be ma<strong>de</strong> avai<strong>la</strong>ble to the general public online by communication services. According to<br />
the recital 42 of the Directive, these services shall be “of a mere technical, automatic and<br />
passive nature, which implies that the information society service provi<strong>de</strong>r has neither<br />
knowledge of nor control over the information which is transmitted or sto<strong>red</strong>”. Therefore,<br />
the more a web 2.0 p<strong>la</strong>tform is involved with the content that it hosts, the less likely<br />
it is to qualify as a host.<br />
We can see that un<strong>de</strong>r the Chinese administrative regu<strong>la</strong>tion, the main point for the<br />
status of web 2.0 p<strong>la</strong>tform is its “information storage space”, while, un<strong>de</strong>r the European<br />
directive, the main point is “the storage of information provi<strong>de</strong>d by users”. So the two legis<strong>la</strong>tive<br />
approaches are in essence the same.<br />
3 Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain<br />
legal aspects of information society services, in particu<strong>la</strong>r electronic commerce, in the Internal<br />
Market.<br />
4 IDATE,TNo and IViR, User-Created-Content: Supporting a Participative Information Society, final<br />
report, SMART 2007/2008, at 229.<br />
5 Loi n°2004-575 du 21 juin 2004 pour <strong>la</strong> confiance dans l’économie numérique.
180 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
2.2. case <strong>de</strong>cisions<br />
In Europe, court <strong>de</strong>cisions of Member States vary from each other in <strong>de</strong>termining the<br />
turning point at which these p<strong>la</strong>tforms are no longer mere hosts, but “publishers” in the sense<br />
of national media <strong>la</strong>ws (with the consequence that they can be fully liable for the content<br />
posted by third parties) 6 . In Italy, there are many arguments on whether web 2.0 sites qualify<br />
as “hosts” and therefore enjoy exemption from liability. French courts have also repeatedly<br />
discussed how to <strong>de</strong>fine the boundary between hosting service provi<strong>de</strong>rs and publishers with<br />
respect to vi<strong>de</strong>o-sharing websites and social networking sites. In Spain, the Supreme Court<br />
clearly admits that the owner of a web forum must be <strong>de</strong>emed to be hosting the comments<br />
sent by users. Arguably, the same should apply to comments sent to blogs and to other web<br />
2.0 p<strong>la</strong>tforms 7 .<br />
From existing cases in China, we can see that blog service provi<strong>de</strong>rs were consi<strong>de</strong><strong>red</strong> to<br />
be information storage service provi<strong>de</strong>rs 8 , auction sites were consi<strong>de</strong><strong>red</strong> as online tra<strong>de</strong> p<strong>la</strong>tforms<br />
as well as information storage provi<strong>de</strong>rs 9 . Those sites are consi<strong>de</strong><strong>red</strong> as intermediaries,<br />
thus they enjoy the safe harbor protection. As for social networking sites, there is no case<br />
re<strong>la</strong>ted till now. Vi<strong>de</strong>o-sharing sites were mainly involved in copyright infringement cases<br />
and court <strong>de</strong>cisions were not consistent from case to case, from court to court. In general,<br />
courts applied the Regu<strong>la</strong>tion for the Protection of Information Network Dissemination<br />
Rights, but there were many factors that could lead to controversial concerns as I will discuss<br />
in the following part.<br />
A great number of cases are about un<strong>la</strong>wful content on internet forums. As internet<br />
forums un<strong>de</strong>rwent rapid growth and increasing popu<strong>la</strong>rity in the <strong>la</strong>te 1990s in China, legal<br />
problems have been on the rise concurrently. Judges were confused over how to <strong>de</strong>fine the<br />
role that those forum operators p<strong>la</strong>yed. In 2002, the first case <strong>de</strong>cision on intermediary liability<br />
of an online forum came out. In the case –De Ying& Gao Yuan v. “sinoi.com” 10 , the<br />
court said that the operator of an online forum was not only a service provi<strong>de</strong>r, but also the<br />
manager of the system, therefore it was held liable for its fault in the process of management.<br />
6 IDATE,TNo and IViR, User-Created-Content: Supporting a Participative Information Society, final<br />
report, SMART 2007/2008, at 221.<br />
7 Miquel Peguera, Internet Service Provi<strong>de</strong>rs’ Liability in Spain– Recent Case Law and Future Perspectives,<br />
Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce<br />
Law,Volume 1, Issue 3, December 2010, at 159.<br />
8 See Guangdong Mengtong Culture Development Ltd v. “baidu.com”, Haidian People’s Court, Beijing<br />
(2007) HMCZ-17776; Lv Zhi Xing Institute & Mr.Han v. “sina.com”, online at http://www.<br />
china<strong>la</strong>wedu.com/new/, <strong>la</strong>st accessed 19 April 2011.<br />
9 Jinfeng Publishing House v. “taobao.com”, Higher People’s Court of Zhejiang, (2006) ZMSZZ-125;<br />
Digital Heritage Publishing Ltd v. “eachnet.com”, Higher People’s Court of Shanghai, (2008)<br />
LGMS(Z)Z-113.<br />
10 De Ying& Gao Yuan v. “sinoi.com”,Haidian People’s Court, Beijing,(2002) HMCZ-742.
“Neutrality” test on web 2.0 P<strong>la</strong>tform for its intermediary liability in China and in europe<br />
181<br />
Accordingly, in the case –Haida Ltd v. “sina.com” 11 , Duan Shuhang & “xici.net” 12 , Wang<br />
Yongjian v. “shangdu.com” 13 , the courts also confirmed that the provi<strong>de</strong>rs of discussion forums<br />
shall manage and check their websites, supervise and manage the information. It seems<br />
that online forums were also consi<strong>de</strong><strong>red</strong> as a kind of manager in addition to storage service<br />
provi<strong>de</strong>rs, nevertheless, they were not seen as “authors” of the illicit information; therefore,<br />
it should bear vicarious liability. However, there is no consensus about to what extent the<br />
duty of care shall be borne by this “manager”.<br />
3. oPerating mo<strong>de</strong>l analysis<br />
For most web 2.0 p<strong>la</strong>tforms, the operating mo<strong>de</strong>l is to encourage users to upload and<br />
share content on their sites. Most provi<strong>de</strong> to users search tool and subscription function on<br />
their sites. Vi<strong>de</strong>o-sharing sites also reformat the audio-visual files uploa<strong>de</strong>d by internet users<br />
to comply with the site’s compression format, and some sites also c<strong>la</strong>ssify vi<strong>de</strong>o into pre<strong>de</strong>fined<br />
types and further supply “<strong>la</strong>test vi<strong>de</strong>os” “featu<strong>red</strong> vi<strong>de</strong>os” and “trending vi<strong>de</strong>os” on the<br />
homepage. The sites can also record the viewing history of each registe<strong>red</strong> user and suggest<br />
“recommen<strong>de</strong>d vi<strong>de</strong>os”. They try to provi<strong>de</strong> a well-<strong>de</strong>signed structure that is as close as possible<br />
to the mental mo<strong>de</strong>l of the users in or<strong>de</strong>r to assure that users will be satisfied. Some<br />
judges addressed that the operating mo<strong>de</strong>l of user-based website was <strong>de</strong>signed as more than<br />
just storing information technically, and the architecture for users to fill in content might be<br />
an indicator of direct involvement.<br />
3.1. european approach –taking french and spanish cases as example<br />
In France, in the case –Jean Yves Lafesse v. “myspace.com” 14 , which was quite famous<br />
in 2007, the court of first instance ruled that MySpace was liable for vi<strong>de</strong>os hosted on its<br />
server, more importantly, the court stated that it was unquestionable that MySpace had the<br />
technical function as a hosting service provi<strong>de</strong>r, but its service was not limited in this technical<br />
function. In fact, it allowed users to upload content through a specific frame structure,<br />
and every time the vi<strong>de</strong>o was viewed, it disp<strong>la</strong>yed an advertisement from which it clearly<br />
<strong>de</strong>rived profits. Thus it was an editor and should bear responsibility. However, when the case<br />
was brought to the court of appeal, it was dismissed due to a procedural reason. Following<br />
11 Haida Ltd v. “sina.com”,Nanshan People’s Court,Guangdong, (2005) SNFMYCZ-1526. The Shenzhen<br />
intermediate people’s court upheld the <strong>de</strong>cision of court of first instance.<br />
12 Duan Shuhang & “xici.net”,Intermediate People’s Court of Nanyang, Henan, (2007) NMYZZ-193.<br />
13 Wang Yongjian v. “shangdu.com”,Intermediate People’s Court of Zhengzhou, Henan, (2009)<br />
ZMYZZ-296.<br />
14 Jean Yves L. dit Lafesse c. Myspace, Tribunal <strong>de</strong> gran<strong>de</strong> instance <strong>de</strong> Paris ordonnance <strong>de</strong> référé 22<br />
juin 2007.
182 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
this case, more than thirty other simi<strong>la</strong>r cases occur<strong>red</strong> against web 2.0 p<strong>la</strong>tforms including<br />
vi<strong>de</strong>o-sharing service, blog, social news website, Wikipedia, chat forum and auction site 15 .<br />
one of the most important cases concerning vi<strong>de</strong>o-sharing sites is the case–- Zadig<br />
Productions v Google Inc 16 .The copyrighter c<strong>la</strong>imed the <strong>de</strong>fendant, when providing Google<br />
vi<strong>de</strong>o service, was an audio-visual content provi<strong>de</strong>r, but the <strong>de</strong>fendant argued that it was the<br />
subscribers that <strong>de</strong>termined the tags, <strong>de</strong>scription and other information and then allowed<br />
Google to in<strong>de</strong>x those vi<strong>de</strong>os, and it was also the subscribers that selected the category for<br />
those vi<strong>de</strong>os and <strong>de</strong>fined the criteria for dissemination(public or private) when uploading<br />
each file. The court finally held that whereas the <strong>de</strong>fendant offe<strong>red</strong> users the architecture and<br />
technical means for content c<strong>la</strong>ssification, they were necessary for their accessibility to the<br />
public. It was established that the content in dispute was provi<strong>de</strong>d by internet users so the<br />
p<strong>la</strong>tform couldn’t be seen as publisher.<br />
on 17 February 2011, the Court of Cassation issued the first <strong>de</strong>cision that has settled<br />
the <strong>de</strong>bate regarding host-editor for vi<strong>de</strong>o-sharing p<strong>la</strong>tform in France. The Court confirmed<br />
in the case –Nord-ouest Production, C. Carion & UGC Images v Dailymotion 17 that the<br />
operations carried out by the vi<strong>de</strong>o sharing site, such as re-encoding vi<strong>de</strong>o streams in or<strong>de</strong>r<br />
to make them compatible with the viewing interface and reformatting them in or<strong>de</strong>r to<br />
make optimal use of the server’s storage capacity, were technical operations that formed part<br />
of the role of a host and in no way enabled the host to select the content that was published<br />
online 18 . Furthermore, the disp<strong>la</strong>y frame and tools for c<strong>la</strong>ssifying content as a part of a host’s<br />
function were justified by the need to rationalize the service and to facilitate user’s access.<br />
So that is to say, these technical operations don’t mean any particu<strong>la</strong>r involvement of the<br />
p<strong>la</strong>tform with the content to be uploa<strong>de</strong>d. Simi<strong>la</strong>r opinions of lower courts can be found in<br />
the Lafesse v. Dailymotion case 19 and Lafesse v Google case 20 .<br />
Simi<strong>la</strong>rly, the Spanish court also stated in the case –Gestevision Telecinco SA v You-<br />
Tube LLC 21 that selecting featu<strong>red</strong> vi<strong>de</strong>os as “suggestions” disp<strong>la</strong>ying on the homepage of<br />
15 Examples of French cases re<strong>la</strong>ted are Les Arnaques.com c. Editions Régionales <strong>de</strong> France (Cour d’appel<br />
<strong>de</strong> Versailles, 12 décembre 2007) and eBay Europe c. SARL DWC (Cour d’appel <strong>de</strong> Paris, 9<br />
Novembre 2007).<br />
16 SARL Zadig Production, Jean-Robert V. et Mathieu V. c. Sté Google Inc. et AFA,Tribunal <strong>de</strong> gran<strong>de</strong><br />
instance <strong>de</strong> Paris, 3ème chambre, 2ème section Jugement du 19 octobre 2007<br />
17 Société Nord-ouest & société UGC Image c. Dailymotion, Cour <strong>de</strong> cassation (1re chambre civile),17<br />
février 2011.<br />
18 See Amélie Blocman, France:Liability of Vi<strong>de</strong>o-sharing P<strong>la</strong>tforms - First Judgement of Court of Cassation,<br />
IRIS 2011-3:1/18.<br />
19 Jean-Yves Lambert dit Lafesse et c. Dailymotion, Tribunal <strong>de</strong> gran<strong>de</strong> instance <strong>de</strong> Paris, 3ème chambre,<br />
1re section, 15 avril 2008.<br />
20 Jean-Yves Lambert dit Lafesse et c.Google,Tribunal <strong>de</strong> gran<strong>de</strong> instance <strong>de</strong> Paris, 3ème chambre, 3ème<br />
section, 24 juin 2009.<br />
21 Gestevision Telecinco SA c. YouTube LLC ,Juzgado <strong>de</strong> lo Mercantil no. 7 <strong>de</strong> Madrid, Sentencia<br />
289/2010 <strong>de</strong> 20 <strong>de</strong> septiembre.
“Neutrality” test on web 2.0 P<strong>la</strong>tform for its intermediary liability in China and in europe<br />
the site didn’t amount to an editorial function, as it was done automatically when certain<br />
objective pre-<strong>de</strong>fined criteria were met, for instance, in the case that the vi<strong>de</strong>o enjoyed great<br />
popu<strong>la</strong>rity amid all web users. So this function didn’t contradict the intermediary nature<br />
of a host, nor was requiring a license from users incompatible with carrying out a merely<br />
intermediary service. In contrast, in an Italian case also concerning Google’s vi<strong>de</strong>o service,<br />
the court of first instance held that Google’s activity did not fall into the category of mere<br />
hosting but rather consisted in providing the content uploa<strong>de</strong>d by the users. According to<br />
the judge, Google was a content provi<strong>de</strong>r rather than a mere host-service provi<strong>de</strong>r22 . Now<br />
the case is on appeal.<br />
A blog service provi<strong>de</strong>r was also seen as a host rather than a publisher in a <strong>de</strong>cision of<br />
tra<strong>de</strong>mark case, issued by the Court of Appeal of Paris in 200723 . The court held the fact that<br />
it provi<strong>de</strong>d to bloggers the function to make posts on the p<strong>la</strong>tform and the system to protect<br />
from spam comments didn’t <strong>de</strong>monstrate its capacity as publisher of the postings in dispute.<br />
There is also a case re<strong>la</strong>ted to the famous French user-driven social news website “Fuzz”.<br />
The site offe<strong>red</strong> users an opportunity to share the links of online news. Users could entitle<br />
the information contained in the news and also choose a category for the news such as<br />
“economy”, “medium”, “sport” or “people” etc. In the case–“Fuzz.fr” v. olivier Martinez, the<br />
court of first instance found that the site was to be regar<strong>de</strong>d as a publisher of online communication<br />
services within the meaning of the <strong>la</strong>w, as Fuzz.fr ma<strong>de</strong> an editorial <strong>de</strong>cision by: (i)<br />
p<strong>la</strong>cing links on its website to “celebrites-stars.blogspot.com”, which contained gossip about<br />
Martinez; and (ii) arranging the various information sections of its website and posting a<br />
title referring to Martinez’s private life, thus <strong>de</strong>termining “the organization and presentation<br />
of the site” 24 . However, the Paris Court of Appeal25 turned down this <strong>de</strong>cision and held that<br />
what the p<strong>la</strong>tform did was merely to structure and to c<strong>la</strong>ssify the user-generated information,<br />
in or<strong>de</strong>r to facilitate the use of its service. This didn’t imply a status as publisher. Since the<br />
p<strong>la</strong>tform was neither the author of the content nor the one that <strong>de</strong>termined the content, it<br />
was a hosting service provi<strong>de</strong>r. The Court of Cassation26 confirmed the <strong>de</strong>cision of the court<br />
of appeal on 17 February 2011.<br />
183<br />
22 Giovanni Sartor, Mario Vio<strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> Azevedo Cunha, The Italian Google-Case: Privacy, Freedom of<br />
Speech and Responsibility of Provi<strong>de</strong>rs for User-Generated Contents, 18 Int’l J.L. & Info.Tech.356<br />
(2010).<br />
23 Google Inc. et Google France c. Benetton Group et Bencom, Cour d’appel <strong>de</strong> Paris, 14ème chambre<br />
Section A, 12 décembre 2007.<br />
24 Bradley L Joslove, Vanessa De Spiegeleer-Delort, Web 2.0: Aggregator Website Held Liable as Publisher,<br />
http://www.international<strong>la</strong>woffice.com/Newsletters/Detail.aspx?g=4b014ec1-b334-4204-<br />
9fbd-00e05bf6db95&<strong>red</strong>ir=1#1,Accessed on 14 May 2011.<br />
25 “Fuzz.fr” c. olivier Martinez,Cour d’appel <strong>de</strong> Paris 14ème chambre, section B Arrêt du 21 novembre<br />
2008.<br />
26 “Fuzz.fr” v. olivier Martinez, Arrêt n° 164 du 17 février 2011 (09-13.202) ,Cour <strong>de</strong> cassation ,Première<br />
chambre civile.
184 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
3.2. chinese approach<br />
In China, case <strong>de</strong>cisions are not consistent regarding this question. Most cases re<strong>la</strong>ted<br />
are copyright suits. According to the Regu<strong>la</strong>tion for the Protection of Information Network<br />
Dissemination Rights, as one requirement of liability exemption, the p<strong>la</strong>tform needs to<br />
prove that it hasn’t changed the content generated by its user. The problem is how to judge<br />
if user-generated content has been changed or not. Case <strong>de</strong>cisions focus on the following<br />
features: the site’s logo disp<strong>la</strong>ying on the vi<strong>de</strong>o, advertisement ad<strong>de</strong>d to the vi<strong>de</strong>o, and the<br />
vi<strong>de</strong>o category and recommendations.<br />
As for the first feature, in the case – Shuren Tech.Ltd v. “Youku.com” 27 , the court<br />
noticed that after clicking the vi<strong>de</strong>o file, there was a short break when the logo “Youku”<br />
disp<strong>la</strong>yed before the vi<strong>de</strong>o, moreover, the logo “Youku” was ad<strong>de</strong>d on the upper left of the<br />
vi<strong>de</strong>o when the vi<strong>de</strong>o was p<strong>la</strong>ying. Based on this fact, the court held the website changed<br />
the file as it was apparent the logo was not ad<strong>de</strong>d by users; instead, it was ad<strong>de</strong>d by the site<br />
or ad<strong>de</strong>d automatically by pre-set software. Simi<strong>la</strong>r <strong>de</strong>cisions can be also found in the case<br />
Joy Film Ltd v. “6.cn” 28 and Cheer<strong>la</strong>nd Entertainment organization v. “6.cn” 29 . on contrast,<br />
in the Ciwen Production Ltd v. “56.com” 30 , the court held that the sign “56.com”, which<br />
appea<strong>red</strong> when the vi<strong>de</strong>o was loading before p<strong>la</strong>ying, didn’t mean the website changed the<br />
content uploa<strong>de</strong>d by user.<br />
As for the second feature, in the case – Wangshang Culture Ltd v. “pomoho.com” 31 ,<br />
the court first confirmed that what the p<strong>la</strong>tform supplied was information storage space.<br />
However, the court noticed that an advertisement disp<strong>la</strong>yed on the bottom when the vi<strong>de</strong>o<br />
was p<strong>la</strong>ying. Even though the ad was preset into the vi<strong>de</strong>o-p<strong>la</strong>yer of the site, it <strong>de</strong>monstrated<br />
that the site had alte<strong>red</strong> the file uploa<strong>de</strong>d by internet users.<br />
As for the category and recommendations, one <strong>de</strong>cision stated the logo and the category<br />
was not the effect which could be brought simply by user’s uploading activity. 32 However,<br />
in another simi<strong>la</strong>r case–Longle Culture Ltd v. “m149.com” 33 , the court asserted that<br />
selecting recommen<strong>de</strong>d music and making categories didn’t changed the nature of the site<br />
as storage service provi<strong>de</strong>r. The site didn’t change actually the content. What it did is to<br />
facilitate user access to it and manage the storage location of user-generated content. In<br />
addition, some courts examined how the “recommen<strong>de</strong>d content” came out. In some cases<br />
27 Shuren Tech.Ltd v “Youku.com”,Haidian People’s Court, Beijing, (2008) HMCZ-9200.<br />
28 Joy Film Ltd v. “6.cn”,Haidian People’s Court, Beijing, (2008) HMCZ-22186.<br />
29 Cheer<strong>la</strong>nd Entertainment organization v. “6.cn”,Haidian People’s Court, Beijing, (2008) HMCZ-<br />
20961.<br />
30 Ciwen Film&TV Production Ltd v. “56.com”,The Second Intermediary Court of Beijing, (2009)<br />
EZMZZ-9.<br />
31 Wangshang Culture Ltd v. “pomoho.com”,Xicheng People’s Court, Beijing, (2008) XMCZ-6348.<br />
32 “Ku6.com” v. voole tech.ltd, the first Intermediary People’s Court of Beijing, (2010) YZMZZ-3517<br />
33 Longle Culture Ltd v. “m149.com”,Chaoyang People’s Court, Beijing, (2006) CMCZ-24729.
“Neutrality” test on web 2.0 P<strong>la</strong>tform for its intermediary liability in China and in europe<br />
185<br />
the recommen<strong>de</strong>d results are generated by system automatically on the basis of the viewing<br />
history of a specific registe<strong>red</strong> user, but in other cases, those recommendations were selected<br />
by human intervention of the site, and this fact might change the neutral status of the site.<br />
For instance, in the case– Fang Siyu v. “IT168.com” 34 , the <strong>de</strong>fendant was a popu<strong>la</strong>r site for<br />
information about IT products and re<strong>la</strong>ted software. When a user clicked the “download”<br />
button of the ebooks which were posted online by other users, there were “recommen<strong>de</strong>d<br />
posts ”,“hottest posts”, “<strong>la</strong>test phone-vi<strong>de</strong>os/mp3s/images for downloading ” disp<strong>la</strong>ying on<br />
the following page. The court stated that it meant the site edited and ad<strong>de</strong>d those links above<br />
when users conducted downloading activity, and it also meant the site had actual control<br />
of the information on its site and was involved in editing and organizing the information.<br />
Therefore, the site was not merely storage service provi<strong>de</strong>r, but only content service provi<strong>de</strong>r.<br />
In addition, in some case <strong>de</strong>cisions, the operating mo<strong>de</strong> may not indicate the usergenerated<br />
content has been alte<strong>red</strong>, but it may indicate the site had knowledge of the infringing<br />
content.<br />
In the case –Leshi Tech Ltd v. “56.com” 35 , the court found that when searching the<br />
name of the television series on the homepage of the site by its search function, the first<br />
search result was entitled as the name of the film including information about actors and<br />
version of the film. After clicking the search result, each episo<strong>de</strong> was listed on the page, and<br />
<strong>de</strong>tailed information was showed, such as who created the file and how many times the episo<strong>de</strong><br />
was p<strong>la</strong>yed, and those episo<strong>de</strong>s were not uploa<strong>de</strong>d by the same person. The fact brought<br />
the court to induce that the p<strong>la</strong>tform had reorganized the files. Even though that fact didn’t<br />
change the status of the p<strong>la</strong>tform as a storage service provi<strong>de</strong>r, it caused the court to assert<br />
the p<strong>la</strong>tform had knowledge of those illicit files. As for discussion forums, courts also took<br />
into account the actual involvement of the site. Some websites were operated in the name<br />
of forums, but in fact they were content provi<strong>de</strong>rs, because when the user uploa<strong>de</strong>d his file,<br />
the content couldn’t appear on the site simultaneously. The editor of the site checked the<br />
content and had the power to <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong> if it could be posted on the site 36 . So the site has actual<br />
control on the user-generated content and p<strong>la</strong>ys a role as editor instead of mere storage<br />
service provi<strong>de</strong>r in these cases.<br />
4. financial benefit analysis<br />
Almost all web 2.0 p<strong>la</strong>tforms get advertisement profits. The question is whether this<br />
commercial exploitation might point to the fact that the web 2.0 p<strong>la</strong>tform is <strong>de</strong>signed at<br />
34 Fang Siyu v. “IT168.com”,Haidian People’s Court, Beijing, (2007) HMCZ-15350.<br />
35 Leshi Tech Ltd v “56.com” ,Chaoyang People’s Court, Beijing, (2010) CMCZ-17360.<br />
36 See Mu Bifang v. “chinaqikan.com”, Haidian People’s Court, Beijing, (2005) HMCZ-8071; Fang<br />
Siyu v. “yao<strong>la</strong>n.com”, Haidian People’s Court, Beijing, (2007) HMCZ-18718.
186 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
more than just storing information technically. Neither the E-Commerce Directive nor the<br />
Chinese Tort Liability Law mentions this issue clearly.<br />
4.1. european approach<br />
In France, The remuneration is not relevant to the qualification of hosting provi<strong>de</strong>r,<br />
however, some French Courts used the criterion of commercial benefit to make a distinction<br />
between hosting provi<strong>de</strong>rs and editors and apply either the limited responsibility of a<br />
hosting provi<strong>de</strong>r based on the Law on Confi<strong>de</strong>nce in the Digital Economy or the full civil<br />
liability of an editor based on the Civil Co<strong>de</strong>. other courts argued this position didn’t comply<br />
with the text of the <strong>la</strong>w and the commercial advantage that a service provi<strong>de</strong>r extracted<br />
from its services didn’t permit to qualify the provi<strong>de</strong>r into an editor.<br />
The first case concerning this issue is the case –Tiscali Media v. Dargaud Lombard and<br />
Lucky Comics 37 . But this case originated before the E-Commerce Directive was transposed<br />
into French <strong>la</strong>w in 2004, thus the court applied the Freedom of Communication Act 1986 38<br />
and held the services provi<strong>de</strong>d by Tiscali Media went beyond the mere technical storage<br />
functions since it offe<strong>red</strong> internet users the possibility of creating their own websites by<br />
using its site at “www.chez.tiscali.fr” and offe<strong>red</strong> to advertisers the possibility to disp<strong>la</strong>y, directly<br />
on these pages, paid advertising space. However, as the <strong>de</strong>cision was not based on the<br />
E-Commerce Directive, the hosting <strong>de</strong>fense could not apply.<br />
In the case Jean-Yves Lafesse v. Dailymotion, publishers were <strong>de</strong>fined as “the person<br />
who <strong>de</strong>termines what content should be ma<strong>de</strong> publicly avai<strong>la</strong>ble on the p<strong>la</strong>tform”. The<br />
court opined that advertisement didn’t characterize the p<strong>la</strong>tform as content editor since the<br />
<strong>la</strong>w didn’t prohibit a host to take advantage of its site by selling advertising space. Simi<strong>la</strong>r<br />
opinions can be also found in the cases – F<strong>la</strong>ch Film and Editions Montparnasse v. Google 39 ,<br />
omar Sy and F<strong>red</strong> Testot v. Dailymotion 40 , Google Inc. v. Bac Films, The Factory and Canal<br />
Plus 41 . The opinion was finally confirmed in the judgment of the Court of Cassation in the<br />
case Nord-ouest Production, C. Carion & UGC Images v. Dailymotion on 17 February<br />
2011. The Court of Cassation asserted that the operation of the site by selling of advertising<br />
37 Cour <strong>de</strong> cassation (1re ch. Civ.), 14 janvier 2010, Telecom Italia (ex Tiscali Media) c. Stés Dargaud<br />
Lombard et Lucky Comics<br />
38 Article 43-8: Physicals or legal persons that provi<strong>de</strong>, free of charge or on fee paying basis, direct and<br />
permanent storage for distribution to the public of signals, documents, pictures, sounds or messages<br />
of any kind accessible through said services shall be criminally or legally liable on account of the<br />
content of said services only: if, after a judicial authority has refer<strong>red</strong> the matter to them, they have<br />
not acted promptly to prevent access to said content.<br />
39 Cour d’appel <strong>de</strong> Paris (pôle 5, chambre 2), 9 avril 2010, F<strong>la</strong>ch Film et Editions Montparnasse c.<br />
Google France , Google Inc<br />
40 Cour d’appel <strong>de</strong> Paris (pôle 5, chambre 1), 14 avril 2010, omar Sy et F<strong>red</strong> Testot c. Dailymotion<br />
41 Cour d’appel <strong>de</strong> Paris (pôle 5, chambre 2), 14 janvier 2011 , Google Inc. c. Bac Films, The factory et<br />
Canal Plus
“Neutrality” test on web 2.0 P<strong>la</strong>tform for its intermediary liability in China and in europe<br />
187<br />
space did not induce a capacity to act on the uploa<strong>de</strong>d content. The service of the host was<br />
free and it is necessarily financed by advertising revenue, furthermore, there was no prohibition<br />
on commercial exploitation of a hosting service through advertising un<strong>de</strong>r any <strong>la</strong>w 42 .<br />
In the Spanish case –Gestevision Telecinco SA v. YouTube LLC, the court <strong>de</strong>cision recognized<br />
that the fact that YouTube exploited its site for profit didn’t mean its service was not<br />
of an intermediary nature, and the court further opined that one aim of the E-Commerce<br />
Directive was to encourage the <strong>de</strong>velopment of commercial activities on the internet, and<br />
therefore it would be <strong>para</strong>doxical if an internet service provi<strong>de</strong>r couldn’t be exempted from<br />
liability just because it charged for its activities. However, as part of the Sustainable Economy<br />
Bill, the “Ley Sin<strong>de</strong>” Act which was rejected by Congress 21 December 2010 tried to<br />
set up a procedure that the administrative body may or<strong>de</strong>r an information society service<br />
provi<strong>de</strong>r who acts with direct or indirect lucrative intent to remove the infringing material.<br />
The “indirect” lucrative intent seems to inclu<strong>de</strong> the situations such as a hosting service provi<strong>de</strong>r<br />
seeking economic profit through advertising p<strong>la</strong>ced on the site 43 .<br />
At the European level, in the Google v. Louis Vuitton case 44 , the European Court of<br />
Justice (ECJ) confirmed the holding status of the Adword service of the search engine, and<br />
stated that “it must be pointed out that the mere facts that referencing service is subject to<br />
payment, that Google sets the payment terms or that it provi<strong>de</strong>s general information to its<br />
clients cannot have the effect of <strong>de</strong>priving Google of the exemptions from liability provi<strong>de</strong>d<br />
for in E-Commerce Directive”. Even though search engine is not a kind of web 2.0 p<strong>la</strong>tform,<br />
it is of intermediary nature because the Adwords are created by users. The case can be seen<br />
as ECJ’s attitu<strong>de</strong> towards financial benefits gained by internet intermediaries. That is to say,<br />
exploiting its site for gain is not a sign that the hosts are not of a neutral nature.<br />
4.2. chinese approach<br />
In China, though the Chinese Tort Liability Law doesn’t mention the financial benefit<br />
issue, the Regu<strong>la</strong>tion for the Protection of Information Network Dissemination Rights adopted<br />
a simi<strong>la</strong>r approach to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of the US, but<br />
it is only in terms of copyright infringement. one requirement for liability exemption is that<br />
42 Before the final <strong>de</strong>cision of the Court of Cassation, the regional court in Paris held Dailymotion was<br />
a hosting provi<strong>de</strong>r, but still liable for copyright infringement, as their business mo<strong>de</strong>l was based on<br />
recipients uploading copyrighted works. The Paris court of appeal overturned the <strong>de</strong>cision on its liability.<br />
43 Miquel Peguera,the Spanish Bill against online copyright infringement. What is it all about? See<br />
http://ispliability.wordpress.com/2011/01/15/ley_sin<strong>de</strong>/, <strong>la</strong>st accessed on 20 May,2011.<br />
44 Google France SARL, Google Inc. v. Louis Vuitton Malletier SA (C-236/08). Simi<strong>la</strong>r cases: Google<br />
France SARL v. Viaticum SA, Luteciel SARL (C-237/08). Google France SARL v. CNRRH<br />
SARL,Pierre-Alexis Thonet, Bruno Raboin, Tiger SARL(C-238/08). Die BergSpechte outdoor Reisen<br />
und Alpinschule Edi Koblmüller GmbH v. Günter Guni and trekking.at Reisen GmbH (C-<br />
278/08). Eis.<strong>de</strong> GmbH v. BBY Vertreibsgesellschaft GmbH (C-19/09). Portakabin Ltd v. Primakabin<br />
BV (C-558/08).
188 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
the internet service provi<strong>de</strong>r has not obtained a financial benefit directly attributable to the<br />
infringing materials. Differing from the DMCA, the Regu<strong>la</strong>tion doesn’t consi<strong>de</strong>r whether<br />
the service provi<strong>de</strong>r has the right and ability to control the infringing conduct. This is because<br />
in the context of the Regu<strong>la</strong>tion the term “internet storage service provi<strong>de</strong>r” inclu<strong>de</strong>s<br />
only those who provi<strong>de</strong> online storage space so it <strong>de</strong>finitely has the ability to control the<br />
information on its system –excluding those who provi<strong>de</strong> server space for a user’s web site.<br />
It is worth noting that the commercial exploitation here is limited to be “direct”, which<br />
means the internet service provi<strong>de</strong>r charges a fee for the service or content on its system. In<br />
the case–Ciwen Production Ltd v. “56.com”, the court held that the vi<strong>de</strong>o clip was free for<br />
internet users to watch, there was no proof that the website got profit from the vi<strong>de</strong>o directly<br />
though there was an advertisement on the right si<strong>de</strong> of web page besi<strong>de</strong> the vi<strong>de</strong>o. Simi<strong>la</strong>r<br />
opinion can be found in the case Longle Culture Ltd v. “m149.com”, Fudan Kaiyuan Culture<br />
Infomation Ltd v. “ku6.com” 45 .<br />
In addition, in some cases, courts notice that the infringing materials strengthen the<br />
attractiveness of the site and the profits are connected with the customers attracted by the<br />
users’ infringing activity, in other word, the worse the infringing activities are, the more<br />
online customers there are, and the higher the business value of the p<strong>la</strong>tform is. Un<strong>de</strong>r this<br />
circumstance, the profits are consi<strong>de</strong><strong>red</strong> as profits obtained directly from the infringement.<br />
For instance, in the case –Guangdianweiye Culture Institute v. “ku6.com” 46 , the site gave<br />
monetary award to those users whose files had attracted the greatest viewership, the court<br />
stated that the operation of “ku6.com” was not merely to encourage original works and to<br />
provi<strong>de</strong> a p<strong>la</strong>tform for podcast fans, in fact, it ma<strong>de</strong> advantage of the vi<strong>de</strong>os uploa<strong>de</strong>d by users,<br />
including films, TV series, original works etc, to enrich its online content, attract more<br />
users’ focus, increase its page view, and further attract more adverting customers and thereby<br />
obtain profits. Therefore, the <strong>de</strong>fendant ma<strong>de</strong> unauthorized use of other’s intellectual property<br />
and should be liable for the damages of right’s hol<strong>de</strong>r.<br />
In another case –Fang Siyu v. “bbs.baizhan.com.cn” 47 , some users ma<strong>de</strong> posts on the<br />
<strong>de</strong>fendant’s discussion forum to sell portable electronic <strong>de</strong>vices which could be used to read<br />
e-books, and someone else posted several e-books including the c<strong>la</strong>imant’s book free for<br />
downloading. The <strong>de</strong>fendant c<strong>la</strong>imed that it was a storage service provi<strong>de</strong>r therefore it qualified<br />
for the safe harbor. But the judge conten<strong>de</strong>d that the free e-books for downloading were<br />
to attract <strong>de</strong>vice users’ attention and further promote the sales of the <strong>de</strong>vice. The number<br />
of e-books on the site could affect the number of potential advertising customers. Thus, the<br />
45 Fudan Kaiyuan Culture Infomation Ltd v. “ku6.com”,Chaoyang People’s Court, Beijing, (2011)<br />
CMCZ-36328.<br />
46 Guangdianweiye Film&TV Culture Institute v. “ku6.com”,Haidian People’s Court, Beijing, (2008)<br />
HMCZ-14025.<br />
47 Fang Siyu v. “bbs.baizhan.com.cn”,Haidian People’s Court, Beijing, (2007)HMCZ-4555, the first<br />
intermediary court of Beijing upheld the <strong>de</strong>cision. See also Siyu v. “it168.com”.
“Neutrality” test on web 2.0 P<strong>la</strong>tform for its intermediary liability in China and in europe<br />
forum, as a p<strong>la</strong>tform for e-rea<strong>de</strong>r <strong>de</strong>vice sales, was held to have obtained profit from the<br />
dissemination of e-books.<br />
5. conclusion<br />
189<br />
With the advance of information technology, the neutrality of web 2.0 p<strong>la</strong>tform is<br />
becoming increasingly doubtful since some are no longer editorially neutral about content.<br />
They are much more active and involved with content originating from third parties. In addition,<br />
some websites operate and merge both content service and technical service, so that<br />
it is difficult to <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong> on the legal status in cases of infringement.<br />
Some European scho<strong>la</strong>rs have already concerned themselves with the problem of applying<br />
the holding <strong>de</strong>fense to web 2.0 p<strong>la</strong>tforms 48 . A recent report from French senators<br />
proposes to <strong>de</strong>velop the E-Commerce Directive to introduce, besi<strong>de</strong>s the existing categories<br />
of hosting provi<strong>de</strong>r and publisher, a new category of online service provi<strong>de</strong>r––“service<br />
publisher” (“éditeur <strong>de</strong> services” in French), which is characterized by drawing economic<br />
advantages from the direct consultation of hosted content, and require “service publishers”<br />
a duty of supervising its hosted content 49 . This specific liability regime would be stricter<br />
than the one applicable to hosting provi<strong>de</strong>r un<strong>de</strong>r article 14 of E-Commerce Directive and<br />
article 6 of the French Law on Confi<strong>de</strong>nce in the Digital Economy, while on the other hand,<br />
softer than the one applicable to a publisher who has full control over the content it posted<br />
and is therefore subject to full civil liability. The senators stated that “the context and reality<br />
have changed since the adoption of the e-commerce Directive. Unlike those popu<strong>la</strong>r hosting<br />
provi<strong>de</strong>rs that only sto<strong>red</strong> content and performed technical functions in early 2000s, web<br />
2.0 p<strong>la</strong>tforms don’t merely conduct technical activities and they p<strong>la</strong>y a more active role than<br />
true hosting provi<strong>de</strong>rs”.<br />
In China, there is no that kind of host-publisher category problem. Even though it is<br />
criticized by many scho<strong>la</strong>rs, but in some sense, just because of this legal uncertainty, courts<br />
are more flexible on a case-by-case basis. Consi<strong>de</strong>ring that the variety of websites is always<br />
48 Such as the Rapport– Commission Spécialisée sur les Prestataires <strong>de</strong> l’internet, Commission présidée<br />
par Pierre SIRINELLI. Vice-prési<strong>de</strong>ntes: Josée-Anne Bénazéraf, et Joëlle Farchy, Rapporteur :<br />
Alban <strong>de</strong> Nervaux, see http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/e-commerce/docs/expert/20080915_report_fr.pdf,<br />
<strong>la</strong>st accessed on May 6, 2011; Rapport d’Information ,Déposé en application <strong>de</strong> l’article<br />
86, alinéa 8, du Règlement Par <strong>la</strong> Commission <strong>de</strong>s Affaires Économiques, <strong>de</strong> L’Environnement et du<br />
Territoire sur <strong>la</strong> mise en application <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> loi n° 2004-575 du 21 juin 2004 pour <strong>la</strong> confiance dans<br />
l’économie numérique, et présenté par M. Jean Dionis du Séjour et Mme Corinne Erhel,Députés.<br />
See http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/13/pdf/rap-info/i0627.pdf, <strong>la</strong>st accessed on 6 May 2011.<br />
49 Rapport d’Iiformation Fait au nom <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> commission <strong>de</strong>s lois constitutionnelles, <strong>de</strong> légis<strong>la</strong>tion, du<br />
suffrage universel, du Règlement et d’administration générale (1) par le groupe <strong>de</strong> travail sur l’évaluation<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> loi n° 2007-1544 du 29 octobre 2007 <strong>de</strong> lute contre <strong>la</strong> contrefaçon (2) Par MM. Laurent<br />
Bétielle et Richard Yung, at 42-48, see http://www.senat.fr/rap/r10-296/r10-2961.pdf, <strong>la</strong>st accessed<br />
on 6 May 2011.
190 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
expanding in scope, it is impossible to categorize and list all kinds exhaustively. This flexibility<br />
seems to properly meet the diversity and the unp<strong>red</strong>ictable <strong>de</strong>velopment of internet<br />
information services. We can’t count on legis<strong>la</strong>tion to <strong>de</strong>fine the exact meaning of “neutrality”;<br />
instead, this c<strong>la</strong>rification can be and should be achieved over time, converging as information<br />
technology continuously advances and more case <strong>de</strong>cisions are <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong>d.<br />
By studying the operating mo<strong>de</strong>l analysis and financial benefit analysis in China and<br />
in Europe, especially in France, we can see that Chinese courts gave a higher protection<br />
on copyrighters than European courts in general. But the existing rules in China are only<br />
for copyright infringement. In terms of other cases, such as tra<strong>de</strong>mark, privacy, <strong>de</strong>famation,<br />
impersonation etc, there is no gui<strong>de</strong>line to answer whether the operating mo<strong>de</strong>l and<br />
remuneration of a web 2.0 p<strong>la</strong>tform could have influence on its neutral status or could<br />
imply that it had knowledge of the illegal activity or information, and further lead to its liability<br />
for user-generated content. As a national substantive <strong>la</strong>w, the Chinese Tort Liability<br />
Law should supply more specific and a<strong>de</strong>quate rules on this issue, otherwise, case <strong>de</strong>cisions<br />
might colli<strong>de</strong> with each other. Meanwhile, via case studies, I’ve also found case <strong>de</strong>cisions in<br />
European countries <strong>de</strong>monstrated different un<strong>de</strong>rstandings and opinions when performing<br />
the “Neutrality” test on web 2.0 p<strong>la</strong>tform for its intermediary liability. Further harmonization<br />
is still nee<strong>de</strong>d.<br />
6. bibliograPHy<br />
IDATE, TNo and IViR, User-Created-Content: Supporting a Participative Information<br />
Society, final report, SMART 2007/2008.<br />
Sartor, G., Vio<strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> Azevedo Cunha, M., The Italian Google-Case: Privacy, Freedom of<br />
Speech and Responsibility of Provi<strong>de</strong>rs for User-Generated Contents, 18 Int’l J.L. &<br />
Info.Tech.356 (2010).<br />
Joslove, B. L., De Spiegeleer-Delort, V., Web 2.0: Aggregator Website Held Liable<br />
as publisher, see http://www.international<strong>la</strong>woffice.com/Newsletters/Detail.<br />
aspx?g=4b014ec1-b334-4204-9fbd-00e05bf6db95&<strong>red</strong>ir=1#1. Last accessed on 20<br />
May 2011.<br />
Blocman, A., France:Liability of Vi<strong>de</strong>o-sharing P<strong>la</strong>tforms - First Judgement of Court of<br />
Cassation, IRIS 2011-3:1/18.<br />
Peguera, M., Internet Service Provi<strong>de</strong>rs’ Liability in Spain– Recent Case Law and Future<br />
Perspectives, Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic<br />
Commerce Law,Volume 1, Issue 3, December 2010.<br />
Rapport: Commission Spécialisée sur les Prestataires <strong>de</strong> l’internet. Rapporteur: Alban <strong>de</strong> Nervaux.<br />
See http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/e-commerce/docs/expert/20080915_<br />
report_fr.pdf, <strong>la</strong>st accessed on 6 May 2011.<br />
Rapport d’Information ,Déposé en application <strong>de</strong> l’article 86, alinéa 8, du Règlement sur<br />
<strong>la</strong> mise en application <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> loi n° 2004-575 du 21 juin 2004 pour <strong>la</strong> confiance dans
“Neutrality” test on web 2.0 P<strong>la</strong>tform for its intermediary liability in China and in europe<br />
191<br />
l’économie numérique. See http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/13/pdf/rap-info/i0627.<br />
pdf, <strong>la</strong>st accessed on 6 May 2011.<br />
Rapport d’Iiformation Fait au nom <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> commission <strong>de</strong>s lois constitutionnelles, <strong>de</strong> légis<strong>la</strong>tion,<br />
du suffrage universel, du Règlement et d’administration générale. See http://www.<br />
senat.fr/rap/r10-296/r10-2961.pdf, <strong>la</strong>st accessed on 6 May 2011.<br />
Qian Wang and Linghong Wang (2008), Study on Indirect Infringement of Intellectual<br />
Property Rights, Renming University Press, Beijing.<br />
Warner, R., Dinwoodie, G., Krent, H. and Stewart, M. (2007), E-Commerce, the Internet<br />
and the Law, Cases and Materials, Thomson West.<br />
Participative Web and User-created Content Web 2.0, Wikis And Social Networking, Paris,<br />
oECD, 2007.<br />
van Eijk, N., about Network Neutrality 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0, Computers & Law Magazine,<br />
2011-6.<br />
Thomas, H., The European liability and responsibility of provi<strong>de</strong>rs of online-p<strong>la</strong>tforms such<br />
as “Second Life”, 2009(1) Journal of Information, Law & Technology.<br />
Murray, A. (2010), Information Technology Law: the Law and Society, oxford University<br />
Press.<br />
chinese cases<br />
Fudan Kaiyuan Culture Infomation Ltd v. “ku6.com”, Chaoyang People’s Court, Beijing,<br />
(2011) CMCZ-36328.<br />
Guangdianweiye Film&TV Culture Institute v. “ku6.com”,Haidian People’s Court, Beijing,<br />
(2008) HMCZ-14025.<br />
Fang Siyu v. “bbs.baizhan.com.cn”,Haidian People’s Court, Beijing, (2007)HMCZ-4555.<br />
Fang Siyu v. “IT168.com”,Haidian People’s Court, Beijing, (2007) HMCZ-15350.<br />
Leshi Tech Ltd v “56.com” ,Chaoyang People’s Court, Beijing, (2010) CMCZ-17360.<br />
Mu Bifang v. “chinaqikan.com”, Haidian People’s Court, Beijing, (2005) HMCZ-8071.<br />
Fang Siyu v. “yao<strong>la</strong>n.com”, Haidian People’s Court, Beijing, (2007) HMCZ-18718.<br />
Joy Film Ltd v. “6.cn”, Haidian People’s Court, Beijing, (2008) HMCZ-22186.<br />
“Ku6.com” v. voole tech.ltd, the first Intermediary People’s Court of Beijing, (2010) YZ-<br />
MZZ-3517.<br />
Shuren Tech.Ltd v “Youku.com”,Haidian People’s Court, Beijing, (2008) HMCZ-9200.<br />
Wangshang Culture Ltd v. “pomoho.com”,Xicheng People’s Court, Beijing, (2008) XMCZ-<br />
6348.<br />
Cheer<strong>la</strong>nd Entertainment organization v. “6.cn”, Haidian People’s Court, Beijing, (2008)<br />
HMCZ-20961.<br />
Ciwen Film&TV Production Ltd v. “56.com”, the Second Intermediary Court of Beijing,<br />
(2009)EZMZZ-9.
192 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
Longle Culture Ltd v. “m149.com”, Chaoyang People’s Court, Beijing, (2006) CMCZ-<br />
24729.<br />
Guangdong Mengtong Culture Development Ltd v. “baidu.com”, Haidian People’s Court,<br />
Beijing (2007) HMCZ-17776.<br />
Lv Zhi Xing Institute & Han v. “sina.com”, see http://www.china<strong>la</strong>wedu.com/new/, <strong>la</strong>st<br />
accessed 19.04.2011.<br />
Jinfeng Publishing House v, “taobao.com”, Higher People’s Court of Zhejiang, (2006)<br />
ZMSZZ-125.<br />
Digital Heritage Publishing Ltd v. “eachnet.com”, Higher People’s Court of Shanghai,<br />
(2008) LGMS(Z)Z-113.<br />
De Ying& Gao Yuan v. “sinoi.com”,Haidian People’s Court, Beijing,(2002) HMCZ-742.<br />
Haida Ltd v. “sina.com”,Nanshan People’s Court, Guangdong, (2005) SNFMYCZ-1526.<br />
Duan Shuhang & “xici.net”, Nanyang Intermediate People’s Court, Henan, (2007)<br />
NMYZZ-193.<br />
Wang Yongjian v. “shangdu.com”, Intermediate People’s Court of Zhengzhou, Henan,<br />
(2009) ZMYZZ-296.<br />
european cases<br />
Google France SARL, Google Inc. v Louis Vuitton Malletier SA (C-236/08).<br />
Google France SARL v Viaticum SA, Luteciel SARL (C-237/08).<br />
Google France SARL v CNRRH SARL,Pierre-Alexis Thonet, Bruno Raboin, Tiger<br />
SARL(C-238/08).<br />
Die BergSpechte outdoor Reisen und Alpinschule Edi Koblmüller GmbH v. Günter Guni<br />
and trekking.at Reisen GmbH (C-278/08).<br />
Eis.<strong>de</strong> GmbH v. BBY Vertreibsgesellschaft GmbH (C-19/09).<br />
Portakabin Ltd v. Primakabin BV (C-558/08).<br />
F<strong>la</strong>ch Film et Editions Montparnasse c. Google France , Google Inc, Cour d’appel <strong>de</strong> Paris<br />
(pôle 5, chambre 2), 9 avril 2010.<br />
omar Sy et F<strong>red</strong> Testot c. Dailymotion, Cour d’appel <strong>de</strong> Paris (pôle 5, chambre 1), 14 avril<br />
2010.<br />
Google Inc. c. Bac Films, The factory et Canal Plus, Cour d’appel <strong>de</strong> Paris (pôle 5, chambre<br />
2), 14 janvier 2011.<br />
Nord-ouest Production, C. Carion & UGC Images c. Dailymotion, Cour <strong>de</strong> cassation (1re<br />
chambre civile), 17 février 2011.<br />
Telecom Italia (ex Tiscali Media) c. Stés Dargaud Lombard et Lucky Comics, Cour <strong>de</strong> cassation<br />
(1re ch. Civ.), 14 janvier 2010.<br />
Google Inc. et Google France c. Benetton Group et Bencom, Cour d’appel <strong>de</strong> Paris(14ème<br />
chambre Section A) , 12 décembre 2007.
“Neutrality” test on web 2.0 P<strong>la</strong>tform for its intermediary liability in China and in europe<br />
193<br />
“Fuzz.fr” c. olivier Martinez, Arrêt n° 164 du 17 février 2011 (09-13.202) ,Cour <strong>de</strong> cassation,<br />
Première chambre civile.<br />
“Fuzz.fr” c. olivier Martinez, Cour d’appel <strong>de</strong> Paris (14ème chambre, section B) Arrêt du 21<br />
novembre 2008.<br />
Jean-Yves Lambert dit Lafesse c. Dailymotion, Tribunal <strong>de</strong> gran<strong>de</strong> instance <strong>de</strong> Paris (3ème<br />
chambre, 1 ème section), 15 avril 2008.<br />
Jean Yves L. dit Lafesse c. Myspace, Tribunal <strong>de</strong> gran<strong>de</strong> instance <strong>de</strong> Paris ordonnance <strong>de</strong><br />
référé 22 juin 2007.<br />
Jean Yves L. dit Lafesse c. Google, Tribunal <strong>de</strong> gran<strong>de</strong> instance <strong>de</strong> Paris (3ème chambre,<br />
3ème section) Jugement du 24 juin 2009.<br />
SARL Zadig Production, Jean-Robert V. et Mathieu V. c/ Sté Google Inc. et AFA, Tribunal<br />
<strong>de</strong> gran<strong>de</strong> instance <strong>de</strong> Paris (3ème chambre, 2ème section) Jugement du 19 octobre<br />
2007.<br />
Les Arnaques.com c. Editions Régionales <strong>de</strong> France, Cour d’appel <strong>de</strong> Versailles, 12 décembre<br />
2007.<br />
eBay Europe v SARL DWC, Cour d’appel <strong>de</strong> Paris, 9 Novembre 2007.<br />
Gestevision Telecinco SA v YouTube LLC ,Juzgado <strong>de</strong> lo Mercantil no. 7 <strong>de</strong> Madrid, Sentencia<br />
289/2010 <strong>de</strong> 20 <strong>de</strong> septiembre.
10<br />
INtermeDIArIes IN tHe eye Of tHe COPyrIgHt stOrm:<br />
A COmPArAtIVe ANAlysIs Of tHe tHree strIke<br />
APPrOACH wItHIN tHe eUrOPeAN UNION<br />
Evi Werkers<br />
Doctoral Stu<strong>de</strong>nt Interdisciplinary Centre for Law and ICT – K.U.Leuven<br />
AbstrAct: The rapid <strong>de</strong>velopment of the digital information society has shaken the creative content<br />
sector to its very foundations and has upset the ba<strong>la</strong>nce between right hol<strong>de</strong>rs, intermediaries and<br />
users. on the one hand, there is more creative content avai<strong>la</strong>ble, creators can produce and distribute<br />
their works to a wi<strong>de</strong>r public at a low cost, in<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>ntly of physical constraints and across bor<strong>de</strong>rs.<br />
on the other hand, right hol<strong>de</strong>rs have lost the power to control the (re)distribution of their creations<br />
and, <strong>de</strong>spite the stimu<strong>la</strong>tion of technological protection measures, continue to face a swelling problem<br />
of digital counterfeiting, piracy and dropping sale numbers. To resolve the issue of illegal sharing of<br />
copyright protected content certain Member States increasingly seek refuge to col<strong>la</strong>boration with<br />
internet service provi<strong>de</strong>rs, sometimes resulting in close surveil<strong>la</strong>nce of users’ digital sharing behaviour<br />
and limitations on access to the internet. Due to these <strong>de</strong>velopments the once established “neutral”<br />
role of internet service provi<strong>de</strong>rs and the e-commerce regime exempting them of liability is put un<strong>de</strong>r<br />
consi<strong>de</strong>rable pressure. Furthermore, the regu<strong>la</strong>tory instruments for the protection of copyright and<br />
creativity no longer seem capable of guaranteeing righthol<strong>de</strong>rs a fair return on their creative investments<br />
while ensuring the public’s access to information and respect for privacy. In this paper an interdisciplinary<br />
com<strong>para</strong>tive analysis will be ma<strong>de</strong> and closer look will be taken into the recent <strong>de</strong>bates<br />
that took p<strong>la</strong>ce in Belgium and the United Kingdom since the adoption of the (French) three strikes<br />
approach. The different speed by which these countries seek solutions to restore the ba<strong>la</strong>nce and the<br />
eagerly awaited interpretations by the European Court of Justice in the SABAM/Scarlet case and the<br />
High Court’s judicial review will be critically analysed to shed a light on the future of the three strikes<br />
approach.<br />
Keywords: intermediaries, copyright, liability, filtering, three strikes.<br />
1. coPyrigHt infringement Vs. coPyrigHt enforcement, 1-1<br />
1.1. The long-running failure of enforcing copyright regu<strong>la</strong>tion online<br />
Why is a normally <strong>la</strong>w-abiding citizen enticed to entirely ignore the <strong>la</strong>ws of copyright<br />
without any sense of remorse or guilt? Despite the awareness campaigns and educational<br />
programs, millions of users continue to make copyright infringements in various shapes.<br />
It seems that whatever action the creative industry is un<strong>de</strong>rtaking, pirates won’t halt their<br />
activities 1 and consumers won’t stop making use of their illegal services. The most promi-<br />
1 Bridy, A. (2009) “Why pirates (still) won’t behave: regu<strong>la</strong>ting peer-to-peer in the <strong>de</strong>ca<strong>de</strong> after Napster”.<br />
Rutgers Law Journal. Vol. 40, N° 3, 566.
196 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
nent problem of all is the wi<strong>de</strong>spread success of illegal file sharing via peer-to-peer software,<br />
which righthol<strong>de</strong>rs at one time believed to be just a temporary nuisance. But the problem<br />
persisted, expan<strong>de</strong>d even to other channels (newsgroups, social networks) and became one<br />
of the most symbolic battles of righthol<strong>de</strong>rs in the 21 st Century.<br />
The difficulties with the moral disengagement 2 towards copyright and the subsequent<br />
tensions between creators and consumers have accumu<strong>la</strong>ted since the adoption of the Information<br />
Society Directive and the Enforcement Directive (hereafter refer<strong>red</strong> to as Copyright<br />
Directives). Hol<strong>de</strong>rs of intellectual property rights successfully plea<strong>de</strong>d for more regu<strong>la</strong>tory<br />
restrictions / prohibitions and an expansion of copyright protection. As a consequence, there<br />
has been an expansion of exploitation rights (reproduction, communication of works to<br />
the public and distribution) and legal protection of technological protection measures, providing<br />
them the legal grounds to maintain control over the distribution of their works in the<br />
online environment. The Information Society Directive installed a two-tie<strong>red</strong> approach with<br />
regard to free usage of works for purposes of the public interest, also vis-à-vis unauthorised<br />
copies for private purposes 3 . The Enforcement Directive requi<strong>red</strong> all Member States to apply<br />
effective, dissuasive, proportionate, fair and equitable measures, procedures and remedies<br />
against those engaged in counterfeiting and piracy and created a level p<strong>la</strong>ying field for right<br />
hol<strong>de</strong>rs in the EU. As a consequence, all Member States have a simi<strong>la</strong>r set of measures, procedures<br />
and remedies avai<strong>la</strong>ble for right hol<strong>de</strong>rs to <strong>de</strong>fend their intellectual property rights<br />
when they are infringed 4 . Today however, the legal tools at the disposal of right hol<strong>de</strong>rs seem<br />
insufficient. Illegal downloading continues at a robust rate and is even spreading its wings<br />
from music and audiovisual files to textbook swapping 5 . The failure of technological protection<br />
measures, the marginal effect of expensive legal suits against peer-to-peer software<br />
<strong>de</strong>velopers and against Internet users eagerly downloading files and <strong>la</strong>st but not least, the<br />
difficult enforcement of copyright across bor<strong>de</strong>rs have prompted righthol<strong>de</strong>rs to seek other<br />
solutions. The solution was found in the shape of “intermediaries”.<br />
Already in the pre-Internet era, right hol<strong>de</strong>rs had successfully p<strong>red</strong>icated on intermediary<br />
liability for certain gatekeepers who provi<strong>de</strong>d the means to reproduce copyright protected<br />
works on a <strong>la</strong>rge scale. Today however, the situation is significantly different since<br />
these new intermediaries are legally obliged to act entirely passive-neutral and have been<br />
2 Peukert, A. (2010) “Why do good people disregard copyright on the internet?”. In C. Geiger (ed.),<br />
Criminal enforcement: a blessing or a curse of intellectual property?. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing<br />
(forthcoming), pp. 15-16.<br />
3 Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the<br />
harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and re<strong>la</strong>ted rights in the information society (hereafter<br />
refer<strong>red</strong> to as Information Society Directive), Official Journal C 167, 22.06.2001, 10<br />
4 Directive 2004/48 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement<br />
of intellectual property rights (hereafter refer<strong>red</strong> to as the Enforcement Directive), Official<br />
Journal L 157, 30.04.2004, 45.<br />
5 R. Stross. (2008). “First it was song downloads. Now it’s organic chemistry”, New York Times, July<br />
27.
Intermediaries in the eye of the copyright storm: A com<strong>para</strong>tive analysis of the three strike approach… 197<br />
granted a special regime that un<strong>de</strong>r certain conditions exempts them from liability for thirdparty<br />
copyright infringement. only when ma<strong>de</strong> aware of the existence of allegedly copyright<br />
infringing content, they have to act promptly and remove the content expeditiously or at<br />
least make it inaccessible. Despite this legal protection regime, the entertainment industry<br />
has been lobbying quite actively and has targeted both access and hosting provi<strong>de</strong>rs to assist<br />
them in their quest against digital pirates by sending out warning letters, by sharing personal<br />
data and i<strong>de</strong>ntifying customers, by installing filter tools or <strong>la</strong>st but not least, by monitoring<br />
their network as a whole (infra).<br />
The current approach to enforce copyright in its digital context has created a disrupted<br />
re<strong>la</strong>tion between right hol<strong>de</strong>rs and consumers. Intermediaries providing users access to the<br />
Internet to freely communicate and Internet services (especially those based upon user-generated<br />
or created content) are in the midst of the firework between these parties. Righthol<strong>de</strong>rs<br />
c<strong>la</strong>im that these intermediaries can no longer stand asi<strong>de</strong> in their battle against pirates and<br />
should operate with them more actively and preferably in a proactive manner, whereas civil<br />
liberty groups and consumers advocates stress their role as guardians of the right to privacy,<br />
secrecy of communications, freedom of expression and right to information of their customers.<br />
In what follows we will exp<strong>la</strong>in the roots of the problem, illustrated by some <strong>la</strong>ndmark<br />
cases ruled by the European Court for Justice (hereafter refer<strong>red</strong> to as ECJ).<br />
1.2. The changing role of intermediaries in the creative content online environment<br />
1.2.1. The safe harbour provisions<br />
originally the European legis<strong>la</strong>ture ma<strong>de</strong> a lot of efforts to restrain intermediaries from<br />
choosing party and ma<strong>de</strong> sure they would take up a merely neutral-passive role. This is<br />
clearly reflected by the special exemption regime installed by the E-Commerce Directive<br />
that was adopted in 2000 as a response to the disparities that existed amongst Member<br />
States concerning the liability of service provi<strong>de</strong>rs acting as intermediaries which prevented<br />
the smooth functioning of the Internal Market, but also to ensure the freedom of communication<br />
and expression via the open network the Internet provi<strong>de</strong>s 6 . It follows from recital 42<br />
of the E-Commerce Directive that the exemptions from liability established in that directive<br />
cover only cases in which the activity of the information society service provi<strong>de</strong>r is of a mere<br />
technical, automatic and passive nature, which implies that that service provi<strong>de</strong>r ‘has neither<br />
knowledge of nor control over the information which is transmitted or sto<strong>red</strong>’.<br />
The horizontal regime which was adopted, also known as the “safe harbour” provisions,<br />
sets the minimum conditions un<strong>de</strong>r which intermediary provi<strong>de</strong>rs are exonerated from liability<br />
for the activities of “mere conduit” (transitory Internet communications), “caching”<br />
6 Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal<br />
aspects of information society services, in particu<strong>la</strong>r electronic commerce, in the Internal Market<br />
(‘Directive on electronic commerce’), Official Journal C 178, 17.07.2000,1 (hereafter refer<strong>red</strong> to as<br />
E-Commerce Directive).
198 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
(temporary caches) and “hosting” (storage of third party content). By facilitating fast and<br />
efficient transmission of content and remaining passive, intermediaries are in a state of immunity<br />
from liability, including copyright liability. Theoretically Member States could take<br />
it one step further and set less stringent conditions of exoneration as long as they regu<strong>la</strong>te<br />
service provi<strong>de</strong>rs established on their territory in accordance with the country of origin<br />
principle 7 .<br />
The E-Commerce Directive prescribes that a service provi<strong>de</strong>r acting as “mere conduit”<br />
is not liable for the information transmitted on condition that the provi<strong>de</strong>r does not initiate<br />
the transmission, select the receiver nor select or modify the information contained<br />
in the transmission8 . A “hosting” provi<strong>de</strong>r on the other hand is exonerated from liability<br />
for the information sto<strong>red</strong> at the request of a recipient of the service, on the condition<br />
that he has no knowledge of the un<strong>la</strong>wful activity and does not control the activity of the<br />
recipient. However, upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness the provi<strong>de</strong>r should<br />
act and expeditiously remove or disable access to the information. In other words, they<br />
are not supposed to un<strong>de</strong>rtake any action whatsoever, only to react ex post to notices of<br />
infringement of copyright9 .<br />
Article 15 of the E-Commerce Directive complements these exoneration regimes by<br />
<strong>de</strong>termining that Member States cannot impose a general obligation to monitor ISPs or<br />
seek for facts or circumstances indicating illegal activity. The rationale of this provision was<br />
not just for mere practical reasons (ISPs cannot possibly monitor all the content passing on<br />
their network) but also, and mainly, out of concern for the freedom of free communication<br />
and expression on the Internet. After all, if ISPs were obliged to monitor the content passing<br />
through or sto<strong>red</strong> on their networks and services, or to seek for facts or circumstances<br />
indicating illegal activity, this would cause a serious chilling effect on Internet communications.<br />
It is thus exactly to avoid such censorship that the European legis<strong>la</strong>tor <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong>d to free<br />
ISPs from the great pressure of having to monitor, not even in or<strong>de</strong>r to enforce copyright<br />
protection.<br />
Nevertheless this immunity is far from absolute. The E-Commerce Directive does allow<br />
Member States to establish a) obligations for information society service provi<strong>de</strong>rs to<br />
promptly inform the competent public authorities of alleged illegal activities un<strong>de</strong>rtaken or<br />
information provi<strong>de</strong>d by recipients of their service; b) obligations to communicate to the<br />
competent authorities, at their request, information enabling the i<strong>de</strong>ntification of recipients<br />
of their service with whom they have storage agreements. Furthermore, the E-Commerce<br />
Directive stipu<strong>la</strong>tes that exoneration for the activities enumerated above will not affect the<br />
7 Stal<strong>la</strong>-Bourdillon, S. (2011). “Uniformity v. Diversity of Internet Intermediaries’ liability regime:<br />
where does the ECJ stand?” Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology. Vol. 6, Issue 1,<br />
59.<br />
8 Art. 13 E-Commerce Directive.<br />
9 Art. 14 E-Commerce Directive.
Intermediaries in the eye of the copyright storm: A com<strong>para</strong>tive analysis of the three strike approach… 199<br />
possibility for a court or administrative authority, in accordance with Member States ’ legal<br />
systems, to require the service provi<strong>de</strong>r to terminate or prevent an infringement 10 .<br />
1.2.2. A complex set of services: challenging interpretations<br />
Today the terminology of the Directive appears to be quite difficult to apply to the<br />
complex set of services that is provi<strong>de</strong>d by intermediary provi<strong>de</strong>rs. There are two particu<strong>la</strong>r<br />
cases we would like to highlight which <strong>de</strong>monstrate that even the highest European<br />
Court is challenged to evaluate the provisions of the E-Commerce Directive and to <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong><br />
upon its field of application. The first case was brought against Google in the context of its<br />
referencing service Adwords. The Court <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong>d that Internet referencing services can also<br />
fall un<strong>de</strong>r the “hosting” activity (an information society service consisting in the storage<br />
of information supplied by the advertiser) un<strong>de</strong>r the condition that the service provi<strong>de</strong>r<br />
has not p<strong>la</strong>yed an active role and <strong>la</strong>cked knowledge or control of the data which it sto<strong>red</strong> 11 .<br />
The fact that the reference service was subject to payment or the concordance between the<br />
keyword selected and the search term was, according to the ECJ, not sufficient of itself to<br />
justify the view that Google had knowledge of, or control over, the data ente<strong>red</strong> into its<br />
system by advertisers and sto<strong>red</strong> in memory on its server. By contrast, “the role p<strong>la</strong>yed by<br />
Google in the drafting of the commercial message which accompanies the advertising link or<br />
in the establishment or selection of keywords“ was consi<strong>de</strong><strong>red</strong> relevant. Still, the ECJ found<br />
that the national courts were best p<strong>la</strong>ced to assess whether the role fulfilled by Google<br />
correspon<strong>de</strong>d with the conditions of “neutrality” set out by the ECJ or not. The reluctance<br />
by the ECJ to answer this question by itself is surprising but can be exp<strong>la</strong>ined by the fact<br />
that national judges can adapt more easily to the complexity of the environment in which<br />
these intermediary provi<strong>de</strong>rs operate 12 .<br />
In the second ECJ case of L’ oréal vs. Ebay, with regard to the liability of an operator<br />
of an electronic market p<strong>la</strong>ce, Advocate-General Jääskinen carefully nuanced the former<br />
interpretation. L’ oréal accused auction site Ebay of buying search engine keywords and to<br />
direct users to its website on which counterfeited products were frequently offe<strong>red</strong> by users,<br />
<strong>de</strong>spite Ebay’s efforts to remove these offers. The Advocate-General first stated that the E-<br />
Commerce Directive has a broad scope of application and that its liability regime should<br />
not necessarily be interpreted narrowly. Jääskinen then <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong>d a clear distinction had to<br />
be ma<strong>de</strong> between the storage-based activities falling un<strong>de</strong>r the scope of the E-Commerce<br />
Directive and other activities of Ebay which are cove<strong>red</strong> by liability un<strong>de</strong>r national <strong>la</strong>w. Ebay<br />
had, according to the findings before the national court, not been neutral because it had<br />
instructed its clients in the drafting of the advertisements and monito<strong>red</strong> the contents of the<br />
listings. According to Jääskinen however the neutrality condition (in the sense that its con-<br />
10 Article 12.3., article 13.2 article 14.3 and article 15.2 E-Commerce Directive.<br />
11 ECJ Joined cases C-236/08, C-237/08, C-238/08, recitals 110, 114-121.<br />
12 Stal<strong>la</strong>-Bourdillon, S., “Uniformity v. Diversity of Internet Intermediaries’ liability regime: where<br />
does the ECJ stand?” Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology. Vol. 6, Issue 1, 59.
200 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
duct is merely technical, automatic and passive, pointing to a <strong>la</strong>ck of knowledge or control<br />
of the data which it stores) <strong>de</strong>rived from recital 42 of the E-Commerce Directive does not<br />
refer to the hosting activity. The Advocate –General stated that he would find it surreal that<br />
“if eBay intervenes and gui<strong>de</strong>s the contents of listings in its system with various technical means,<br />
it would by that fact be <strong>de</strong>prived of the protection of Article 14 regarding storage of information<br />
uploa<strong>de</strong>d by the users” 13 .<br />
These two <strong>la</strong>ndmark cases – and many other cases on national level which we unfortunately<br />
cannot e<strong>la</strong>borate upon in this paper as it would go beyond the scope 14 – <strong>de</strong>monstrate<br />
that the ECJ is willing to give a broad interpretation to the provisions of the hosting activity<br />
un<strong>de</strong>r the E-Commerce Directive. Despite the ten<strong>de</strong>ncy to interpret the liability regime of<br />
the E-Commerce Directive in the light of the <strong>la</strong>test technologies and extending its scope to<br />
newly <strong>de</strong>veloped services, a trend towards greater liability of these intermediaries can also<br />
be observed.<br />
1.2.3. Should intermediaries lift their anchor and set sail to less safe waters?<br />
The E-Commerce Directive has failed in its attempt to provi<strong>de</strong> a successful conflict<br />
methodology, in particu<strong>la</strong>r in re<strong>la</strong>tion to the protection of European creative content online.<br />
Its <strong>la</strong>borious application in the context of the new emerging (hosting) service(s) provi<strong>de</strong>rs<br />
and the strained re<strong>la</strong>tionship with the European Copyright Directives were at the dawn<br />
of the new regu<strong>la</strong>tory initiatives that emerged over the past years throughout Europe. The<br />
cause of this tension can partly be found in the relevant Directives themselves. on the one<br />
hand art. 8.3. of the Information Society Directive, art. 9.1. § 1 a) and art. 11 of the Enforcement<br />
Directive provi<strong>de</strong> the possibility for righthol<strong>de</strong>rs to bring an injunction against<br />
intermediaries whose services are used by third parties to terminate an infringement of intellectual<br />
property rights. on the other hand, the Copyright Directive and the Enforcement<br />
Directive stipu<strong>la</strong>te that they do not harm the exoneration provisions of the E-Commerce<br />
Directive 15 . In a couple of recent cases the ECJ highlighted the (strained) re<strong>la</strong>tionship that<br />
exists between the E-Commerce Directive, the Copyright Directives and fundamental rights<br />
of Internet users, in particu<strong>la</strong>r the freedom of communication and the right to privacy.<br />
on 29 January 2008, the ECJ ren<strong>de</strong><strong>red</strong> a judgement in the case of the Spanish right<br />
hol<strong>de</strong>r group Promusicae against the ISP Telefónica in which the copyright society wanted to<br />
oblige the <strong>la</strong>tter to disclose i<strong>de</strong>ntity data on peer-to-peer users of Kazaa in a civil procedure.<br />
It was the first ruling by the ECJ in which it <strong>de</strong>alt with the tension between the enforcement<br />
of intellectual property rights and data protection. The ECJ <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong>d that it cannot be<br />
13 opinion Advocate-General Jääkinen, C-324/09, 9 December 2010 recitals 130-146.<br />
14 For an overview of French and Belgian case <strong>la</strong>w with regard to hosting user-generated content, see for<br />
example: Werkers, E. (2010). How the press <strong>de</strong>als with user-generated content: one the hazards of<br />
the job?” [Avai<strong>la</strong>ble in Dutch only: “De omgang van <strong>de</strong> pers met gebruikersinhou<strong>de</strong>n: <strong>de</strong> bluts met<br />
<strong>de</strong> buil?”]. Auteurs & Media. N° 1, pp. 7-21.<br />
15 Recital 16 Information Society Directive and recital 15 Enforcement Directive.
Intermediaries in the eye of the copyright storm: A com<strong>para</strong>tive analysis of the three strike approach… 201<br />
<strong>de</strong>rived from European legis<strong>la</strong>tion (the Copyright directives and E-Commerce Directive)<br />
that Member States are obliged to install a duty to provi<strong>de</strong> personal data in the context of<br />
a civil procedure to ensure the effective protection of copyright. However, the ECJ further<br />
<strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong>d that Community <strong>la</strong>w does require that, when transposing those directives, Member<br />
States take care to rely on an interpretation of them which allows a fair ba<strong>la</strong>nce to be struck<br />
between the various fundamental rights protected by the Community legal or<strong>de</strong>r. When<br />
implementing the measures transposing the directives, the authorities and courts of the<br />
Member States must not only interpret their national <strong>la</strong>w in a manner consistent with those<br />
directives but also make sure that they do not rely on an interpretation of them which would<br />
be in conflict with fundamental rights (right to privacy and right to property) or with the<br />
other general principles of Community <strong>la</strong>w, such as the principle of proportionality. In sum,<br />
the ‘hot potato’ was passed on to the Member States 16 .<br />
In the case of L’oréal vs. Ebay, the Advocate-General also consi<strong>de</strong><strong>red</strong> whether a hosting<br />
provi<strong>de</strong>r can be requi<strong>red</strong> to prevent future infringements. He <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong>d that “actual knowledge”<br />
refers only to past and/or present but not to the future. Hence, in the case of an alleged<br />
tra<strong>de</strong> mark infringement on an electronic marketp<strong>la</strong>ce, the object of knowledge must be a<br />
conclu<strong>de</strong>d or ongoing activity or an existing fact or circumstance. Secondly the requirement<br />
of actual knowledge seems to exclu<strong>de</strong> construed knowledge. It is not enough that the service<br />
provi<strong>de</strong>r ought to have known or has good reasons to suspect illegal activity. Consequently,<br />
actual knowledge means knowledge of past or present information, activity or facts that the<br />
service provi<strong>de</strong>r has on the basis of an external notification or its own voluntary research.<br />
According to the Advocate-General, exemption from liability however does not apply in<br />
cases where the electronic marketp<strong>la</strong>ce operator has been notified of infringing use of a<br />
tra<strong>de</strong> mark, and the same user continues or repeats the same infringement. An injunction<br />
against an intermediary to prevent any further infringements of a tra<strong>de</strong> mark would be<br />
disproportionate, but the prevention of the continuation of a specific act of infringement or<br />
the prevention of repetition of the same or a simi<strong>la</strong>r infringement in the future, is not. What<br />
is crucial, of course, is that the intermediary can know with certainty what is requi<strong>red</strong> from<br />
him, and that the injunction does not impose impossible, disproportionate or illegal duties<br />
like a general obligation of monitoring. An appropriate limit for the scope of injunctions in<br />
the opinion of the Advocate-General may be that of a double requirement of i<strong>de</strong>ntity, meaning<br />
that the infringing third party should be the same and that the tra<strong>de</strong> mark infringed<br />
should be the same in the cases concerned 17 .<br />
Even more interesting is the recent Conclusion by Advocate-General Cruz Vil<strong>la</strong>lón in<br />
the Belgian case of Scarlet v. Sabam, refer<strong>red</strong> to the ECJ by the Belgian Court of Appeal for<br />
a preliminary ruling. The antece<strong>de</strong>nts of the case can be summarised as follows. According to<br />
16 C-275/06, Telefónica vs. Promusicae, 29 January 2008, recital 71 ; For a profound analysis see<br />
Cou<strong>de</strong>rt, F. and Werkers, E. (2010). “In The Aftermath of the Promusicae Case: How to Strike<br />
the Ba<strong>la</strong>nce?” International Journal of Law and Information Technology. Vol. 18, pp. 50-71.<br />
17 opinion Advocate-General Jääkinen, C-324/09, 9 December 2010, recitals 154-182.
202 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
the Belgian collecting society Société Belge <strong>de</strong>s auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs (SABAM)<br />
the access provi<strong>de</strong>r Scarlet was in the best position to filter and block illegal sharing via peerto-peer<br />
software of copyright protected files belonging to their repertoire. As a consequence<br />
SABAM applied for interim relief against the ISP on the basis of Article 87 of the Belgian<br />
Copyright Act to block and filter the un<strong>la</strong>wful peer-to-peer communications. The Presi<strong>de</strong>nt<br />
of the Court of First Instance of Brussels had conclu<strong>de</strong>d that given the evi<strong>de</strong>nced infringements<br />
and even though the ISP itself could not be held liable, the c<strong>la</strong>im of Sabam was legitimate<br />
and (following the advice of the appointed legal expert) the filtering system Audible<br />
Magic had to be installed by the ISP. Scarlet was given a period of six months to abi<strong>de</strong> by the<br />
ruling and to install the Audible Magic technology un<strong>de</strong>r constraint of a penalty payment of<br />
€ 2,500 per day, but appealed. Before ren<strong>de</strong>ring its judgement, the Court of Appeal of Brussels<br />
sought a preliminary ruling by the Court of Justice 18 . The prejudicial question raised by<br />
the Belgian judge goes as follows: “Do Directives 2001/29 and 2004/48, in conjunction with<br />
Directives 95/46, 2000/31 and 2002/58, construed in particu<strong>la</strong>r in the light of Articles 8 and 10<br />
of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, permit<br />
Member States to authorise a national court, before which substantive proceedings have been<br />
brought and on the basis merely of a statutory provision stating that: ‘They [the national courts]<br />
may also issue an injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by a third party to infringe<br />
a copyright or re<strong>la</strong>ted right’, to or<strong>de</strong>r an Internet Service Provi<strong>de</strong>r (ISP) to introduce, for all<br />
its customers, in abstracto and as a preventive measure, exclusively at the cost of that ISP and for an<br />
unlimited period, a system for filtering all electronic communications, both incoming and outgoing,<br />
passing via its services, in particu<strong>la</strong>r those involving the use of peer-to-peer software, in or<strong>de</strong>r<br />
to i<strong>de</strong>ntify on its network the sharing of electronic files containing a musical, cinematographic or<br />
audio-visual work in respect of which the applicant c<strong>la</strong>ims to hold rights, and subsequently to block<br />
the transfer of such files, either at the point at which they are requested or at which they are sent?<br />
As Advocate-General Cruz Vil<strong>la</strong>lón remarks in its opinion, the ECJ is implicitly requested to<br />
provi<strong>de</strong> its ruling on the viability of certain technological measures used in the fight against<br />
online piracy, though its <strong>de</strong>pendability is in constant technological evolution. First of all<br />
the Advocate-General is of the opinion that neither the concrete impact on the exchange of<br />
data nor the costs of maintenance can be <strong>de</strong>termined a priori. After an extensive assessment<br />
of the measure requested for by SABAM, the Advocate-General conclu<strong>de</strong>s that the filtering<br />
and blocking measures are undoubtedly general in every sense: ratione materiae (all electronic<br />
communications), ratione personae (all clients of ISPs) but also in terms of space and time.<br />
Though Cruz Vil<strong>la</strong>lón agrees with the European Commission that the measures fail to meet<br />
the conditions of proportionality, he proposes the ECJ to <strong>de</strong>c<strong>la</strong>re the measure incompatible<br />
with EU <strong>la</strong>w for not having met the legality test, set out as one of the core conditions to restrict<br />
fundamental rights of privacy, secrecy of communications, freedom of expression and<br />
right to information. The European Court For Human Rights ruled on several occasions that<br />
18 Pres. Court of First Instance Brussels, 29 June 2007. Coppens, F. (2008). « Filtrage peer-to-peer: possibilités<br />
techniques et obstacles juridiques » Revue du Droit <strong>de</strong>s Technologies <strong>de</strong> l’Information. Vol 30,<br />
pp. 94-103.
Intermediaries in the eye of the copyright storm: A com<strong>para</strong>tive analysis of the three strike approach… 203<br />
the <strong>la</strong>w should be sufficiently clear, accessible and foreseeable. Cruz Vil<strong>la</strong>lón <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong>d that it<br />
was impossible for Scarlet to foresee that article 87 of the Belgian Copyright Act could act as<br />
a legal ground for the ruling and filtering/blocking measures imposed by the Belgian Court<br />
of First Instance. Since there was no national provision providing a sufficiently clear and<br />
foreseeable legal ground, the second part of the question did not have to be answe<strong>red</strong>. Cruz<br />
Vil<strong>la</strong>lón does not forbear to mention that the requested systems of filtering and blocking are<br />
not imposed by EU <strong>la</strong>w, but ends by saying that without this legal basis no interpretation can<br />
be given as regards article 15 of the E-Commerce Directive 19 .<br />
2. Pouring oil on troubled waters… or adding fuel to tHe<br />
fire?<br />
As pointed out in the previous sections, the difficult re<strong>la</strong>tionship between the E-Commerce<br />
and Copyright Directives has emerged several legis<strong>la</strong>tive measures within Member<br />
States to establish a more close col<strong>la</strong>boration between ISPs and right hol<strong>de</strong>rs. The entertainment<br />
industry, legis<strong>la</strong>tors and policy makers are pressuring intermediaries to pick up a more<br />
active role and police their networks e.g. by filtering content or by handing over personal<br />
data information i<strong>de</strong>ntifying Internet users infringing content. This has led to several legal<br />
initiatives across Europe but also on a global scale 20 . The adoption of the French <strong>la</strong>w was<br />
followed with Argus’ eyes across the European Union and provoked simi<strong>la</strong>r legis<strong>la</strong>tive initiatives<br />
in some of its neighbouring countries: the United Kingdom and Belgium.<br />
2.1. The french (un)graduated response and its british lookalike<br />
Following an agreement amongst online intermediaries and representatives of the entertainment<br />
industry, the olivennes Commission was established to draft a regu<strong>la</strong>tory framework<br />
for the <strong>de</strong>velopment and protection of creative works and cultural programmes<br />
on new networks. The p<strong>la</strong>n was to set up an administrative authority <strong>de</strong>aling with online<br />
infringements by requiring intermediaries to first notify their customers of allegations of<br />
copyright infringements. In case of recidivism, sanctions were to be imposed appropriate<br />
to the customer’s alleged behaviour, amongst which the suspension of Internet connection<br />
for up to one year or even the termination of subscriptions which would also be put on a<br />
b<strong>la</strong>ck list. In exchange for the monitoring and cooperation by intermediaries, right hol<strong>de</strong>rs<br />
19 Conclusion Advocate-General Cruz Vil<strong>la</strong>lón, Case C-70/10, Scarlet v. SABAM, 14 April 2011 ;<br />
Blog Post by Cou<strong>de</strong>rt, F. “Advocate-General of the European Court of Justice issues opinion on<br />
filtering and blocking of electronic communications”, http://www.timelex.eu/nl/blog/p/<strong>de</strong>tail/advocate-general-of-the-european-court-of-justice-issues-opinion-on-filtering-and-blocking-of-electronic-communications<br />
[Last accessed: 05/05/2011].<br />
20 For an extensive analysis see De Beer, J. and Clemmer, C.D. (2009) “Global trends in online copyright<br />
enforcement: a non-neutral role for network intermediaries?” Jurimetrics. Vol. 49, N° 4, pp.<br />
375-409.
204 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
promised to <strong>red</strong>uce the release p<strong>la</strong>ns for films and to facilitate interoperability. The resulting<br />
Hadopi Bill was received with a lot of criticism by civil society and even ma<strong>de</strong> it to the<br />
European Parliament which counte<strong>red</strong> the French p<strong>la</strong>ns by voting against such disproportionate<br />
p<strong>la</strong>ns 21 . In the end, the European Parliament proposed an “Internet freedom provision”<br />
in the <strong>de</strong>bate concerning the reform of the Telecom Package 22 . Today, article 1(3)a of the<br />
(amen<strong>de</strong>d) Framework Directive 23 provi<strong>de</strong>s end-users with procedural guarantees to protect<br />
their access to, or use of, services and applications through electronic communications networks,<br />
especially the Internet, against restrictive measures adopted by national authorities,<br />
e.g. cutting-off access.<br />
Despite its many opponents, the French legis<strong>la</strong>tor procee<strong>de</strong>d stubbornly with its<br />
election promise and in 2009 the Hadopi Law was adopted. The Law was revised twice<br />
soon after its adoption though 24 . Firstly because the restriction of a fundamental right<br />
such as right to communication was trusted in the hands of an administrative authority<br />
instead of the in<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nt judiciary, <strong>de</strong>nying citizens due process of <strong>la</strong>w. Secondly because<br />
users who did not knowingly infringe copyright but failed to secure their Internet<br />
connections, would be punished severely unless they could prove the contrary (thus<br />
reversing the bur<strong>de</strong>n of proof and vio<strong>la</strong>ting the presumption of innocence). This was a<br />
thorn in the eye of the French Constitutional Court 25 . Strangely enough the following<br />
modifications of the Hadopi Law had the perverse effect that both authors and users<br />
are in an even worse situation than before. The sanctions have aggravated and authors<br />
are left in the cold to c<strong>la</strong>im damages via civil court since the penal procedure was given<br />
prece<strong>de</strong>nce. Paradoxically, no procedure has been started yet since the adoption of the<br />
Hadopi Law 26 .<br />
21 The Resolution on Cultural Industries in Europe called for the avoidance of adopting measures that<br />
conflict with civil liberties and human rights and with the principles of proportionality, effectiveness<br />
and dissuasiveness such as cutting off internet access: European Parliament Resolution on cultural<br />
industries in Europe, 10 April 2008.<br />
22 The European Parliament’s proposal, ma<strong>de</strong> in the first reading of the Commission Proposal for a<br />
Better Regu<strong>la</strong>tion Directive was known as “Amendment 138”. See Commission Press Release, Commission<br />
Position on Amendment 138 adopted by the European Parliament in plenary vote on 24<br />
September, MEMo/08/681 (November 7, 2008).<br />
23 Directive 2002/21 of 7 March 2002 on a common regu<strong>la</strong>tory framework for electronic communications<br />
networks and services (“Framework Directive”), Official Journal L 108, 24 April 2002,33 as<br />
amen<strong>de</strong>d in 2009 by the Better Regu<strong>la</strong>tion Directive.<br />
24 Law N* 2009-669 of 12 June 2009 on the promotion of the distribution and protection of creations<br />
via internet. Official State Gazette. 13 June 2009 ; Law N* 2009-1311 of 28 october 2009 regarding<br />
the penal protection of literary and artistic works via internet. Official State Gazette. 20 october 2009.<br />
25 Decision N° 2009-580 Constitutional Court France, 10 June 2009.<br />
26 Benabou, V.L. (2010). “La riposte graduée contre <strong>la</strong> contrefaçon <strong>de</strong> masse: <strong>de</strong> l’alibi pédagogique à<br />
<strong>la</strong> tentation sécuritaire”. Auteurs & Media. N° 5-6, pp. 438-449.
Intermediaries in the eye of the copyright storm: A com<strong>para</strong>tive analysis of the three strike approach… 205<br />
Following the Gowers Review Report 27 which recommen<strong>de</strong>d that intermediaries<br />
should do more to facilitate enforcement of copyrights online, the United Kingdom adopted<br />
the Digital Economy Act in 2010. The Act imposes on ISPs the obligation of notifying<br />
offen<strong>de</strong>rs of reported infringement and providing infringement lists to copyright owners.<br />
Furthermore, it installs technical measures against repeat infringers with a graduate approach<br />
simi<strong>la</strong>r to the French Hadopi Law: a) limitation of speed or other capacity, b) prevention<br />
to use a service, c) suspension of a service or d) other limitation of the service and <strong>la</strong>st but<br />
not least e) limitation of Internet access. The Act also foresees the possibility of injunctions<br />
preventing access to locations on the Internet which the Court is satisfied has been, or is<br />
likely to be used, for or in connection with an activity that infringes copyright 28 .<br />
2.2. The curious case of belgium<br />
The Belgian judgement by the First Court of Instance in the case of collecting society<br />
SABAM against ISP Scarlet (exp<strong>la</strong>ined above), was soon criticised by scho<strong>la</strong>rs pointing out<br />
the dangers of installing such general measure, without limit in time, without a limited scope<br />
in personae/materiae and on the level of carriers (access provi<strong>de</strong>rs) 29 . It is against this background<br />
that several legis<strong>la</strong>tive proposals were drafted in Belgium as well. The first proposal<br />
was initiated in the circle of the Liberal Party by senator Monfils in 2010 and resubmitted<br />
by Miller in 2011. The Proposal suggests an approach based upon five pil<strong>la</strong>rs amongst which<br />
the blocking of hacker websites by ISPs (pil<strong>la</strong>r 1), the encouragement of legal online offers<br />
(pil<strong>la</strong>r 2) and the implementation of a graduated response (pil<strong>la</strong>r 5). The Belgian version of<br />
the graduated response would be: 1) a warning 2) in case of recidivism within six months<br />
a fine 3) judicial <strong>de</strong>cision leading to a fine and limited access to online communication<br />
service and 4) in case of recidivism a doubled fine and suspension of Internet access 30 . The<br />
Green Party on the other hand suggests the introduction of a b<strong>la</strong>nket license which would<br />
be negotiated between collecting societies and ISPs. The fair remuneration that would be<br />
<strong>la</strong>id down would not be ad<strong>de</strong>d to the subscription invoice. Instead an upper limit would be<br />
set with a different remuneration based upon the download capacity. The Belgian Institute<br />
for Postal Services and Telecommunications would be charged with mapping the amount<br />
of downloa<strong>de</strong>d files and to make reports on a yearly basis 31 . Surprisingly, during <strong>de</strong>bates in<br />
27 http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/other/0118404830/0118404830.asp, 103. Recently<br />
a draft co<strong>de</strong> of obligations was drafted which is now open for public consultation: http://<br />
stakehol<strong>de</strong>rs.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/copyright-infringement [Last accessed: 15/05/2011].<br />
28 http://www.legis<strong>la</strong>tion.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/24/contents [Last accessed: 15/05/2011].<br />
29 De Beer J. and Clemmer, C.D. (2009). “Global trends in online copyright enforcement: a nonneutral<br />
role for network intermediaries?” Jurimetrics. Vol. 49, N° 4, pp. 401-402.<br />
30 Law Proposal for a better protection of cultural creation on the internet, 4-1748/1, 21 April 2010,<br />
5-741, 28 January 2011.<br />
31 Law Proposal to adjust copyright collection to the technological <strong>de</strong>velopments while protecting the<br />
privacy of internet users, 4-1686/1, 2 March 2010.
206 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
the Senate Commission for Finances and Economic Affairs, Miller <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong>d to abandon his<br />
own proposal almost entirely since there was clearly no public support for a Belgian graduate<br />
response. Instead, he suggested a system simi<strong>la</strong>r to the proposal of the Green Party obliging<br />
ISPs to negotiate a remuneration with collecting societies on an individual basis 32 .<br />
2.3. some <strong>de</strong>velopments on eu level<br />
Un<strong>de</strong>r the auspices of the European Commission, righthol<strong>de</strong>rs and Internet p<strong>la</strong>tforms<br />
recently agreed on a non-binding Memorandum of Un<strong>de</strong>rstanding on the 4 th of<br />
May 2011, aiming at boosting col<strong>la</strong>boration in the fight against counterfeited products<br />
sold online (including online piracy and unauthorised sharing of copyright protected<br />
works) to realise a safer online trading environment for righthol<strong>de</strong>rs, Internet p<strong>la</strong>tforms<br />
and consumers 33 . The Memorandum contains some good elements such as the commitment<br />
to clearly communicate, publish and enforce an IPR policy and the prevention<br />
of re-registration of permanently suspen<strong>de</strong>d sellers. It further specifies what both righthol<strong>de</strong>rs<br />
and Internet p<strong>la</strong>tforms can expect in the event of notice and take down procedures,<br />
namely on the one hand notification in a responsible and accurate way in good faith and<br />
on the other hand, efficient and comprehensive actions without undue <strong>de</strong><strong>la</strong>y. The co<strong>de</strong><br />
of conduct stipu<strong>la</strong>tes that it does not create (pre-) contractual obligations, liability rights,<br />
waiver of rights or legal obligations. Remarkably however, the Memorandum does prescribe<br />
that Internet P<strong>la</strong>tforms signing this text commit to un<strong>de</strong>rtake pro-active and preventive<br />
measures to stop counterfeit goods being offe<strong>red</strong> through their services. It seems<br />
that most of the measures set out in the Memorandum are still based upon information<br />
provi<strong>de</strong>d by the right owners which according to the Memorandum do not have implications<br />
in terms of actual notice or knowledge. Even more problematic is <strong>para</strong>graph 27<br />
which stipu<strong>la</strong>tes that Internet p<strong>la</strong>tforms should commit to take appropriate, commercially<br />
reasonable and technically feasible measures at their discretion, taking into consi<strong>de</strong>ration<br />
their business mo<strong>de</strong>ls, to i<strong>de</strong>ntify and/or prevent proactively the sale of counterfeit goods<br />
and to prevent such goods being offe<strong>red</strong> through their services. It is clear that stimu<strong>la</strong>ting<br />
col<strong>la</strong>boration between right hol<strong>de</strong>rs and Internet p<strong>la</strong>tforms is the way forward. But noble<br />
as the Memorandum might be, to install “proactive” expectations as mentioned in § 27<br />
of the Memorandum might be a dangerous prece<strong>de</strong>nce since the co<strong>de</strong> of conduct cannot<br />
lift the effects of the conditional liability regime which prescribes that being preventative<br />
and proactive also implies legal liability. This way, Internet p<strong>la</strong>tforms might well end up<br />
taking into account this ethical obligation and losing their legal exemption. Finally, the<br />
agreement also increases and formalises the sharing of information on Internet users for<br />
32 Deckmyn, D. “Internet provi<strong>de</strong>rs should pay for illegal downloads” [avai<strong>la</strong>ble in Dutch only, “Internet<br />
provi<strong>de</strong>rs moeten betalen voor illegal downloa<strong>de</strong>n”]. De Standaard. 17 May 2011.<br />
33 For an analysis and hyperlink to the Memorandum consult http://www.media<strong>la</strong>ws.eu/cooperationin-the-field-of-ipr-enforcement-memorandum-of-un<strong>de</strong>rstanding-on-the-sale-of-counterfeit-goodsover-the-internet/[Last<br />
accessed: 28/06/2011].
Intermediaries in the eye of the copyright storm: A com<strong>para</strong>tive analysis of the three strike approach… 207<br />
possible legal action requested by right hol<strong>de</strong>rs, provi<strong>de</strong>d that this is permitted by applicable<br />
data protection <strong>la</strong>ws, which seems to echo the three strikes approach.<br />
3. tHe best is yet to come…<br />
The fast evolving architecture of the Internet calls into question the functioning of<br />
copyright, its application and management but most of all, its enforcement. Because of the<br />
ubiquitous and <strong>de</strong>centralised nature of online piracy, easy solutions are difficult to find. This<br />
paper tried to illustrate that the special liability regime of access and hosting provi<strong>de</strong>rs is<br />
challenged by the pressure that is exerted upon intermediaries to col<strong>la</strong>borate in the fight of<br />
righthol<strong>de</strong>rs against digital piracy. The trend towards an active-preventative approach in different<br />
European countries conflicts with the neutral role formerly attributed to these intermediaries<br />
and especially with the regime established since the adoption of the E-Commerce<br />
Directive. How should Member States <strong>de</strong>al with the different interests at stake? Though the<br />
ECJ lifted a corner of the veil in the cases we discussed, it is quite clear that to find the right<br />
ba<strong>la</strong>nce between the two is left in the hands of the Member States who respon<strong>de</strong>d differently<br />
but generally tend to involve technical intermediaries more actively and to push their<br />
absolutely passive-neutral status asi<strong>de</strong>.<br />
As a consequence, the role of ISPs seems to be moving from the provi<strong>de</strong>r of an end-toend<br />
network towards a more traditional communication intermediary such as a broadcaster 34 .<br />
As owners of the network, provi<strong>de</strong>rs of access or storage space where content of all kinds can<br />
be up- and downloa<strong>de</strong>d, ISPs have an enormous power of control. But turning ISPs into assistants<br />
of right hol<strong>de</strong>rs in their battle for the protection and enforcement of copyrights against<br />
piracy on the Internet will have a baleful influence on the freedom of communication and the<br />
right to privacy of their clients, giving way to massive monitoring of electronic communications<br />
for the sake of private interests. Interferences should be <strong>la</strong>id down in clear foreseeable<br />
legal provisions, carefully motivated, proportional and be accompanied by a<strong>de</strong>quate safeguards.<br />
Any sort of control which would lead to monitoring of all communications and analyzing their<br />
content should be avoi<strong>de</strong>d 35 .<br />
To date none of the legis<strong>la</strong>tive provisions which were <strong>de</strong>veloped appear to have been able to<br />
achieve an appropriate and proportionate ba<strong>la</strong>nce between the fundamental interests at stake and<br />
the neutral role attributed for that reason to intermediaries online. It also became clear that regu<strong>la</strong>tion<br />
by mere technology, such as filtering blocking tools, <strong>de</strong>ep packet inspections 36 , without<br />
34 Dutton, W.H. (2010) “Aiming at copyright infringers and hitting the digital economy”, 4.<br />
Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1778422 [Last accessed:<br />
15/05/2011].<br />
35 Cou<strong>de</strong>rt, F. and Werkers, E. (2010). “In The Aftermath of the Promusicae Case: How to Strike the<br />
Ba<strong>la</strong>nce?” International Journal of Law and Information Technology. Vol. 18, 71.<br />
36 Daly, Y. (2010). « The legality of <strong>de</strong>ep packet inspection ». Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/<br />
sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1628024 [Last accessed: 15/05/2011].
208 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
recourse to a legal regime will not solve the problem of piracy. First because its effectiveness is still<br />
quite disputed and second, because no proportionate technological solution has been <strong>de</strong>veloped<br />
that could successfully filter and block illegal communications consisting of copyright infringements<br />
whilst safeguarding the fundamental rights of users and the limited exemption regime<br />
attached to technical intermediaries. It is very likely that in the long run, these initiatives will not<br />
achieve their inten<strong>de</strong>d objective but will have uninten<strong>de</strong>d negative consequences for the vitality,<br />
open character of the Internet and for the digital economy as a whole 37 .<br />
In addition, illegal file sharers have always managed to stay one step ahead and continue<br />
to do so. Due to the increasing monitoring, users have migrated from open peer-topeer<br />
networks to closed networks (also refer<strong>red</strong> to as friend-to-friend networks) or darknets,<br />
over which the flow of traffic is often encrypted and thus not even susceptible to <strong>de</strong>ep packet<br />
investigation 38 . The effective solution for copyright enforcement online lies not (only) in<br />
awareness campaigns and enforcement measures but in addressing the un<strong>de</strong>rlying causes of<br />
non-compliance and consumer’s discontent. The growing success of legal offers against fair<br />
prices point out that the consumer is willing to pay for clean services provi<strong>de</strong>d that their<br />
digital acquisition does not block their legal uses e.g. the right to make a private copy on<br />
whichever carrier without limits in time, space or number of copies.<br />
Intervention by public authorities, the guardians of fundamental rights, remains crucial<br />
for any mechanism that is trying to implement a ba<strong>la</strong>nce between the different interests<br />
at stake. Public policy should keep a close eye on this and keep in mind that there also is<br />
another danger lurking behind the corner. Though ISPs and righthol<strong>de</strong>rs have very different<br />
concerns, they both share the i<strong>de</strong>a of a better traffic management and traffic shaping which<br />
in turn poses serious risks for network neutrality. In other words, the <strong>de</strong>bate concerning the<br />
conditions of immunity from copyright liability for intermediaries has some serious implications<br />
for the <strong>para</strong>llel communications and media policy <strong>de</strong>bate which also involves problems<br />
like child abuse online, hate speech, etc 39 .<br />
4. bibliograPHy<br />
Benabou, V.L. (2010). “La riposte graduée contre <strong>la</strong> contrefaçon <strong>de</strong> masse: <strong>de</strong> l’alibi pédagogique<br />
à <strong>la</strong> tentation sécuritaire”. Auteurs & Media. N° 5-6, pp. 438-449.<br />
Bridy, A. (2009). “Why pirates (still) won’t behave: regu<strong>la</strong>ting peer-to-peer in the <strong>de</strong>ca<strong>de</strong><br />
after Napster”, Rutgers Law Journal. Vol. 40, N° 3, pp. 565-611.<br />
37 Dutton, W.H. (2010) “Aiming at copyright infringers and hitting the digital economy”, 3-5. Retrieved<br />
from<br />
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1778422 [Last accessed: 15/05/2011].<br />
38 Bridy, (2009). “Why pirates (still) won’t behave: regu<strong>la</strong>ting peer-to-peer in the <strong>de</strong>ca<strong>de</strong> after Napster”,<br />
Rutgers Law Journal. Vol. 40, N° 3, pp. 594-595.<br />
39 De Beer, J and Clemmer, C.D. (2009). “Global trends in online copyright enforcement: a nonneutral<br />
role for network intermediaries?” Jurimetrics. Vol. 49, N° 4, pp. 406-409.
Intermediaries in the eye of the copyright storm: A com<strong>para</strong>tive analysis of the three strike approach… 209<br />
Coppens, F. (2008). « Filtrage peer-to-peer: possibilités techniques et obstacles juridiques »<br />
Revue du Droit <strong>de</strong>s Technologies <strong>de</strong> l’Information. Vol 30, 94-103.<br />
Cou<strong>de</strong>rt, F. (2011). “Advocate-General of the European Court of Justice issues opinion<br />
on filtering and blocking of electronic communications”, http://www.timelex.eu/nl/<br />
blog/p/<strong>de</strong>tail/advocate-general-of-the-european-court-of-justice-issues-opinion-onfiltering-and-blocking-of-electronic-communications<br />
[Last accessed: 05/05/2011]<br />
Cou<strong>de</strong>rt, F. and Werkers, E. (2010). “In The Aftermath of the Promusicae Case: How to<br />
Strike the Ba<strong>la</strong>nce?” International Journal of Law and Information Technology. Vol. 18,<br />
pp. 50-71.<br />
Daly, Y. (2010). « The legality of <strong>de</strong>ep packet inspection ». Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.<br />
com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1628024 [Last accessed: 15/05/2011], pp. 1-13.<br />
De Beer, J and Clemmer, C.D. (2009). “Global trends in online copyright enforcement: a<br />
non-neutral role for network intermediaries?” Jurimetrics. Vol. 49, N° 4, pp. 375-409.<br />
Peukert, A (2010). “Why do good people disregard copyright on the internet?”. In: C. Geiger<br />
(ed.), Criminal enforcement: a blessing or a curse of intellectual property? Cheltenham:<br />
Edward Elgar Publishing (forthcoming).<br />
Queck, R., De Streel, A., Hou, L., J. Jost and E. Kosta. (2010) “The EU regu<strong>la</strong>tory<br />
framework applicable to electronic communications”. In : Garzaniti L. & o’Regan,<br />
M., Telecommunications, Broadcasting and the Internet. EU Competition Law & Regu<strong>la</strong>tion.<br />
London: Thomson Sweet & Maxwell. pp. 3-262.<br />
Stal<strong>la</strong>-Bourdillon, S. (2011). “Uniformity v. Diversity of Internet Intermediaries’ liability<br />
regime: where does the ECJ stand?” Journal of International Commercial Law and<br />
Technology. Vol. 6, Issue 1, pp. 51-61.<br />
Stross, R.. (2008). “First it was song downloads. Now it’s organic chemistry”. New York<br />
Times, July 27, 2008.<br />
Werkers, E. (2010). How the press <strong>de</strong>als with user-generated content: one the hazards of<br />
the job?” [Avai<strong>la</strong>ble in Dutch only: “De omgang van <strong>de</strong> pers met gebruikersinhou<strong>de</strong>n:<br />
<strong>de</strong> bluts met <strong>de</strong> buil?”]. Auteurs & Media. N° 1, pp. 7-21.
COMUNICACIONES SOBRE DERECHOS FUNDAMENTALES,<br />
LIBERTADES Y RESPONSABILIDAD EN INTERNET
11<br />
ClOUD COmPUtINg: legAl IssUes IN<br />
CeNtrAlIzeD ArCHIteCtUres<br />
Primavera De Filippi<br />
Researcher at the CERSA/CNRS in Paris. Representative of Creative Commons France and the<br />
coordinator of the Public Domain working group of the Open Knowledge Foundation<br />
Smari McCarthy<br />
Research director at the International Mo<strong>de</strong>rn Media Institute (IMMI) and<br />
co-foun<strong>de</strong>r of the Ice<strong>la</strong>ndic Digital Freedoms Society<br />
AbstrAct: Cloud computing can be <strong>de</strong>fined as the provision of computing resources on-<strong>de</strong>mand<br />
over the Internet. Although this might bring a number of advantages to end-users in terms of accessibility<br />
and e<strong>la</strong>sticity of costs, problems arise concerning the collection of personal information in the<br />
Cloud and the legitimate exploitation thereof. To the extent most of the content and software application<br />
are only accessible online, users have no longer control over the manner in which they can access<br />
their data and the extent to which parties can exploit it.<br />
1. introduction<br />
The advent of “cloud computing” has created an imba<strong>la</strong>nce in authority structures that<br />
is very simi<strong>la</strong>r to the structural changes witnessed during the Industrial revolution. Just as<br />
the industrial revolution has progressively alienated workers from the means of production,<br />
today, most of the means of production (in terms of hardware, software, content or data) are<br />
concentrated within the hands of <strong>la</strong>rge Internet service provi<strong>de</strong>rs.<br />
Although the Internet constitutes a great opportunity for users to express themselves<br />
and to engage in col<strong>la</strong>borative production, many mo<strong>de</strong>rn web applications are <strong>de</strong>creasing<br />
the capacity (or willingness) of people to produce content by their own means. The problem<br />
has been exacerbated by the <strong>de</strong>ployment of Cloud Computing. Given that everything can<br />
be sto<strong>red</strong>, processed, or executed on any computer system regardless of its whereabouts,<br />
most of the means of production, as well as the output of production (user-generated content),<br />
are increasingly owned or at least controlled <strong>de</strong> facto by <strong>la</strong>rge companies.<br />
The trend is clear. Resources are moving away from end-users, towards centralized<br />
systems that possess huge processing power and storage capacities. Users’ <strong>de</strong>vices are <strong>de</strong>volving<br />
from personal computers to <strong>la</strong>ptops, smart phones or integrated <strong>de</strong>vices whose main<br />
function is to access particu<strong>la</strong>r sections of the Cloud through browsers or mostly dumb<br />
applications. While front-end processing is perhaps becoming slightly more common in the<br />
form of in-browser application, data storage is heavily biased towards centralized back-ends.<br />
The implications are numerous: users are giving away their <strong>la</strong>bor un<strong>de</strong>r an expectation<br />
of reciprocity; they are giving away their privacy for the sake of a more personalized service;
214 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
they are giving away their rights in the name of comfort and accessibility; but, most importantly,<br />
they are giving away their freedoms and very frequently they do not even realize it.<br />
The paper will analyze the impact of Cloud Computing on society. By analyzing the<br />
way the Internet has <strong>de</strong>veloped over time, it will draw attention to the fact that the Internet<br />
has been and is evolving in a way that might strongly impair the right to privacy of end-users<br />
and endanger the confi<strong>de</strong>ntiality of information sto<strong>red</strong> into the Cloud.<br />
2. tHe emergence of cloud comPuting<br />
2.1. <strong>de</strong>finition of cloud computing<br />
Given its recent and very fast adoption in everyday <strong>la</strong>nguage, the actual <strong>de</strong>finition<br />
and scope of Cloud Computing are still un<strong>de</strong>r <strong>de</strong>bate. In part, this stems from the fact<br />
that Cloud Computing does not actually provi<strong>de</strong> much in terms of new technology, but<br />
rather an alteration of the use of ol<strong>de</strong>r technology to serve new types of business structures.<br />
For the purposes of this paper, we consi<strong>de</strong>r Cloud Computing to represent the sharing or<br />
storage by users of their infrastructure or content on remote servers which are accessible<br />
online. Although this can be achieved at many levels –i.e. at the level of the infrastructure<br />
(IaaS), p<strong>la</strong>tform (PaaS), or software (SaaS)– this paper is only inten<strong>de</strong>d to analyze the consequences<br />
of Cloud computing on the privacy of end-users. The focus will therefore be set<br />
on the concept of public Clouds, inten<strong>de</strong>d as a variety of applications that users can access<br />
and use through their browsers as if they were installed on their own computers or <strong>de</strong>vices1 .<br />
Although not all public clouds are browser-based, this focus does not come out of thin air, as<br />
the browser is increasingly used as a catch-all approach for user applications.<br />
Although this is generally seen as an advantage by end-users, in terms of flexibility of<br />
access and sca<strong>la</strong>bility of costs, these benefits necessarily come with a cost. In<strong>de</strong>ed, while the<br />
Internet might have been regar<strong>de</strong>d early in its existence as a possible implementation of a <strong>de</strong>centralized<br />
market economy2 , we are moving toward a thoroughly centralized market where<br />
1 Cloud Computing can be implemented at various levels of abstractions and <strong>de</strong>ployed either internally<br />
of externally. In the common sense of the term, Cloud Computing refers to the concept of a “public<br />
Cloud” as a service offe<strong>red</strong> by a third-party that dynamically provi<strong>de</strong>s a series of resources accessible<br />
on-<strong>de</strong>mand through the Internet, often via web applications. This can be contrasted to the concept of<br />
a “private Cloud” as a service for private networks allowing a company to host applications or virtual<br />
machines on its own premises.<br />
2 During its early phases, the Internet was often regar<strong>de</strong>d by many pioneers and visionaries as a potential<br />
implementation of a pure market economy characterized by free exchange of information, low<br />
transaction costs and very few barriers to entry. See, e.g. Eric Sch<strong>la</strong>chter (1994), Cyberspace, the Free<br />
Market and the Free Marketp<strong>la</strong>ce of I<strong>de</strong>as, in Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law<br />
Journal (Comm/Ent) [16<br />
Hastings Comm/Ent L.J. 87]; Yannis Bakos (1998), The emerging role of electronic marketp<strong>la</strong>ces on<br />
the Internet, in Communications of the ACM, Volume 41 Issue 8; James C. Bennet (2001), The End
Cloud Computing: legal Issues in Centralized Architectures<br />
215<br />
the power of the service provi<strong>de</strong>rs increases as the power of end-user terminals <strong>de</strong>creases.<br />
Since the heavy processing is performed in the Cloud and only the results are disp<strong>la</strong>yed to<br />
the users, neither high processing power, <strong>la</strong>rge amounts of RAM, nor even hard drives are<br />
nowadays requi<strong>red</strong> on the user-si<strong>de</strong> to perform most everyday operations. A smart phone<br />
connected to the Internet can be more powerful than an actual computer because it can<br />
borrow storage capacity and computational resources from the thousands of machines that<br />
constitute the Cloud; any complex processing is done remotely while the front end simply<br />
<strong>de</strong>als with presentation. The technical characteristics of the terminal are no longer relevant<br />
as (a) software is for the most part executed through online servers, and (b) data no longer<br />
resi<strong>de</strong>s on end-user <strong>de</strong>vices, but is instead sto<strong>red</strong> in the Cloud.<br />
This trend suggests that most of the computing activity that is today performed locally<br />
on end-user computers will eventually shift into the Cloud. Whether or not this is <strong>de</strong>sirable,<br />
from the perspective of end-users, <strong>de</strong>pends on the way the Cloud is implemented and on<br />
the policy of the Cloud provi<strong>de</strong>r, in particu<strong>la</strong>r, in terms of privacy and data protection. The<br />
problem is, however, that policy is inherently malleable. In practice, there is not any privacy<br />
policy, uptime assurance or data protection mechanism that can eliminate the ad<strong>de</strong>d operational<br />
risk created by shifting to a third party infrastructure. At best, the risk can be minimized<br />
by not storing sensitive data and mitigated by not relying on one single cloud p<strong>la</strong>tform.<br />
2.2. The changing face of networked services<br />
on the early Internet, centralized services were uncommon. Service provi<strong>de</strong>rs were of<br />
small enough scale that utilizing the distributed nature of the network was a necessity. To<br />
wit, most early websites were <strong>de</strong>veloped to cater local communities, competing head to head<br />
with ol<strong>de</strong>r peer-to-peer (P2P) systems and protocols, such as e-mail and Usenet, and working<br />
from a very limited set of use-cases and metaphors. There was a strong initial momentum<br />
towards community-based websites and user-driven journalism, with lengthy articles<br />
and feedback. Before the advent of blogging p<strong>la</strong>tforms such as Wordpress.com, Livejournal.<br />
com or Blogger.com, it was not uncommon for small groups of people to set up a web server<br />
to host personal home pages, frequently running on custom ma<strong>de</strong> software managed by somebody<br />
in the group. Likewise, instant messaging and interactive discussions were generally<br />
done through direct communication between peers and on <strong>de</strong>centralized p<strong>la</strong>tforms, such<br />
as the Internet Re<strong>la</strong>y Chat (IRC), as opposed to the more centralized systems which have<br />
emerged today, such as ICQ, Microsoft Messenger or Skype.<br />
The case of social networks is particu<strong>la</strong>rly interesting given their manifest evolution<br />
from a local and community-centric to a global and extremely centralized architecture.<br />
Prior to the globalization of social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook, smaller<br />
scale social networking sites were common within local communities, such as hugi.is,<br />
an interest-based social network in Ice<strong>la</strong>nd, irc-galleria.net, a Finnish website providing<br />
of Capitalism and the Triumph of the Market Economy, in Network Commonwealth: The Future of<br />
Nations in the Internet Era.
216 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
social networking and photo gallery services to IRC users, and cu2.nl, a Dutch social<br />
network offering forums and photo galleries, amongst other things. Most early social networks<br />
did not manage pair-wise re<strong>la</strong>tionships between users. User re<strong>la</strong>tions were typically<br />
f<strong>la</strong>t and unrestricted, with all users of the system seeing each other profiles and general<br />
information. Initially introduced in such systems as MySpace, orkut and Bebo, pair-wise<br />
re<strong>la</strong>tionships have since then become part and parcel of any system intending to provi<strong>de</strong><br />
social networking, although symmetric re<strong>la</strong>tionships are not always necessarily the <strong>de</strong>si<strong>red</strong><br />
format. Twitter was the first major social network to <strong>de</strong>monstrate the value of asymmetric<br />
re<strong>la</strong>tions. Today, the majority of social networking websites provi<strong>de</strong> simi<strong>la</strong>r features<br />
and characteristics. All provi<strong>de</strong> public and private messaging systems, albeit with variable<br />
levels of service and emphasis3 . Some systems allow photographs or other media to be<br />
ad<strong>de</strong>d, such as Facebook and MySpace in particu<strong>la</strong>r, which allow photo albums, vi<strong>de</strong>os<br />
and other rich media.<br />
Accepting these variations on the theme and acknowledging the untold other differences,<br />
we will focus the remain<strong>de</strong>r of this study on two social networking sites; one local, the<br />
Ice<strong>la</strong>ndic site Hugi4 , and one global, the infamous Facebook.<br />
Technologically, Hugi is very simi<strong>la</strong>r to the early Facebook5 . Even today, apart from<br />
the improved friendship management, the technology behind Facebook is not far removed<br />
from that of Hugi. Facebook most certainly has a far more polished user interface and<br />
a much more weighted approach to features such as internal chat, external chat through<br />
XMPP, statuses and other aspects of messaging, but most features are primarily user experience<br />
tweaks which have come along over various iterations of the Facebook user interface6<br />
.<br />
Until 2003, a <strong>la</strong>rge portion of Ice<strong>la</strong>ndic people aged from 16 to 24 were actively<br />
contributing on Hugi. Today, however, most of the user-base has nowadays shifted to<br />
3 While they all provi<strong>de</strong> users with a way to communicate with each other, different p<strong>la</strong>tforms provi<strong>de</strong><br />
different means of communication. Some allow threa<strong>de</strong>d messaging while others only allow linear<br />
messaging. Some restrict the number of characters allowed in messages, for example 140 on Twitter,<br />
450 in Facebook public status updates and 10000 in okCupid private messages, while others do not<br />
impose any such practical restrictions.<br />
4 Hugi was originally operated by Sí minn, the former state telecoms company which was privatized in<br />
2005 with the sale of 98.8% of its shares to Skipti. It is now operated by Skjá mið<strong>la</strong>r ehf. For more<br />
information, see www.hugi.is<br />
5 Developed in the PHP programming <strong>la</strong>nguage with MySQL as a database, and not providing much<br />
in the way of Web 2.0-style services beyond the level of user interaction presumed in such a setting;<br />
there is no post-loading processing which accesses server data, as through AJAX or other asynchronous<br />
HTTP requests.<br />
6 It can be expected that if Hugi had not been “neglected” simi<strong>la</strong>r updates would have followed there,<br />
although perhaps not with as great rapidity. In conversation with Hugis webmaster, in May 2011, it<br />
was said that, although Hugi had seen better times, a <strong>la</strong>rge cause of its <strong>de</strong>cline was the neglect of the<br />
site’s original owner.
Cloud Computing: legal Issues in Centralized Architectures<br />
Facebook. As of 2011, it is estimated that over 65% of people in Ice<strong>la</strong>nd have accounts<br />
on Facebook 7 .<br />
217<br />
While there are certainly many elements of user interface which influence people<br />
towards using Facebook, as the various interface changes to Facebook have shown, it is hard<br />
to believe that the trigger is merely a technical one. Rather, we c<strong>la</strong>im that the key factor for<br />
the shift from Hugi to Facebook was essentially due to the more integrated and international<br />
nature of the <strong>la</strong>tter, as opposed to the local character of the former.<br />
In or<strong>de</strong>r to back up this c<strong>la</strong>im, an online questionnaire was sent to some former users<br />
of Hugi and current users of Facebook. The results reveal that the scope of the service (i.e.<br />
its extension in the Internet <strong>la</strong>ndscape) weights very strongly in the mind of end-users. Despite<br />
a general inclination towards the private management of personal data, all users have<br />
<strong>de</strong>c<strong>la</strong><strong>red</strong> to value the size of the community and the worldwi<strong>de</strong> scope of the p<strong>la</strong>tform above<br />
other factors8 .<br />
As a result of their difference in scope, the two services are not even consi<strong>de</strong><strong>red</strong> to serve<br />
the same function by many users9 . Hugi is little more than a communal sounding board<br />
which maintains a local culture fitted to meet the needs of its original operator, Síminn, a<br />
telecommunications company. Facebook, on the other hand, is both an agora and a marketp<strong>la</strong>ce.<br />
Like Hugi, it is controlled by a single company, but, unlike Hugi, it has reached global<br />
significance. As a commercial start-up, the goal of its operator is to increase the number of<br />
users on the network, as well as their <strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>ncy upon it, so as to lock a maximum number<br />
of users into the system10 .<br />
7 As of 2011, Ice<strong>la</strong>nd ranks first in terms Facebook penetration, with over 65.76% of the popu<strong>la</strong>tion<br />
on Facebook or 203 140 in total. For more updated statistics, see http://www.socialbakers.com/<br />
facebook-statistics/ice<strong>la</strong>nd<br />
8 In a small and informal questionnaire (n=30) amongst former users of Hugi, when asked whether,<br />
all other things being equal, they would prefer a service such as Facebook, but with their personal<br />
data hosted within Ice<strong>la</strong>nd, exactly half said they would; when asked if they would prefer a service<br />
where their data was hosted on their own private computer, 64% said they would. Younger people, in<br />
particu<strong>la</strong>r, seem less concerned with sovereignty over their own data, while ol<strong>de</strong>r users appear more<br />
concerned about the locality of their data. Yet, all of those questioned said that the size and international<br />
aspect of Facebook matte<strong>red</strong> either much or very much.<br />
9 In the same questionnaire amongst former users of Hugi who also use Facebook, 82.15% c<strong>la</strong>imed<br />
that Facebook and Hugi serve different roles, with the rest c<strong>la</strong>iming that they only partially serve the<br />
same role.<br />
10 As for 2011, Facebook is valued at roughly 80 billion dol<strong>la</strong>rs (according to a recent private-market<br />
transaction on SharePost, an online marketp<strong>la</strong>ce for private investments) and has over 500 million<br />
users; meaning that each user’s contribution, if we ignore the network effect, is about $160. of course,<br />
given the nature of network effects, the most recent user ad<strong>de</strong>d is always the most valuable. With 7%<br />
of humanity registe<strong>red</strong> on the world’s <strong>la</strong>rgest social network, the only way for Facebook to increase<br />
sharehol<strong>de</strong>r value is to aggressively reach out to an ever-growing group of users, while minimizing the<br />
risk that current users leave.
218 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
Network effects are such that the more users are on a p<strong>la</strong>tform, the more valuable the<br />
p<strong>la</strong>tform is to each user. In spite of their significance in the context of social networks, network<br />
effects are not, as such, a sufficient justification for there to be only one centralized social networking<br />
p<strong>la</strong>tform 11 . The network is fully capable of allowing for <strong>de</strong>centralized systems, as various<br />
peer-to-peer protocols have <strong>de</strong>monstrated 12 . It is possible to <strong>de</strong>vise a peer-to-peer infrastructure<br />
based on an open protocol, which would allow users to keep control over their own data, and,<br />
theoretically, even to use the social network locally on their computer, without the need for any<br />
Internet connection. This is, for instance, the ultimate goal of Diaspora, a distributed and opensource<br />
social network that purports to enable users to control their respective no<strong>de</strong>s in the network<br />
13 . The problem is that social networking p<strong>la</strong>tforms were primarily <strong>de</strong>veloped by companies<br />
with vested interests in holding as much mind-share as possible. Thus far, with the exception of<br />
Diaspora, no peer-to-peer system has emerged to compete with such centralized systems.<br />
Although the analysis has focused exclusively on social networks, the intention was to<br />
provi<strong>de</strong> an example to illustrate a general trend: the increasing concentration of the market<br />
and the consequent concentration of power in the hands of a few enterprises. We believe the<br />
conclusions of this analysis to apply, by and <strong>la</strong>rge, to the majority of applications provi<strong>de</strong>d<br />
by <strong>la</strong>rge centralized companies over the Internet.<br />
Because of their dominant position, <strong>la</strong>rge service provi<strong>de</strong>rs can exert a <strong>de</strong>gree of subjugation<br />
never conceived of by smaller and more local services, and a <strong>de</strong>gree of control that would be impossible<br />
in a peer-to-peer network. This creates a series of legal issues in terms of control, privacy,<br />
and confi<strong>de</strong>ntiality of information that will be specifically addressed in the following sections.<br />
3. legal issues of cloud comPuting<br />
It takes only very basic examples to show the danger of over-centralization in the sphere<br />
of the Internet. In addition to the most common examples, such as Google and Facebook, the-<br />
11 Natural monopolies are justified by <strong>la</strong>rge economies of scale: a producer’s cost curves <strong>de</strong>crease when<br />
the scale of production increases. Network effects <strong>de</strong>scribe the increase in value of a good or service<br />
<strong>de</strong>rived from the standardization of that good or service. While natural monopolies often comes<br />
together with network effects, like in the case of the telephone network, network effects do not necessarily<br />
lead to natural monopolies, like in the case of the Internet network.<br />
12 Decentralized protocols are ubiquitous on the Internet. Giving an exhaustive list would be unpractical, but<br />
common examples inclu<strong>de</strong> the Domain Naming System protocol (DNS), the SMTP protocol for e-mails,<br />
Bittorrent and Gnutel<strong>la</strong> for file-sharing, Skype (which uses centralized coordination servers but attempts<br />
to make calls directly between peers), and, finally, FreeNET, i2p and ToR for anonymous navigation.<br />
13 Diaspora is currently using a client-server mo<strong>de</strong>l, although it aims to eventually have fe<strong>de</strong>ration<br />
support, which is a form of <strong>de</strong>volved P2P (currently used by Jabber/XMPP and IRC, amongst others).<br />
Fe<strong>de</strong>ration means that, although the distinction between clients and servers remains, there are<br />
multiple servers that act as peers amongst themselves. The objective of Diaspora is to allow every user<br />
to <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong> whether to participate to the fe<strong>de</strong>ration as a server, or whether to act as a mere client. For<br />
more <strong>de</strong>tails, see https://joindiaspora.com/
Cloud Computing: legal Issues in Centralized Architectures<br />
219<br />
re are a very <strong>la</strong>rge number of actors whose operations are crucial in the everyday life of many<br />
Internet users. While the level of <strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>ncy increases, the effects of not having control over<br />
the infrastructure become more apparent, although some of the implications might become<br />
very subtle. As user no longer control nor un<strong>de</strong>rstand their infrastructure, they are increasingly<br />
controlled by those who do know how to control the infrastructure –and by those who own it.<br />
3.1. centralized control<br />
Today, no matter how much one tries to keep it secret, there exist many mechanisms or<br />
<strong>de</strong>vices that collect personal data and communicate it to third parties without the consent of<br />
the data subject 14 . Most often, however, it is actually the user who willingly communicates<br />
information to a variety of interested parties. on the Internet, this is done on a daily basis<br />
through blogs, forums, newsgroups, mailing lists, search engines, etc.<br />
While this is not a concern in itself, a series of problems might eventually arise if all<br />
that data were to be gathe<strong>red</strong> together into one <strong>la</strong>rge database. If one single entity were to<br />
provi<strong>de</strong> a <strong>la</strong>rge variety of services and the data collected through all of these services were<br />
to be processed into an integrated framework of analysis, that entity would fundamentally<br />
be able to know much more about its user-base than what has been voluntarily disclosed by<br />
each individual user.<br />
Technically, this is already a possibility, and, as a matter of fact, this is already part of reality.<br />
Let’s take a look at Google. With a mission to “organize the world‘s information and make<br />
it universally accessible and useful”, Google offers a <strong>la</strong>rge variety of services, mostly for free<br />
for the end user, whose ultimate purpose is not only that of presenting information in a more<br />
organized way, but also that of gathering as much information as possible. Services such as Google<br />
Mail, Google Documents, Google Calendar, Google Maps, Google News, Google Rea<strong>de</strong>r,<br />
orkut, Youtube, Picasa –and many more– are all inten<strong>de</strong>d to collect information about the<br />
users of that service. Even a service apparently as harmless as the Google search engine is in<br />
fact able to collect very important pieces of information. A cookie (whose expiration date is<br />
irrelevant for any practical matter) is sto<strong>red</strong> into every computer so that it can be i<strong>de</strong>ntified<br />
at every subsequent connection 15 . Although it allows Google to collect all sort of information<br />
14 Spyware programs (which are a form of malware) are malicious software that collects personal data<br />
about users without their consent. As users perform tasks such as browsing the Internet, spyware programs<br />
collect information about users and their behavior. Although commonly acknowledged in the<br />
digital world, simi<strong>la</strong>r <strong>de</strong>vices are commonly <strong>de</strong>ployed in the physical world, in the form of eavesdropping,<br />
interception of written communications, vi<strong>de</strong>o surveil<strong>la</strong>nce through CCTV, and, most recently,<br />
i<strong>de</strong>ntification via biometric data and geo-localization by means of GPS tracking and networking<br />
technologies. For a more <strong>de</strong>tailed overview of the mechanisms and the consequences of pervasive<br />
surveil<strong>la</strong>nce in mo<strong>de</strong>rn societies, see, e.g. David Murakami Wood (2008), Towards Spatial Protocol:<br />
The Topologies of the Persavise Surveil<strong>la</strong>nce Society, in Alessandro AUrigi and Fiorel<strong>la</strong> De Cindio<br />
(Eds), Augmented Urban Spaces: Articu<strong>la</strong>ting the Physical and Electronic City; Ashgate Publishing.<br />
15 Every time a user connects to Google’s search engine, a cookie is sto<strong>red</strong> on the user’s <strong>de</strong>vice, with an<br />
expiration date of two years. The expiration date is pushed ahead of two years whenever that cookie is
220 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
about users, this cookie is presented as a valuable service to the users who would otherwise<br />
be unable to enjoy the benefits of personalized search results and customized advertisements.<br />
Since most of these services are either avai<strong>la</strong>ble online or automatically synchronized<br />
whenever a user connects to the Internet, Google can keep track of every user activity performed<br />
on its system. This data can be very valuable for the purposes of mass profiling (i.e.<br />
un<strong>de</strong>rstanding the preferences of the user-base as reflected by the behavior of each individual<br />
user) and user profiling (i.e. un<strong>de</strong>rstanding the preferences of each individual user through<br />
the analysis of its specific interests, activities, and social surroundings) 16 .<br />
Google, however, is ultimately not interested in monitoring the activities of its users,<br />
nor in gathering information about the socio-<strong>de</strong>mographics of its user-base, but rather in<br />
the maximization of profits. Profiling is necessary for Google to know what users want, so<br />
as to eventually offer them the most personalized results and the best kind of advertisements.<br />
The greater the user-base, the most accurate the profiling can be, and the higher the profits<br />
that can be extracted from a system of customized advertisement <strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nt upon the interests<br />
of each individual user. In this case, the fact that the end-users do not pay for the service<br />
means that they themselves are the product being sold, or rather, statistics about them are.<br />
Various companies have built successful business mo<strong>de</strong>ls around the realization that,<br />
instead of getting money in exchange of a service, it is often more valuable to provi<strong>de</strong> services<br />
for free in or<strong>de</strong>r attract a maximum number of users. By accepting the terms of services,<br />
users agree to share most of their data and information with Google, regardless of the privacy<br />
or the confi<strong>de</strong>ntiality thereof 17 . Hence, although the majority of Google’s services are offe<strong>red</strong><br />
accessed by any of Google’s sites and it is <strong>de</strong>tected that the cookie is about to expire. By virtue of this<br />
cookie, Google is able to store an almost permanent and unique ID on every user’s <strong>de</strong>vice, as Google<br />
will either keep the same unique ID in the cookie, or at least be able to associate the old ID with<br />
any new ID that is issued. Although Google c<strong>la</strong>ims that the purpose of the cookie is to remember<br />
user preferences, the cookie is also be used for the purposes of profiling. See http://www.google.com/<br />
privacy/privacy-policy.html - “When you visit Google, we send one or more cookies to your computer<br />
or other <strong>de</strong>vice. We use cookies to improve the quality of our service, including for storing user<br />
preferences, improving search results and ad selection, and tracking user trends, such as how people<br />
search. Google also uses cookies in its advertising services to help advertisers and publishers serve and<br />
manage ads across the web and on Google services.”<br />
16 Mass profiling is more concerned with the general trends and navigation patterns of the user-base<br />
than with the actual preferences and activities of each individual user. User profiling focuses instead<br />
on the personal and distinctive characteristics of users and is therefore more likely to infringe upon<br />
their right to privacy. For an overview of the various techniques used for the profiling of users in a<br />
Cloud environment, see, e.g. olfa Nasraoui and Carlos Rojas (2003), From Static to Dynamic Web<br />
Usage Mining: Towards Sca<strong>la</strong>ble Profiling and Personalization with Evolutionary Computation, in<br />
Workshop on Information Technology, Rabat, Marocco, and, in particu<strong>la</strong>r, Gang Ren; Tune, E.;<br />
Moseley, T.; Yixin Shi; Rus, S.; Hundt, R. (2010), Google-Wi<strong>de</strong> Profiling: A Continuous Profiling<br />
Infrastructure for Data Centers, in Micro, IEEE, volume 30, issue 4.<br />
17 Google privacy policy states that Google may collect all kind of personal information provi<strong>de</strong>d by users<br />
themselves, log in information gathe<strong>red</strong> whenever users access one of the various Google’s services, user<br />
communications, information gathe<strong>red</strong> by cookies sto<strong>red</strong> in users’ <strong>de</strong>vices or collected by third party
Cloud Computing: legal Issues in Centralized Architectures<br />
221<br />
for free, users pay –willingly or not– with their own data, which is only <strong>la</strong>ter turned into<br />
profit by Google AdSense or other forms of advertisement.<br />
In this context, the scope of the Cloud is extremely important. By offering such a wi<strong>de</strong><br />
variety of services, Google is able to obtain different pieces of information which pertain to<br />
different fields of en<strong>de</strong>avor. When users search for something on the web, Google can learn<br />
about their interests; when users read their emails on Gmail, Google can learn more about<br />
their personal or professional life; when users check out a location on Google Maps, Google<br />
can learn where each user has been or wants to go. The greater the scope of the Cloud, the<br />
greater is the amount of data that can be gathe<strong>red</strong> together and the more valuable is the<br />
information that can be obtained with the processing and corre<strong>la</strong>tion of such data 18 .<br />
While this is likely to help Google increase its profit, the collection and processing of user<br />
data into a common integrated framework can also benefit the users when it comes to increasing<br />
the quality of the service. Many users are therefore not merely agreeing, but even eager to share<br />
their personal data and information with Google in or<strong>de</strong>r to obtain a more customized and integrated<br />
service. Google Calendar is more valuable because it can be integrated with Gmail for<br />
e-mail remin<strong>de</strong>rs and notifications and with orkut for discovering new events and remembering<br />
the birthdays of some friends. As the value of a service increases not only with the number of<br />
users connected to that service but also with its <strong>de</strong>gree of integration with other services, the wi<strong>de</strong>r<br />
is the portfolio of services offe<strong>red</strong> by Google, the most users will be attracted to these services.<br />
The problem arises when the information given to se<strong>para</strong>te (and apparently in<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nt)<br />
services is actually aggregated together by one single entity (either because it is the<br />
common provi<strong>de</strong>r of said services, or because it has acqui<strong>red</strong> the data from third parties).<br />
Even though the information had been voluntarily provi<strong>de</strong>d by users, aggregated data might<br />
provi<strong>de</strong> further information about users, which they did not necessarily want to disclose.<br />
3.2. Privacy & confi<strong>de</strong>ntiality<br />
There is an inherent security risk in the use of the Internet to transfer sensible information<br />
and personal data. As a general rule, information wants to be sha<strong>red</strong>, as most of the<br />
value that can be extracted from it emerges from the usage and communication thereof.<br />
However, whenever it is published on the Internet, the privacy and confi<strong>de</strong>ntiality of information<br />
is necessarily put at risk 19 .<br />
applications, and location data in the case of location-enabled services such as Google Maps or Latitu<strong>de</strong>.<br />
For more <strong>de</strong>tails on Google privacy policy, see http://www.google.com/privacy/privacy-policy.html<br />
18 Google’s privacy policy clearly states that Google will be pooling all the information they collect from<br />
all of their services. Google reserves the right to “combine the information you submit un<strong>de</strong>r your<br />
account with information from other Google services or third parties in or<strong>de</strong>r to provi<strong>de</strong> you with<br />
a better experience and to improve the quality of our services.” See http://www.google.com/privacy/<br />
privacy-policy.html<br />
19 The advent of Internet and digital technologies introduced a series of concerns that might significantly<br />
affect users’ willingness to communicate personal data and confi<strong>de</strong>ntial information over the
222 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
These risks have been consi<strong>de</strong>rably increased with the <strong>de</strong>ployment of Cloud Computing,<br />
which requires more careful attention to be given to its actual or potential consequences<br />
on the privacy of personal information and confi<strong>de</strong>ntiality of business or governmental<br />
information. What kind of information can be sha<strong>red</strong> into the Cloud? Can anything be kept<br />
private in the Cloud?<br />
Individuals are generally free to share information in the Cloud, even though they are<br />
often not fully aware of the terms of services set out by the Cloud provi<strong>de</strong>rs and of the consequences<br />
of storing information in the Cloud 20 .<br />
In the case of an institution, privacy <strong>la</strong>ws may sometimes prohibit or limit the disclosure<br />
of personal information to third parties. The possibility for a business or corporation<br />
to share information in the Cloud is subject to a series of standards established by different<br />
bodies of <strong>la</strong>w, whereas government agencies are restricted by internal rules and public regu<strong>la</strong>tions<br />
on data protection. For instance, in the USA, the Health Insurance Portability and<br />
Accountability Act (HIPAA) establishes a series of rules regu<strong>la</strong>ting the use and disclosure<br />
of i<strong>de</strong>ntifiable health information, which can only be transfer<strong>red</strong> to a service provi<strong>de</strong>r that<br />
promises to comply with the same set of standards (often incompatible with the terms of<br />
services established by a cloud provi<strong>de</strong>r). Simi<strong>la</strong>rly, the Violence Against Women Act preclu<strong>de</strong>s<br />
domestic violence service provi<strong>de</strong>rs from disclosing information without the consent<br />
of the data subject, unless compelled by statute or a court (Public Law 109-162 as amen<strong>de</strong>d<br />
by Public Law 109-271); tax pre<strong>para</strong>tion <strong>la</strong>ws provi<strong>de</strong> statutory and regu<strong>la</strong>tory protection<br />
that limits the disclosure of tax return information without the taxpayer’s consent (Internal<br />
Revenue Service rules - 26 U.S.C. § 6713 and § 7216; 26 C.F.R. §301.7216); whereas the<br />
disclosure of personal information concerning the financial situation of a consumers by a<br />
financial institution is preclu<strong>de</strong>d un<strong>de</strong>r the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. § 6802);<br />
and the disclosure of vi<strong>de</strong>o rental and cable television subscribed records is protected un<strong>de</strong>r<br />
the Vi<strong>de</strong>o Privacy Protection Act (18 U.S.C. § 2710) and the Cable Communications Policy<br />
Act (47 U.S.C. § 551).<br />
Despite the fact that the <strong>la</strong>w may restrict the ability of these institutions to rely upon<br />
the services of a Cloud provi<strong>de</strong>r by introducing a series of procedural and/or substantive<br />
Internet. Given that there can be no perfectly secure mechanism to transfer information, publishing<br />
information on the web necessarily involves the risk of data loss or spill over. See e.g. Bob B<strong>la</strong>kley,<br />
Ellen McDermott, Dan Geer (2001), Information security is information risk management, in Proceedings<br />
of the 2001 workshop on New security <strong>para</strong>digms, New York; and Eric C. Turner; Subhasish<br />
Dasgupta (2003), Privacy on the Web: an Examination of User Concerns, Technology, and Implications<br />
for Business organizations and Individuals, in Information Systems Management, Volume 20,<br />
Issue 1.<br />
20 While many users do not even bother to familiarise themselves with the terms of services of the cloud<br />
computing p<strong>la</strong>tform they wish to use, doing so is often not an easy un<strong>de</strong>rtaking even for those who<br />
try to un<strong>de</strong>rstand the consequences of entering into such agreement. Besi<strong>de</strong>s, it is fairly common<br />
that the provi<strong>de</strong>r reserves the right to vary the terms and conditions on which the service is provi<strong>de</strong>d<br />
without notifying the users. For more <strong>de</strong>tails, see Dan Svantesson, Roger C<strong>la</strong>rk (2010), Privacy and<br />
consumer risks in cloud computing, in Computer Law & Security Review, 26 (4), 391-397.
Cloud Computing: legal Issues in Centralized Architectures<br />
223<br />
barriers, many corporate and governmental institutions (and in particu<strong>la</strong>r municipal governments)<br />
do store their data remotely on databases and file systems operated by a third party<br />
by contract. The problem is that information sto<strong>red</strong> in the infrastructure of a third party<br />
may have weaker protection than information that remains in possession of users.<br />
The chances for inadvertent exposure increase substantially with every new intermediary<br />
and with every new <strong>la</strong>yer of abstraction. While securing the infrastructure is obviously<br />
very important, it is not sufficient if the interface or application running on that infrastructure<br />
has not been properly secu<strong>red</strong> as well. Although users need a way to log into the system<br />
in or<strong>de</strong>r to transfer data from or into the Cloud, this could constitute a significant security<br />
risk unless proper access control and secure transfer protocols have been adopted. Likewise,<br />
even though users are ma<strong>de</strong> to access the services by password, unless there is filesystem level<br />
encryption of the data with a key held only by the user –which is impractical in most cases–<br />
the operator of the service or anybody else who gains physical access to the servers can peer<br />
into the sto<strong>red</strong> data. In more extreme cases, attacks on the hardware can be used to extract<br />
information that is resi<strong>de</strong>nt in runtime memory 21 .<br />
In most cases, security issues are due to <strong>la</strong>ck of or poor application of cryptography and<br />
a general <strong>la</strong>ck of tradition for security. Various campaigns have tried to remedy this, such as<br />
the Tactical Technology Collective’s oNo Robot campaign, Survival in the Digital Age 22 ,<br />
and the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s HTTPS-everywhere campaign 23 .<br />
Yet, regardless of the <strong>de</strong>gree of protection promised by the cloud provi<strong>de</strong>r, the security<br />
and confi<strong>de</strong>ntiality of information is ultimately <strong>de</strong>termined by the weakest link in the chain.<br />
Insofar as data is transfer<strong>red</strong> through several intermediaries, only one of them needs to be<br />
vio<strong>la</strong>ted for any malicious user to obtain the relevant information.<br />
In addition, the <strong>la</strong>ws of certain countries oblige cloud provi<strong>de</strong>rs to communicate to the<br />
authorities any information that constitutes evi<strong>de</strong>nce of criminal activities. This means that<br />
government agencies can, un<strong>de</strong>r certain circumstances, require the disclosure of personal or<br />
confi<strong>de</strong>ntial information. This information can be more easily obtained from a third party<br />
21 An interesting example is the Cold boot attack, allowing anyone with physical access to a computer<br />
to retrieve encryption keys from the operating system after restarting the machine. The attack relies<br />
on the “data remanence” of DRAM and SRAM memory in or<strong>de</strong>r to retrieve memory contents that<br />
remain readable for a short period after power has been removed. For more information, see J.Alex<br />
Hal<strong>de</strong>rman, Seth D. Schoen, Nadia Heninger, William C<strong>la</strong>rkson, William Paul, Joseph A. Ca<strong>la</strong>ndrino,<br />
Ariel J. Feldman, Jacob Appelbaum, Edward W. Felten (2008): Lest we remember: Cold Boot<br />
Attacks on Encryption Keys, in Proceedings 2008 USENIX Security Symposium.<br />
22 The Tactical Technology Collective and oNo Robot produced a series of animated films to raise<br />
awareness about the digital traces users leave behind. Its main aim is to engage people in better un<strong>de</strong>rstanding<br />
the information and communications technologies they are using, so that they can <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong><br />
when and if they want to take risks. For more <strong>de</strong>tails, see www.onorobot.org<br />
23 HTTPS Everywhere is a Firefox extension produced as a col<strong>la</strong>boration between The Tor Project and<br />
the Electronic Frontier Foundation. It encrypts communications with a number of major websites<br />
using Transport Layer Security. For more <strong>de</strong>tails, see http://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
224 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
than from the original owner, who, in the absence of proper notice, does not have the opportunity<br />
to object. For instance, in the USA, although the Electronic Communications Privacy<br />
Act (ECPA) provi<strong>de</strong>s a series of protections against the access by governmental agencies to<br />
personal information held by third parties (18 U.S.C. § 2510-2522 and § 2701-2712), these<br />
protections have been subsequently weakened by the USA PATRIoT Act, which entitles<br />
the FBI to compel, following a court or<strong>de</strong>r, the disclosure by Cloud provi<strong>de</strong>rs of any record<br />
sto<strong>red</strong> on their servers (50 U.S.C. § 1862).<br />
Finally, the international character of the Cloud adds an additional <strong>la</strong>yer of complexity.<br />
Information sto<strong>red</strong> in the Cloud can be subject to a variety of different <strong>la</strong>ws according to the<br />
location where it is being sto<strong>red</strong> or transmitted. A Cloud provi<strong>de</strong>r might avail itself of the<br />
services of other Cloud provi<strong>de</strong>rs located in different jurisdictions, or, if the Cloud provi<strong>de</strong>r<br />
has data centers in multiple countries, it can transfer data between centers <strong>de</strong>pending on<br />
economic factors such as the price of electricity. This means that a file being served from<br />
Luxembourg one moment could be served from the Philippines the next. The difficulty for<br />
the user to know with certainty which <strong>la</strong>w applies to the information sto<strong>red</strong> into the Cloud<br />
raises a number of data protection questions.<br />
According to the European Union’s Data Protection Directive, national data protection<br />
<strong>la</strong>ws apply to all information located in the territory of a Member State, regardless of its origin<br />
or <strong>de</strong>stination 24 . However, it is often difficult to <strong>de</strong>termine in advance and with certainty<br />
the actual location of information sto<strong>red</strong> in the Cloud. In particu<strong>la</strong>r, a crucial problem that<br />
emerges from the international character of the Cloud is the question of forum-shopping.<br />
Unless it has been contractually preclu<strong>de</strong>d to do so, a Cloud provi<strong>de</strong>r can theoretically move<br />
information from one jurisdiction to another in or<strong>de</strong>r to benefit from the most favorable<br />
<strong>la</strong>ws. This can be used as a means for any service provi<strong>de</strong>r that does not want to respect<br />
domestic regu<strong>la</strong>tions on data protection. In or<strong>de</strong>r to overcome this problem, the European<br />
Union introduced the rule that data cannot be transfer<strong>red</strong> to countries outsi<strong>de</strong> the EU which<br />
do not provi<strong>de</strong> an “a<strong>de</strong>quate level of protection” 25 . This is likely to <strong>red</strong>uce the possibilities for<br />
24 Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 october 1995 on the<br />
protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of<br />
such data, Article 4 (National <strong>la</strong>w applicable) specifically states that each Member State shall apply<br />
the national provisions it adopts pursuant to this Directive to the processing of personal data where:<br />
(a) the processing is carried out in the context of the activities of an establishment of the controller<br />
on the territory of the Member State;; (b) the controller is not established on the Member State’s<br />
territory, but in a p<strong>la</strong>ce where its national <strong>la</strong>w applies by virtue of international public <strong>la</strong>w; (c) the<br />
controller is not established on Community territory and, for purposes of processing personal data<br />
makes use of equipment, automated or otherwise, situated on the territory of the said Member State,<br />
unless such equipment is used only for purposes of transit through the territory of the Community.<br />
25 Ibid, Article 25 introduces the principles that Member States shall provi<strong>de</strong> that the transfer to a<br />
third country of personal data which are un<strong>de</strong>rgoing processing or are inten<strong>de</strong>d for processing after<br />
transfer may take p<strong>la</strong>ce only if, without prejudice to compliance with the national provisions adopted<br />
pursuant to the other provisions of this Directive, the third country in question ensures an a<strong>de</strong>quate<br />
level of protection; where the a<strong>de</strong>quacy of the level of protection affor<strong>de</strong>d by a third country shall
Cloud Computing: legal Issues in Centralized Architectures<br />
225<br />
Cloud provi<strong>de</strong>rs to outsource their services in the EU, because, even if data is merely being<br />
processed in a Member State, it might be difficult to export it after it has ente<strong>red</strong> the EU.<br />
As Cloud Computing is being adopted by an increasingly <strong>la</strong>rger number of businesses and<br />
individuals, the un<strong>de</strong>rlying technology and infrastructure is continuously evolving, but the <strong>la</strong>w<br />
does not seem to follow the pace. Given that commercial Cloud provi<strong>de</strong>rs are more interested<br />
in making profits than in protecting the interests of their user-base, users should be wary of their<br />
privacy online and of the confi<strong>de</strong>ntiality of their data sto<strong>red</strong> in the Cloud. Given the <strong>de</strong>gree of legal<br />
uncertainty that is emerging in the sky, there is a real need for the <strong>la</strong>w to be reformed in or<strong>de</strong>r<br />
to better accommodate current and future users concerns in terms of data security and privacy.<br />
4. conclusion<br />
There are many consequences to the <strong>de</strong>ployment of cloud computing: some inten<strong>de</strong>d,<br />
others unintentional; some good, and others bad. Many are already noticeable and measurable,<br />
while others can only be foreseen by analyzing the trends that have been set.<br />
There is a trend fueled by the shift of control from end-users towards increasingly centralized<br />
services provi<strong>de</strong>rs. As many such services, and in particu<strong>la</strong>r social networks, carry heavy<br />
privacy and confi<strong>de</strong>ntiality bur<strong>de</strong>ns, the threats to the privacy of end-users increases. Service<br />
Level Agreements and privacy policies are useless in the face of events which are irrevocable,<br />
such as the exposure of private data. Users of Sony’s P<strong>la</strong>yStation network know all too well<br />
that this danger is not a hypothetical 26 . Smaller networks catering to more local communities<br />
distribute the risk and limit the scope of potential damage, but at a steep utility tra<strong>de</strong>off.<br />
The advantages offe<strong>red</strong> by cloud computing are clear: infrastructure provi<strong>de</strong>rs can benefit<br />
from strong economies of scale, whereas Internet service provi<strong>de</strong>rs can benefit from<br />
enhanced flexibility and sca<strong>la</strong>bility of costs. From the perspective of end-users, the main advantages<br />
are the possibility to access data from anywhere and at any time –regardless of the<br />
<strong>de</strong>vice they are connected from– and the ability of avail themselves of the computing power<br />
and storage capacity of the cloud. Further, it allows for outsourcing the obligation of maintaining<br />
complicated infrastructure and having to maintain up-to-date technical knowledge,<br />
while externalizing the cost of purchasing and running the infrastructure.<br />
be assessed in the light of all the circumstances surrounding a data transfer operation or set of data<br />
transfer operations; particu<strong>la</strong>r consi<strong>de</strong>ration shall be given to the nature of the data, the purpose and<br />
duration of the proposed processing operation or operations, the country of origin and country of<br />
final <strong>de</strong>stination, the rules of <strong>la</strong>w, both general and sectoral, in force in the third country in question<br />
and the professional rules and security measures which are complied with in that country.<br />
26 In April 2011, Sony suffe<strong>red</strong> a breach in the P<strong>la</strong>ystation online vi<strong>de</strong>o game network. As one of<br />
the <strong>la</strong>rgest Internet security break-ins, this breach led to the theft of personal data, such as names,<br />
addresses, birth dates, passwords and possibly c<strong>red</strong>it card numbers belonging to 77 million user accounts.<br />
This requi<strong>red</strong> Sony to shut down the network, and although Sony given notice of the breach<br />
to its customers, no information has been provi<strong>de</strong>d as to how the data might have been compromised.
226 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
This does not, however, come without costs. Exporting data to the cloud means that<br />
users can no longer exercise any kind of control over the use and the exploitation of data.<br />
Data sto<strong>red</strong> in various data centers can be processed without the knowledge of users, to be<br />
further <strong>red</strong>istributed to third parties without their consent. If everything has been sto<strong>red</strong> in<br />
the cloud, the cloud provi<strong>de</strong>r can ultimately <strong>de</strong>termine everything that users can or cannot<br />
do. As most Internet users are no longer in charge of their own data and are no longer capable<br />
of managing their own infrastructures of production, storage, and distribution, the<br />
control is in the hand of few corporate entrepreneurs.<br />
Just as, after the industrial revolution, governments have been urged to exercise their<br />
authority for the creation of <strong>la</strong>bour and consumer protection <strong>la</strong>ws, today, during the digital<br />
revolution, governmental intervention has become necessary in or<strong>de</strong>r to promote civil<br />
liberties and to protect fundamental rights on the Internet, at least with regard to those<br />
risks which cannot be properly addressed through the adoption of clearer policies by cloud<br />
provi<strong>de</strong>rs and better practices by users.
12<br />
DereCHO Al HONOr Vs DereCHO A lA lIBertAD<br />
De exPresIóN eN lA reD<br />
Patricia Escribano Tortajada<br />
Doctora en Derecho. Profesora <strong>de</strong> Derecho Civil <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
Universitat Oberta <strong>de</strong> Catalunya<br />
AbstrAct: En <strong>la</strong> actualidad Internet y <strong>la</strong>s Tecnologías <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Información y <strong>la</strong> Comunicación han<br />
provocado una revolución positiva en nuestra vida cotidiana. Pero a su vez han incrementado el riesgo<br />
<strong>de</strong> vulnerar <strong>de</strong>rechos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> personalidad <strong>de</strong> forma reiterada y constante como consecuencia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> imposibilidad<br />
<strong>de</strong> contro<strong>la</strong>r toda <strong>la</strong> información que discurre en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>. El objeto <strong>de</strong> este trabajo en concreto<br />
es analizar el conflicto existente entre el <strong>de</strong>recho al honor, <strong>de</strong>recho <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> personalidad y <strong>de</strong>recho<br />
fundamental constitucionalizado en el art. 18 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Constitución Españo<strong>la</strong> y <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión<br />
recogida en el art. 20 <strong>de</strong>l mismo texto en el ámbito <strong>de</strong> Internet. En primer lugar <strong>de</strong>finiremos estos dos<br />
<strong>de</strong>rechos <strong>para</strong> conocer exactamente cuál es el alcance <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> problemática actual y porqué colisionan<br />
con tanta frecuencia. Por otro <strong>la</strong>do, se analizará cuál ha sido el impacto <strong>de</strong> Internet en re<strong>la</strong>ción con<br />
estos <strong>de</strong>rechos y pondremos <strong>de</strong> relieve cuáles son los problemas esenciales que en <strong>la</strong> actualidad afectan<br />
a los mismos: en especial el anonimato y el alcance <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> divulgación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s expresiones vertidas en<br />
Internet. A continuación, nos centraremos en un tema esencial en nuestros días, que es el <strong>de</strong> los insultos<br />
proferidos en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y realizaremos un análisis jurispru<strong>de</strong>ncial <strong>de</strong> algunas sentencias representativas<br />
sobre cómo nuestros tribunales p<strong>la</strong>ntean el conflicto honor-libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión en Internet.<br />
pAlAbrAs clAve: honor, insultos, libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión, Internet, análisis jurispru<strong>de</strong>ncial.<br />
1. los concePtos <strong>de</strong> Honor y libertad <strong>de</strong> exPresión<br />
1.1. el honor como <strong>de</strong>recho fundamental y <strong>de</strong>recho <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> personalidad<br />
El <strong>de</strong>recho al honor es un <strong>de</strong>recho <strong>de</strong> difícil conceptualización sobre el que <strong>la</strong> jurispru<strong>de</strong>ncia<br />
(tanto civil como constitucional) se tiene que pronunciar constantemente, <strong>para</strong> po<strong>de</strong>r<br />
perfi<strong>la</strong>r así su concepto, características y contenido <strong>de</strong>bido a que nos encontramos ante un<br />
<strong>de</strong>recho <strong>de</strong> contornos difusos. Si buscamos en alguna norma <strong>de</strong> nuestro or<strong>de</strong>namiento Jurídico<br />
no hal<strong>la</strong>remos una <strong>de</strong>finición exacta sobre qué hemos <strong>de</strong> enten<strong>de</strong>r por <strong>de</strong>recho al honor.<br />
La dificultad <strong>de</strong> establecer una <strong>de</strong>finición radica en pa<strong>la</strong>bras <strong>de</strong> o’Cal<strong>la</strong>ghan 1 en que<br />
nos encontramos ante un concepto prejurídico. Seña<strong>la</strong> a<strong>de</strong>más que ha sido <strong>la</strong> doctrina <strong>la</strong> que<br />
ha tenido que ir configurando el concepto, mientras que <strong>la</strong> jurispru<strong>de</strong>ncia iba resolviendo<br />
los casos conc<strong>retos</strong> “a falta <strong>de</strong> una completa previsión legal, que tampoco es aconsejable,<br />
1 o’CALLAGHAN MUñoZ, X. (1991). Libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión y sus límites: honor, intimidad e imagen.<br />
Madrid: EDERSA, p. 38 citando a BAJo FERNÁNDEZ. En el mismo sentido se pronuncia HERRE-<br />
Ro-TEJEDoR, F.(1994). Honor, Intimidad y Propia Imagen. 2ª ed. Madrid: Colex, pp. 75-76.
228 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
pues esta materia es <strong>de</strong>masiado contingente y fluctuante y no interesa que <strong>la</strong> realidad tenga<br />
que adaptarse a una <strong>de</strong>tal<strong>la</strong>da ley, sino que ésta y su interpretación vayan adaptándose a <strong>la</strong><br />
realidad social” 2 . Tanto <strong>la</strong> doctrina como <strong>la</strong> jurispru<strong>de</strong>ncia han recalcado que estamos ante<br />
un concepto jurídico in<strong>de</strong>terminado (STC <strong>de</strong> 5 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2000 y <strong>de</strong> 26 <strong>de</strong> febrero <strong>de</strong><br />
2001) 3 .<br />
El <strong>de</strong>recho al honor se reconoce expresamente en el art. 18.1 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Constitución Españo<strong>la</strong><br />
(en a<strong>de</strong><strong>la</strong>nte CE) en los siguientes términos: 1. Se garantiza el <strong>de</strong>recho al honor, a <strong>la</strong><br />
intimidad personal y familiar y a <strong>la</strong> propia imagen. El apartado cuarto seña<strong>la</strong> que: 4. La Ley<br />
limitará el uso <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> informática <strong>para</strong> garantizar el honor y <strong>la</strong> intimidad personal y familiar <strong>de</strong><br />
los ciudadanos y el pleno ejercicio <strong>de</strong> sus <strong>de</strong>rechos. Este precepto fue <strong>de</strong>sarrol<strong>la</strong>do por <strong>la</strong> famosa<br />
Ley orgánica 1/1982, <strong>de</strong> 5 <strong>de</strong> mayo, <strong>de</strong> Protección Civil <strong>de</strong>l Derecho al Honor, a <strong>la</strong> Intimidad<br />
Personal y Familiar y a <strong>la</strong> Propia Imagen (en a<strong>de</strong><strong>la</strong>nte Ley 1/1982) 4 . El <strong>de</strong>recho al<br />
honor, a<strong>de</strong>más <strong>de</strong> ser un <strong>de</strong>recho fundamental por estar reconocido expresamente en <strong>la</strong> CE,<br />
es también un <strong>de</strong>recho <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> personalidad 5 .<br />
Por otro <strong>la</strong>do, <strong>la</strong> doctrina y <strong>la</strong> jurispru<strong>de</strong>ncia ha entendido que este <strong>de</strong>recho posee una<br />
doble perspectiva o faceta: una interna, que <strong>la</strong> conformaría <strong>la</strong> estimación que tiene uno <strong>de</strong><br />
sí mismo, y <strong>la</strong> externa, que es <strong>la</strong> estimación que nos tienen los <strong>de</strong>más 6 . Hemos <strong>de</strong> tener<br />
presente que en el <strong>de</strong>recho al honor existe o confluye un componente subjetivo <strong>de</strong> carácter<br />
psicológico importante, que se manifiesta en esa perspectiva interna. Con esto queremos<br />
<strong>de</strong>cir que una <strong>de</strong>terminada expresión o conducta pue<strong>de</strong> ser hiriente u ofensiva <strong>para</strong> una<br />
persona pero no serlo <strong>para</strong> otra. Como ha manifestado el Tribunal Supremo (en a<strong>de</strong><strong>la</strong>nte TS)<br />
en el FJ 3º <strong>de</strong> su sentencia <strong>de</strong> 24 <strong>de</strong> febrero <strong>de</strong> 2000 7 : “–el concepto <strong>de</strong>l honor , proce<strong>de</strong>nte <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> dogmática y partiendo <strong>de</strong>l texto legal (art 7.7 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Ley Orgánica 1/1982, <strong>de</strong> 5 <strong>de</strong> mayo texto<br />
formalmente cambiado hoy, no en el tiempo <strong>de</strong> los hechos <strong>de</strong> autos) <strong>de</strong>riva <strong>de</strong>l propio concepto <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> dignidad <strong>de</strong>l ser humano: es <strong>la</strong> dignidad personal reflejada en <strong>la</strong> consi<strong>de</strong>ración <strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>más y<br />
en el sentimiento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> propia persona ; cuyo concepto compren<strong>de</strong> un aspecto interno, subjetivo o<br />
dimensión individual, por uno mismo, y un aspecto externo, objetivo o dimensión y valoración<br />
2 o’ CALLAGHAN MUñoZ; X, Libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión…, op.cit. pp. 41-42.<br />
3 RTC 2000\112 y RTC 2001\49. Así lo seña<strong>la</strong> también PARDo FALCÓN, J. (2009), “Los <strong>de</strong>rechos<br />
al honor, a <strong>la</strong> intimidad personal y familiar y a <strong>la</strong> propia imagen”. En: CASAS BAAMoNDE, M.E.,<br />
RoDRÍGUEZ-PIñERo Y BRAVo-FERRER, M.(dir.). PÉREZ MANZANo, M., BoRRAJo<br />
INIESTA, I. (coord.). Comentarios a <strong>la</strong> Constitución Españo<strong>la</strong> XXX aniversario. Madrid: Wolters<br />
Kluwer, p. 416.<br />
4 BoE núm. 115 <strong>de</strong> 14 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 1982.<br />
5 Esto implica como ponen <strong>de</strong> manifiesto DÍEZ PICAZo, L./ GULLÓN BALLESTERoS, A. (2005).<br />
Sistema <strong>de</strong> Derecho Civil, vol.I. 3ª ed. Madrid: Tecnos, p. 329 que “los <strong>de</strong>rechos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> personalidad<br />
se consi<strong>de</strong>ran tradicionalmente innatos, esenciales a <strong>la</strong> persona, instransmisibles, irrenunciables e<br />
imprescriptibles”.<br />
6 BUSToS PUECHE, J.E. (2008). Manual sobre bienes y <strong>de</strong>rechos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> personalidad. 2ª ed. Madrid:<br />
Manuales Jurídicos Dykinson, p. 120.<br />
7 RJ 2000\1243.
Derecho al honor vs Derecho a <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong><br />
229<br />
social, por los <strong>de</strong>más;– siendo tan re<strong>la</strong>tivo el concepto <strong>de</strong>l honor, <strong>de</strong>be compaginarse <strong>la</strong> inevitable<br />
subjetivación con <strong>la</strong>s circunstancias objetivas, al objeto <strong>de</strong> evitar que una exagerada sensibilidad<br />
<strong>de</strong> una persona transforme en su interés conceptos jurídicos como el honor (…). La calificación<br />
<strong>de</strong> ser atentatorio al honor una <strong>de</strong>terminada noticia o expresión, <strong>de</strong>be hacerse en re<strong>la</strong>ción con el<br />
contexto y <strong>la</strong>s circunstancias <strong>de</strong> cada caso. Po<strong>de</strong>mos citar también <strong>la</strong> STS <strong>de</strong> 16 <strong>de</strong> octubre <strong>de</strong><br />
2008 8 que aña<strong>de</strong> en su FJ 2º que: El honor, consiste en <strong>la</strong> dignidad personal reflejada en <strong>la</strong> consi<strong>de</strong>ración<br />
<strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>más y en el sentimiento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> propia persona, concepto que aparece <strong>de</strong>sdob<strong>la</strong>do,<br />
por tanto, en un aspecto trascen<strong>de</strong>nte, que se resume en <strong>la</strong> consi<strong>de</strong>ración externa <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> persona,<br />
esto es, en su dimensión social, y en un aspecto inmanente, subjetivo e individual, que es <strong>la</strong> consi<strong>de</strong>ración<br />
que <strong>de</strong> sí tiene uno mismo. Constituye un concepto jurídico normativo cuya precisión<br />
<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s normas, valores e i<strong>de</strong>as sociales vigentes en cada momento; re<strong>la</strong>tividad conceptual<br />
que, sin embargo, no ha impedido <strong>de</strong>finir su contenido constitucional abstracto, afirmando que el<br />
<strong>de</strong>recho am<strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> buena reputación <strong>de</strong> una persona, protegiéndo<strong>la</strong> frente a expresiones o mensajes<br />
que lo hagan <strong>de</strong>smerecer <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> consi<strong>de</strong>ración ajena al ir en su <strong>de</strong>scrédito o menosprecio, o que<br />
sean tenidas en el concepto público como afrentosas” 9 .<br />
La doctrina y <strong>la</strong> jurispru<strong>de</strong>ncia han seña<strong>la</strong>do que “el <strong>de</strong>nominador común <strong>de</strong> todos<br />
los ataques o intromisiones ilegítimas en el ámbito <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> este <strong>de</strong>recho es el<br />
<strong>de</strong>smerecimiento en <strong>la</strong> consi<strong>de</strong>ración ajena como consecuencia <strong>de</strong> expresiones proferidas<br />
en <strong>de</strong>scrédito o menosprecio <strong>de</strong> alguien o que fueren tenidas en el concepto público por<br />
afrentosas” 10 . La intromisión ilegítima que vamos a analizar en este trabajo es <strong>la</strong> re<strong>la</strong>tiva al art.<br />
7.7 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Ley 1/1982, es <strong>de</strong>cir, “La imputación <strong>de</strong> hechos o <strong>la</strong> manifestación <strong>de</strong> juicios <strong>de</strong> valor<br />
a través <strong>de</strong> acciones o expresiones que <strong>de</strong> cualquier modo lesionen <strong>la</strong> dignidad <strong>de</strong> otra persona,<br />
menoscabando su fama o atentando contra su propia estimación”.<br />
1.2. <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión como límite al <strong>de</strong>recho al honor<br />
El <strong>de</strong>recho al honor no es un <strong>de</strong>recho absoluto que prima por encima <strong>de</strong> cualquier otro<br />
cuando existe un conflicto <strong>de</strong> intereses. El honor frecuentemente colisionará en <strong>la</strong> práctica<br />
con <strong>otros</strong> como <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión y <strong>de</strong> información. La libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión es un<br />
<strong>de</strong>recho fundamental consagrado en el art. 20.1 a) CE y que se reconoce en diversos tratados<br />
internacionales. La CE manifiesta que 1. Se reconocen y protegen los <strong>de</strong>rechos: A expresar y<br />
8 RJ 2008\7127.<br />
9 En términos simi<strong>la</strong>res se pronuncia <strong>la</strong> STS <strong>de</strong> 23 <strong>de</strong> marzo <strong>de</strong> 1987 (RJ 1987\1716) en su FJ 7º: este<br />
<strong>de</strong>recho fundamental se encuentra integrado por dos aspectos o actitu<strong>de</strong>s íntimamente conexionadas: el <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> inmanencia o mismidad, representada por <strong>la</strong> estimación que cada persona hace <strong>de</strong> sí misma; y el <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
trascen<strong>de</strong>ncia o exterioridad, integrado por el reconocimiento que los <strong>de</strong>más hacen <strong>de</strong> nuestra dignidad. Por<br />
ello, el ataque y en su caso lesión al honor se <strong>de</strong>senvuelven tanto en el marco interno <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> propia intimidad<br />
e incluso <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> familia, como en el externo <strong>de</strong>l ambiente social y por en<strong>de</strong> profesional.<br />
10 VERA SANToS, J.M. (2005). “Derechos Fundamentales, Internet y Nuevas Tecnologías <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Información<br />
y <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comunicación”. En: GARCÍA MEXÍA, P (dir.). Principios <strong>de</strong> Derecho <strong>de</strong> Internet. 2ª<br />
ed. Valencia: Tirant lo B<strong>la</strong>nch, pp.193-194, citando <strong>la</strong> STC 223/1992 (FJ 3º).
230 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
difundir libremente los pensamientos, i<strong>de</strong>as y opiniones mediante <strong>la</strong> pa<strong>la</strong>bra, el escrito o cualquier<br />
otro medio <strong>de</strong> reproducción. El apartado segundo matiza que: El ejercicio <strong>de</strong> estos <strong>de</strong>rechos no<br />
pue<strong>de</strong> restringirse mediante ningún tipo <strong>de</strong> censura previa. Por su parte el apartado cuarto<br />
dispone que: Estas liberta<strong>de</strong>s tienen su límite en el respeto a los <strong>de</strong>rechos reconocidos en este Título,<br />
en los preceptos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s Leyes que lo <strong>de</strong>sarrol<strong>la</strong>n y, especialmente, en el <strong>de</strong>recho al honor, a <strong>la</strong><br />
intimidad, a <strong>la</strong> propia imagen y a <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> juventud y <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> infancia.<br />
La Dec<strong>la</strong>ración Universal <strong>de</strong> los Derechos Humanos <strong>de</strong> 1948 en su art. 19 reconoce <strong>la</strong> libertad<br />
<strong>de</strong> expresión en los siguientes términos: Todo individuo tiene <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> opinión<br />
y <strong>de</strong> expresión; este <strong>de</strong>recho incluye el <strong>de</strong> no ser molestado a causa <strong>de</strong> sus opiniones, el <strong>de</strong> investigar y<br />
recibir informaciones y opiniones, y el <strong>de</strong> difundir<strong>la</strong>s, sin limitación <strong>de</strong> fronteras, por cualquier medio<br />
<strong>de</strong> expresión. El Pacto Internacional <strong>de</strong> Derechos Civiles y Políticos <strong>de</strong> 1966 consagra este <strong>de</strong>recho<br />
en el art. 19: 1. Nadie podrá ser molestado a causa <strong>de</strong> sus opiniones.2. Toda persona tiene <strong>de</strong>recho a<br />
<strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión; este <strong>de</strong>recho compren<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> buscar, recibir y difundir informaciones<br />
e i<strong>de</strong>as <strong>de</strong> toda índole, sin consi<strong>de</strong>ración <strong>de</strong> fronteras, ya sea oralmente, por escrito o en forma impresa<br />
o artística, o por cualquier otro procedimiento <strong>de</strong> su elección. 3. El ejercicio <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho previsto en el<br />
párrafo 2 <strong>de</strong> este artículo entraña <strong>de</strong>beres y responsabilida<strong>de</strong>s especiales. Por consiguiente, pue<strong>de</strong> estar<br />
sujeto a ciertas restricciones, que <strong>de</strong>berán, sin embargo, estar expresamente fijadas por <strong>la</strong> ley y ser necesarias<br />
<strong>para</strong>: a) Asegurar el respeto a los <strong>de</strong>rechos o a <strong>la</strong> reputación <strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>más; b) La protección <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
seguridad nacional, el or<strong>de</strong>n público o <strong>la</strong> salud o <strong>la</strong> moral públicas 11 .<br />
La libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión es básica en una sociedad <strong>de</strong>mocrática como <strong>la</strong> nuestra. Tal y<br />
como seña<strong>la</strong> <strong>la</strong> sentencia <strong>de</strong>l Tribunal Constitucional <strong>de</strong> 7 <strong>de</strong> junio <strong>de</strong> 1994 12 “se configura en<br />
principio como un <strong>de</strong>recho fundamental <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> ciudadanía, aun cuando con ta<strong>la</strong>nte instrumental<br />
<strong>de</strong> una función que garantiza <strong>la</strong> existencia <strong>de</strong> opinión pública también libre, indispensable <strong>para</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> efectiva consecución <strong>de</strong>l pluralismo político como valor esencial <strong>de</strong>l sistema <strong>de</strong>mocrático” (FJ2º).<br />
No obstante, <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión tampoco es un principio absoluto como seña<strong>la</strong> el “Libro<br />
Ver<strong>de</strong> sobre <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> los menores y <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> dignidad humana en los servicios audiovisuales<br />
y <strong>de</strong> información” en los siguientes términos: “La libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión pue<strong>de</strong> estar restringida<br />
por el Estado, pero estas restricciones son objeto <strong>de</strong> un límite muy concreto: <strong>para</strong> que una medida<br />
restrictiva sea consi<strong>de</strong>rada necesaria en una sociedad <strong>de</strong>mocrática, es necesario que responda a una<br />
necesidad social imperiosa y que sea eficaz sin ser <strong>de</strong>sproporcionada en re<strong>la</strong>ción a <strong>la</strong>s limitaciones que<br />
imponga. Esta apreciación exige <strong>la</strong> aplicación <strong>de</strong> una prueba <strong>de</strong> proporcionalidad” 13 .<br />
Es <strong>de</strong>cir, <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión no pue<strong>de</strong> restringirse arbitrariamente, es necesaria <strong>la</strong><br />
existencia <strong>de</strong> unas causas justificadas y que realmente impliquen <strong>la</strong> necesidad <strong>de</strong> su limita-<br />
11 Existen <strong>otros</strong> textos internacionales que consagran <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión como: el art. 11 <strong>de</strong>l Convenio<br />
<strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> los Derechos Humanos y <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s Liberta<strong>de</strong>s Fundamentales <strong>de</strong>l Consejo <strong>de</strong><br />
Europa <strong>de</strong> 1950.<br />
12 RTC 1994\170.<br />
13 Libro Ver<strong>de</strong> sobre <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> los menores y <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> dignidad humana en los servicios audiovisuales y <strong>de</strong><br />
información [CoM(96) 483 final, p. 14.<br />
En: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CoM:1996:0483:FIN:ES:PDF. [Fecha<br />
<strong>de</strong> consulta: 2 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011.]
Derecho al honor vs Derecho a <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong><br />
231<br />
ción. Como ha manifestado algún autor 14 , si se restringe <strong>la</strong> circu<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información<br />
po<strong>de</strong>mos estar creando potenciales amenazas a <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión, por este motivo <strong>la</strong>s<br />
leyes sobre difamación y privacidad están limitadas.<br />
Pero, ¿en qué consiste <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión? Como ha seña<strong>la</strong>do <strong>la</strong> doctrina, <strong>la</strong> libertad<br />
<strong>de</strong> expresión tiene como objeto “<strong>la</strong>s apreciaciones, creencias y/o juicios <strong>de</strong> valor subjetivos<br />
y personales que no sean formalmente injuriosos e innecesarios <strong>para</strong> el mensaje que<br />
se <strong>de</strong>see transmitir” 15 . Es <strong>de</strong>cir, <strong>la</strong>s opiniones o manifestaciones que realicemos siempre y<br />
cuando no se sobrepasen los límites marcados por <strong>la</strong> ley (insultos, vejaciones, incitación al<br />
racismo, a <strong>la</strong> violencia, etc.). El conflicto surgirá cuando nos encontremos ante opiniones o<br />
comentarios que estén colindando con esa frontera que nos marca <strong>la</strong> ley. Habrá casos muy<br />
c<strong>la</strong>ros, pero habrá <strong>otros</strong> en los que tendremos nuestras dudas sobre si ha <strong>de</strong> primar el <strong>de</strong>recho<br />
al honor o <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión. Aquí es don<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>la</strong>bor <strong>de</strong> los tribunales es fundamental,<br />
en estos conflictos se <strong>de</strong>berá valorar cuál <strong>de</strong> los dos tendrá una mayor fuerza, no obstante, ya<br />
a<strong>de</strong><strong>la</strong>ntamos que <strong>la</strong> jurispru<strong>de</strong>ncia tiene c<strong>la</strong>ro que mientras no sean expresiones injuriosas<br />
o no necesarias no se pue<strong>de</strong> limitar <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión por muy molestas o críticas que<br />
sean <strong>la</strong>s opiniones vertidas 16 . Para <strong>de</strong>cidir sobre el conflicto <strong>de</strong> estos dos <strong>de</strong>rechos Vil<strong>la</strong>ver<strong>de</strong><br />
Menén<strong>de</strong>z 17 expone que el Tribunal Constitucional ha establecido como una especie <strong>de</strong><br />
“vara <strong>de</strong> medir”, en un extremo sitúa <strong>la</strong> mentira y los insultos y en otro <strong>la</strong>s noticias veraces<br />
<strong>de</strong>mocráticamente relevantes. De este modo manifiesta que cuanto más nos acerquemos al<br />
insulto, menor o ninguna será <strong>la</strong> tute<strong>la</strong> constitucional.<br />
Si <strong>la</strong> pugna <strong>de</strong>l honor y <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión ha provocado una consi<strong>de</strong>rable jurispru<strong>de</strong>ncia<br />
sobre el tema hasta el momento, el impacto <strong>de</strong> Internet en nuestra vida ha<br />
agravado estos conflictos.<br />
2. un nueVo marco Para el ejercicio <strong>de</strong> estos <strong>de</strong>recHos: el<br />
imPacto <strong>de</strong> internet<br />
Que Internet ha cambiado nuestra vida cotidiana <strong>de</strong> forma consi<strong>de</strong>rable es un hecho<br />
irrefutable. Hoy es una herramienta presente en nuestras activida<strong>de</strong>s diarias. Con él realizamos<br />
cualquier tipo <strong>de</strong> actividad: <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> comprar entradas <strong>para</strong> ir a espectáculos, hacer <strong>la</strong><br />
14 SoLoVE, D.J. (2007). The future of reputation: gossip, rumor and privacy on the Internet. New Haven<br />
and London: Yale University Press, p. 125.<br />
15 VILLAVERDE MENÉNDEZ, I. (2009). “La libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión”. En: CASAS BAAMoNDE,<br />
M.E., RoDRÍGUEZ-PIñERo Y BRAVo-FERRER, M.(dir.). PÉREZ MANZANo, M., BoR-<br />
RAJo INIESTA, I. (coord). Comentarios a <strong>la</strong> Constitución Españo<strong>la</strong> XXX aniversario. Madrid: Wolters<br />
Kluwer, p.477.<br />
16 En este sentido se pue<strong>de</strong> ver <strong>la</strong> STC <strong>de</strong> 26 <strong>de</strong> febrero <strong>de</strong> 2001 (RTC 2001\49) en concreto su FJ 5º<br />
o el FJ 8º <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Sentencia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Audiencia Provincial <strong>de</strong> Madrid <strong>de</strong> 23 <strong>de</strong> noviembre <strong>de</strong> 2010 (AC<br />
2010\2349).<br />
17 VILLAVERDE MENÉNDEZ, I. (2009), La libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión…, op.cit., p.478.
232 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
compra en nuestro supermercado, estudiar, trabajar, entretenernos, estar en contacto con<br />
nuestros amigos y familiares, realizar operaciones bancarias. Es una herramienta que nos<br />
facilita <strong>la</strong> vida enormemente y que posee un sinfín <strong>de</strong> posibilida<strong>de</strong>s.<br />
Sin embargo, el <strong>de</strong>sarrollo <strong>de</strong> Internet en los últimos años no sólo ha propiciado <strong>la</strong><br />
aparición <strong>de</strong> nuevas funcionalida<strong>de</strong>s que nos permita llevar una vida más fácil, sino que se<br />
ha configurado a<strong>de</strong>más como un marco idóneo <strong>para</strong> que se produzcan potenciales ataques<br />
contra nuestros <strong>de</strong>rechos, sobre todo, frente a los <strong>de</strong>rechos <strong>de</strong>l honor, <strong>la</strong> propia imagen y <strong>la</strong><br />
intimidad. No sólo <strong>la</strong>s expresiones o pa<strong>la</strong>bras implican vulneraciones al <strong>de</strong>recho al honor,<br />
también <strong>la</strong>s fotografías o ciertos ví<strong>de</strong>os pue<strong>de</strong>n lesionar este <strong>de</strong>recho. Ello no quiere <strong>de</strong>cir<br />
que dichos ataques que<strong>de</strong>n impunes, pero sí es cierto que es muy difícil contro<strong>la</strong>r <strong>la</strong> mayor<br />
parte <strong>de</strong> los contenidos presentes en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>. Sólo por poner un ejemplo que ilustre esta situación,<br />
en noviembre <strong>de</strong>l año 2010 Youtube subía 35 horas <strong>de</strong> ví<strong>de</strong>o por minuto a <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> 18 .<br />
Todos nos<strong>otros</strong> po<strong>de</strong>mos p<strong>la</strong>smar nuestros comentarios, opiniones, críticas etc. en <strong>la</strong><br />
infinidad <strong>de</strong> sitios web que hay en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>. Por ejemplo, po<strong>de</strong>mos crearnos un blog e ir diariamente<br />
actualizándolo con nuevas entradas y que sean comentadas por los receptores <strong>de</strong> dicha<br />
información, po<strong>de</strong>mos opinar sobre <strong>la</strong>s noticias que se publican en los distintos medios <strong>de</strong><br />
información digitales, comentar ví<strong>de</strong>os o imágenes, etc. Sin embargo, no todos los contenidos<br />
que circu<strong>la</strong>n en Internet pue<strong>de</strong>n ser a<strong>de</strong>cuados o lícitos. En <strong>de</strong>terminados casos <strong>la</strong>s<br />
expresiones vertidas en <strong>la</strong>s páginas web se focalizarán en insultos o críticas vejatorias frente<br />
a <strong>de</strong>terminadas personas, como más a<strong>de</strong><strong>la</strong>nte veremos escondidas tras el anonimato <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
persona que ha formu<strong>la</strong>do dichas manifestaciones.<br />
La Unión Europea ha sido consciente <strong>de</strong> esta situación y así <strong>la</strong> Comunicación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
Comisión al Consejo, al Par<strong>la</strong>mento, al Comité Económico y al Comité <strong>de</strong> Regiones sobre<br />
“Contenidos ilícitos y nocivos en Internet” trató y puso <strong>de</strong> manifiesto <strong>la</strong> problemática existente<br />
con estos 19 . Esta Comunicación pretendía <strong>de</strong>finir los contenidos que se podían presentar<br />
en Internet; analizar el contexto técnico don<strong>de</strong> se manifestaban y proponer medidas <strong>de</strong><br />
actuación frente <strong>la</strong> presencia <strong>de</strong> los mismos 20 .<br />
Esta Comunicación diferencia dos tipos <strong>de</strong> contenidos:<br />
a) Contenidos ilícitos: son aquellos que contravienen <strong>la</strong>s normas, lo que implica que se<br />
les consi<strong>de</strong>re como ilegales o ilícitos. La Comunicación menciona, entre <strong>otros</strong>, los que<br />
vulneran los <strong>de</strong>rechos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> persona como su reputación o su intimidad; o <strong>la</strong> propiedad<br />
intelectual. Por tanto, el tema objeto <strong>de</strong> este análisis, es <strong>de</strong>cir <strong>la</strong> vulneración <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho<br />
al honor en Internet entraría <strong>de</strong>ntro <strong>de</strong> esta categoría.<br />
18 http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2010/11/great-scott-over-35-hours-of-vi<strong>de</strong>o.html [Fecha <strong>de</strong><br />
consulta: 3 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011].<br />
19 Comunicación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comisión al Consejo, al Par<strong>la</strong>mento, al Comité Económico y al Comité <strong>de</strong><br />
Regiones sobre “Contenidos ilícitos y nocivos en Internet” <strong>de</strong> 16.10. 1996 CoM (96) 487 final.<br />
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CoM:1996:0487:FIN:ES:PDF. [Fecha <strong>de</strong><br />
consulta: 3 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011].<br />
20 Comunicación…, op.cit. p.7.
Derecho al honor vs Derecho a <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong><br />
233<br />
b) Contenidos nocivos: son aquellos que como dice <strong>la</strong> Comunicación constituyen una<br />
ofensa <strong>para</strong> los valores o sentimientos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s personas, y que <strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s diferencias<br />
culturales 21 .<br />
Al tema <strong>de</strong> los contenidos ilícitos y nocivos hemos <strong>de</strong> añadir el anonimato <strong>de</strong> los usuarios<br />
presentes en Internet. Es <strong>de</strong>cir, muchas <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s opiniones o manifestaciones lesivas vertidas<br />
en <strong>de</strong>terminadas páginas web se realizarán con nombres falsos, pseudónimos o nicks.<br />
Pero <strong>para</strong> agravar aún más el problema y dificultar <strong>la</strong> posible localización <strong>de</strong> vio<strong>la</strong>ciones <strong>de</strong>l<br />
<strong>de</strong>recho al honor hemos <strong>de</strong> tener en cuenta los diversos grados <strong>de</strong> publicidad en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> en<br />
re<strong>la</strong>ción con los contenidos. Es <strong>de</strong>cir, existen <strong>de</strong>terminadas páginas web que son públicas<br />
<strong>para</strong> cualquiera que acceda a <strong>la</strong> misma, y que por tanto, sin ningún tipo <strong>de</strong> registro pue<strong>de</strong><br />
expresar libremente sus opiniones. Pero por otro, existen páginas que requieren <strong>de</strong>l registro<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> persona, es <strong>de</strong>cir, que otorgue sus datos <strong>para</strong> por ejemplo, po<strong>de</strong>r expresar sus opiniones<br />
o i<strong>de</strong>as en <strong>de</strong>terminados foros. No nos hemos <strong>de</strong> olvidar <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s sociales, como Facebook<br />
o Tuenti que requieren también <strong>de</strong>l registro <strong>de</strong>l usuario, si bien es cierto que en algunas<br />
<strong>de</strong> el<strong>la</strong>s se pue<strong>de</strong> restringir a<strong>de</strong>más <strong>la</strong> información a <strong>de</strong>terminados usuarios.<br />
Todos estos elementos, es <strong>de</strong>cir, el volumen <strong>de</strong>l contenido <strong>de</strong> información, el anonimato<br />
y <strong>la</strong> publicidad más o menos restringida <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s opiniones y comentarios implica que<br />
van a existir muchas personas que están siendo insultadas impunemente en Internet sin que<br />
tengan conocimiento <strong>de</strong> ello.<br />
3. <strong>la</strong>s lesiones <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recHo al Honor en internet:<br />
el caso concreto <strong>de</strong> los insultos<br />
3.1. cuestiones generales<br />
El Derecho nos otorga <strong>la</strong> potestad <strong>para</strong> po<strong>de</strong>r opinar públicamente sobre <strong>de</strong>terminadas<br />
cuestiones: criticar a un partido político concreto, <strong>de</strong>fen<strong>de</strong>r a nuestro equipo <strong>de</strong> fútbol,<br />
opinar sobre <strong>la</strong> actuación correcta o incorrecta <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>terminado personaje público (como un<br />
periodista, un juez, un profesor, etc). Internet es un instrumento idóneo y sencillo <strong>para</strong> po<strong>de</strong>r<br />
p<strong>la</strong>smar estas opiniones, po<strong>de</strong>r compartir<strong>la</strong>s y dialogar con otras personas. Este aspecto<br />
es esencial, es <strong>de</strong>cir, <strong>la</strong>s características <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> hacen que el número <strong>de</strong> potenciales receptores<br />
<strong>de</strong> dicha información, expresión, opinión, etc., sea mucho mayor que en los medios <strong>de</strong><br />
comunicación tradicionales (prensa escrita, teléfono, etc.).<br />
¿La libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión implica que po<strong>de</strong>mos manifestar todas nuestras opiniones<br />
sin ningún tipo <strong>de</strong> traba o cortapisa? La respuesta es negativa, <strong>la</strong> misma posee también<br />
unos límites como reiterativamente ha seña<strong>la</strong>do <strong>la</strong> jurispru<strong>de</strong>ncia tanto civil como constitucional.<br />
Por ejemplo, <strong>la</strong> ya citada STC <strong>de</strong> 7 <strong>de</strong> junio <strong>de</strong> 1994 manifiesta al respecto que:<br />
existe un límite insalvable impunemente. No cabe duda <strong>de</strong> que <strong>la</strong> emisión <strong>de</strong> ape<strong>la</strong>tivos formalmente<br />
injuriosos en cualquier contexto, innecesarios <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>la</strong>bor informativa o <strong>de</strong> formación<br />
21 Comunicación…, op.cit. p.11.
234 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> opinión que se realice supone un daño injustificado a <strong>la</strong> dignidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s personas o al<br />
prestigio <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s instituciones, teniendo en cuenta que <strong>la</strong> Constitución no reconoce un pretendido<br />
<strong>de</strong>recho al insulto, que sería por lo <strong>de</strong>más incompatible con <strong>la</strong> dignidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> persona que<br />
se proc<strong>la</strong>ma en el art. 10.1 <strong>de</strong>l Texto Fundamental” (FJ4º). Por otro <strong>la</strong>do, <strong>la</strong> STC <strong>de</strong> 7 <strong>de</strong><br />
noviembre <strong>de</strong> 200522 expone que: En efecto, <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> STC 104/1986, <strong>de</strong> 17 <strong>de</strong> julio ( RTC<br />
1986, 104) , hemos establecido que, si bien «el <strong>de</strong>recho a expresar libremente opiniones, i<strong>de</strong>as<br />
y pensamientos [art. 20.1 a) CE] dispone <strong>de</strong> un campo <strong>de</strong> acción que viene sólo <strong>de</strong>limitado<br />
por <strong>la</strong> ausencia <strong>de</strong> expresiones indudablemente injuriosas sin re<strong>la</strong>ción con <strong>la</strong>s i<strong>de</strong>as u opiniones<br />
que se expongan y que resulten innecesarias <strong>para</strong> su exposición (…) no es menos cierto que<br />
también hemos mantenido inequívocamente que <strong>la</strong> Constitución no reconoce en modo alguno<br />
(ni en ese ni en ningún otro precepto) un pretendido <strong>de</strong>recho al insulto. La Constitución no<br />
veda, en cualesquiera circunstancias, el uso <strong>de</strong> expresiones hirientes, molestas o <strong>de</strong>sabridas, pero<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> protección constitucional que otorga el art. 20.1 a) CE están excluidas <strong>la</strong>s expresiones<br />
absolutamente vejatorias; es <strong>de</strong>cir, aquel<strong>la</strong>s que, dadas <strong>la</strong>s concretas circunstancias <strong>de</strong>l caso, y<br />
al margen <strong>de</strong> su veracidad o inveracidad, sean ofensivas u oprobiosas y resulten impertinentes<br />
<strong>para</strong> expresar <strong>la</strong>s opiniones o informaciones <strong>de</strong> que se trate (FJ5º).<br />
Como seña<strong>la</strong> Bustos Pueche “el honor se perturba o lesiona mediante <strong>la</strong> formu<strong>la</strong>ción<br />
<strong>de</strong> juicios <strong>de</strong> valor: juicios <strong>de</strong>scalificadores <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> persona, que <strong>la</strong> mancil<strong>la</strong>n o menosprecian” 23 .<br />
La libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión hemos dicho que no am<strong>para</strong> el insulto o los comentarios <strong>de</strong>spectivos<br />
y vejatorios, sin embargo, es muy sencillo encontrar todo tipo <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>scalificativos y expresiones<br />
insultantes contra personas, ya sean físicas o jurídicas, muchas <strong>de</strong> el<strong>la</strong>s am<strong>para</strong>das en<br />
el anonimato por ejemplo en foros, o en los comentarios que pue<strong>de</strong>n <strong>de</strong>jar los usuarios en<br />
los diversos medios <strong>de</strong> comunicación digitales como hemos dicho anteriormente.<br />
Una <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s cosas que más l<strong>la</strong>ma <strong>la</strong> atención es que se han creado páginas web expresamente<br />
<strong>para</strong> recoger o potenciar el uso <strong>de</strong> insultos, expresiones malsonantes, injuriosas e<br />
hirientes, frente a <strong>de</strong>terminadas personas incluso frente a <strong>de</strong>terminados colectivos24 . Exis-<br />
22 RTC 2005\278. En sentido simi<strong>la</strong>r se pronuncia <strong>la</strong> STC <strong>de</strong> 28 <strong>de</strong> febrero <strong>de</strong> 2005 (RTC 2005\39).<br />
Hay que <strong>de</strong>cir que <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión como ha reconocido <strong>la</strong> jurispru<strong>de</strong>ncia no am<strong>para</strong> tampoco<br />
los comentarios xenófobos, racistas, etc., que inciten a <strong>la</strong> violencia o simi<strong>la</strong>res. Entre otras véase <strong>la</strong><br />
STC <strong>de</strong> 7 <strong>de</strong> noviembre <strong>de</strong> 2007 (RTC 2007\235).<br />
23 BUESToS PUECHE. J.E., Manual…, op.cit., p. 123.<br />
24 http://mijefeesuncabron.com/mensajes. Según recogió Europa Prees en el siguiente en<strong>la</strong>ce: http://<br />
www.europapress.es/portaltic/internet/noticia-abouteveryone-permite-insulto-internet-traves-facebook-20110324111102.html,<br />
existen otras páginas web como “AboutEveryone” que permite el<br />
insulto por <strong>de</strong>cirlo <strong>de</strong> algún modo gratuito am<strong>para</strong>do en el anonimato. Por otro <strong>la</strong>do resulta l<strong>la</strong>mativa<br />
por ejemplo <strong>la</strong> noticia publicada en http://www.elmundotoday.com/2011/04/el-arbitro-munizfernan<strong>de</strong>z-recibe-su-insulto-900000/.<br />
En este supuesto nos encontramos con un conocido árbitro <strong>de</strong><br />
Primera División que introduce sus datos en una aplicación <strong>de</strong>sarrol<strong>la</strong>da por una marca <strong>de</strong> cervezas<br />
<strong>para</strong> conocer cuántos insultos ha recibido durante su carrera <strong>de</strong>portiva. Pues bien los resultados son<br />
sorpren<strong>de</strong>ntes, él mismo observó que <strong>la</strong> aplicación recogía 900.000 insultos. [Fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta: 5 <strong>de</strong><br />
mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011].
Derecho al honor vs Derecho a <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong><br />
235<br />
ten a<strong>de</strong>más <strong>de</strong>terminados sujetos l<strong>la</strong>mados “Trolls” 25 que <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> el anonimato se <strong>de</strong>dican <strong>de</strong><br />
forma c<strong>la</strong>ra a fomentar este tipo <strong>de</strong> conductas en <strong>de</strong>terminados canales como pue<strong>de</strong>n ser<br />
foros. El problema esencial es que si esos comentarios no son eliminados <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s páginas web<br />
don<strong>de</strong> se alojan pue<strong>de</strong>n permanecer el suficiente tiempo <strong>para</strong> herir <strong>la</strong> dignidad y el honor<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> persona.<br />
Ya habíamos apuntado anteriormente que muchos <strong>de</strong> los comentarios ofensivos que se<br />
vierten en Internet se manifiestan a través <strong>de</strong>l anonimato, y esto implica una consecuencia<br />
jurídica inmediata ya que como bien ha seña<strong>la</strong>do <strong>la</strong> jurispru<strong>de</strong>ncia y <strong>la</strong> doctrina los comentarios<br />
no anónimos son los que se am<strong>para</strong>n en <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión. Si no hay autor no<br />
hay libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión 26 .<br />
Por otro <strong>la</strong>do hemos <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>cir que <strong>para</strong> que exista un atentado contra el honor <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> persona es necesaria <strong>la</strong> existencia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> divulgación 27 . Como seña<strong>la</strong> o’Cal<strong>la</strong>ghan <strong>para</strong><br />
que exista protección <strong>de</strong>l Derecho es necesario que el ataque se divulgue en <strong>la</strong> sociedad,<br />
consistiendo <strong>la</strong> divulgación en el conocimiento <strong>de</strong>l ataque al honor, por terceras personas.<br />
“Pue<strong>de</strong> ser mayor o menor, siempre que se dé el conocimiento por terceros, en número más<br />
o menos numeroso”, y siendo indistinto el medio por el que se realice 28 . Ello implica que<br />
los insultos proferidos en un ámbito privado (por ejemplo en una conversación telefónica)<br />
no tendrán amparo ante tribunales, sin embargo, si los mismos se manifiestan en un<br />
foro o en un blog <strong>de</strong> Internet <strong>la</strong> situación cambia consi<strong>de</strong>rablemente 29 . Recor<strong>de</strong>mos que<br />
Internet tiene un amplio número <strong>de</strong> potenciales receptores <strong>de</strong> los contenidos, a diferencia<br />
<strong>de</strong> lo que pue<strong>de</strong> ocurrir por ejemplo en <strong>la</strong> prensa escrita, don<strong>de</strong> el número <strong>de</strong> lectores es<br />
más restringido.<br />
25 http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29. [Fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta: 5 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011]. Nuestros<br />
tribunales ya han empezado a conocer casos sobre ataques <strong>de</strong> este tipo, como por ejemplo <strong>la</strong><br />
sentencia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Audiencia Provincial <strong>de</strong> Barcelona <strong>de</strong> 29 <strong>de</strong> noviembre <strong>de</strong> 2010 (AC 2011\141).<br />
26 VILLAVERDE MENÉNDEZ, I. La libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión…, op.cit., p.483.Véase también el auto <strong>de</strong>l<br />
Tribunal Constitucional <strong>de</strong> 8 <strong>de</strong> abril <strong>de</strong> 2002 (RTC 2002\56).<br />
27 o’CALLAGHAN MUñoZ, X. Libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión…, op.cit., p. 47. manifiesta que: como se exige<br />
el elemento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> divulgación, no es pensable <strong>la</strong> protección jurídica <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho al honor, por un ataque al<br />
mismo en su único aspecto individual. Sin embargo, el ataque al honor en su aspecto externo, lleva consigo<br />
necesariamente el <strong>de</strong> su aspecto interno o individual.<br />
28 o’CALLAGHAN MUñoZ, X. Libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión…, op.cit., p. 49.<br />
29 Por lo que respecta a los ámbitos en los que se pue<strong>de</strong>n proferir los comentarios que pue<strong>de</strong>n afectar al<br />
honor y colisionar con <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión, hemos <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>cir existen dos tipos distintos <strong>de</strong> medios<br />
tradicionales que poseen un régimen jurídico diferente. Así, FERNÁNDEZ ESTEBAN nos explica<br />
que por un <strong>la</strong>do, nos entramos los medios privados o <strong>de</strong> comunicación bidireccional-interpersonal<br />
como el teléfono o el correo, etc y los medios <strong>de</strong> comunicación <strong>de</strong> masas, es <strong>de</strong>cir, <strong>la</strong> prensa escrita<br />
y <strong>la</strong> radiodifusión. Así como en los primeros <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión no está restringida, no ocurre<br />
lo mismo en los segundos, don<strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>be existir cierto control y ciertas responsabilida<strong>de</strong>s sobre los<br />
contenidos. FERNÁNDEZ ESTEBAN, M.L. (1999). “La regu<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión en<br />
Internet en Estados Unidos y <strong>la</strong> Unión Europea”, Revista <strong>de</strong> Estudios Políticos (Nueva Época). Nº. 103,<br />
enero-marzo, 1999, p. 151.
236 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
Por último <strong>de</strong>cir, por lo que respecta a este punto que muchas <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s páginas web, sobre<br />
todo <strong>de</strong> medios periodísticos tienen una tolerancia restrictiva hacia los comentarios insultantes<br />
o <strong>de</strong>spectivos. Por ejemplo, el periódico “Público” en <strong>la</strong>s normas sobre los comentarios<br />
que pue<strong>de</strong>n <strong>de</strong>jar los usuarios en los foros seña<strong>la</strong>:<br />
“No se aceptan los comentarios con contenidos, en<strong>la</strong>ces o nombres <strong>de</strong> usuarios que se consi<strong>de</strong>ren<br />
insultantes, difamatorios o contrarios a <strong>la</strong>s leyes españo<strong>la</strong>s.<br />
No se aceptan los comentarios que contengan apología <strong>de</strong>l terrorismo o <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> violencia, o que<br />
apoyen vio<strong>la</strong>ciones <strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>rechos humanos.<br />
No se admiten comentarios <strong>de</strong> contenido racista, sexista, homófobo o discriminatorio por<br />
razón <strong>de</strong> nacionalidad, sexo, religión, edad o cualquier tipo <strong>de</strong> discapacidad.<br />
No ser admitirán los ataques ni insultos a los <strong>otros</strong> participantes en el sistema <strong>de</strong> comentarios” 30 .<br />
3.2. análisis jurispru<strong>de</strong>ncial <strong>de</strong> los insultos en internet y <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión<br />
Para recapitu<strong>la</strong>r todo lo expuesto anteriormente po<strong>de</strong>mos <strong>de</strong>cir que existen casos muy<br />
c<strong>la</strong>ros en Internet (aunque no sólo en este medio) sobre comentarios vejatorios que atentan<br />
contra el <strong>de</strong>recho al honor <strong>de</strong> una persona, ya sea física o jurídica. Hemos <strong>de</strong> tener en cuenta<br />
que este medio comporta <strong>la</strong> existencia <strong>de</strong> un elevado número <strong>de</strong> potenciales receptores <strong>de</strong><br />
esta información, por tanto, el daño que se pue<strong>de</strong> provocar a <strong>la</strong>s personas es mucho mayor.<br />
Es <strong>de</strong>cir, que el grado <strong>de</strong> divulgación pue<strong>de</strong> ser muy amplio, aunque como hemos puesto <strong>de</strong><br />
manifiesto anteriormente <strong>la</strong>s características <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> página web don<strong>de</strong> se manifieste el comentario<br />
tiene una publicidad más o menos restringida.<br />
30 http://www.publico.es/estaticos/normascomentarios/. Se reserva a<strong>de</strong>más, <strong>la</strong> posibilidad <strong>de</strong> retirar los<br />
comentarios que no sean a<strong>de</strong>cuados. Muchas <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s sociales o medios <strong>de</strong> este tipo indican en sus<br />
condiciones que no se hacen responsables <strong>de</strong> los comentarios vertidos en <strong>la</strong> misma, así por ejemplo<br />
lo manifiesta <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> social “Twitter” en el apartado <strong>de</strong> Contenido <strong>de</strong> los servicios en los siguientes<br />
términos: “La responsabilidad <strong>de</strong> todo contenido, pública o privadamente difundido, recae en el autor <strong>de</strong><br />
dicho contenido. Twitter no supervisa ni contro<strong>la</strong> el Contenido publicado vía dichos “Servicios” y no se hace<br />
responsable <strong>de</strong> dicho Contenido”. http://twitter.com/tos .Apunta a<strong>de</strong>más que “Nos reservamos el <strong>de</strong>recho<br />
en todo momento (pero no tendremos una obligación) <strong>de</strong> borrar o negarnos a distribuir algún contenido en<br />
los servicios y <strong>de</strong> eliminar usuarios o rec<strong>la</strong>mar nombres <strong>de</strong> usuarios” y que no se hace responsable siempre<br />
que “en <strong>la</strong> medida máxima permitida por <strong>la</strong> ley aplicable” entre otras contenidos a los que se puedan<br />
consi<strong>de</strong>rarse ofensivos o injuriosos. Hemos <strong>de</strong> añadir también que muchas páginas web son conscientes<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> problemática que p<strong>la</strong>ntea el anonimato en Internet, por eso, cuando un usuario quiere<br />
registrarse en un servicio <strong>para</strong> po<strong>de</strong>r comentar por ejemplo noticias requiere que otorgue sus datos<br />
verda<strong>de</strong>ros. Es muy frecuente que en <strong>la</strong> actualidad cuando un usuario se registra reciba en su correo<br />
electrónico un link <strong>de</strong> activación <strong>para</strong> po<strong>de</strong>r darse <strong>de</strong> alta y empezar a utilizar el servicio. Así en caso<br />
que se cometa un <strong>de</strong>lito o un ilícito civil será más fácil <strong>de</strong>tectar quién ha sido <strong>la</strong> persona que ha cometido<br />
el mismo. El Diario El País por ejemplo obliga a registrarse a sus usuarios con todos sus datos<br />
personales <strong>para</strong> po<strong>de</strong>r comentar <strong>la</strong>s noticias y acce<strong>de</strong>r a los foros disponibles. Las condiciones legales<br />
van en <strong>la</strong> misma línea que los ejemplos citados anteriormente: http://www.elpais.com/avisolegal/.<br />
El Diario El Mundo también posee unas condiciones simi<strong>la</strong>res. http://www.elmundo.es/privacidad/<br />
avisolegal.html. [Fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta: 6 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011].
Derecho al honor vs Derecho a <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong><br />
237<br />
Cada vez es más frecuente que nuestros tribunales se pronuncien sobre conflictos entre<br />
el <strong>de</strong>recho al honor y libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión (y también <strong>de</strong> información) en Internet, en concreto<br />
por comentarios vejatorios, insultantes y por <strong>la</strong> imputación <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>terminados <strong>de</strong>litos.<br />
Los tribunales han <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>slindar caso por caso cuando una expresión en este medio se am<strong>para</strong><br />
en <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión y cuando <strong>la</strong> misma no pue<strong>de</strong> tener dicha cobertura. Para ello se<br />
utiliza <strong>la</strong> técnica <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> pon<strong>de</strong>ración <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>rechos 31 .<br />
Los tribunales, no obstante, realizan algunas matizaciones por lo que respecta al tema<br />
<strong>de</strong> los insultos. Así por ejemplo <strong>la</strong> Sentencia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Audiencia Provincial <strong>de</strong> Guada<strong>la</strong>jara <strong>de</strong><br />
17 <strong>de</strong> marzo <strong>de</strong> 2010 32 que conocía <strong>de</strong> unas expresiones realizadas por un usuario en un foro<br />
político seña<strong>la</strong> que: “si bien en supuestos <strong>de</strong> colisión <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>rechos fundamentales, es preciso alejarse<br />
<strong>de</strong> una concepción abstracta <strong>de</strong>l lenguaje (estrictamente semántica o sintáctica) en beneficio <strong>de</strong><br />
una concepción pragmática, según <strong>la</strong> cual el lenguaje, como actividad humana <strong>de</strong> or<strong>de</strong>n práctico,<br />
<strong>de</strong>be consi<strong>de</strong>rarse en re<strong>la</strong>ción a su contexto, am<strong>para</strong>ndo en <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión aquel<strong>la</strong>s alegaciones,<br />
que ais<strong>la</strong>damente ofensivas al ser puestas en re<strong>la</strong>ción con <strong>la</strong> información que se preten<strong>de</strong><br />
comunicar o con <strong>la</strong> situación política o social en que tiene lugar <strong>la</strong> crítica, experimentan una<br />
disminución <strong>de</strong> su significación ofensiva - aunque pue<strong>de</strong>n no ser plenamente justificables ya que<br />
así lo impone el interés público implicado en cada situación <strong>de</strong>terminada, y también los usos<br />
sociales a los que se remite el artículo 2.1 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> citada Ley Orgánica <strong>de</strong> 5 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 1982 ( RCL<br />
1982, 1197) (FJ Única)”.<br />
Sería interesante analizar algunos <strong>de</strong> los últimos casos sobre los que se han pronunciado<br />
nuestros tribunales <strong>para</strong> observar cómo se aplica dicha técnica, y cuál es <strong>la</strong> postura <strong>de</strong> los<br />
mismos sobre <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión en Internet y el <strong>de</strong>recho al honor.<br />
Por ejemplo, el caso <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> SGAE ha sido <strong>de</strong> los últimos supuestos más sonados, en el<br />
cual <strong>la</strong> vio<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho al honor a esta institución ha sido muy c<strong>la</strong>ra 33 . Recor<strong>de</strong>mos<br />
que el caso que se enjuiciaba enfrentaba a <strong>la</strong> SGAE contra <strong>la</strong> Asociación <strong>de</strong> Internautas por<br />
consi<strong>de</strong>rar que <strong>de</strong>terminadas páginas web habían vulnerado su honor. Entre los comentarios<br />
que se recogían en éstas, se incluía “banda <strong>de</strong>socupados”, “nuevos pícaros”, “son unos putos<br />
chorizos”, “matones a sueldo”, “panda <strong>de</strong> mafiosos” entre <strong>otros</strong>. En este caso en concreto no<br />
se <strong>de</strong>mandaba como autora <strong>de</strong> los comentarios a <strong>la</strong> citada Asociación, sino que <strong>la</strong> SGAE <strong>la</strong><br />
<strong>de</strong>mandó por prestar sus servicios <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información a sus asociados por medio<br />
31 VILLAVERDE MENÉNDEZ, I. (2009). La libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión…, p.476 “manifiesta que cuando se<br />
realice <strong>la</strong> pon<strong>de</strong>ración <strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>rechos se han <strong>de</strong> tener en cuenta los siguientes criterios: “<strong>la</strong> condición<br />
y grado <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s opiniones formal o materialmente injuriosas, <strong>la</strong> necesidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> opinión o <strong>la</strong> información<br />
controvertida en el contexto <strong>de</strong>l mensaje transmitido, y <strong>la</strong> relevancia pública <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> opinión o <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
información divulgada en función <strong>de</strong>l sujeto concernido (si es sujeto público, con notoriedad pública<br />
o un sujeto privado) o los hechos y circunstancias re<strong>la</strong>tadas. Por lo que respecta a <strong>la</strong> Jurispru<strong>de</strong>ncia<br />
<strong>la</strong> STS <strong>de</strong> 30 <strong>de</strong> septiembre <strong>de</strong> 2009 (RJ 2010\654) en su FJ octavo explica <strong>de</strong>tenidamente en qué<br />
consiste <strong>la</strong> técnica <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> pon<strong>de</strong>ración.<br />
32 AC 2010\443.<br />
33 Sentencia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Audiencia Provincial <strong>de</strong> Madrid <strong>de</strong> 6 <strong>de</strong> febrero <strong>de</strong> 2006 (AC 2006\188) y STS <strong>de</strong> 9<br />
<strong>de</strong> diciembre <strong>de</strong> 2010 (RJ 2010\131).
238 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
<strong>de</strong> su dirección en <strong>la</strong> web, y que entre estos servicios se encontraba el <strong>de</strong> alojamiento <strong>de</strong> datos,<br />
conteniendo en <strong>la</strong> página correspondiente <strong>la</strong>s direcciones don<strong>de</strong> se recogían <strong>la</strong>s web don<strong>de</strong><br />
se alojaban los comentarios. En este caso en concreto <strong>la</strong> vulneración al honor <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> citada<br />
entidad era c<strong>la</strong>ra, si bien es cierto que se alegaba <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión por <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>mandada,<br />
ya hemos visto como <strong>la</strong> misma no am<strong>para</strong> los insultos, por tanto se con<strong>de</strong>nó a <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>mandada<br />
al pago <strong>de</strong> dieciocho mil euros 34 .<br />
otro <strong>de</strong> los casos que ha tenido más repercusión mediática ha sido <strong>la</strong> STS <strong>de</strong> 10 <strong>de</strong><br />
febrero <strong>de</strong> 2011 35 por los comentarios alojados en un foro <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> página web “A<strong>la</strong>sbarricadas.com”<br />
contra un personaje que anteriormente había estado íntimamente vincu<strong>la</strong>do a <strong>la</strong><br />
SGAE. En este caso <strong>la</strong> vulneración <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho al honor fue también manifiesta ya que en dicho<br />
foro se expresaron comentarios como: “pedante, creído, tocapelotas/ovarios, farandulero,<br />
feo pasado por los quirófanos, mal artista, mal politiquillo, mal presentador <strong>de</strong> programas<br />
<strong>de</strong> tv, chupacámaras, solo siento no haber estado en el último festival que estuvo pa <strong>de</strong>sca<strong>la</strong>brarle<br />
con un pedrolo <strong>de</strong>l vente” entre otras expresiones. Tanto los tribunales a quo como el<br />
Tribunal Supremo entien<strong>de</strong>n <strong>la</strong> f<strong>la</strong>grante vulneración al <strong>de</strong>recho al honor, al consi<strong>de</strong>rar que<br />
<strong>la</strong>s expresiones vertidas exce<strong>de</strong>n <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> crítica y se consi<strong>de</strong>ran atentatorias y vejatorias hacia <strong>la</strong><br />
persona <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>mandante. Sin embargo, el eje principal <strong>de</strong>l asunto en el Tribunal Supremo<br />
versa como en el caso anterior sobre <strong>la</strong> responsabilidad civil <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> página web don<strong>de</strong> estaban<br />
alojados dichos comentarios. El Tribunal Supremo rechaza el recurso <strong>de</strong> casación interpuesto<br />
por <strong>la</strong> página web y confirma <strong>la</strong> sentencia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Audiencia Provincial que le con<strong>de</strong>na a<br />
pagar al <strong>de</strong>mandante <strong>la</strong> cantidad <strong>de</strong> seis mil euros.<br />
Un ejemplo ilustrativo <strong>de</strong> cómo Internet se pue<strong>de</strong> utilizar con el fin <strong>de</strong> vulnerar el <strong>de</strong>recho<br />
al honor, es el caso <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Sentencia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Audiencia Provincial <strong>de</strong> Valencia <strong>de</strong> 27 <strong>de</strong> diciembre<br />
<strong>de</strong> 2005 36 . En este supuesto en concreto, una conocida clínica privada <strong>de</strong>dicada a <strong>la</strong><br />
cirugía estética <strong>de</strong>manda a un sujeto por enten<strong>de</strong>r que había vulnerado su <strong>de</strong>recho al honor.<br />
En el asunto que se p<strong>la</strong>ntea, el <strong>de</strong>mandado había confeccionado una página web <strong>para</strong> dar a<br />
conocer negligencias médicas entre el<strong>la</strong>s <strong>la</strong> que le había ocurrido a su hermana. No obstante,<br />
en <strong>la</strong> misma se recogían calificativos como “panda <strong>de</strong> cabrones, charcuteros, matasanos, etc”.<br />
Cuando el <strong>de</strong>mandado conoce que dichos contenidos pue<strong>de</strong>n suponer una vulneración <strong>de</strong>l<br />
<strong>de</strong>recho al honor retira <strong>la</strong> página web. La Audiencia entien<strong>de</strong> que ha habido vulneración<br />
al igual que lo hace el tribunal a quo, al consi<strong>de</strong>rar que <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión no am<strong>para</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong>s expresiones injuriantes o difamantes, y que <strong>la</strong> información ha <strong>de</strong> ceñirse a información<br />
veraz. La Audiencia Provincial no obstante <strong>red</strong>uce <strong>la</strong> cuantía <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> in<strong>de</strong>mnización <strong>de</strong> doce<br />
mil euros a seis mil euros.<br />
34 La sentencia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Audiencia Provincial <strong>de</strong> Madrid <strong>de</strong> 8 <strong>de</strong> noviembre <strong>de</strong> 2010 trata también sobre<br />
un conflicto en honor y expresión re<strong>la</strong>cionada con <strong>la</strong> SGAE y los comentarios vertidos en un foro <strong>de</strong><br />
Internet <strong>de</strong> un periódico.<br />
35 RJ 2011\313.<br />
36 AC 2006\|297.
Derecho al honor vs Derecho a <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong><br />
239<br />
La STS <strong>de</strong> 5 <strong>de</strong> noviembre <strong>de</strong> 2009 37 también es un ejemplo c<strong>la</strong>rificador <strong>de</strong> cuándo<br />
<strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión tiene amparo por parte <strong>de</strong> los tribunales. Este conflicto entre el<br />
<strong>de</strong>recho al honor y <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión se centraba en los artículos recogidos en un<br />
diario <strong>de</strong>portivo online don<strong>de</strong> se vertían expresiones <strong>de</strong>spectivas hacía un miembro <strong>de</strong>l<br />
Sevil<strong>la</strong> Fútbol Club. Algunas <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s mismas eran: “don nadie, maleducado, <strong>de</strong>magogo,<br />
francotirador, mamporrero, <strong>de</strong>slenguado, fondo <strong>de</strong> vileza” entre otras. A<strong>de</strong>más, <strong>de</strong> pertenecer<br />
a dicho club <strong>de</strong> fútbol el <strong>de</strong>mandante a<strong>de</strong>más era abogado, por tanto se alegaba<br />
que ya no sólo se dañaba su imagen personal sino también su reputación profesional. El<br />
periódico <strong>de</strong>portivo por su parte alegaba que no se había interpretado correctamente el<br />
art. 20 a), y d) <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Constitución, “que <strong>la</strong> sentencia recurrida no es precisa en el análisis<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> expresiones empleadas (…), el contexto en que se pronuncian y su significado actual, así<br />
como que no utiliza criterios c<strong>la</strong>ros <strong>de</strong> pon<strong>de</strong>ración tales como <strong>la</strong> relevancia pública <strong>de</strong>l personaje…”<br />
(FJ 1º). El TS <strong>de</strong>sestima el recurso interpuesto por el periódico digital al enten<strong>de</strong>r<br />
que dichos comentarios “no tienen ninguna justificación en el contexto, porque no se da <strong>la</strong><br />
situación correspondiente, al <strong>de</strong>scalificar al actor <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> diversas perspectivas, tanto re<strong>la</strong>tivas a<br />
su capacidad, como a su conducta y persona (…) El ámbito <strong>de</strong>l periodismo <strong>de</strong>portivo don<strong>de</strong> se<br />
vierten, no permite <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>scalificación intolerable, ni pue<strong>de</strong> quejar justificada por <strong>la</strong> proyección<br />
pública <strong>de</strong>l personaje, que si bien por tal motivo, <strong>de</strong>be soportar ciertos niveles <strong>de</strong> crítica, <strong>de</strong>ntro<br />
<strong>de</strong> tal concepto no pue<strong>de</strong>n quedar incluidas expresiones objetivamente injuriosas” (FJ 3º). Por<br />
tanto, ratifica <strong>la</strong> con<strong>de</strong>na al pago <strong>de</strong> nueve mil euros.<br />
Nuestros tribunales se han tenido que pronunciar en reiteradas ocasiones ante supuestos<br />
<strong>de</strong> conflictos entre honor y expresión referentes a personajes políticos. Es el caso por<br />
ejemplo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> SAP <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s Is<strong>la</strong>s Baleares <strong>de</strong> 22 <strong>de</strong> febrero <strong>de</strong> 2007 38 que trataba sobre <strong>la</strong> posible<br />
vulneración <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho al honor <strong>de</strong>l alcal<strong>de</strong> y teniente alcal<strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong> un ayuntamiento balear<br />
por los comentarios existentes en un foro político. Los mismos consistían en expresiones<br />
como: “un incompetente con <strong>de</strong>lirios populistas que no sabe hacer <strong>la</strong> o con un canuto.<br />
Mirad su trayectoria profesional, profesional y política y veréis que el tío es gafe. Negado,<br />
incompetente, es tonto <strong>de</strong> baba, no tiene don<strong>de</strong> caerse muerto, cobra por cosas que no se<br />
pue<strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>cir aquí, etc.”. El Tribunal en el FJ 4º manifiesta que el ejercicio <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong><br />
expresión “encuentra límites, entre los que están los <strong>de</strong>rivados <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>ber <strong>de</strong> respetar otro Derecho<br />
Fundamental, también conocido en el artículo 18 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Constitución, cual es el <strong>de</strong>recho al honor,<br />
o sea, que no se pue<strong>de</strong>, a pretexto <strong>de</strong> ejercitar el <strong>de</strong>recho <strong>de</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión, atentar al patrimonio<br />
moral <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s personas que constituye uno <strong>de</strong> los sagrados <strong>de</strong>rechos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> personalidad que<br />
siempre ha merecido protección civil y penal y que, como queda dicho, goza <strong>de</strong> reconocimiento<br />
constitucional…” Matiza a<strong>de</strong>más que “el ejercicio <strong>de</strong> una crítica racional, honesta y constructiva<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> acción pública no constituye en principio ilícito, pero cuando ello no es así, y el censurante,<br />
amparándose en el citado <strong>de</strong>recho que compren<strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong> narración, <strong>de</strong> información o <strong>de</strong> crítica,<br />
traspasa los límites legalmente establecidos <strong>para</strong> menospreciar, <strong>de</strong>sac<strong>red</strong>itar o <strong>de</strong>sprestigiar…” En<br />
37 RJ 2009\5836.<br />
38 JUR 2007\238832.
240 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
este caso se constata <strong>la</strong> existencia <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho al honor y se proce<strong>de</strong> a con<strong>de</strong>nar al mo<strong>de</strong>rador<br />
<strong>de</strong>l foro porque tenía constancia <strong>de</strong> los comentarios y no los eliminó cuando correspondía.<br />
La in<strong>de</strong>mnización que establece el juez es <strong>de</strong> seis mil euros.<br />
Las sentencias comentadas eran supuestos más o menos c<strong>la</strong>ros <strong>de</strong> lesión <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho al<br />
honor. No obstante, existen <strong>otros</strong> en los que <strong>la</strong> línea es difusa. Por ejemplo, el caso <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> STS<br />
<strong>de</strong> 28 <strong>de</strong> noviembre <strong>de</strong> 2008 39 conocía <strong>de</strong>l recurso interpuesto por una asociación <strong>de</strong> miembros<br />
<strong>de</strong> personas con una discapacidad concreta frente a una persona que había sido expulsada<br />
<strong>de</strong> dicha confe<strong>de</strong>ración. Dicha persona envía a través <strong>de</strong> correo electrónico el siguiente<br />
texto a varias fe<strong>de</strong>raciones <strong>de</strong> personas con discapacidad: “Consejo <strong>de</strong>l Sordo Mu(n)do: Un<br />
Imanol se echa un Ernesto, tiene <strong>la</strong> requera muy so<strong>la</strong>, y comunicando con <strong>la</strong> mano, nunca<br />
dos veces siembra bo<strong>la</strong>... Hay allá un solitario Elisa, y otro campo <strong>de</strong> Trinidad; ya, rápido,<br />
pierdo el tino si no me acojo a los orales... Hay, también, una peregrina Rosada, que viene <strong>de</strong><br />
oriente; Silencio cómplice, tiene espina <strong>para</strong> expulsar al disi<strong>de</strong>nte. Sombra <strong>de</strong> Gabrie<strong>la</strong> tiene<br />
el soto, y también una mesa <strong>de</strong> granado; mira cómo manipu<strong>la</strong> el voto, que nos tratan como a<br />
ganado. Porque ésa es una ma<strong>la</strong> tierra, cerrada, ignorante y soberbia; don<strong>de</strong> si osan arar con<br />
Pedro Jesús... nos pi<strong>de</strong>n obligada Bernardo”. El Juzgado <strong>de</strong> Primera Instancia otorga <strong>la</strong> razón<br />
a <strong>la</strong> asociación <strong>de</strong>mandante al enten<strong>de</strong>r que existía intromisión ilegítima en el <strong>de</strong>recho al<br />
honor, pero <strong>la</strong> Audiencia Provincial revoca <strong>la</strong> misma por consi<strong>de</strong>rar que <strong>la</strong>s expresiones vertidas<br />
no constituyen dicha intromisión, sino que es una crítica satírica y burlesca. El Tribunal<br />
Supremo resuelve en <strong>la</strong> misma línea que <strong>la</strong> Audiencia, porque <strong>de</strong>spués <strong>de</strong> analizar el conflicto<br />
que dio lugar a dichos versos entien<strong>de</strong> que “Estas imputaciones suponen una crítica molesta,<br />
<strong>de</strong>sabrida, inquietante, pero crítica al fin y al cabo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> actuación llevada a cabo por <strong>la</strong> Junta<br />
Directiva <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Confe<strong>de</strong>ración Nacional <strong>de</strong> Sordos <strong>de</strong> España, con respecto a una <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s fe<strong>de</strong>raciones<br />
que <strong>la</strong> integraba y que fue expulsada. Por tanto, <strong>la</strong>s expresiones utilizadas ni son innecesarias<br />
<strong>para</strong> realizar <strong>la</strong> crítica, ni son afrentosas, sino que encuadrándose <strong>de</strong>ntro <strong>de</strong>l contexto <strong>de</strong> malestar<br />
por una expulsión <strong>de</strong> una fe<strong>de</strong>ración <strong>de</strong> sordos y dirigidas a todas aquel<strong>la</strong>s fe<strong>de</strong>raciones con correo<br />
electrónico poniendo en conocimiento esta situación, <strong>de</strong> una manera ciertamente ingeniosa, no<br />
son más que una manifestación literaria <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión y <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong><br />
crítica que pue<strong>de</strong>n ejercitar personas que representan los intereses <strong>de</strong> otras y que han <strong>de</strong> soportar<br />
aquel<strong>la</strong>s personas con cargos <strong>de</strong> relevancia social”(FJ 2º) .<br />
El último <strong>de</strong> los casos que vamos a analizar y en el que se consi<strong>de</strong>ró que no hubo<br />
intromisión ilegítima en el <strong>de</strong>recho al honor fue <strong>la</strong> sentencia <strong>de</strong> 23 <strong>de</strong> septiembre <strong>de</strong> 2010<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Audiencia Provincial <strong>de</strong> León 40 . En este supuesto en concreto un político <strong>de</strong>mandó al<br />
editor y director <strong>de</strong> una página web por <strong>la</strong>s expresiones contenidas en <strong>la</strong> misma, acusándole<br />
<strong>de</strong> enchufismo profiriendo comentarios como el “c<strong>la</strong>n <strong>de</strong>l enchufe”, <strong>la</strong> existencia <strong>de</strong> “varios<br />
casos <strong>de</strong> persecución y acoso que podrían suponer nuevos <strong>de</strong>litos <strong>de</strong> moobing”. En el foro <strong>de</strong><br />
dicha página web se comentaron dichas opiniones. Pues bien, el Tribunal como se ha a<strong>de</strong><strong>la</strong>ntado<br />
anteriormente entien<strong>de</strong> que no hay intromisión ilegítima por los siguientes argumen-<br />
39 RJ 2008\6940.<br />
40 JUR 2010\374782.
Derecho al honor vs Derecho a <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong><br />
241<br />
tos: “Es indudable que <strong>la</strong> noticia referida a <strong>la</strong>s formas y procedimientos que permitieron a <strong>de</strong>terminadas<br />
personas, re<strong>la</strong>cionadas con vínculos familiares con cargos públicos <strong>de</strong>l Ayuntamiento <strong>de</strong><br />
León, en este caso Dª Valle , esposa <strong>de</strong>l actor D. Maximiliano , Concejal <strong>de</strong> Hacienda, acce<strong>de</strong>r<br />
a un puesto <strong>de</strong> trabajo en el Ayuntamiento, y condiciones sa<strong>la</strong>riales <strong>de</strong>l mismo, máxime cuando<br />
ello se produce en un momento <strong>de</strong> recorte <strong>de</strong> personal, con <strong>de</strong>spidos <strong>de</strong> empleados, <strong>para</strong> <strong>red</strong>ucir el<br />
gasto publico, tiene un indudable interés general <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> comunidad. Junto a ello es también <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>de</strong>stacar <strong>la</strong> re<strong>la</strong>tiva veracidad <strong>de</strong> lo informado” (FJ 2º) y que “Finalmente, y por lo que respecta a<br />
los comentarios proce<strong>de</strong>ntes <strong>de</strong> personas anónimas, recogidos en el fundamento <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>recho segundo<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> sentencia recurrida, y en los <strong>de</strong>staca <strong>la</strong> pluralidad <strong>de</strong> opiniones, incluso, en algunos casos,<br />
critica con <strong>la</strong> propia información facilitada en <strong>la</strong> pagina, y que por ello <strong>de</strong>ben interpretadas no<br />
ais<strong>la</strong>damente consi<strong>de</strong>radas, sino formando parte integrante <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información publicada, y dado<br />
que no resultan indudablemente injuriosas, no se consi<strong>de</strong>ran tampoco suficientes <strong>para</strong> fundamentar<br />
el concepto <strong>de</strong> intromisión al honor <strong>de</strong>l recurrente, pues resulta indudable que tales expresiones<br />
no cabe conce<strong>de</strong>r<strong>la</strong>s mayor alcance que el que caracteriza a una critica dirigida a persona pública<br />
en función <strong>de</strong>l cargo <strong>de</strong>sempeñado en <strong>la</strong> vida política”. Se consi<strong>de</strong>ra que <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión<br />
am<strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> crítica aunque sea consi<strong>de</strong>rada como molesta 41 .<br />
4. conclusiones<br />
El <strong>de</strong>recho al honor y <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión son <strong>de</strong>rechos que han estado y seguirán<br />
continuamente en conflicto, <strong>de</strong>terminar a priori cuál es el <strong>de</strong>recho que ha <strong>de</strong> prevalecer es<br />
muy difícil, por tanto habrá que estar al caso en concreto. Internet ha agravado esta situación<br />
ya que <strong>la</strong> difusión que se realiza <strong>de</strong> sus contenidos es mucho mayor, <strong>de</strong> este modo los comentarios<br />
que atentan contra el <strong>de</strong>recho al honor tienen una repercusión mayor y el daño que<br />
se pue<strong>de</strong> provocar es consi<strong>de</strong>rable. A esto hemos <strong>de</strong> añadir que muchas <strong>de</strong> estas conductas<br />
se escon<strong>de</strong>n en el anonimato <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> persona que vulnera dichos <strong>de</strong>rechos. Si bien es cierto<br />
que en nuestro Estado se está avanzando mucho en intentar erradicar dichas conductas,<br />
persiguiendo no sólo a los prestadores <strong>de</strong> servicios si no también al usuario anónimo que<br />
profiere dichos insultos, existe una zona difusa don<strong>de</strong> han <strong>de</strong> ser los tribunales los que han<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>terminar si lo que prima es el <strong>de</strong>recho al honor o <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión.<br />
Por otro <strong>la</strong>do, algunas re<strong>de</strong>s sociales y páginas web conscientes <strong>de</strong> esta situación exigen<br />
un registro previo <strong>de</strong>l usuario, el cual <strong>de</strong>berá otorgar sus datos personales <strong>para</strong> po<strong>de</strong>r opinar<br />
en el foros, blogs o simi<strong>la</strong>res. A<strong>de</strong>más, en <strong>la</strong> mayoría <strong>de</strong> el<strong>la</strong>s se reservan <strong>la</strong> posibilidad <strong>de</strong><br />
eliminar los comentarios ofensivos, aunque siempre matizando que no son responsables <strong>de</strong><br />
los contenidos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s páginas en cuestión.<br />
Si bien es cierto, que es un paso más <strong>para</strong> evitar <strong>la</strong> vulneración <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho al honor<br />
en Internet, siguen existiendo muchas páginas don<strong>de</strong> los comentarios ofensivos no son eliminados.<br />
No se trata <strong>de</strong> limitar <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión, pero <strong>de</strong>terminadas conductas no<br />
41 En el mismo sentido se pue<strong>de</strong> ver <strong>la</strong> STS <strong>de</strong> 5 <strong>de</strong> noviembre <strong>de</strong> 2010 (RJ 2010\8029).
242 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
<strong>de</strong>ben quedar am<strong>para</strong>das bajo dicha libertad. A pesar <strong>de</strong> los logros realizados aún queda<br />
mucho camino por recorrer, y encontrar una solución satisfactoria a este conflicto no será<br />
una <strong>la</strong>bor fácil.<br />
5. bibliografÍa<br />
Bustos Pueche, J.E. (2008). Manual sobre bienes y <strong>de</strong>rechos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> personalidad. 2ª ed. Madrid:<br />
Manuales Jurídicos Dykinson.<br />
Comisión Europea. (1996). Libro Ver<strong>de</strong> sobre <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> los menores y <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> dignidad<br />
humana en los servicios audiovisuales y <strong>de</strong> información. Bruse<strong>la</strong>s, 16.10.1996 CoM(96)<br />
483 final.<br />
Comisión Europea. (1996). Comunicación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comisión al Consejo, al Par<strong>la</strong>mento Europeo,<br />
al Comité Económico y Social y al Comité <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s Regiones sobre Contenidos ilícitos y nocivos<br />
en Internet. Bruse<strong>la</strong>s, 16.10.1996 CoM (96) 487 final.<br />
Diez Picazo, L., Gullón Ballesteros, A. (2005). Sistema <strong>de</strong> Derecho Civil, vol.I. 3ª ed.<br />
Madrid: Tecnos.<br />
Fernán<strong>de</strong>z Esteban, M.L. (1999). “La regu<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión en Internet<br />
en Estados Unidos y <strong>la</strong> Unión Europea”, Revista <strong>de</strong> Estudios Políticos (Nueva Época). Nº.<br />
103, enero-marzo, 1999, pp. 149-169.<br />
Herrero-Tejedor, F. (1994). Honor, Intimidad y Propia Imagen, 2ª ed. Madrid: Colex.<br />
o’cal<strong>la</strong>ghan Muñoz, X. (1991). Libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión y sus límites: honor, intimidad e<br />
imagen, Madrid: EDERSA.<br />
Pardo Falcón, J. (2009). “Los <strong>de</strong>rechos al honor, a <strong>la</strong> intimidad personal y familiar y a <strong>la</strong><br />
propia imagen”. En: Casas Baamon<strong>de</strong>, M.E., Rodríguez-Piñero y Bravo-Ferrer,<br />
M. (dir.). Pérez Manzano, M., Borrajo Iniesta, I. (coord). Comentarios a <strong>la</strong> Constitución<br />
Españo<strong>la</strong> XXX Aniversario. Madrid: Wolters Kluwer, pp. 414-429.<br />
Solove, D.J. (2007). The future of reputation: gossip, rumor and privacy on the Internet. New<br />
Haven and London: Yale University Press.<br />
Vera Santos, J.M. (2005) “Derechos Fundamentales, Internet y Nuevas Tecnologías <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
Información y <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comunicación”. En: García Mexía, P. (Dir.). Principios <strong>de</strong> Derecho<br />
<strong>de</strong> Internet .2º ed. Valencia: Tirant lo B<strong>la</strong>nch, pp. 189-246.<br />
Vil<strong>la</strong>ver<strong>de</strong> Menén<strong>de</strong>z, I. (2009).“La libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión”. En: Casas Baamon<strong>de</strong>, M.E.,<br />
Rodríguez-Piñero Y Bravo-Ferrer, M.(Dir.) Pérez Manzano, M., Borrajo Iniesta,<br />
I. (coord.). Comentarios a <strong>la</strong> Constitución Españo<strong>la</strong> XXX aniversario. Madrid: Wolters<br />
Kluwer, pp. 472-502.
13<br />
lA teNsIóN eNtre ImPUNIDAD eN lA reD y<br />
lImItACIóN De lA lIBertAD De exPresIóN<br />
Mª Dolores Pa<strong>la</strong>cios González<br />
Profesora Titu<strong>la</strong>r <strong>de</strong> Derecho Civil, Universidad <strong>de</strong> Oviedo<br />
resumen: La Ley 34/2002 exime <strong>de</strong> responsabilidad a los prestadores <strong>de</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong> intermediación<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información por los datos ajenos que transmitan, copien, almacenen o a<br />
los que remitan o en<strong>la</strong>cen, salvo que concurran <strong>de</strong>terminadas circunstancias. En caso <strong>de</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong><br />
alojamiento o almacenamiento <strong>de</strong> datos o que faciliten en<strong>la</strong>ces a <strong>otros</strong> contenidos o incluyan en los<br />
suyos directorios o instrumentos <strong>de</strong> búsqueda, sí podrán respon<strong>de</strong>r, <strong>de</strong> acuerdo con <strong>la</strong> normativa aplicable<br />
en función <strong>de</strong>l bien jurídico lesionado, si se prueba el conocimiento efectivo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> ilicitud <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
información o que, aún conociéndolo, no actuaron con diligencia <strong>para</strong> evitar su visibilidad. Aunque<br />
<strong>la</strong> Ley parece <strong>red</strong>ucir <strong>la</strong> posibilidad <strong>de</strong> ac<strong>red</strong>itar el conocimiento a que exista una resolución <strong>de</strong> un<br />
órgano competente y conocida por el prestador en que se <strong>de</strong>c<strong>la</strong>re <strong>la</strong> ilicitud, el Tribunal Supremo<br />
mantiene que pue<strong>de</strong> probarse por cualquier medio. Como esta interpretación conlleva un riesgo <strong>para</strong><br />
el ejercicio <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s liberta<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> expresión y <strong>de</strong> información, los tribunales habrán <strong>de</strong> ser especialmente<br />
cautos tanto <strong>para</strong> enten<strong>de</strong>r probado el conocimiento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> ilicitud, aún cuando pueda hacerse por<br />
medios indiciarios, como <strong>para</strong> apreciar <strong>la</strong> falta <strong>de</strong> diligencia en retirar los datos o impedir el acceso a<br />
ellos. De otro <strong>la</strong>do, sobre todo si los <strong>de</strong>rechos vulnerados son <strong>de</strong>rechos fundamentales, a <strong>la</strong> víctima no<br />
<strong>de</strong>be exigírsele otra actuación que <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> comunicar al prestador, con <strong>la</strong> mayor precisión posible pero<br />
por cualquier medio que, en su opinión, se ha producido <strong>la</strong> lesión.<br />
pAlAbrAs clAve: Internet, sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información, prestadores <strong>de</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong> intermediación,<br />
responsabilidad, honor, intimidad, <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> imagen, libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión, libertad <strong>de</strong> información.<br />
1. introducción<br />
El ejercicio <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s liberta<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> expresión e información recogidas en el artículo 20 <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> Constitución tiene un campo <strong>de</strong> actuación extraordinario en el entorno <strong>de</strong> Internet. De<br />
hecho, <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> constituye una herramienta a día <strong>de</strong> hoy imprescindible <strong>para</strong> el ejercicio <strong>de</strong><br />
unas liberta<strong>de</strong>s cuya trascen<strong>de</strong>ncia en or<strong>de</strong>n a <strong>la</strong> formación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> opinión pública ha sido<br />
especialmente resaltada por el Tribunal Constitucional 1 . En <strong>la</strong> otra cara <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> moneda y<br />
como límite a <strong>la</strong>s mismas se encuentran los <strong>de</strong>rechos recogidos en el artículo 18: el <strong>de</strong>recho<br />
al honor, a <strong>la</strong> intimidad personal y familiar y a <strong>la</strong> propia imagen.<br />
La armonización o coordinación <strong>de</strong> estos <strong>de</strong>rechos y liberta<strong>de</strong>s que, como es bien sabido,<br />
ha dado lugar a una profusa jurispru<strong>de</strong>ncia tanto <strong>de</strong>l Tribunal Supremo como <strong>de</strong>l<br />
Tribunal Constitucional, no p<strong>la</strong>ntea en Internet, en principio, problemas diferentes <strong>de</strong> los<br />
1 Vid. por todas, SSTC 42/1995 <strong>de</strong> 13 <strong>de</strong> febrero (FJ 1) y 176/1995 <strong>de</strong> 11 <strong>de</strong> diciembre (FJ 4).
244 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
que hay que afrontar cuando se utiliza cualquier otro medio <strong>de</strong> comunicación. Pero <strong>la</strong>s peculiarida<strong>de</strong>s<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>, <strong>la</strong>s variadas posibilida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> operar que ofrece –crear y gestionar una<br />
página web, un blog o un foro, intervenir y realizar manifestaciones en los <strong>de</strong> otras personas,<br />
utilizar el chat, el messenger o el correo electrónico, “subir” información a p<strong>la</strong>taformas como<br />
“youtube”, integrarse en una <strong>red</strong> social, etc.– y el hecho <strong>de</strong> que sea siempre necesario utilizar<br />
los medios que proporciona un prestador <strong>de</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong> intermediación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> información, sí da lugar a cuestiones específicas <strong>de</strong> carácter jurídico, que son <strong>la</strong>s que aquí<br />
se abordan.<br />
En Internet muchas veces se actúa <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> el anonimato. Así que, pese a <strong>la</strong> posibilidad<br />
<strong>de</strong> rastrear <strong>la</strong> dirección IP <strong>de</strong> un or<strong>de</strong>nador, <strong>de</strong> manera que es posible llegar a saber <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong><br />
don<strong>de</strong> se ha emitido una <strong>de</strong>terminada información, pue<strong>de</strong> resultar difícil establecer <strong>la</strong> autoría<br />
concreta <strong>de</strong> los contenidos incorporados. En caso <strong>de</strong> que vulneren <strong>de</strong>rechos <strong>de</strong> terceros<br />
podría incluso p<strong>la</strong>ntearse <strong>la</strong> responsabilidad <strong>de</strong>l titu<strong>la</strong>r o <strong>de</strong> quien, <strong>de</strong> hecho, ejerce dominio<br />
o control sobre el a<strong>para</strong>to <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> el que se envía <strong>la</strong> información.<br />
A<strong>de</strong>más, aún cuando no haya duda <strong>de</strong>l autor <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información también pue<strong>de</strong> resultar<br />
problemática <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>puración <strong>de</strong> otras eventuales responsabilida<strong>de</strong>s en re<strong>la</strong>ción con <strong>la</strong> potencial<br />
ca<strong>de</strong>na <strong>de</strong> intervinientes. Pue<strong>de</strong>n intervenir: quien directamente realiza manifestaciones<br />
o “cuelga” <strong>la</strong>s imágenes –en página web propia o ajena, en un blog, en un foro, en una <strong>red</strong><br />
social, por medio <strong>de</strong>l correo electrónico, etc.–, quien gestiona, administra o mo<strong>de</strong>ra los<br />
contenidos permitiendo su acceso a <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y, con carácter más general, los prestadores <strong>de</strong><br />
servicios <strong>de</strong> intermediación.<br />
2. Posibles resPonsables en caso <strong>de</strong> Vulneración <strong>de</strong>l Honor, <strong>la</strong><br />
intimidad o <strong>la</strong> imagen<br />
En primer lugar y siempre que se cump<strong>la</strong>n todos los requisitos o circunstancias necesarios<br />
<strong>para</strong> ello, <strong>la</strong> responsabilidad podrá imputarse a quien directamente realice <strong>la</strong>s manifestaciones<br />
lesivas o sitúe en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> <strong>la</strong>s imágenes no autorizadas: los proveedores <strong>de</strong> contenidos.<br />
También podría respon<strong>de</strong>r, en su caso, como proveedor <strong>de</strong> contenidos, el intermediario que<br />
los gestione e introduzca en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> o controle su introducción, poniendo <strong>la</strong> información a<br />
disposición <strong>de</strong> los usuarios.<br />
Por otra parte nos encontramos con los prestadores <strong>de</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong> intermediación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información que, según el Anexo a <strong>la</strong> Ley 34/2002 <strong>de</strong> Servicios <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Sociedad<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Información y Comercio Electrónico (LSSICE) son quienes facilitan <strong>la</strong> prestación o<br />
utilización <strong>de</strong> <strong>otros</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información o el acceso a <strong>la</strong> información,<br />
y concretamente <strong>la</strong>s personas físicas o jurídicas que permiten o facilitan el acceso a Internet<br />
y <strong>la</strong> transmisión <strong>de</strong> datos por re<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> telecomunicaciones (como los operadores <strong>de</strong> telecomunicaciones<br />
y los proveedores <strong>de</strong> acceso), <strong>la</strong> realización <strong>de</strong> copia temporal <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s páginas<br />
<strong>de</strong> Internet solicitadas por los usuarios, el hosting o alojamiento en los propios servidores <strong>de</strong><br />
datos, aplicaciones o servicios suministrados por <strong>otros</strong> (titu<strong>la</strong>res <strong>de</strong> p<strong>la</strong>taformas y <strong>de</strong> webs,<br />
blogs o foros que no editan ni contro<strong>la</strong>n los contenidos con anterioridad a su publicación) o
<strong>la</strong> tensión entre impunidad en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y limitación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión<br />
<strong>la</strong> provisión <strong>de</strong> instrumentos <strong>de</strong> búsqueda, acceso y recopi<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> datos o <strong>de</strong> en<strong>la</strong>ces a <strong>otros</strong><br />
sitios <strong>de</strong> Internet (sería el caso <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s webs con hipervínculos o buscadores como Google o<br />
Yahoo).<br />
3. rÉgimen <strong>de</strong> resPonsabilidad ciVil Por intromisiones<br />
ilegÍtimas realizadas a traVÉs <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong><br />
245<br />
A los prestadores <strong>de</strong> servicios en Internet que no reúnan <strong>la</strong>s características necesarias<br />
<strong>para</strong> ser consi<strong>de</strong>rados prestadores <strong>de</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información les<br />
será <strong>de</strong> aplicación el régimen <strong>de</strong> responsabilidad que en su caso corresponda en función<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> ilicitud cometida, pero no el previsto en <strong>la</strong> Ley <strong>de</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
información.<br />
En caso <strong>de</strong> prestadores <strong>de</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información que no realicen<br />
funciones <strong>de</strong> intermediación sino <strong>de</strong> provisión <strong>de</strong> contenidos, el artículo 13 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
LSSICE remite al régimen general <strong>de</strong> responsabilidad, civil, penal o administrativo que<br />
proceda. En el ámbito civil, en los supuestos <strong>de</strong> daño extracontractual hemos <strong>de</strong> acudir<br />
por tanto a <strong>la</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción prevista en los artículos 1902 y siguientes <strong>de</strong>l Código civil y,<br />
<strong>para</strong> el supuesto específico <strong>de</strong> lesión en el honor, intimidad o imagen, a <strong>la</strong> Ley orgánica<br />
1/1982 <strong>de</strong> 5 <strong>de</strong> enero y, en su caso, el artículo 65 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Ley 14/1966, <strong>de</strong> 18 <strong>de</strong> marzo,<br />
<strong>de</strong> prensa e imprenta.<br />
Por lo que se refiere a los prestadores <strong>de</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong> intermediación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> información, <strong>la</strong> Directiva 2000/31/CE <strong>de</strong>l Par<strong>la</strong>mento Europeo y <strong>de</strong>l Consejo, que <strong>la</strong> Ley<br />
transpone, prevé, precisamente con <strong>la</strong> finalidad <strong>de</strong> potenciar <strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información,<br />
que no se les pue<strong>de</strong> imponer una obligación general <strong>de</strong> supervisión <strong>de</strong> los datos que transmitan<br />
o almacenen, ni <strong>de</strong> realizar búsquedas activas <strong>de</strong> hechos o activida<strong>de</strong>s ilícitas 2 . No<br />
obstante, sí se les pue<strong>de</strong> exigir <strong>la</strong> aplicación <strong>de</strong> un <strong>de</strong>ber <strong>de</strong> diligencia que en el or<strong>de</strong>namiento<br />
jurídico español se concreta en los artículos 14 a 17 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> LSSICE. Centrándonos en los prestadores<br />
<strong>de</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong> alojamiento o almacenamiento <strong>de</strong> datos y en quienes facilitan en<strong>la</strong>ces<br />
a <strong>otros</strong> contenidos o incluyen en los suyos directorios o instrumentos <strong>de</strong> búsqueda, podrán<br />
ser responsables por <strong>la</strong> información almacenada a petición <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>stinatario o a <strong>la</strong> que dirijan<br />
a los <strong>de</strong>stinatarios <strong>de</strong> sus servicios si tienen conocimiento efectivo <strong>de</strong> que <strong>la</strong> actividad o <strong>la</strong><br />
información almacenada o a <strong>la</strong> que remiten o recomiendan es ilícita o <strong>de</strong> que lesiona bienes<br />
o <strong>de</strong>rechos <strong>de</strong> un tercero susceptibles <strong>de</strong> in<strong>de</strong>mnización salvo que actúen con diligencia <strong>para</strong><br />
retirar los datos o hacer imposible el acceso a ellos o, en su caso, suprimir o inutilizar el en<strong>la</strong>ce<br />
correspondiente (arts. 16 y 17 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> LSSICE).<br />
Se trata, pues, <strong>de</strong> un régimen específico <strong>de</strong> responsabilidad por hecho ajeno o, mejor,<br />
<strong>de</strong> exención <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> misma salvo que se <strong>de</strong>n <strong>la</strong>s circunstancias que <strong>la</strong> Ley recoge, y que se fundamenta<br />
en el principio <strong>de</strong> neutralidad tecnológica y en <strong>la</strong> mencionada inexistencia <strong>de</strong> una<br />
2 Cfr. artículo 15 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Directiva.
246 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
obligación general <strong>de</strong> supervisión <strong>de</strong> los contenidos por parte <strong>de</strong> los prestadores <strong>de</strong> servicios<br />
<strong>de</strong> intermediación 3 .<br />
No obstante lo anterior, hay que tener en cuenta que <strong>para</strong> que a estos servicios <strong>de</strong> intermediación<br />
les sea <strong>de</strong> aplicación <strong>la</strong> LSSICE tiene que tratarse <strong>de</strong> prestadores <strong>de</strong> servicios<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información y, por tanto, según el anexo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Ley, ha <strong>de</strong> tratarse <strong>de</strong><br />
servicios prestados normalmente a título oneroso, a distancia, por vía electrónica y a petición<br />
individual <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>stinatario, aunque el concepto <strong>de</strong> servicio <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información<br />
compren<strong>de</strong> también los no remunerados por sus <strong>de</strong>stinatarios en <strong>la</strong> medida en que constituyan<br />
una actividad económica <strong>para</strong> el prestador <strong>de</strong> servicios. Si bien no existe discrepancia<br />
en consi<strong>de</strong>rar que los servicios constituyen una actividad económica <strong>para</strong> el titu<strong>la</strong>r tanto si<br />
éste recibe ingresos directamente como <strong>de</strong> forma indirecta –aquí entraría tanto el comercio<br />
electrónico como <strong>la</strong>s informaciones o comunicaciones comerciales y también <strong>la</strong> recepción<br />
<strong>de</strong> emolumentos por publicidad o patrocinio– se ha <strong>de</strong>fendido que no se podría hab<strong>la</strong>r <strong>de</strong><br />
un servicio <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información en caso <strong>de</strong> que los beneficios que se obtienen<br />
mediante <strong>la</strong> publicidad alojada en el sitio web no sean relevantes 4 . En sentido contrario, <strong>la</strong><br />
sentencia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Audiencia Provincial <strong>de</strong> Lugo <strong>de</strong> 9 <strong>de</strong> julio <strong>de</strong> 2009 parece inclinarse por<br />
enten<strong>de</strong>r que si se recurre a banners publicitarios <strong>la</strong> actuación constituye en todo caso una<br />
actividad económica <strong>para</strong> el prestador <strong>de</strong> servicios 5 . La postura que se adopte tiene trascen<strong>de</strong>ncia<br />
<strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> el momento en que el régimen jurídico es diferente en uno y otro caso. Por<br />
un <strong>la</strong>do, el prestador <strong>de</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información tiene unas obligaciones<br />
legales específicas establecidas en <strong>la</strong> LSSICE pero, por otro, el mismo texto legal configura<br />
un régimen <strong>de</strong> responsabilidad también especial, menos gravoso que el general <strong>de</strong> manera<br />
que, como ha seña<strong>la</strong>do <strong>la</strong> doctrina, si <strong>la</strong>s reg<strong>la</strong>s exoneratorias <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> LSSICE previstas <strong>para</strong><br />
los prestadores profesionales no se aplican a los “aficionados” se estará configurando un régimen<br />
más benévolo <strong>para</strong> quienes realizan una actividad económica que <strong>para</strong> quienes no lo<br />
hacen, en abierta contradicción con los principios que inspiran nuestro <strong>de</strong>recho <strong>de</strong> daños 6 .<br />
Por esta razón, teniendo en cuenta que <strong>la</strong> reg<strong>la</strong> básica <strong>de</strong> exención <strong>de</strong> responsabilidad <strong>de</strong> los<br />
prestadores <strong>de</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong> intermediación no se fundamenta en el carácter económico <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
actividad sino en su carácter meramente técnico o instrumental y en <strong>la</strong> finalidad <strong>de</strong> potenciar<br />
y facilitar los servicios <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información, se <strong>de</strong>fien<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> aplicación analógica<br />
<strong>de</strong> este régimen a todo prestador <strong>de</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong> intermediación, con in<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>ncia <strong>de</strong> que<br />
<strong>la</strong> actividad realizada se pueda calificar o no como actividad económica 7 .<br />
3 Vid. consi<strong>de</strong>randos 42 y siguientes <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Directiva 2000/31 <strong>de</strong>l Par<strong>la</strong>mento Europeo y <strong>de</strong>l Consejo, cit<br />
4 Cfr. CAVANILLAS MÚJICA, S. (2007). “La responsabilidad civil en internet”. En : La responsabilidad<br />
civil y su problemática actual (coord. Juan Antonio Moreno Martínez). 1ª ed., Madrid: Dykinson,<br />
pág. 105.<br />
5 Las sentencias a que se remite esta comunicación pue<strong>de</strong>n consultarse en www.west<strong>la</strong>w.es.<br />
6 CAVANILLAS MÚJICA, S. (2007), “La responsabilidad ...”, cit., p.108.<br />
7 Cfr. PEGUERA PoCH, M. (2007). “Solo sé que no sé nada (efectivamente): <strong>la</strong> apreciación <strong>de</strong>l<br />
conocimiento efectivo y <strong>otros</strong> problemas en <strong>la</strong> aplicación judicial <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> LSI”, IDP Revista d’Internet,<br />
Dret i Política núm. 5 (http: www.uoc.edu/idp/5/dt/esp/peguera.pdf). Fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta 19 <strong>de</strong> mayo
<strong>la</strong> tensión entre impunidad en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y limitación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión<br />
247<br />
Queda, por último, por <strong>de</strong>terminar cuál es <strong>la</strong> normativa aplicable en este mismo ámbito<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> responsabilidad civil <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> actuación <strong>de</strong> los prestadores <strong>de</strong> servicios que antes <strong>de</strong><br />
hacer visible en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> <strong>la</strong> información suministrada por terceros filtran su contenido <strong>de</strong>cidiendo<br />
si se publica o no. Sería el caso, por ejemplo, <strong>de</strong> los foros o blogs mo<strong>de</strong>rados “a priori”<br />
o <strong>de</strong> los comentarios <strong>de</strong> noticias <strong>de</strong> muchos diarios digitales. La cuestión se p<strong>la</strong>ntea porque<br />
si, como hemos dicho, <strong>la</strong> exoneración <strong>de</strong> responsabilidad que prevén con carácter general los<br />
artículos 16 y 17 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> LSSICE se fundamenta en <strong>la</strong> actividad meramente técnica <strong>de</strong>l prestador<br />
<strong>de</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información que no tiene conocimiento ni control <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
información transmitida o almacenada, <strong>la</strong> consecuencia lógica ha <strong>de</strong> ser que <strong>la</strong> exoneración<br />
no operará cuando el prestador sí tenga ese conocimiento o control.<br />
Entiendo que con <strong>la</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción legal no sólo no existe problema <strong>para</strong> mantener esta<br />
posición sino que pue<strong>de</strong> hacerse, y se ha hecho, <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> una triple fundamentación.<br />
Es <strong>de</strong>fendible que en estos casos entre en aplicación el apartado 2 <strong>de</strong> los artículos 16<br />
y 17, en el que se establece que <strong>la</strong> exención <strong>de</strong> responsabilidad prevista en el apartado 1 no<br />
proce<strong>de</strong> cuando el <strong>de</strong>stinatario <strong>de</strong>l servicio “actúe bajo <strong>la</strong> dirección, autoridad o control <strong>de</strong><br />
su prestador”. La interpretación <strong>de</strong> esta excepción a <strong>la</strong> exención requiere <strong>de</strong>terminar en qué<br />
casos ha <strong>de</strong> enten<strong>de</strong>rse que el usuario, cuando realiza <strong>la</strong> conducta ilícita, se encuentra en<br />
esa situación. La solución a que se llegue <strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>rá <strong>de</strong> que se interprete que <strong>la</strong> dirección,<br />
autoridad o control que el prestador ejerza sobre el <strong>de</strong>stinatario se refiere bien a su actividad<br />
general o a una parce<strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> misma, aunque no necesariamente sobre el hecho concreto<br />
<strong>de</strong> incorporar los datos a <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> –dirección o control <strong>la</strong>boral, administrativo, contractual,<br />
familiar, como miembro <strong>de</strong> una asociación o fundación, etc.– o bien que incluya también <strong>la</strong><br />
actuación puntual <strong>de</strong> introducir en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> los contenidos ilícitos o dañosos <strong>para</strong> terceros, sin<br />
que en <strong>otros</strong> ámbitos exista ningún tipo <strong>de</strong> re<strong>la</strong>ción entre el prestador y el <strong>de</strong>stinatario. Si se<br />
acoge <strong>la</strong> interpretación amplia que permita incluir todos los supuestos, junto a situaciones<br />
<strong>de</strong> dirección, autoridad o control <strong>la</strong>boral, administrativo, familiar o <strong>de</strong> otro or<strong>de</strong>n 8 , estarían<br />
también incluidos los casos en que el prestador no se limite a servir <strong>de</strong> p<strong>la</strong>taforma al usuario<br />
sino que también supervisa los contenidos –o, cuanto menos, asume <strong>la</strong> posibilidad <strong>de</strong><br />
hacerlo– antes <strong>de</strong> que resulten visibles en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>. El <strong>de</strong>stinatario <strong>de</strong>l servicio que introduce<br />
<strong>la</strong> información actúa, pues, bajo el control <strong>de</strong> un prestador que, aunque no está obligado<br />
legalmente, ha <strong>de</strong>cidido libremente hacer suya <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>cisión <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> publicación <strong>de</strong> manera que<br />
si los contenidos son ilícitos o lesivos <strong>para</strong> terceras personas respon<strong>de</strong>rá junto con el autor<br />
<strong>de</strong> 2011. En el mismo sentido RoDRÍGUEZ DE LAS HERAS, T. (2011). “Intermediación en <strong>la</strong><br />
<strong>red</strong> y responsabilidad civil. Sobre <strong>la</strong> aplicación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s reg<strong>la</strong>s generales <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> responsabilidad a <strong>la</strong>s activida<strong>de</strong>s<br />
<strong>de</strong> intermediación en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>”. En: I Congreso sobre <strong>la</strong>s Nuevas Tecnologías y sus repercusiones en<br />
el seguro: Internet, Biotecnología y Nanotecnología. Madrid: Fundación Mapfre, p.47.<br />
8 En estos casos se produce un supuesto <strong>de</strong> responsabilidad civil por hecho ajeno que cabría reconducir<br />
a <strong>la</strong>s reg<strong>la</strong>s generales <strong>de</strong>l artículo 1903 <strong>de</strong>l Código civil. En este sentido pue<strong>de</strong> verse GRIMALT<br />
SERVERA, P. (2011). “La responsabilidad civil <strong>de</strong> los prestadores <strong>de</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
información”. En: El Derecho a <strong>la</strong> imagen <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> todos los Puntos <strong>de</strong> Vista (coord.: Ve<strong>red</strong>a y Beamonte).<br />
Madrid: Thomson Reuters, p.184.
248 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
salvo que su conducta esté am<strong>para</strong>da por <strong>la</strong> aplicación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> doctrina <strong>de</strong>l reportaje neutral.<br />
En estos casos entiendo que resulta plenamente aplicable el artículo 65 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Ley <strong>de</strong> Prensa<br />
en tanto en cuanto el prestador no actúa como intermediario sino como editor 9 .<br />
Si no se comparte esta interpretación y se entien<strong>de</strong> que el apartado 2 <strong>de</strong> los artículos 16<br />
y 17 no está pensado <strong>para</strong> estos supuestos 10 , podrá llegarse al mismo resultado si se consi<strong>de</strong>ra<br />
que el hecho <strong>de</strong> supervisar previamente los contenidos y <strong>de</strong>cidir su visibilidad exce<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> mera<br />
intermediación y hace equi<strong>para</strong>ble <strong>la</strong> actuación <strong>de</strong>l prestador a <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>l proveedor <strong>de</strong> contenidos<br />
11 . Así, el régimen <strong>de</strong> responsabilidad será también el general <strong>de</strong>l Código civil por hecho<br />
propio 12 y, en el ámbito concreto <strong>de</strong> protección <strong>de</strong>l honor, intimidad e imagen, el recogido<br />
en <strong>la</strong> Ley orgánica 1/1982 <strong>de</strong> 5 <strong>de</strong> mayo y, en su caso, el artículo 65 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Ley <strong>de</strong> Prensa.<br />
Una tercera posibilidad es que, aun cuando se consi<strong>de</strong>re plenamente aplicable el régimen<br />
previsto en los artículos 16 y 17 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Ley, el hecho <strong>de</strong> conocer previamente el contenido<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información y <strong>de</strong>cidir su publicación pue<strong>de</strong> constituir prueba <strong>de</strong>l “conocimiento<br />
efectivo” <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> ilicitud y <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> falta <strong>de</strong> diligencia <strong>de</strong>l prestador <strong>para</strong> evitar su difusión, lo que<br />
llevará a que pueda ser <strong>de</strong>c<strong>la</strong>rado responsable.<br />
En <strong>de</strong>finitiva, lo que aquí se mantiene es que en el caso <strong>de</strong> que <strong>la</strong> información incorporada<br />
a <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> por un tercero haya sido previamente filtrada por el prestador, a este último<br />
no le será aplicable directamente <strong>la</strong> exención <strong>de</strong> responsabilidad prevista en el artículo 16<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Ley. En esta línea se sitúa <strong>la</strong> reciente sentencia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Audiencia Provincial <strong>de</strong> Madrid<br />
9 El Tribunal Constitucional ha justificado <strong>la</strong> responsabilidad solidaria <strong>de</strong>l medio y <strong>de</strong>l editor en <strong>la</strong> culpa<br />
propia precisamente por no ser ajenos al contenido <strong>de</strong> información y opinión que se emite (STC<br />
17 y 172/1990 <strong>de</strong> 12 <strong>de</strong> noviembre). La Audiencia Provincial <strong>de</strong> Lugo <strong>de</strong> 9 <strong>de</strong> julio <strong>de</strong> 2009 excluye<br />
expresamente cualquier <strong>para</strong>lelismo entre <strong>la</strong> conducta <strong>de</strong> los administradores <strong>de</strong> un foro y <strong>la</strong> ley <strong>de</strong><br />
prensa escrita, pero en el caso concreto que se examinaba el foro no estaba mo<strong>de</strong>rado y precisamente<br />
<strong>la</strong> exclusión se justifica en que “mientras que el editor –en <strong>la</strong> prensa escrita– en sí tiene una faculta<strong>de</strong>s<br />
inherentes <strong>de</strong> dirección y supervisión <strong>de</strong> los contenidos expuestos, en el caso <strong>de</strong>l foro no pue<strong>de</strong>n<br />
<strong>de</strong>cidir lo que se publica o no”.<br />
10 En el caso resuelto en <strong>la</strong> sentencia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Audiencia Provincial <strong>de</strong> Madrid, <strong>de</strong> 13 <strong>de</strong> abril <strong>de</strong> 2010, en<br />
que son <strong>de</strong>mandados <strong>la</strong> empresa titu<strong>la</strong>r <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> página web y <strong>de</strong> su dominio y también al mo<strong>de</strong>rador <strong>de</strong>l<br />
concreto foro en el que se habían vertido <strong>la</strong>s opiniones discutidas, <strong>la</strong> Sa<strong>la</strong> consi<strong>de</strong>ra que pese a que el<br />
mo<strong>de</strong>rador se reserva el <strong>de</strong>recho <strong>de</strong> eliminar los mensajes en los que se realicen ataques personales o<br />
se insulte a <strong>otros</strong> usuarios que participen en el foro o se introduzcan contenidos que no tengan re<strong>la</strong>ción<br />
con temas financieros o económicos, los usuarios que remitieron los mensajes controvertidos no<br />
habían actuado bajo su dirección, autoridad o control.<br />
11 Entien<strong>de</strong> GRIMALT SERVERA, P.(2011), que si los prestadores <strong>de</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong> alojamiento, almacenamiento,<br />
en<strong>la</strong>ce o búsqueda asumen algún tipo <strong>de</strong> control <strong>de</strong> los contenidos entonces no será<br />
proce<strong>de</strong>nte <strong>la</strong> aplicación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s exoneraciones previstas en los artículos 16 y 17 LSSICE porque, <strong>de</strong><br />
alguna manera, dichos prestadores habrán asumido los contenidos <strong>de</strong> esos terceros al no limitarse a<br />
actuar pasiva y automáticamente. (“La responsabilidad ..., cit., p.181).<br />
12 GRIMALT SERVERA, P. (“La responsabilidad…”, cit., p. 184) y CAVANILLAS MÚJICA, S.<br />
(2007) (“La responsabilidad ...”, cit., pp. 35 a 39) parecen <strong>de</strong>cantarse, por el contrario, por consi<strong>de</strong>rar<br />
que en estos casos el precepto aplicable habría <strong>de</strong> ser el 1903 <strong>de</strong>l Código civil que regu<strong>la</strong> <strong>la</strong> responsabilidad<br />
por hecho ajeno.
<strong>la</strong> tensión entre impunidad en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y limitación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión<br />
249<br />
<strong>de</strong> 31 <strong>de</strong> marzo <strong>de</strong> 2011 que, en el ámbito civil, con<strong>de</strong>nó al titu<strong>la</strong>r <strong>de</strong>l blog y <strong>la</strong> página web<br />
don<strong>de</strong> se aloja, a quien califica como co<strong>la</strong>borador necesario, sobre <strong>la</strong> base <strong>de</strong> que el <strong>de</strong>mandado<br />
reconoció <strong>la</strong> posibilidad <strong>de</strong> contro<strong>la</strong>r técnicamente los contenidos y que en algún caso<br />
había censurado una opinión vertida al no enten<strong>de</strong>r que se hal<strong>la</strong>ra <strong>de</strong> acuerdo con <strong>la</strong> línea<br />
que inspira el blog.<br />
En todo caso <strong>la</strong> responsabilidad <strong>de</strong>l intermediario se generará igualmente, si se dan los<br />
presupuestos <strong>para</strong> ello, aun cuando en <strong>la</strong> web, blog o foro se indique que el editor no es autor<br />
<strong>de</strong> los comentarios publicados y que no respon<strong>de</strong> al tratarse <strong>de</strong> opiniones <strong>de</strong> los usuarios, y<br />
también aunque se haya avisado <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> necesidad <strong>de</strong> que el texto sea respetuoso o <strong>de</strong> que no<br />
se admitirán mensajes ofensivos o contrarios a <strong>la</strong>s leyes, e incluso aunque el usuario haya<br />
enviado un documento exonerando <strong>de</strong> responsabilidad al prestador, máxime si se trata <strong>de</strong> un<br />
documento <strong>de</strong> adhesión, como es práctica en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>.<br />
4. criterios <strong>de</strong> imPutación <strong>de</strong> resPonsabilidad <strong>de</strong> los<br />
Prestadores <strong>de</strong> serVicios <strong>de</strong> intermediación consistentes<br />
en alojamiento o almacenamiento <strong>de</strong> datos o ProPorcionar<br />
en<strong>la</strong>ces o instrumentos <strong>de</strong> bÚsQueda<br />
4.1. el conocimiento efectivo<br />
Según los artículos 16 y 17 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> LSSICE se enten<strong>de</strong>rá que el prestador <strong>de</strong> servicios<br />
tiene conocimiento efectivo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> ilicitud <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> actividad o <strong>la</strong> información cuando un órgano<br />
competente haya <strong>de</strong>c<strong>la</strong>rado <strong>la</strong> ilicitud <strong>de</strong> los datos, or<strong>de</strong>nado su retirada o que se imposibilite<br />
el acceso a los mismos, o se hubiera <strong>de</strong>c<strong>la</strong>rado <strong>la</strong> existencia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> lesión, y el prestador<br />
conociera <strong>la</strong> correspondiente resolución, sin perjuicio <strong>de</strong> los procedimientos <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>tección y<br />
retirada <strong>de</strong> contenidos que los prestadores apliquen en virtud <strong>de</strong> acuerdos voluntarios y <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>otros</strong> medios <strong>de</strong> conocimiento efectivo que pudieran establecerse.<br />
Esta <strong>red</strong>acción legal se presta a dos interpretaciones. Según <strong>la</strong> primera, acogida en diversas<br />
resoluciones judiciales 13 , so<strong>la</strong>mente podrá consi<strong>de</strong>rarse que existe conocimiento efectivo<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> ilicitud por parte <strong>de</strong>l intermediario y, por tanto, cabría responsabilidad, cuando hayan<br />
existido el procedimiento y <strong>la</strong> resolución, conocida por el prestador, a que se refiere <strong>la</strong> Ley 14 .<br />
Según otra posición, ava<strong>la</strong>da por una parte <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> doctrina 15 y por <strong>la</strong> jurispru<strong>de</strong>ncia <strong>de</strong>l<br />
Tribunal Supremo, <strong>la</strong> posibilidad <strong>de</strong>l “conocimiento efectivo” ha <strong>de</strong> interpretarse en sentido<br />
13 Cfr. sentencias <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Audiencia Provincial <strong>de</strong> Madrid 20 <strong>de</strong> diciembre <strong>de</strong> 2005 y <strong>de</strong> 19 <strong>de</strong> febrero <strong>de</strong><br />
2010 y sentencia <strong>de</strong> 20 <strong>de</strong> septiembre <strong>de</strong>l mismo año <strong>de</strong>l Juzgado <strong>de</strong> los Mercantil nº 7 <strong>de</strong> Madrid.<br />
14 Cfr. CABANILLAS MÚJICA, S. (2007). “La responsabilidad ...”, cit., pp. 113 y ss. y LÓPEZ DE LA<br />
PEñA SALDÍAS, J.F. (2010). “Libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión e Internet. Responsabilidad <strong>de</strong> los prestadores<br />
<strong>de</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información. El caso putasgae”, (west<strong>la</strong>w, BIB 2010, 593), pp. 5-6.<br />
15 PEGUERA PoCH, M. (2007), “Sólo sé que no se nada...”, cit.; GRIMALT SERVERA, P. (2011).<br />
“La responsabilidad ...”, cit., p.188.
250 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
amplio. La LSSICE recoge una presunción <strong>de</strong> no conocimiento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> ilicitud que <strong>de</strong>be ser<br />
<strong>de</strong>struida mediante prueba en contrario, pero esta prueba no tiene necesariamente que limitarse<br />
al hecho <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> existencia <strong>de</strong> una resolución conocida por el prestador sino que <strong>de</strong>ben<br />
admitirse otras posibilida<strong>de</strong>s.<br />
En su sentencia <strong>de</strong> 9 <strong>de</strong> diciembre <strong>de</strong> 2009 el Tribunal Supremo dice expresamente<br />
que “no es conforme a <strong>la</strong> Directiva –cuyo objetivo es, al respecto, armonizar los regímenes<br />
<strong>de</strong> exención <strong>de</strong> responsabilidad <strong>de</strong> los prestadores <strong>de</strong> servicios– una interpretación <strong>de</strong>l apartado<br />
1 <strong>de</strong>l artículo 16 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Ley 34/2002 como <strong>la</strong> propuesta por <strong>la</strong> recurrente, ya que <strong>red</strong>uce<br />
injustificadamente <strong>la</strong>s posibilida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> obtención <strong>de</strong>l “conocimiento efectivo” <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> ilicitud<br />
<strong>de</strong> los contenidos almacenados y amplía corre<strong>la</strong>tivamente el ámbito <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> exención, en re<strong>la</strong>ción<br />
con los términos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> norma armonizadora, que exige un efectivo conocimiento, pero<br />
sin restringir los instrumentos aptos <strong>para</strong> alcanzarlo. A<strong>de</strong>más <strong>de</strong> que el propio artículo 16<br />
permite esa interpretación favorable a <strong>la</strong> Directiva –al <strong>de</strong>jar a salvo <strong>la</strong> posibilidad <strong>de</strong> “<strong>otros</strong><br />
medios <strong>de</strong> conocimiento efectivo que pudieran establecerse”–, no cabe prescindir <strong>de</strong> que<br />
<strong>la</strong> misma atribuye igual valor que “al conocimiento efectivo” “a aquel que se obtiene por<br />
el prestador <strong>de</strong>l servicio a partir <strong>de</strong> hechos o circunstancias aptos <strong>para</strong> posibilitar, aunque<br />
mediatamente o por inferencias lógicas al alcance <strong>de</strong> cualquiera, una efectiva aprehensión <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> realidad <strong>de</strong> que se trate” 16 .<br />
Posteriormente, <strong>la</strong> Sentencia <strong>de</strong>l Tribunal Supremo <strong>de</strong> 18 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2010, sin perjuicio<br />
<strong>de</strong> no con<strong>de</strong>nar al titu<strong>la</strong>r <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> página web <strong>de</strong>mandado <strong>de</strong>bido a cómo se habían<br />
<strong>de</strong>sarrol<strong>la</strong>do los acontecimientos en el caso concreto, aduce que “en <strong>la</strong> sentencia <strong>de</strong> 9 <strong>de</strong><br />
diciembre <strong>de</strong> 2009 nos pronunciamos sobre <strong>la</strong> interpretación <strong>de</strong> ese artículo 16 conforme a<br />
<strong>la</strong> Directiva 2000/31(CE), en lo referente al conocimiento efectivo”, manifestación que pese<br />
a su irrelevancia <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> una perspectiva jurispru<strong>de</strong>ncial, no <strong>de</strong>ja <strong>de</strong> implicar <strong>la</strong> confirmación<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> interpretación mencionada.<br />
La última sentencia <strong>de</strong>l alto tribunal sobre el tema, que <strong>de</strong>finitivamente <strong>de</strong>ja fijada<br />
<strong>la</strong> jurispru<strong>de</strong>ncia sobre esta cuestión, es <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> 10 <strong>de</strong> febrero <strong>de</strong> 2011. En re<strong>la</strong>ción con <strong>la</strong>s<br />
16 La Sociedad General <strong>de</strong> Autores <strong>de</strong> España (SGAE) había presentado una <strong>de</strong>manda contra <strong>la</strong> Asociación<br />
<strong>de</strong> Internautas como titu<strong>la</strong>r <strong>de</strong>l dominio <strong>de</strong> página web que alojaba otras direcciones gestionadas<br />
a su vez por <strong>la</strong> “P<strong>la</strong>taforma <strong>de</strong> coordinación <strong>de</strong> movilizaciones contra <strong>la</strong> SGAE” por medio <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s que,<br />
tanto con el nombre <strong>de</strong> una <strong>de</strong> el<strong>la</strong>s (putasgae.org) como con los contenidos se había atentado contra<br />
el prestigio profesional <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>mandante. La Asociación resultó con<strong>de</strong>nada en aplicación <strong>de</strong>l artículo<br />
16 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> LSSICE pese a sus alegaciones en cuanto a que no es titu<strong>la</strong>r <strong>de</strong> una página web sino <strong>de</strong>l dominio<br />
y <strong>de</strong>l servidor <strong>de</strong> Internet en que pue<strong>de</strong> localizarse mediante el nombre <strong>de</strong> dominio <strong>de</strong> una página<br />
cuya Internet Protocolo o IP está situado en Internet y que realmente actúa como un simple “mirror”<br />
<strong>de</strong> contenidos e<strong>la</strong>borados por otro, sin tomar parte en su e<strong>la</strong>boración ni divulgación, manteniendo <strong>la</strong><br />
neutralidad y realizando una simple gestión técnica, <strong>de</strong> manera que imponerle un control efectivo <strong>de</strong><br />
los pensamientos, i<strong>de</strong>as u opiniones exteriorizadas por terceros constituiría una censura previa contraria<br />
al <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión. Con anterioridad a esta sentencia se habían manifestado en el<br />
mismo sentido <strong>la</strong> Audiencia Provincial <strong>de</strong> Madrid en sentencia <strong>de</strong> 22 <strong>de</strong> septiembre <strong>de</strong> 2009 o <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong><br />
Lugo en <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> 9 <strong>de</strong> julio <strong>de</strong> 2009. Posteriormente, sentencias <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Audiencia Provincial <strong>de</strong> Barcelona<br />
<strong>de</strong> 3 <strong>de</strong> marzo <strong>de</strong> 2010 o <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Audiencia Provincial <strong>de</strong> Madrid <strong>de</strong> 13 <strong>de</strong> abril <strong>de</strong> 2010.
<strong>la</strong> tensión entre impunidad en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y limitación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión<br />
251<br />
manifestaciones y una fotografía <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>mandante con <strong>la</strong> cabeza cortada, alojadas en un foro<br />
<strong>de</strong> Internet por participantes anónimos e indiscutidamente atentatorias contra el honor <strong>de</strong><br />
aquél, el Tribunal Supremo se remite a <strong>la</strong> doctrina establecida en sus dos sentencias anteriores.<br />
Reitera que el artículo 16 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Ley 34/2002 permite una interpretación favorable a <strong>la</strong><br />
Directiva que no restrinja los instrumentos aptos <strong>para</strong> alcanzar el conocimiento efectivo que<br />
fundamenta <strong>la</strong> responsabilidad <strong>de</strong>l prestador <strong>de</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong> alojamiento o almacenamiento<br />
<strong>de</strong> datos. Al enten<strong>de</strong>r <strong>de</strong>l alto tribunal, con <strong>la</strong> expresión “<strong>otros</strong> medios <strong>de</strong> conocimiento<br />
efectivo que pudieran establecerse”, se atribuye igual valor que al “conocimiento efectivo” “a<br />
aquel que se obtiene por el prestador <strong>de</strong>l servicio a partir <strong>de</strong> hechos o circunstancias aptos<br />
<strong>para</strong> posibilitar, aunque mediatamente o por inferencias lógicas al alcance <strong>de</strong> cualquiera, una<br />
efectiva aprehensión <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> realidad <strong>de</strong> que se trate”. Admite asimismo que se atribuya ese<br />
mismo valor reve<strong>la</strong>dor a los contenidos almacenados o en<strong>la</strong>zados por ser su ilicitud patente<br />
y evi<strong>de</strong>nte por sí so<strong>la</strong>, “al no <strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>r <strong>de</strong> datos o información que no se encuentren a disposición<br />
<strong>de</strong>l intermediario”.<br />
Indudablemente <strong>la</strong>s dos posturas expuestas p<strong>la</strong>ntean dudas y presentan inconvenientes,<br />
a<strong>de</strong>más <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> falta <strong>de</strong> seguridad jurídica que evi<strong>de</strong>ncia el hecho <strong>de</strong> que existan dos posibilida<strong>de</strong>s<br />
interpretativas, aun cuando a día <strong>de</strong> hoy el Tribunal Supremo ya se haya <strong>de</strong>cantado<br />
por una <strong>de</strong> el<strong>la</strong>s.<br />
La tesis <strong>de</strong> que el conocimiento efectivo so<strong>la</strong>mente pueda ac<strong>red</strong>itarse con <strong>la</strong> existencia<br />
<strong>de</strong> una resolución, que en principio parece más objetiva y, por tanto, más segura, no<br />
solo genera el riesgo <strong>de</strong> que casi impunemente se pueda atentar en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> contra <strong>de</strong>rechos<br />
que incluso pue<strong>de</strong>n ser fundamentales y <strong>de</strong>rivados <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> propia dignidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> persona<br />
como son el honor, <strong>la</strong> intimidad o <strong>la</strong> propia imagen, sino que también resulta difícil <strong>de</strong><br />
mantener, pese a <strong>la</strong> literalidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> ley españo<strong>la</strong> 17 , si se interpreta <strong>de</strong> acuerdo con <strong>la</strong> Directiva<br />
comunitaria que transpone. La Directiva posibilita en el artículo 14 que también<br />
opere <strong>la</strong> exención sobre <strong>la</strong> base <strong>de</strong> un conocimiento indiciario <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> el momento en que<br />
en lo que se refiere a una acción <strong>de</strong> in<strong>de</strong>mnización por daños y perjuicios alu<strong>de</strong> al “conocimiento<br />
<strong>de</strong> hechos o circunstancias que revelen <strong>la</strong> ilicitud” 18 . Si una persona entien<strong>de</strong> que<br />
17 Lo cierto es que el confuso primer apartado <strong>de</strong> los artículos 16 y 17 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> LSSI cuando se refiere<br />
a “<strong>otros</strong> medios <strong>de</strong> conocimiento efectivo que pudieran establecerse”, inciso en que se ha basado el<br />
Tribunal Supremo <strong>para</strong> mantener su interpretación extensa, más que prever con carácter general otras<br />
posibilida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> conocimiento efectivo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> ilicitud por parte <strong>de</strong>l prestador, distintas <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> existencia<br />
<strong>de</strong> una resolución dictada por un órgano competente, parece referirse al supuesto en que en <strong>la</strong> misma<br />
u otras normas se prevean expresamente, algo que al menos en <strong>la</strong> actualidad no ha sucedido.<br />
18 Así lo ha puesto <strong>de</strong> manifiesto el Tribunal Supremo al interpretar el artículo 16 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> LSSICE y así<br />
parece enten<strong>de</strong>rlo también PEGUERA PoCH, M. (2007). “Sólo sé que no se nada …”, cit., p.10.<br />
También es cierto, como nos advierte CAVANILLAS MÚJICA, S. (2007), que <strong>la</strong> propia Directiva<br />
también dice, en el consi<strong>de</strong>rando 46, que “<strong>para</strong> beneficiarse <strong>de</strong> una limitación <strong>de</strong> responsabilidad,<br />
el prestador <strong>de</strong> un servicio <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información consistente en el almacenamiento <strong>de</strong><br />
datos habrá <strong>de</strong> actuar con prontitud <strong>para</strong> retirar los datos <strong>de</strong> que se trate o impedir el acceso a ellos<br />
en cuanto tenga conocimiento efectivo <strong>de</strong> activida<strong>de</strong>s ilícitas. La retirada <strong>de</strong> datos o <strong>la</strong> acción encaminada<br />
a impedir el acceso a los mismos habrá <strong>de</strong> llevarse a cabo respetando el principio <strong>de</strong> libertad
252 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
se ha atentado contra su honor, intimidad o imagen por medio <strong>de</strong> los contenidos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
información que proporciona un prestador <strong>de</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong> intermediación y no conoce al<br />
autor <strong>de</strong> los mismos, aún cuando <strong>la</strong> lesión sea grave y patente no tendría otra posibilidad<br />
que solicitar <strong>de</strong>l juzgado que requiriese al prestador <strong>para</strong> que comunicase <strong>la</strong> dirección IP<br />
<strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> que se envía <strong>la</strong> información. Posteriormente habría <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>mandar al titu<strong>la</strong>r <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
citada dirección <strong>para</strong>, en caso <strong>de</strong> conseguir una sentencia con<strong>de</strong>natoria, comunicar<strong>la</strong> al<br />
prestador y requerirle <strong>para</strong> que <strong>la</strong> retire. Un <strong>la</strong>rgo y penoso peregrinaje <strong>para</strong> una persona<br />
cuyos <strong>de</strong>rechos fundamentales están siendo vulnerados.<br />
La otra posibilidad, que pueda ac<strong>red</strong>itarse <strong>la</strong> existencia <strong>de</strong> conocimiento efectivo por<br />
cualquier medio, abre por el contrario un ámbito <strong>de</strong> inseguridad. Habrá que <strong>de</strong>terminar en<br />
cada caso concreto cuándo y en qué circunstancias se pue<strong>de</strong> enten<strong>de</strong>r que ha existido dicho<br />
conocimiento y, en caso <strong>de</strong> que se pruebe, si el prestador ha actuado con <strong>la</strong> diligencia necesaria<br />
y suficiente <strong>para</strong> po<strong>de</strong>r eludir <strong>la</strong> responsabilidad. La Audiencia Provincial <strong>de</strong> Lugo, en<br />
<strong>la</strong> sentencia <strong>de</strong> 9 <strong>de</strong> julio <strong>de</strong> 2009, ya comentada, no se p<strong>la</strong>ntea dudas acerca <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> existencia<br />
<strong>de</strong> conocimiento efectivo por parte <strong>de</strong> los administradores <strong>de</strong> una página web cuando se<br />
envían a <strong>la</strong> misma contenidos por correo electrónico y aquellos intervienen aceptándolos,<br />
abriéndolos y <strong>de</strong>cidiendo su publicación19 . Sin embargo, en el caso los administradores <strong>de</strong><br />
un foro fueron absueltos al no consi<strong>de</strong>rarse probado que tuviesen efectiva certeza <strong>de</strong>l carácter<br />
atentatorio contra el honor <strong>de</strong> los comentarios <strong>de</strong> algunos usuarios porque habían sido localizados<br />
rápidamente en una dirección <strong>de</strong> correo electrónico y los mensajes fueron retirados<br />
<strong>de</strong> forma inmediata tras <strong>la</strong> comunicación efectuada por <strong>la</strong> Guardia Civil.<br />
Algún autor, en principio favorable a <strong>la</strong> interpretación estricta, reconoce no obstante <strong>la</strong><br />
insuficiente c<strong>la</strong>ridad <strong>de</strong>l texto legal y propone una solución <strong>de</strong> compromiso postu<strong>la</strong>ndo que<br />
se <strong>de</strong>be exigir que el conocimiento efectivo se ac<strong>red</strong>ite siempre <strong>de</strong> manera positiva <strong>de</strong> forma<br />
que no se producirá dicho conocimiento por el mero hecho <strong>de</strong> que se notifique al intermediario<br />
<strong>la</strong> existencia <strong>de</strong> unos materiales ilegales sino que dicha notificación ha <strong>de</strong> ser “seria” <strong>de</strong><br />
manera cualitativa – hecha por sujeto legitimado, <strong>de</strong> forma fehaciente y con aportación <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> información precisa <strong>para</strong> justificar <strong>la</strong> ilegalidad <strong>de</strong> los datos” –o cuantitativa– un número<br />
relevante <strong>de</strong> usuarios, <strong>de</strong> forma no concertada, l<strong>la</strong>man <strong>la</strong> atención sobre ciertos contenidos<br />
–y/o (el carácter alternativo o disyuntivo no aparece con c<strong>la</strong>ridad en <strong>la</strong> tesis <strong>de</strong>l autor)– existir<br />
“auto-evi<strong>de</strong>ncia” <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> ilegalidad en el sentido <strong>de</strong> que resulte <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> simple visión <strong>de</strong> los<br />
<strong>de</strong> expresión y los procedimientos establecidos a nivel nacional. La presente directiva no afecta a <strong>la</strong><br />
posibilidad <strong>de</strong> que los estados miembros establezca requisitos específicos que <strong>de</strong>berán cumplir con<br />
prontitud antes <strong>de</strong> retirar los datos <strong>de</strong> que se trate o se impida el acceso a los mismos”. CAVANILLAS<br />
l<strong>la</strong>ma <strong>la</strong> atención acerca <strong>de</strong> si lo que pue<strong>de</strong> haber querido el legis<strong>la</strong>dor español al limitar el concepto<br />
<strong>de</strong> conocimiento efectivo no será precisamente fijar como “requisito específico” <strong>la</strong> existencia <strong>de</strong> una<br />
resolución judicial o administrativa que <strong>de</strong>c<strong>la</strong>re ilícitos los materiales alojados. (“La responsabilidad…”,<br />
cit., p.113).<br />
19 Recor<strong>de</strong>mos que esta es <strong>la</strong> tercera posibilidad que aquí analizábamos <strong>para</strong> imputar responsabilidad a<br />
los prestadores <strong>de</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong> intermediación que filtran <strong>la</strong> información antes <strong>de</strong> hacer<strong>la</strong> visible.
<strong>la</strong> tensión entre impunidad en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y limitación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión<br />
253<br />
materiales sin ningún género <strong>de</strong> dudas 20 . En <strong>la</strong> misma línea se ha <strong>de</strong>fendido también que <strong>la</strong><br />
carga <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>mostrar con diligencia <strong>la</strong> existencia <strong>de</strong> una lesión <strong>de</strong> sus <strong>de</strong>rechos correspon<strong>de</strong> al<br />
perjudicado, que <strong>de</strong>berá i<strong>de</strong>ntificar razonablemente el contenido constitutivo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> ilicitud<br />
mediante <strong>la</strong> indicación pormenorizada <strong>de</strong> URLs u otra forma <strong>de</strong> facilitar <strong>la</strong> contrastación <strong>de</strong><br />
dicho contenido por parte <strong>de</strong>l ISP 21 .<br />
En mi opinión, al sujeto que estima que sus <strong>de</strong>rechos han sido vulnerados, teniendo en<br />
cuenta a<strong>de</strong>más que pue<strong>de</strong> tratarse <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>rechos fundamentales, no pue<strong>de</strong> exigírsele otro comportamiento<br />
que el <strong>de</strong> poner en conocimiento <strong>de</strong>l prestador esta apreciación, por cualquier<br />
medio, aunque por supuesto con <strong>la</strong> mayor precisión posible <strong>para</strong> que resulte efectivo. Si se<br />
prueba que con esa comunicación, <strong>de</strong>l tipo que sea, o incluso sin el<strong>la</strong>, el prestador llegó a<br />
dicho conocimiento, será suficiente. otra cosa es que, <strong>para</strong> mayor seguridad, sea aconsejable<br />
que el ofendido realice un requerimiento en forma fehaciente.<br />
Por supuesto que en muchos casos lo único que podrá saberse con certeza es que el<br />
prestador conoce el contenido <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información, pero no necesariamente su ilicitud. Por<br />
tanto habrá que probar también que dicho conocimiento basta por si solo <strong>para</strong> tener <strong>la</strong> seguridad<br />
<strong>de</strong>l carácter ilícito <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información que contiene, lo que únicamente ocurrirá cuando<br />
<strong>la</strong> infracción sea patente. Si no es así, <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>terminación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> existencia <strong>de</strong> una actuación<br />
ilícita <strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>rá <strong>de</strong> consi<strong>de</strong>raciones jurídicas que el prestador pue<strong>de</strong> no estar en disposición<br />
<strong>de</strong> realizar. Basta con echar un vistazo a <strong>la</strong> copiosa y en no pocas ocasiones contradictoria jurispru<strong>de</strong>ncia<br />
tanto <strong>de</strong>l Tribunal Supremo como <strong>de</strong>l Tribunal Constitucional en re<strong>la</strong>ción con<br />
los límites entre los <strong>de</strong>rechos al honor, intimidad e imagen, por una parte, y <strong>la</strong>s liberta<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong><br />
expresión e información, por otra. Por poner solo un ejemplo, siempre es difícil <strong>de</strong>terminar<br />
<strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>lgada línea que se<strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> crítica política virulenta, hiriente o <strong>de</strong>sabrida, pero admisible,<br />
<strong>de</strong> los insultos, ofensas o vejaciones intolerables. A<strong>de</strong>más, se ha apuntado también <strong>la</strong> posibilidad<br />
<strong>de</strong> que <strong>la</strong> dimensión internacional <strong>de</strong> Internet pueda exigir el manejo <strong>de</strong> distintas<br />
legis<strong>la</strong>ciones y doctrinas jurispru<strong>de</strong>nciales 22 .<br />
20 Cfr. CAVANILLAS MÚJICA, S. (2007). “La responsabilidad ...”, cit., p. 116.<br />
21 RUBÍ PUIG, A. (2010), “Derecho al honor online y responsabilidad civil <strong>de</strong> ISPs”, www.indret.<br />
com., pp.13 ss. El autor propone, al efecto, que los tribunales tengan en cuenta el régimen<br />
previsto en <strong>la</strong> legis<strong>la</strong>ción norteamericana sobre responsabilidad <strong>de</strong> prestadores <strong>de</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong><br />
alojamiento por infracciones <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>rechos <strong>de</strong> autor (512(c)<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Digital Millennium Copyright<br />
Act (DMCA)) <strong>de</strong> manera que <strong>para</strong> po<strong>de</strong>r calificar como diligente una comunicación por parte<br />
<strong>de</strong> quien consi<strong>de</strong>ra vulnerados sus <strong>de</strong>rechos ha <strong>de</strong> constar por escrito y contener elementos como<br />
una firma o firma electrónica <strong>de</strong>l perjudicado o <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> persona autorizada a actuar en su nombre, y<br />
sus datos <strong>de</strong> contacto, en especial una dirección <strong>de</strong> correo electrónico; <strong>la</strong> i<strong>de</strong>ntificación completa<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> persona cuyos <strong>de</strong>rechos se han visto afectados; <strong>la</strong> i<strong>de</strong>ntificación <strong>de</strong>l contenido que se reputa<br />
ilícito y cuya retirada se solicita y, acaso, una <strong>de</strong>c<strong>la</strong>ración <strong>de</strong> que el rec<strong>la</strong>mante cree <strong>de</strong> buena fe<br />
que <strong>la</strong>s manifestaciones son ilícitas y no están am<strong>para</strong>das, en su caso, por <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> información<br />
y <strong>de</strong> expresión.<br />
22 Cfr. CLEMENTE MEoRo, M. (2003). “La responsabilidad civil <strong>de</strong> los prestadores <strong>de</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información”. En: Responsabilidad civil y contratos en Internet. Su regu<strong>la</strong>ción en <strong>la</strong> Ley<br />
<strong>de</strong> Servicios <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Información y Comercio Electrónico. Granada: Comares, p.40.
254 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
4.2. <strong>la</strong> diligencia exigible al prestador<br />
Las resoluciones <strong>de</strong> los tribunales dictadas hasta el momento nos permiten establecer<br />
ya algunos supuestos jurispru<strong>de</strong>nciales <strong>de</strong> existencia o <strong>de</strong> falta <strong>de</strong> diligencia por parte <strong>de</strong>l<br />
prestador <strong>de</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong> intermediación “<strong>para</strong> retirar los datos o hacer imposible el acceso<br />
a ellos” (art. 16.1 b) o “<strong>para</strong> suprimir o inutilizar el en<strong>la</strong>ce correspondiente” (art. 17.1 b).<br />
En primer lugar y sin perjuicio <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s sanciones <strong>de</strong> carácter administrativo previstas en<br />
<strong>la</strong> LSSICE, el incumplimiento o cumplimiento <strong>de</strong>fectuoso <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s obligaciones <strong>de</strong> los prestadores<br />
<strong>de</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información previstas en el artículo 10 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> LSSICE<br />
pue<strong>de</strong> servir <strong>de</strong> base a <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>terminación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> falta <strong>de</strong> diligencia cuando trae como consecuencia<br />
<strong>la</strong> imposibilidad o dificultad <strong>para</strong> que <strong>la</strong> persona que entien<strong>de</strong> que sus <strong>de</strong>rechos han<br />
sido vulnerados se ponga en contacto con aquellos 23 .<br />
También incumple el <strong>de</strong>ber <strong>de</strong> diligencia el prestador que siendo advertido <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> ilicitud<br />
no retira los datos con prontitud, haciendo imposible el acceso a ellos 24 , retirada que<br />
no será suficiente incluso aunque sea inmediata tras conocer <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>manda cuando el carácter<br />
lesivo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información resulte patente <strong>para</strong> el prestador ya con anterioridad 25 . Esta última<br />
apreciación parece contraponerse con <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> quienes <strong>de</strong>fien<strong>de</strong>n que si se tiene en cuenta <strong>la</strong><br />
ausencia <strong>de</strong> obligación <strong>de</strong> los prestadores <strong>de</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong> intermediación <strong>de</strong> supervisar los<br />
contenidos <strong>la</strong> carga <strong>de</strong> comunicar al prestador <strong>de</strong>l servicio <strong>la</strong> existencia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información o<br />
actividad lesiva ha <strong>de</strong> recaer en todo caso sobre el posible afectado, salvo que lo haya hecho<br />
un tercero 26 pero, en realidad, todo <strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s circunstancias <strong>de</strong> cada caso concreto.<br />
Aunque no es exigible al prestador una intervención positiva <strong>de</strong> control <strong>de</strong> los contenidos y,<br />
por tanto, con carácter general no pue<strong>de</strong> presumirse <strong>la</strong> existencia <strong>de</strong> conocimiento efectivo<br />
23 Así ocurrió en el caso resuelto por <strong>la</strong> sentencia <strong>de</strong>l Tribunal Supremo <strong>de</strong> 10 <strong>de</strong> febrero <strong>de</strong> 2011 en<br />
el que se con<strong>de</strong>nó al prestador en cuya página web so<strong>la</strong>mente se especificaba como contacto una dirección<br />
<strong>de</strong> correo electrónico que no probó que fuese eficaz y ello pese a que el <strong>de</strong>mandante pudo al<br />
final conocer su i<strong>de</strong>ntidad utilizando los servicios <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>tectives privados. En el mismo sentido pue<strong>de</strong>n<br />
verse <strong>la</strong>s sentencias <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Audiencia Provincial <strong>de</strong> Madrid <strong>de</strong> 22 <strong>de</strong> septiembre <strong>de</strong> 2008 y <strong>de</strong> 13 <strong>de</strong> abril<br />
<strong>de</strong> 2010.<br />
24 La sentencia <strong>de</strong>l Tribunal Supremo <strong>de</strong> 18 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2010 revoca <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Audiencia Provincial<br />
recurrida y absuelve al prestador en un supuesto en que en su página web se alojaban comentarios<br />
emitidos en contra <strong>de</strong> una entidad por alguien que falsamente se hacía pasar por abogado <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> misma.<br />
Cuando el prestador fue requerido por el abogado sup<strong>la</strong>ntado <strong>para</strong> que retirase el comentario, <strong>la</strong><br />
información se retiró inmediatamente. También <strong>la</strong> sentencia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Audiencia Provincial <strong>de</strong> Barcelona<br />
<strong>de</strong> 2010 exoneró a un prestador <strong>de</strong> servicios por enten<strong>de</strong>r que había actuado con <strong>la</strong> diligencia <strong>de</strong>bida.<br />
25 En <strong>la</strong> sentencia <strong>de</strong>l Tribunal Supremo <strong>de</strong> 9 <strong>de</strong> diciembre <strong>de</strong> 2009 <strong>la</strong> titu<strong>la</strong>r <strong>de</strong>l dominio web en el que<br />
se alojaban <strong>la</strong>s direcciones que vulneraban <strong>de</strong>rechos fue con<strong>de</strong>nada pese a que había requerido a sus<br />
gestores nada más tener conocimiento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>manda que inició el procedimiento <strong>para</strong> que retirasen<br />
caute<strong>la</strong>rmente los contenidos que se consi<strong>de</strong>raban ilícitos. La con<strong>de</strong>na se fundamentó en que <strong>de</strong>l<br />
título insultante <strong>de</strong>l nombre <strong>de</strong> dominio (“putasgae”) y <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s circunstancias concurrentes, en especial<br />
<strong>la</strong> realidad <strong>de</strong> un conflicto entre <strong>la</strong> proveedora <strong>de</strong> contenidos y <strong>la</strong> entidad <strong>de</strong> gestión <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>rechos <strong>de</strong><br />
propiedad intelectual <strong>de</strong>mandante, se <strong>de</strong>sprendía el tenor injurioso <strong>de</strong> los datos alojados.<br />
26 GRIMALT SERVERA, P. (2011). “La responsabilidad...”, cit., p. 190.
<strong>la</strong> tensión entre impunidad en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y limitación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión<br />
255<br />
hasta que <strong>la</strong> víctima u otra persona le comunique que está intermediando en <strong>la</strong> difusión<br />
<strong>de</strong> una información que vulnera los <strong>de</strong>rechos <strong>de</strong> alguna persona, pue<strong>de</strong>n darse situaciones<br />
como <strong>la</strong> enjuiciada por el Tribunal Supremo en que el carácter ilícito <strong>de</strong> aquel<strong>la</strong> sea tan<br />
evi<strong>de</strong>nte que pueda llevar a consi<strong>de</strong>rar probado el conocimiento <strong>de</strong> dicha ilicitud. Pero <strong>para</strong><br />
ello habrá que tener en cuenta <strong>la</strong>s circunstancias específicas <strong>de</strong>l prestador y <strong>de</strong> su actividad,<br />
hechos tales como el volumen <strong>de</strong> información ajena que maneja, si <strong>la</strong> actividad <strong>de</strong> intermediación<br />
que realiza es profesional o no o si tiene o no capacidad <strong>de</strong> medios y económica <strong>para</strong><br />
<strong>de</strong>tectar, con mayor o menor facilidad, <strong>la</strong> ilicitud <strong>de</strong> los datos.<br />
Por otra parte hay que tener en cuenta que, salvo que <strong>la</strong> vulneración <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>rechos sea<br />
patente, lo único que pue<strong>de</strong> consi<strong>de</strong>rarse probado es que el prestador tiene conocimiento<br />
<strong>de</strong> que el <strong>de</strong>stinatario consi<strong>de</strong>ra que <strong>la</strong> vulneración ha existido, pero no que objetivamente<br />
se haya producido <strong>la</strong> intromisión. Como ya se ha seña<strong>la</strong>do, hay muchos casos en que expresiones<br />
muy duras y críticas, incluso <strong>de</strong> muy mal gusto, se han entendido am<strong>para</strong>das por<br />
<strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión. ¿Hay que enten<strong>de</strong>r que por el mero hecho <strong>de</strong> que quien se siente<br />
ofendido se dirija al prestador éste <strong>de</strong>ba retirar <strong>la</strong> información aún cuando tenga o pueda tener<br />
serias dudas <strong>de</strong> que realmente sea ilícita? Es indudable que una afirmación semejante en<br />
este sentido constituiría un grave riesgo <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión. Es por esta razón que<br />
<strong>la</strong> Audiencia Provincial <strong>de</strong> Madrid, en <strong>la</strong> sentencia <strong>de</strong> 13 <strong>de</strong> abril <strong>de</strong> 2010, consi<strong>de</strong>ra que los<br />
supuestos en que el perjudicado se hubiera puesto en contacto con el prestador rec<strong>la</strong>mándole<br />
<strong>la</strong> retirada <strong>de</strong>l mensaje o dato que consi<strong>de</strong>re atentatorio a su <strong>de</strong>recho fundamental <strong>de</strong>ben<br />
incluirse <strong>de</strong>ntro <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> responsabilidad <strong>de</strong>l prestador <strong>de</strong> servicios siempre y cuando se trate<br />
<strong>de</strong> un quebranto <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho que sea indiscutible, c<strong>la</strong>ro y f<strong>la</strong>grante y que en otro caso no<br />
respon<strong>de</strong>ría aunque el remitente <strong>de</strong>l mensaje fuera o <strong>de</strong>biera ser con<strong>de</strong>nado por intromisión<br />
ilegítima en el <strong>de</strong>recho fundamental porque <strong>la</strong> ley no permite que se convierta al prestador<br />
<strong>de</strong>l servicio en Juez <strong>de</strong> los contenidos <strong>de</strong> su portal <strong>de</strong> Internet.<br />
5. consi<strong>de</strong>raciones finales<br />
En mi opinión, <strong>la</strong> a<strong>de</strong>cuada interpretación <strong>de</strong>l “conocimiento efectivo” <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> ilicitud<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información o <strong>de</strong> su carácter lesivo <strong>para</strong> bienes o <strong>de</strong>rechos <strong>de</strong> un tercero susceptibles<br />
<strong>de</strong> in<strong>de</strong>mnización a que se refieren los artículos 16 y 17 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> LSSICE es <strong>la</strong> realizada por el<br />
Tribunal Supremo, pues es <strong>la</strong> única que resulta acor<strong>de</strong> con <strong>la</strong> Directiva 2000/31/CE. El titu<strong>la</strong>r<br />
<strong>de</strong> los bienes o <strong>de</strong>rechos lesionados podrá probar por cualquier medio, incluso indiciario,<br />
el conocimiento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> ilicitud o <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> lesión. Acoger <strong>la</strong> interpretación estricta significaría<br />
que <strong>la</strong> responsabilidad <strong>de</strong>l intermediario prestador <strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>rá siempre <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> existencia <strong>de</strong><br />
un procedimiento y una resolución aún cuando esté incluso co<strong>la</strong>borando activamente en <strong>la</strong><br />
vulneración <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>rechos que, como en el caso <strong>de</strong>l honor, <strong>la</strong> intimidad o <strong>la</strong> imagen, tienen<br />
el carácter <strong>de</strong> fundamentales. A<strong>de</strong>más, <strong>la</strong> víctima se vería obligada a soportar <strong>la</strong> intromisión<br />
durante todo el tiempo que dure el procedimiento.<br />
Pero esta regu<strong>la</strong>ción genera un c<strong>la</strong>ro riesgo <strong>de</strong> restricción <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s liberta<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> expresión<br />
e información. Podría llevar a imponer a los intermediadores una obligación <strong>de</strong> control y va-
256 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
loración <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> licitud <strong>de</strong> los contenidos ajenos, aunque sea “a posteriori”, que necesariamente<br />
ha <strong>de</strong> p<strong>la</strong>ntearse en términos jurídicos, algo que los prestadores pue<strong>de</strong>n no estar en disposición<br />
<strong>de</strong> hacer. No habrá problema si el conocimiento efectivo se <strong>de</strong>riva <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> notificación <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> resolución <strong>de</strong>l órgano competente a que se refiere <strong>la</strong> Ley, pero fuera <strong>de</strong> este supuesto aparecen<br />
dudas. Aun en el caso <strong>de</strong> que el contenido <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información sea notoria y patentemente<br />
ilícito, <strong>la</strong> presunción que opera a favor <strong>de</strong>l prestador exige que <strong>la</strong> víctima pruebe igualmente<br />
el conocimiento <strong>de</strong> aquél, aún cuando sea por medios indiciarios, pero en muchas ocasiones<br />
va a ser difícil a<strong>de</strong>más valorar si una <strong>de</strong>terminada información o imagen vulnera alguno <strong>de</strong><br />
los <strong>de</strong>rechos protegidos en <strong>la</strong> Ley orgánica 1/1982.<br />
Tal y como están <strong>la</strong>s cosas es previsible que continúe <strong>la</strong> ten<strong>de</strong>ncia, ya <strong>de</strong>tectada, a<br />
<strong>de</strong>mandar siempre a los prestadores <strong>de</strong> servicios e incluso únicamente a ellos frente al proveedor<br />
<strong>de</strong> contenidos, incluso aunque pueda conocerse su i<strong>de</strong>ntidad. Y lo que pue<strong>de</strong> ocurrir<br />
es, o bien que preventivamente los intermediarios más cautos retiren contenidos que los tribunales<br />
hubiesen podido consi<strong>de</strong>rar lícitos, o bien que lo hagan ante cualquier rec<strong>la</strong>mación<br />
<strong>de</strong> una posible víctima, por poco fundada que sea.<br />
Para garantizar que <strong>la</strong> libre circu<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> los servicios <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información<br />
garantice realmente un espacio <strong>de</strong> libertad, los tribunales han <strong>de</strong> ser especialmente rigurosos<br />
a <strong>la</strong> hora <strong>de</strong> dar por probada <strong>la</strong> existencia <strong>de</strong>l conocimiento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> ilicitud, aún cuando pueda<br />
hacerse por medios indiciarios. Del mero conocimiento <strong>de</strong>l contenido <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información no<br />
<strong>de</strong>be inferirse directamente su contrariedad con el Derecho, salvo en casos muy patentes.<br />
A<strong>de</strong>más, en caso <strong>de</strong> que exista prueba <strong>de</strong>l conocimiento, el comportamiento diligente <strong>de</strong>l<br />
prestador <strong>para</strong> evitar <strong>la</strong> visibilidad <strong>de</strong> los datos, que también le eximiría <strong>de</strong> responsabilidad,<br />
no <strong>de</strong>be <strong>de</strong> requerirse con tanto rigor que suponga una carga excesivamente gravosa. Pero, en<br />
una a<strong>de</strong>cuada pon<strong>de</strong>ración <strong>de</strong> los intereses en juego, sobre todo cuando los <strong>de</strong>rechos eventualmente<br />
lesionados tengan el carácter <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>rechos fundamentales, tampoco <strong>de</strong>be exigírsele<br />
a <strong>la</strong> víctima <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> lesión otra actuación que <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> poner en conocimiento <strong>de</strong>l prestador con <strong>la</strong><br />
mayor precisión posible <strong>la</strong> existencia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> misma.<br />
6. bibliografÍa<br />
Clemente Meoro, M. (2003) “La responsabilidad civil <strong>de</strong> los prestadores <strong>de</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información”. En: Responsabilidad civil y contratos en Internet. Su regu<strong>la</strong>ción<br />
en <strong>la</strong> Ley <strong>de</strong> Servicios <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Información y <strong>de</strong> Comercio Electrónico.<br />
Granada: Comares, pp. 1-116.<br />
Cavanil<strong>la</strong>s Mújica, S. (2007) “La responsabilidad civil en Internet”. En: La responsabilidad<br />
civil y su problemática actual (coord. Juan Antonio Moreno Martínez). 1ª ed. Madrid:<br />
Diykinson, pp. 101-131.<br />
Grimalt Servera, P. (2011) “La responsabilidad civil <strong>de</strong> los prestadores <strong>de</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información”. En: El Derecho a <strong>la</strong> imagen <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> todos los Puntos <strong>de</strong> Vista<br />
(Ve<strong>red</strong>a y Beamonte, coord.). Madrid: Thomson Reuters, pp 167-197.
<strong>la</strong> tensión entre impunidad en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y limitación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión<br />
257<br />
López <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Peña Saldías, J.F. (2010) “Libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión e Internet. Responsabilidad<br />
<strong>de</strong> los prestadores <strong>de</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información. El caso putasgae” (west<strong>la</strong>w,<br />
BIB 2010, 593). Fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta: 19 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011.<br />
Peguera Poch, M. (2007) “Solo sé que no sé nada (efectivamente): <strong>la</strong> apreciación <strong>de</strong>l conocimiento<br />
efectivo y <strong>otros</strong> problemas en <strong>la</strong> aplicación judicial <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> LSI”, IDP Revista<br />
d’Internet, Dret i Política núm. 5, pp. 2-18 (http: www.uoc.edu/idp/5/dt/esp/peguera.<br />
pdf). Consulta: 19 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011.<br />
Rodríguez <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s Heras, T. (2001) “Intermediación en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y responsabilidad civil. Sobre<br />
<strong>la</strong> aplicación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s reg<strong>la</strong>s generales <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> responsabilidad a <strong>la</strong>s activida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> intermediación<br />
en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>” en I Congreso sobre <strong>la</strong>s Nuevas Tecnologías y sus repercusiones en el<br />
seguro: Internet, Biotecnología y Nanotecnología, Madrid: Fundación Mapfre, Madrid,<br />
pp. 13-51.<br />
Rubí Puig, A. (2010) “Derecho al honor online y responsabilidad civil <strong>de</strong> ISPs”, Indret<br />
(www.indret.com).
14<br />
el esPACIO De lIBertAD, segUrIDAD y JUstICIA<br />
y lA CIBerCrImINAlIDAD eN lA UNIóN eUrOPeA<br />
Alicia Chicharro<br />
Profesora asociada doctora <strong>de</strong> Derecho Internacional Público <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
Universidad Pública <strong>de</strong> Navarra<br />
AbstrAct: Actualmente asistimos a una revolución <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información, que aboca a importantes<br />
cambios en términos políticos, sociales, culturales, económicos, militares y <strong>de</strong> re<strong>la</strong>ciones interestatales.<br />
La rápida expansión <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s tecnologías <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información y <strong>la</strong> comunicación (TIC), particu<strong>la</strong>rmente<br />
a través <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>sarrollo vertiginoso <strong>de</strong> Internet, contribuye al fenómeno <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> globalización y rompe<br />
con <strong>la</strong>s tradicionales fronteras espacio-temporales. En este nuevo escenario, también <strong>la</strong> criminalidad<br />
se beneficia <strong>de</strong>l progreso im<strong>para</strong>ble <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> informática, lo que provoca <strong>la</strong> aparición <strong>de</strong> nuevos tipos<br />
<strong>de</strong>lictivos, a <strong>la</strong> vez que <strong>la</strong> facilidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones <strong>de</strong>senca<strong>de</strong>na una especie <strong>de</strong> “mundialización<br />
<strong>de</strong> los peligros”.<br />
El cibercrimen representa, por el momento, uno <strong>de</strong> los estados más sofisticados <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> conducta antijurídica,<br />
aunque no existe gran diferencia entre los comportamientos punibles tradicionales y los que se<br />
cometen utilizando medios informáticos. Eso sí, el or<strong>de</strong>nador se convierte en el instrumento <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>lito,<br />
no por sí sólo, sino por su conexión a una <strong>red</strong>, que generalmente es Internet. Esta <strong>red</strong> <strong>de</strong> re<strong>de</strong>s no conoce<br />
<strong>de</strong> fronteras, por lo que surgen numerosos problemas re<strong>la</strong>cionados con <strong>la</strong> tipificación <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>lito, <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>terminación<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> ley aplicable y <strong>la</strong> jurisdicción competente <strong>para</strong> juzgar <strong>la</strong>s conductas <strong>de</strong>lictivas.<br />
En el marco <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> UE, el Tratado <strong>de</strong> Lisboa ha dispuesto <strong>la</strong> consecución <strong>de</strong> un espacio <strong>de</strong> libertad, seguridad<br />
y justicia. En un campo en el que tradicionalmente los Estados se han mostrado muy celosos<br />
<strong>de</strong> su soberanía, <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>saparición <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s fronteras interiores y esa globalización <strong>de</strong> los peligros a <strong>la</strong> que<br />
nos hemos referido, han obligado a articu<strong>la</strong>r mecanismos a nivel <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión <strong>para</strong> facilitar, intensificar<br />
y mejorar <strong>la</strong> cooperación judicial y policial en materia penal entre los diferentes Estados miembros. Se<br />
trataría <strong>de</strong> combatir infracciones penales especialmente graves y <strong>de</strong> dimensión transfronteriza, como <strong>la</strong><br />
trata <strong>de</strong> seres humanos, <strong>la</strong> explotación sexual <strong>de</strong> mujeres y niños, el tráfico <strong>de</strong> drogas, el tráfico ilícito<br />
<strong>de</strong> armas, el b<strong>la</strong>nqueo <strong>de</strong> capitales, <strong>la</strong> corrupción, <strong>la</strong> falsificación <strong>de</strong> medios <strong>de</strong> pago, <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>lincuencia<br />
organizada, <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>lincuencia informática y el terrorismo.<br />
Con el fin <strong>de</strong> favorecer esa cooperación, <strong>la</strong> UE prevé un <strong>de</strong>sarrollo progresivo <strong>de</strong> instrumentos europeos,<br />
cuyo objetivo se centre en <strong>la</strong> eliminación <strong>de</strong> los obstáculos que crean <strong>la</strong>s disparida<strong>de</strong>s entre<br />
los sistemas judiciales nacionales y <strong>la</strong> promoción <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> necesaria aproximación <strong>de</strong>l Derecho penal<br />
sustantivo.<br />
1. introducción<br />
En <strong>la</strong> actualidad asistimos a una revolución <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información, que aboca a importantes<br />
cambios en términos políticos, sociales, culturales, económicos, militares y <strong>de</strong> re<strong>la</strong>ciones<br />
interestatales. La rápida expansión <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s tecnologías <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información y <strong>la</strong> comunicación<br />
(TIC), particu<strong>la</strong>rmente a través <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>sarrollo vertiginoso <strong>de</strong> Internet, contribuye al fenómeno<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> globalización y rompe con <strong>la</strong>s tradicionales fronteras espacio-temporales. En este<br />
nuevo escenario, también <strong>la</strong> criminalidad se beneficia <strong>de</strong>l progreso im<strong>para</strong>ble <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> informá-
260 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
tica, lo que provoca <strong>la</strong> aparición <strong>de</strong> nuevos tipos <strong>de</strong>lictivos, a <strong>la</strong> vez que <strong>la</strong> facilidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s<br />
comunicaciones <strong>de</strong>senca<strong>de</strong>na una especie <strong>de</strong> “mundialización <strong>de</strong> los peligros”.<br />
El cibercrimen representa, por el momento, uno <strong>de</strong> los estados más sofisticados <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
conducta antijurídica, aunque no existe gran diferencia entre los comportamientos punibles<br />
tradicionales y los que se cometen utilizando medios informáticos. Eso sí, el or<strong>de</strong>nador se<br />
convierte en el instrumento <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>lito, no por sí sólo, sino por su conexión a una <strong>red</strong>, que<br />
generalmente es Internet. Esta <strong>red</strong> <strong>de</strong> re<strong>de</strong>s no conoce <strong>de</strong> fronteras, por lo que surgen numerosos<br />
problemas re<strong>la</strong>cionados con <strong>la</strong> tipificación <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>lito, <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>terminación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> ley<br />
aplicable y <strong>la</strong> jurisdicción competente <strong>para</strong> juzgar <strong>la</strong>s conductas <strong>de</strong>lictivas.<br />
En el marco <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión Europea (UE), el Tratado <strong>de</strong> Lisboa ha dispuesto <strong>la</strong> consecución<br />
<strong>de</strong> un espacio <strong>de</strong> libertad, seguridad y justicia. En un campo en el que tradicionalmente<br />
los Estados se han mostrado muy celosos <strong>de</strong> su soberanía, <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>saparición <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s fronteras<br />
interiores y esa globalización <strong>de</strong> los peligros a <strong>la</strong> que nos hemos referido, han obligado a<br />
articu<strong>la</strong>r mecanismos a nivel <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión <strong>para</strong> facilitar, intensificar y mejorar <strong>la</strong> cooperación<br />
judicial y policial en materia penal entre los diferentes Estados miembros, a <strong>la</strong> vez que se<br />
liman <strong>la</strong>s diferencias entre <strong>la</strong>s legis<strong>la</strong>ciones internas con el fin <strong>de</strong> sobrepasar los obstáculos<br />
en re<strong>la</strong>ción con <strong>la</strong> tipificación <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>lito, <strong>la</strong> obtención <strong>de</strong> pruebas, <strong>la</strong> coordinación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s investigaciones,<br />
<strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>terminación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> ley aplicable y <strong>la</strong> jurisdicción competente y, por último,<br />
el reconocimiento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s sentencias. A través <strong>de</strong> dicha coordinación se tratará <strong>de</strong> combatir<br />
infracciones penales especialmente graves y <strong>de</strong> dimensión transfronteriza, como <strong>la</strong> trata <strong>de</strong><br />
seres humanos, <strong>la</strong> explotación sexual <strong>de</strong> mujeres y niños, el tráfico <strong>de</strong> drogas, el tráfico ilícito<br />
<strong>de</strong> armas, el b<strong>la</strong>nqueo <strong>de</strong> capitales, <strong>la</strong> corrupción, <strong>la</strong> falsificación <strong>de</strong> medios <strong>de</strong> pago, <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>lincuencia<br />
organizada, <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>lincuencia informática y el terrorismo.<br />
Con el fin <strong>de</strong> favorecer esa cooperación, <strong>la</strong> UE prevé un <strong>de</strong>sarrollo progresivo <strong>de</strong> instrumentos<br />
europeos, cuyo objetivo se centre en <strong>la</strong> eliminación <strong>de</strong> los obstáculos que crean <strong>la</strong>s<br />
disparida<strong>de</strong>s entre los sistemas judiciales nacionales y <strong>la</strong> promoción <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> necesaria aproximación<br />
<strong>de</strong>l Derecho penal sustantivo 1 .<br />
2. el esPacio <strong>de</strong> libertad, seguridad y justicia en el tratado <strong>de</strong><br />
lisboa<br />
2.1. <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> estructura <strong>de</strong> pi<strong>la</strong>res al espacio común <strong>de</strong> libertad, seguridad y justicia<br />
El Tratado <strong>de</strong> Maastricht reguló <strong>la</strong> cooperación en los ámbitos <strong>de</strong> justicia y asuntos <strong>de</strong><br />
interior fuera <strong>de</strong>l entramado comunitario y a salvo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> aplicación <strong>de</strong> los procedimientos<br />
1 Des<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> presentación <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>nominado Informe Sieber, que recogía <strong>la</strong> normativa penal <strong>de</strong> diversos<br />
países, proponiendo reformas y recomendando un mínimo <strong>de</strong> ilícitos que <strong>de</strong>bieran ser tipificados en<br />
<strong>la</strong>s legis<strong>la</strong>ciones internas, se ha venido discutiendo sobre <strong>la</strong> proce<strong>de</strong>ncia <strong>de</strong> promulgar una normativa<br />
comunitaria en este ámbito; SIEBER, U., Legal Aspects of Computer-Re<strong>la</strong>ted Crime in the Information<br />
Society –COMCRIME- Study, 1 June 1998, 240 p.
el espacio <strong>de</strong> libertad, seguridad y justicia y <strong>la</strong> cibercriminalidad en <strong>la</strong> Unión europea<br />
261<br />
<strong>de</strong> toma <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>cisiones previstos <strong>para</strong> el mismo. Constituía uno <strong>de</strong> los pi<strong>la</strong>res <strong>de</strong>nominados<br />
“intergubernamentales”, junto a <strong>la</strong> política exterior y <strong>de</strong> seguridad común (PESC). Estos dos<br />
pi<strong>la</strong>res intergubernamentales se sumaban al pi<strong>la</strong>r principal que era el comunitario, formado<br />
por <strong>la</strong>s entonces tres Comunida<strong>de</strong>s Europeas, lo que le daba a <strong>la</strong> Unión Europea una estructura<br />
que ha venido siendo representada como un templo griego. El Tratado <strong>de</strong> Ámsterdam<br />
comunitarizó parte <strong>de</strong>l contenido <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> cooperación en los ámbitos <strong>de</strong> justicia y asuntos <strong>de</strong><br />
interior. Concretamente <strong>la</strong>s materias re<strong>la</strong>cionadas con <strong>la</strong> libre circu<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> personas, el<br />
asilo y <strong>la</strong> inmigración pasaron a ser una política comunitaria más, mientras el tercer pi<strong>la</strong>r se<br />
<strong>de</strong>dicaba a <strong>la</strong> cooperación policial y judicial en materia penal. Sin embargo, el Tratado <strong>de</strong><br />
Lisboa ha incluido el ámbito <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> cooperación policial y judicial en materia penal <strong>de</strong>ntro <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> creación <strong>de</strong> un espacio común <strong>de</strong> libertad, seguridad y justicia, por lo que <strong>de</strong>ja <strong>de</strong> constituir<br />
un pi<strong>la</strong>r se<strong>para</strong>do al resto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s políticas <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión.<br />
Esta evolución <strong>institucional</strong> se <strong>de</strong>be a <strong>la</strong> notoria ineficacia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s previsiones <strong>de</strong>l tercer<br />
pi<strong>la</strong>r <strong>para</strong> respon<strong>de</strong>r a los <strong>de</strong>safíos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> UE en <strong>la</strong> materia. El sistema <strong>de</strong> toma <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>cisiones<br />
por unanimidad dificultaba mucho los avances: prueba <strong>de</strong> ello es que los objetivos establecidos<br />
en el Consejo Europeo <strong>de</strong> Tampere en 1999 se estaban cumpliendo a un ritmo muy<br />
lento 2 . Por ello, <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> un primer momento se tuvo muy presente que <strong>la</strong>s disposiciones sobre<br />
justicia y asuntos <strong>de</strong> interior <strong>de</strong>bían ser sometidas a una profunda revisión 3 . Como ponen <strong>de</strong><br />
relieve los profesores Al<strong>de</strong>coa y Guinea, estaba c<strong>la</strong>ro <strong>para</strong> todos que era esencial que hubiera<br />
“más Europa” en los asuntos <strong>de</strong> justicia e interior 4 .<br />
El artículo 3.2 <strong>de</strong>l Tratado <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión Europea (TUE) <strong>de</strong>c<strong>la</strong>ra que “<strong>la</strong> Unión ofrecerá<br />
a sus ciudadanos un espacio <strong>de</strong> libertad, seguridad y justicia sin fronteras interiores, en el que<br />
esté garantizada <strong>la</strong> libre circu<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> personas conjuntamente con medidas a<strong>de</strong>cuadas en<br />
materia <strong>de</strong> control <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s fronteras exteriores, asilo, inmigración y prevención y lucha contra<br />
<strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>lincuencia”.<br />
Tras esta solemne <strong>de</strong>c<strong>la</strong>ración el Tratado <strong>de</strong> Funcionamiento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión (TFUE) le<br />
<strong>de</strong>dica los artículos 67 a 89, que integran el Título V <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Parte Tercera. Des<strong>de</strong> el primer<br />
2 Des<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> celebración <strong>de</strong>l Consejo Europeo <strong>de</strong> Tampere, cada semestre se presentaba una Comunicación<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comisión al Consejo y al Par<strong>la</strong>mento Europeo titu<strong>la</strong>da “Marcador <strong>para</strong> supervisar el progreso<br />
en <strong>la</strong> creación <strong>de</strong> un espacio <strong>de</strong> libertad, seguridad y justicia en <strong>la</strong> Unión Europea”. El ba<strong>la</strong>nce<br />
<strong>de</strong>l Programa <strong>de</strong> Tampere lo po<strong>de</strong>mos encontrar en <strong>la</strong> Comunicación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comisión al Consejo y al<br />
Par<strong>la</strong>mento Europeo, Espacio <strong>de</strong> Libertad, Seguridad y Justicia: ba<strong>la</strong>nce <strong>de</strong>l programa <strong>de</strong> Tampere y<br />
futuras orientaciones, CoM (2004) 401 final, 2.6.2004.<br />
3 Véase Convención Europea, Informe Final <strong>de</strong>l Grupo X “Libertad, seguridad y justicia”, 2 <strong>de</strong> diciembre<br />
<strong>de</strong> 2002 (CoNV 426/02). La posterior Conferencia Intergubernamental revisó algunos<br />
elementos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> pretenciosa reforma <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Convención, limitando algunos aspectos; por ejemplo, <strong>la</strong>s<br />
competencias <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Fiscalía Europea. También creó el “freno <strong>de</strong> emergencia” en manos <strong>de</strong> los Estados<br />
miembros, con el que se acalló a los que pensaban que se había llegado <strong>de</strong>masiado lejos en esta materia<br />
(véase nota 5).<br />
4 ALDECoA LUZARRAGA, F. / GUINEA LLoRENTE, M., La Europa que viene: El Tratado <strong>de</strong><br />
Lisboa, Madrid: Marcial Pons, 2010, p. 200.
262 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
momento, el texto nos recuerda que el referido espacio <strong>de</strong> libertad, seguridad y justicia se<br />
enmarca <strong>de</strong>ntro <strong>de</strong>l respeto <strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>rechos fundamentales y <strong>de</strong> los distintos sistemas y tradiciones<br />
jurídicos <strong>de</strong> los Estados miembros 5 . Sin duda, esta última referencia se justifica por<br />
<strong>la</strong>s numerosas diferencias entre los or<strong>de</strong>namientos <strong>de</strong> los Estados miembros, sobre todo en<br />
cuestiones penales.<br />
Los capítulos 4 y 5 se ocupan <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> cooperación judicial en materia penal y <strong>la</strong> cooperación<br />
policial, respectivamente. Aquí po<strong>de</strong>mos constatar un avance importante respecto a <strong>la</strong>s<br />
previsiones anteriores, pues se trata <strong>de</strong> los dos ámbitos que, conformando el tercer pi<strong>la</strong>r, implicaban<br />
un procedimiento <strong>de</strong> toma <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>cisiones por unanimidad, distintos instrumentos<br />
jurídicos y escaso control judicial. Frente a ello, <strong>la</strong> reforma <strong>de</strong> Lisboa los intenta ensamb<strong>la</strong>r<br />
al máximo en el puzzle comunitario, aunque que<strong>de</strong>n por limar algunas aristas <strong>para</strong> que <strong>la</strong>s<br />
piezas encajen perfectamente.<br />
En primer lugar, a partir <strong>de</strong> ahora el procedimiento legis<strong>la</strong>tivo ordinario va a ser el <strong>de</strong><br />
co<strong>de</strong>cisión (artículo 294 TFUE), que pasa a l<strong>la</strong>marse <strong>de</strong> manera muy significativa procedimiento<br />
ordinario y que se aplicará también, salvo excepciones previstas en el propio Tratado,<br />
al espacio <strong>de</strong> libertad, seguridad y justicia. La utilización <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> co<strong>de</strong>cisión como procedimiento<br />
ordinario <strong>de</strong> toma <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>cisiones implica un mayor protagonismo <strong>de</strong>l Par<strong>la</strong>mento<br />
Europeo, equi<strong>para</strong>ble al <strong>de</strong>l Consejo, a <strong>la</strong> vez que los Par<strong>la</strong>mentos nacionales van a ver<br />
incrementados sus po<strong>de</strong>res <strong>para</strong> evaluar los mecanismos <strong>de</strong> implementación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s políticas<br />
re<strong>la</strong>tivas al espacio <strong>de</strong> libertad, seguridad y justicia 6 .<br />
En segundo lugar, otra novedad <strong>de</strong>stacable y <strong>de</strong>rivada <strong>de</strong>l cambio <strong>de</strong> sistema <strong>de</strong> toma<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>cisiones es <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>saparición <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> nomenc<strong>la</strong>tura <strong>de</strong> los instrumentos utilizados hasta<br />
ahora en re<strong>la</strong>ción con el tercer pi<strong>la</strong>r. Decisiones marco, <strong>de</strong>cisiones, posiciones comunes, acciones<br />
comunes 7 y convenciones <strong>de</strong>saparecen a favor <strong>de</strong> los tradicionales actos comunitarios:<br />
reg<strong>la</strong>mentos, directivas y <strong>de</strong>cisiones. Con ello se logra una mayor seguridad a <strong>la</strong> hora <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>-<br />
5 Ese respeto queda luego garantizado en <strong>la</strong>s previsiones <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>nominado “freno <strong>de</strong> emergencia” en<br />
<strong>la</strong> cooperación judicial en materia penal que permiten a un Estado miembro que consi<strong>de</strong>re que un<br />
proyecto <strong>de</strong> acto comunitario afecta a aspectos fundamentales <strong>de</strong> su sistema <strong>de</strong> justicia penal, solicitar<br />
que el asunto se remita al Consejo Europeo, en cuyo caso quedará suspendido el procedimiento legis<strong>la</strong>tivo<br />
ordinario. Previa <strong>de</strong>liberación, y en caso <strong>de</strong> que se alcance un consenso, el Consejo Europeo, en<br />
el p<strong>la</strong>zo <strong>de</strong> cuatro meses a partir <strong>de</strong> dicha suspensión, <strong>de</strong>volverá el proyecto al Consejo, poniendo fin<br />
con ello a <strong>la</strong> suspensión <strong>de</strong>l procedimiento legis<strong>la</strong>tivo ordinario. Si no se alcanza dicho consenso, sólo<br />
queda <strong>la</strong> posibilidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>sarrol<strong>la</strong>r una cooperación reforzada entre los Estados que quieran. otra<br />
previsión c<strong>la</strong>ramente en pro <strong>de</strong> dicho respeto es <strong>la</strong> que hace referencia a <strong>la</strong> verificación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> aplicación<br />
<strong>de</strong>l principio <strong>de</strong> subsidiariedad por parte <strong>de</strong> los par<strong>la</strong>mentos nacionales respecto a <strong>la</strong>s propuestas e<br />
iniciativas legis<strong>la</strong>tivas en el marco <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> cooperación judicial penal y <strong>la</strong> cooperación policial. En realidad<br />
ese control se prevé en el artículo 5 TUE que también seña<strong>la</strong> al procedimiento establecido en el<br />
Protocolo sobre <strong>la</strong> aplicación <strong>de</strong> los principios <strong>de</strong> subsidiariedad y proporcionalidad, que conocemos<br />
como mecanismo <strong>de</strong> “alerta temprana” (artículo 6 <strong>de</strong>l Protocolo nº 2).<br />
6 Artículo 12 TUE.<br />
7 Nos referimos a <strong>la</strong>s acciones comunes que pudieran pervivir <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> época anterior al Tratado <strong>de</strong> Ámsterdam.
el espacio <strong>de</strong> libertad, seguridad y justicia y <strong>la</strong> cibercriminalidad en <strong>la</strong> Unión europea<br />
terminar los efectos jurídicos <strong>de</strong> los mismos, ayudando a promover una mayor transparencia<br />
y comprensión <strong>de</strong>l proceso legis<strong>la</strong>tivo europeo 8 .<br />
263<br />
Por último, <strong>la</strong> reforma operada por el Tratado <strong>de</strong> Lisboa supone que el Tribunal <strong>de</strong><br />
Justicia va a tener jurisdicción general <strong>para</strong> interpretar y revisar <strong>la</strong> vali<strong>de</strong>z <strong>de</strong> los actos adoptados<br />
en el marco <strong>de</strong>l espacio <strong>de</strong> libertad, seguridad y justicia, con lo cual el control judicial<br />
está garantizado 9 . Ahora bien, según el artículo 276 TFUE <strong>la</strong> excepción se mantiene <strong>para</strong><br />
comprobar <strong>la</strong> vali<strong>de</strong>z o proporcionalidad <strong>de</strong> operaciones efectuadas por <strong>la</strong> policía u <strong>otros</strong><br />
servicios con funciones coercitivas <strong>de</strong> un Estado miembro y en re<strong>la</strong>ción con el ejercicio <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong>s responsabilida<strong>de</strong>s que incumben a los Estados respecto al mantenimiento <strong>de</strong>l or<strong>de</strong>n público<br />
y <strong>la</strong> salvaguardia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> seguridad interior 10 . Estas responsabilida<strong>de</strong>s se <strong>de</strong>jan a salvo <strong>de</strong><br />
lo regu<strong>la</strong>do a nivel comunitario en el nuevo artículo 72 TFUE 11 .<br />
Des<strong>de</strong> el punto <strong>de</strong> vista formal, el Tratado <strong>de</strong> Lisboa hace <strong>de</strong>saparecer <strong>la</strong> se<strong>para</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> regímenes<br />
que constituía <strong>la</strong> arquitectura en pi<strong>la</strong>res. No obstante, <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> el punto <strong>de</strong> vista sustantivo, el<br />
espacio <strong>de</strong> libertad, seguridad y justicia goza <strong>de</strong> una serie <strong>de</strong> mecanismos <strong>de</strong> flexibilidad, que permiten<br />
un número consi<strong>de</strong>rable <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>rogaciones a <strong>la</strong>s reg<strong>la</strong>s comunitarias generales. Esto conlleva<br />
un riesgo importante <strong>de</strong> excepcionalismo y diferenciación que pue<strong>de</strong> tener implicaciones serias<br />
en <strong>la</strong> construcción <strong>de</strong> ese “espacio común” y <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> cohesión interna <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> propia UE 12 .<br />
Por estas razones cabría preguntarse si el Tratado <strong>de</strong> Lisboa verda<strong>de</strong>ramente “<strong>de</strong>sintergubernamentaliza”<br />
todas <strong>la</strong>s políticas que caen <strong>de</strong>ntro <strong>de</strong>l espacio <strong>de</strong> libertad, seguridad y<br />
8 Eso sí, conforme al artículo 9 <strong>de</strong>l Protocolo nº 10 re<strong>la</strong>tivo a <strong>la</strong>s disposiciones transitorias, los efectos<br />
jurídicos <strong>de</strong> los actos comunitarios adoptados en virtud <strong>de</strong>l TUE antes <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> entrada en vigor <strong>de</strong>l<br />
Tratado <strong>de</strong> Lisboa se mantendrán en tanto no hayan sido <strong>de</strong>rogados, anu<strong>la</strong>dos o modificados.<br />
9 Hasta ahora no gozaba per se <strong>de</strong> competencia ni <strong>para</strong> revisar ni <strong>para</strong> interpretar <strong>la</strong>s medidas adoptadas<br />
en el seno <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> cooperación policial y judicial en materia penal. El antiguo artículo 35 TUE, los Estados<br />
miembros <strong>de</strong>bían aceptar <strong>la</strong> jurisdicción <strong>de</strong>l Tribunal en este ámbito mediante una <strong>de</strong>c<strong>la</strong>ración<br />
voluntaria ad hoc. El Tratado <strong>de</strong> Ámsterdam había dotado al Tribunal <strong>de</strong> competencia contenciosa<br />
<strong>para</strong> revisar <strong>la</strong> legalidad <strong>de</strong> los actos adoptados en el pi<strong>la</strong>r <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> cooperación judicial y policial en<br />
materia penal, aún cuando los individuos no podían interponer recurso ni <strong>la</strong> Comisión <strong>de</strong>nunciar <strong>la</strong>s<br />
infracciones <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s disposiciones correspondientes por parte <strong>de</strong> los Estados miembros.<br />
10 Véase HATZoPoULoS, V., “Casual but smart: the Court’s new clothes in the Area of Freedom,<br />
Security and Justice (AFSJ) after the Lisbon Treaty”, Research Papers in Law, 2 (2008), avai<strong>la</strong>ble at<br />
www.coleurop.be<br />
11 Esta extensión <strong>de</strong>l control jurisdiccional por parte <strong>de</strong>l TJUE es objeto <strong>de</strong> ap<strong>la</strong>zamiento durante un<br />
periodo <strong>de</strong> 5 años en re<strong>la</strong>ción con los actos <strong>de</strong> cooperación judicial penal y policial existentes en el<br />
momento <strong>de</strong> entrada en vigor <strong>de</strong>l Tratado <strong>de</strong> Lisboa, en tanto en cuanto no tenga lugar su <strong>de</strong>rogación,<br />
anu<strong>la</strong>ción o modificación conforme al artículo 10.3 <strong>de</strong>l Protocolo nº 36 sobre <strong>la</strong>s disposiciones<br />
transitorias. Por tanto, <strong>la</strong> generalización <strong>de</strong>l control jurisdiccional <strong>para</strong> el conjunto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s normas que<br />
conforman el espacio <strong>de</strong> libertad, seguridad y justicia no tendrá lugar hasta el 1 <strong>de</strong> diciembre <strong>de</strong> 2014.<br />
Véase DE WITTE, F., “The European Judiciary after Lisbon”, Maastricht Journal of European and<br />
Com<strong>para</strong>tive Law, 1 (2008), p. 39.<br />
12 Par<strong>la</strong>mento Europeo, Resolución <strong>de</strong> 11 <strong>de</strong> julio <strong>de</strong> 2007 sobre <strong>la</strong> conveniencia <strong>de</strong> una Conferencia<br />
Intergubernamental (Artículo 48 TUE), 11222/2007 – C6-0206/2007 – 2007/0808 (CNS), <strong>para</strong>. 4.
264 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
justicia. A su vez parece que este área se <strong>de</strong>smenuza en diferentes piezas que son asumidas<br />
con distintos grados por los Estados miembros, creándose espacios <strong>de</strong> cooperación reforzada<br />
<strong>de</strong> hecho sin haber utilizado el mecanismo previsto en los Tratados <strong>para</strong> ello.<br />
In<strong>de</strong>pendientemente <strong>de</strong> estos aspectos cuestionables <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> el punto <strong>de</strong> vista <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
integración, <strong>la</strong> creación <strong>de</strong>l espacio <strong>de</strong> libertad, seguridad y justicia supone un paso muy<br />
positivo no sólo <strong>para</strong> los Estados miembros, sino también <strong>para</strong> nos<strong>otros</strong>, los ciudadanos<br />
europeos.<br />
En dicho espacio común, <strong>la</strong> libertad se garantiza mediante <strong>la</strong> ausencia <strong>de</strong> controles en<br />
<strong>la</strong>s fronteras interiores, una política común <strong>de</strong> asilo, inmigración y control <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s fronteras<br />
exteriores. El objetivo <strong>de</strong> alcanzar un alto grado <strong>de</strong> seguridad requiere <strong>la</strong> prevención y lucha<br />
contra <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>lincuencia, el racismo y <strong>la</strong> xenofobia a través <strong>de</strong> medidas <strong>de</strong> coordinación<br />
y cooperación entre autorida<strong>de</strong>s policiales y judiciales y otras autorida<strong>de</strong>s competentes, así<br />
como mediante el reconocimiento mutuo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s resoluciones judiciales en materia penal y,<br />
si es necesario, mediante <strong>la</strong> aproximación <strong>de</strong> legis<strong>la</strong>ciones penales. Esto último en<strong>la</strong>za con el<br />
tercer componente <strong>de</strong>l espacio que es <strong>la</strong> justicia, encarnada en <strong>la</strong> tute<strong>la</strong> judicial que conlleva<br />
también el reconocimiento mutuo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s resoluciones judiciales. La complementariedad <strong>de</strong><br />
los tres factores no pasa <strong>de</strong>sapercibida: <strong>la</strong> libertad sólo pue<strong>de</strong> disfrutarse plenamente en un<br />
entorno <strong>de</strong> seguridad, pero <strong>la</strong> seguridad únicamente se pue<strong>de</strong> garantizar mediante un sistema<br />
<strong>de</strong> justicia eficaz.<br />
2.2. modificaciones sustanciales <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> cooperación judicial en materia penal<br />
Los artículos 82 a 86 TFUE conforman el capítulo re<strong>la</strong>tivo a <strong>la</strong> cooperación judicial<br />
en materia penal y suponen una <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s noveda<strong>de</strong>s más importantes <strong>de</strong>l Tratado <strong>de</strong> Lisboa, al<br />
transformar en política europea un área tradicionalmente <strong>de</strong> competencia exclusiva <strong>de</strong> los<br />
Estados.<br />
El reconocimiento mutuo <strong>de</strong> resoluciones judiciales es un principio rector <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> cooperación<br />
judicial <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> sus primeros tímidos pasos a partir <strong>de</strong>l Consejo <strong>de</strong> Tampere (1999),<br />
pasando por su reafirmación en el Programa <strong>de</strong> La Haya (2005) 13 , hasta su actual comunitarización<br />
en el Tratado <strong>de</strong> Lisboa (2009). El futuro pasa por <strong>la</strong> puesta en marcha <strong>de</strong>l l<strong>la</strong>mado<br />
13 El Programa <strong>de</strong> La Haya fue aprobado en el Consejo Europeo <strong>de</strong> 4-5 <strong>de</strong> noviembre <strong>de</strong> 2004 y perseguía<br />
<strong>la</strong> consolidación <strong>de</strong>finitiva <strong>de</strong>l espacio <strong>de</strong> libertad, seguridad y justicia en <strong>la</strong> UE. Su objetivo era<br />
<strong>la</strong> mejora <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> capacidad común <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión y <strong>de</strong> sus Estados miembros <strong>de</strong> garantizar los <strong>de</strong>rechos<br />
fundamentales, <strong>la</strong>s salvaguardias procesales mínimas y el acceso a <strong>la</strong> justicia, proporcionar a quienes <strong>la</strong><br />
necesitasen <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> acuerdo con <strong>la</strong> Convención <strong>de</strong> Ginebra sobre el estatuto <strong>de</strong> los refugiados<br />
y <strong>otros</strong> tratados internacionales, regu<strong>la</strong>r los flujos <strong>de</strong> migración y contro<strong>la</strong>r <strong>la</strong>s fronteras exteriores <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> Unión, luchar contra <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>lincuencia organizada transfronteriza y reprimir <strong>la</strong> amenaza <strong>de</strong>l terrorismo,<br />
explotar el potencial <strong>de</strong> Europol y Eurojust, proseguir con el establecimiento <strong>de</strong>l reconocimiento<br />
mutuo <strong>de</strong> resoluciones judiciales y certificados tanto en materia civil como penal y eliminar obstáculos<br />
legales y judiciales en los litigios en asuntos civiles y familiares con repercusiones transfronterizas.<br />
Consejo Europeo, Programa <strong>de</strong> La Haya: consolidación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> libertad, <strong>la</strong> seguridad y <strong>la</strong> justicia en <strong>la</strong><br />
Unión Europea, Do C 53, 3.3.2005, p. 1.
el espacio <strong>de</strong> libertad, seguridad y justicia y <strong>la</strong> cibercriminalidad en <strong>la</strong> Unión europea<br />
265<br />
Programa <strong>de</strong> Estocolmo (2009) 14 , aprobado en el Consejo Europeo <strong>de</strong> 9 y 10 <strong>de</strong> diciembre<br />
<strong>de</strong> 2009.<br />
La <strong>institucional</strong>ización <strong>de</strong>l reconocimiento mutuo <strong>de</strong> sentencias y otras resoluciones<br />
judiciales como norma general <strong>de</strong> funcionamiento tiene especial relevancia, ya que sienta<br />
<strong>la</strong>s bases <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> creación <strong>de</strong> un espacio jurídico común. En <strong>de</strong>finitiva, el espacio <strong>de</strong> libertad,<br />
seguridad y justicia es un ámbito don<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s sentencias y resoluciones judiciales en materia<br />
penal dictadas en un Estado miembro tienen vali<strong>de</strong>z y reconocimiento en todo el territorio<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> UE 15 , obligando al Estado miembro don<strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>ba cumplirse esa sentencia dictada en<br />
otro Estado miembro, a limitarse a reconocer<strong>la</strong> y ejecutar<strong>la</strong>. Pero a<strong>de</strong>más habrán <strong>de</strong> tenerse<br />
en cuenta los pronunciamientos con<strong>de</strong>natorios contra una persona <strong>de</strong>terminada, en cuanto<br />
suponen un antece<strong>de</strong>nte y, al mismo tiempo, <strong>la</strong> presentación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> sentencia absolutoria<br />
sobre un concreto hecho ya juzgado en otro Estado impedirá un nuevo enjuiciamiento <strong>de</strong>l<br />
mismo 16 .<br />
Como argumenta García Moreno, el principio <strong>de</strong> reconocimiento mutuo sólo se sostiene<br />
a partir <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> confianza recíproca <strong>de</strong> los sistemas jurídicos implicados y esa confianza sólo<br />
se logra a través <strong>de</strong> una <strong>la</strong>bor previa <strong>de</strong> armonización normativa 17 .<br />
Así, con el fin <strong>de</strong> que este reconocimiento <strong>de</strong> sentencias y resoluciones judiciales sea<br />
más eficaz se prevé el establecimiento <strong>de</strong> unas normas mínimas procedimentales. Se refieren<br />
a <strong>la</strong> admisibilidad mutua <strong>de</strong> pruebas entre Estados miembros, a los <strong>de</strong>rechos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s personas<br />
durante el procedimiento penal, los <strong>de</strong>rechos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s víctimas <strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>litos y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>de</strong>rechos<br />
específicos <strong>de</strong>l procedimiento penal. Pero también se podrán dictar normas sustantivas mínimas<br />
re<strong>la</strong>tivas a <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>finición <strong>de</strong> infracciones penales y sanciones en ámbitos <strong>de</strong>lictivos <strong>de</strong><br />
especial gravedad y que tengan una dimensión transfronteriza. Y el propio Tratado enumera<br />
los ámbitos <strong>de</strong>lictivos a los que viene referida esa potestad legis<strong>la</strong>tiva en <strong>la</strong> actualidad: terrorismo,<br />
trata <strong>de</strong> seres humanos y explotación sexual <strong>de</strong> mujeres y niños, tráfico <strong>de</strong> drogas,<br />
14 El Programa <strong>de</strong> Estocolmo concreta el impulso político <strong>para</strong> el periodo 2010-2014 en torno al espacio<br />
<strong>de</strong> libertad, seguridad y justicia, <strong>de</strong>finiendo como <strong>la</strong>s priorida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong>stacadas <strong>la</strong>s siguientes: fomentar<br />
<strong>la</strong> ciudadanía y los <strong>de</strong>rechos fundamentales, lograr una Europa <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Ley y <strong>la</strong> justicia, proteger a<br />
los ciudadanos y promover una sociedad europea más integrada en un mundo globalizado. Consejo<br />
Europeo, Programa <strong>de</strong> Estocolmo: una Europa abierta y segura que sirva y proteja al ciudadano, doc.<br />
17024/09, 2 <strong>de</strong> diciembre <strong>de</strong> 2009.<br />
15 Liro<strong>la</strong> Delgado explica que este reconocimiento mutuo significa que “una <strong>de</strong>cisión judicial <strong>de</strong> un Estado<br />
miembro <strong>de</strong>be ser efectiva en cualquier Estado miembro sin que pueda ser sometida a controles<br />
adicionales <strong>de</strong> conformidad en el or<strong>de</strong>n jurídico <strong>de</strong>l Estado receptor, y su fundamento se basa en una<br />
confianza compartida que se justifica en <strong>la</strong> existencia <strong>de</strong> unos valores y objetivos jurídicos comunes<br />
en todos los Estados miembros”, LIRoLA DELGADo, I., “La cooperación judicial en materia penal<br />
en el Tratado <strong>de</strong> Lisboa: ¿un posible proceso <strong>de</strong> comunitarización y consolidación a costa <strong>de</strong> posibles<br />
frenos y fragmentaciones?”, Revista General <strong>de</strong> Derecho Europeo, 16 (2008), p. 7.<br />
16 DE URBANo CASTRILLo, E., “El Tratado <strong>de</strong> Lisboa y el espacio común <strong>de</strong> justicia: observaciones<br />
críticas”, Revista Unión Europea Aranzadi, octubre (2009), p. 41.<br />
17 GARCÍA MoRENo, J.M., “La cooperación judicial penal en el espacio <strong>de</strong> libertad, seguridad y<br />
justicia <strong>de</strong>spués <strong>de</strong>l Tratado <strong>de</strong> Lisboa”, Revista Unión Europea Aranzadi, octubre (2009), p. 29.
266 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
tráfico ilícito <strong>de</strong> armas, b<strong>la</strong>nqueo <strong>de</strong> capitales, corrupción, falsificación <strong>de</strong> medios <strong>de</strong> pago,<br />
<strong>de</strong>lincuencia informática y <strong>de</strong>lincuencia organizada. Teniendo en cuenta <strong>la</strong> evolución futura<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>lincuencia, el Consejo podrá <strong>de</strong>terminar, por unanimidad y previa aprobación <strong>de</strong>l<br />
Par<strong>la</strong>mento Europeo, <strong>otros</strong> ámbitos <strong>de</strong>lictivos que <strong>de</strong>ban atribuirse a <strong>la</strong> potestad legis<strong>la</strong>tiva<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión.<br />
La previsión <strong>de</strong> normas mínimas supone una “armonización mínima” <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s legis<strong>la</strong>ciones<br />
penales nacionales, lo que se conjuga con el respeto a <strong>la</strong>s diferencias entre <strong>la</strong>s tradiciones<br />
y los sistemas jurídicos <strong>de</strong> los Estados miembros al que se refiere el artículo 82.2 TFUE18 .<br />
A<strong>de</strong>más, aquí también se prevé el “freno <strong>de</strong> emergencia” <strong>para</strong> el supuesto <strong>de</strong> que un Estado<br />
consi<strong>de</strong>re que un proyecto <strong>de</strong> directiva afecta a aspectos fundamentales <strong>de</strong> su sistema <strong>de</strong><br />
justicia penal.<br />
El camino que ahora ha culminado con <strong>la</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> esta materia en el TFUE había<br />
sido al<strong>la</strong>nado por cierta jurispru<strong>de</strong>ncia <strong>de</strong>l Tribunal <strong>de</strong> Justicia19 . La tradicional jurispru-<br />
18 Se hab<strong>la</strong>ría <strong>de</strong> “armonización mínima” por oposición a <strong>la</strong> armonización stricto sensu (“armonización<br />
total”), en el sentido <strong>de</strong> preservar <strong>la</strong>s diferencias normativas <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s distintas legis<strong>la</strong>ciones nacionales.<br />
Véanse CURTIN, D.M., “European legal integration: <strong>para</strong>dise lost?”, en CURTIN, D.M. / SMITS,<br />
J.M. / KLIP, A. / McCAHERY, J.A., European Integration and Law, oxford: Intersetia, 2006, p. 14;<br />
WEYEMBERGH, A., “Approximation of Criminal Laws, the Constitutional Treaty and the Hague<br />
Programme”, Common Market Law Review, 6 (2006), pp. 1567-1597; y <strong>de</strong>l mismo autor, “The<br />
functions of approximation of penal legis<strong>la</strong>tion within the European Union”, Maastricht Journal of<br />
European and Com<strong>para</strong>tive Law, 2 (2005), pp. 149-172.<br />
19 Véanse sentencias como <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> 13 <strong>de</strong> septiembre <strong>de</strong> 2005 [TJCE, 13 <strong>de</strong> septiembre <strong>de</strong> 2005, Comisión<br />
v. Consejo, as. C-176/03] don<strong>de</strong>, con cierta imprecisión, el TJCE estatuye <strong>la</strong> competencia comunitaria<br />
<strong>para</strong> legis<strong>la</strong>r en materia penal (FJ 47 y 48). El Tribunal argumentaba que pese a existir una<br />
armonización parcial <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> legis<strong>la</strong>ción penal <strong>de</strong> los Estados miembros por parte <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Decisión marco<br />
2003/80/JAI <strong>de</strong>l Consejo, <strong>de</strong> 27 <strong>de</strong> enero <strong>de</strong> 2003, re<strong>la</strong>tiva a <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong>l medio ambiente a<br />
través <strong>de</strong>l Derecho penal, ello “no es óbice <strong>para</strong> que el legis<strong>la</strong>dor comunitario adopte medidas re<strong>la</strong>cionadas<br />
con el Derecho penal <strong>de</strong> los Estados miembros y que estime necesarias <strong>para</strong> garantizar <strong>la</strong> plena<br />
efectividad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s normas que dicte en materia medioambiental, cuando <strong>la</strong> aplicación por <strong>la</strong>s autorida<strong>de</strong>s<br />
nacionales competentes <strong>de</strong> sanciones penales efectivas, proporcionadas y disuasorias constituye<br />
una medida indispensable <strong>para</strong> combatir los graves atentados contra el medio ambiente”. Esto dio<br />
lugar a una propuesta <strong>para</strong> instaurar un principio <strong>de</strong> “penalización apropiada” a favor <strong>de</strong>l legis<strong>la</strong>dor<br />
comunitario; en esta línea LABAYLE, H., “Architecte ou spectatrice? La Cour <strong>de</strong> Justice <strong>de</strong> l’Union<br />
dans l’espace <strong>de</strong> liberté, sécurité et justice”, Revue Trimestrielle <strong>de</strong> Droit Européen, 1 (2006), pp. 1-46<br />
y <strong>de</strong>l mismo autor, ”L’ouverture <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> jarre <strong>de</strong> Pandore, réflexions sur <strong>la</strong> compétence <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Cour <strong>de</strong><br />
Justice en matière pénale”, Cahiers <strong>de</strong> Droit Européen, 3-4 (2006), pp. 376-428, especialmente p. 387.<br />
Véase también RIoJA GARCÍA, M., “El Tratado <strong>de</strong> Lisboa: reformas en el espacio <strong>de</strong> libertad, seguridad<br />
y justicia. Especial referencia al ámbito <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> cooperación judicial penal”, Revista Unión Europea<br />
Aranzadi, abril (2009), p.11. Esta sentencia generó un vivo <strong>de</strong>bate y fue duramente criticada, ya que<br />
a<strong>de</strong>más <strong>de</strong>jaba abierta <strong>la</strong> discusión <strong>de</strong> si dicha competencia penal a favor <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comunidad Europea se<br />
limitaba al área <strong>de</strong> medio ambiente o era extensible a cualquier otro ámbito penal. Ante esta situación<br />
<strong>la</strong> Comisión e<strong>la</strong>boró una Comunicación en <strong>la</strong> que ac<strong>la</strong>raba <strong>la</strong>s consecuencias <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> sentencia, que<br />
por supuesto iban más allá <strong>de</strong>l ámbito medioambiental: Comisión Europea, Comunicación sobre<br />
<strong>la</strong>s consecuencia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> sentencia <strong>de</strong>l Tribunal <strong>de</strong> Justicia <strong>de</strong> 13.9.05 dictada en el asunto C-176/03
el espacio <strong>de</strong> libertad, seguridad y justicia y <strong>la</strong> cibercriminalidad en <strong>la</strong> Unión europea<br />
267<br />
<strong>de</strong>ncia que reconocía <strong>la</strong> falta <strong>de</strong> competencia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comunidad Europea en materia penal,<br />
sustantiva y procesal 20 , había ido sustituyéndose por otra que permitía una intervención<br />
comunitaria en dicho campo si se consi<strong>de</strong>raba que era necesaria <strong>para</strong> alcanzar los objetivos<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión 21 . Hoy esta jurispru<strong>de</strong>ncia encuentra su confirmación en el artículo 83.2 TFUE,<br />
que ofrece <strong>la</strong> base jurídica <strong>para</strong> dictar normas en materia penal cuando resulten imprescindibles<br />
<strong>para</strong> garantizar <strong>la</strong> ejecución eficaz <strong>de</strong> una política <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión en un ámbito que<br />
haya sido objeto <strong>de</strong> medidas <strong>de</strong> armonización. De nuevo aquí se trata <strong>de</strong> normas sustantivas<br />
mínimas re<strong>la</strong>tivas a <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>finición <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s infracciones penales y <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s sanciones en el ámbito<br />
<strong>de</strong> que se trate.<br />
Las nuevas previsiones <strong>de</strong>l Tratado <strong>de</strong> Lisboa ayudarán a alcanzar los objetivos marcados<br />
por <strong>la</strong> Decisión 2007/126/JAI que establece el Programa Específico Justicia Penal <strong>para</strong><br />
el periodo 2001-2013 y que hace hincapié en favorecer <strong>la</strong> cooperación judicial en materia<br />
penal, en mejorar el conocimiento recíproco <strong>de</strong> los sistema penales internos, en <strong>la</strong> ejecución<br />
correcta <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s medidas comunitarias en <strong>la</strong> materia, en facilitar el acceso a <strong>la</strong> información<br />
sobre <strong>la</strong> legis<strong>la</strong>ción penal interna, en <strong>la</strong> formación a<strong>de</strong>cuada <strong>de</strong> los profesionales <strong>de</strong>l Derecho<br />
y en el intercambio seguro <strong>de</strong> datos entre <strong>la</strong>s administraciones <strong>de</strong> justicia <strong>de</strong> los Estados22 .<br />
El Programa <strong>de</strong> Estocolmo sobre profundización <strong>de</strong>l espacio <strong>de</strong> libertad, seguridad y<br />
justicia fue aprobado en el Consejo Europeo <strong>de</strong> 9 y 10 <strong>de</strong> diciembre <strong>de</strong> 2009. Está l<strong>la</strong>mado<br />
a concretar algunas <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s esperanzas puestas en esta <strong>la</strong>rga andadura <strong>de</strong> avance hacia una verda<strong>de</strong>ra<br />
justicia europea. El Programa se pondrá en marcha durante el próximo quinquenio<br />
y, por lo que se refiere a <strong>la</strong> jurisdicción penal, reconoce los buenos resultados <strong>de</strong>l espacio<br />
Schengen o <strong>la</strong> euroor<strong>de</strong>n, proponiendo dar pasos <strong>de</strong>cisivos en dos capítulos c<strong>la</strong>ve: uno general,<br />
buscando <strong>la</strong> creación <strong>de</strong> un proceso penal europeo con fases y penas comunes; y otro más<br />
concreto, un estatuto europeo <strong>de</strong> prueba penal, en el que se apruebe un mandato europeo<br />
<strong>de</strong> obtención y admisión mutua <strong>de</strong> pruebas judiciales y se dote <strong>de</strong> un marco jurídico común<br />
(Comisión v. Consejo), 23 <strong>de</strong> noviembre <strong>de</strong> 2005, CoM (2005) 583 final. La Comisión afirma en<br />
este instrumento que “<strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> el punto <strong>de</strong> vista material, más allá <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> cuestión <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong>l<br />
medio ambiente, el razonamiento <strong>de</strong>l Tribunal <strong>de</strong> Justicia se aplica a todas <strong>la</strong>s políticas y liberta<strong>de</strong>s<br />
comunitarias en <strong>la</strong>s que existan normas vincu<strong>la</strong>ntes a <strong>la</strong>s que <strong>de</strong>berán asociarse sanciones penales <strong>para</strong><br />
garantizar su eficacia”, p. 3.<br />
20 TJCE, 11 <strong>de</strong> noviembre <strong>de</strong> 1981, Casati, as. C-203/80, Rec. 1981, p. 2595, FJ. 27; TJCE, 16 <strong>de</strong><br />
junio <strong>de</strong> 1998, Lemmens, as. C-226/97, Rec. 1998-I, p. 3711, FJ. 19.<br />
21 TJCE, 20 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2008, Comisión <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s Comunida<strong>de</strong>s Europeas v. Consejo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> UE, as. C-91/05.<br />
Esta sentencia reconoce <strong>la</strong> competencia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comunidad Europea <strong>para</strong> adoptar medidas en <strong>la</strong> lucha<br />
contra <strong>la</strong> proliferación <strong>de</strong> armas ligeras y <strong>de</strong> pequeño calibre, en cuanto objetivo a incluir en el ámbito<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> política comunitaria <strong>de</strong> cooperación al <strong>de</strong>sarrollo contemp<strong>la</strong>da en el antiguo artículo 177 TCE,<br />
por lo que <strong>de</strong>c<strong>la</strong>rada <strong>la</strong> vio<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong>l antiguo artículo 47 TUE. Así también, <strong>la</strong> sentencia <strong>de</strong> 10 <strong>de</strong><br />
febrero <strong>de</strong> 2009, Ir<strong>la</strong>nda v. Consejo y Par<strong>la</strong>mento Europeo, as. C-301/06.<br />
22 Artículo 3 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Decisión 2007/126/JAI <strong>de</strong>l Consejo, <strong>de</strong> 12 <strong>de</strong> febrero <strong>de</strong> 2007, por <strong>la</strong> que se establece<br />
<strong>para</strong> el período 2007-2013 el programa específico Justicia penal, integrado en el programa general<br />
Derechos fundamentales y justicia, Do L 58, 24.2.2007.
268 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
a <strong>la</strong> prueba electrónica, en el que tengan cabida <strong>la</strong>s vi<strong>de</strong>oconferencias y <strong>de</strong>más sistemas <strong>de</strong><br />
pruebas basadas en <strong>la</strong>s nuevas tecnologías.<br />
Le correspondió a <strong>la</strong> Presi<strong>de</strong>ncia españo<strong>la</strong> durante el primer semestre <strong>de</strong> 2010 e<strong>la</strong>borar<br />
el P<strong>la</strong>n <strong>de</strong> Acción <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> aplicación práctica <strong>de</strong>l Programa <strong>de</strong> Estocolmo 23 , que concreta <strong>la</strong>s<br />
actuaciones <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> UE en torno a <strong>la</strong>s priorida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> dicho programa.<br />
2.3. noveda<strong>de</strong>s <strong>institucional</strong>es <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> cooperación policial y judicial en materia penal<br />
Des<strong>de</strong> el punto <strong>de</strong> vista <strong>institucional</strong> <strong>la</strong> cooperación policial y judicial en materia penal<br />
contaba ya con dos órganos con finalidad coordinadora, <strong>de</strong> apoyo y <strong>de</strong> refuerzo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>la</strong>bor<br />
<strong>de</strong>sarrol<strong>la</strong>da en cada Estado miembro: Europol y Eurojust.<br />
Ambos se mantienen y ven reforzada su legitimidad al preverse que se dictarán<br />
reg<strong>la</strong>mentos don<strong>de</strong> se <strong>de</strong>terminarán <strong>la</strong> estructura, el funcionamiento, el ámbito <strong>de</strong> actuación<br />
y <strong>la</strong>s competencias, así como el procedimiento <strong>de</strong> participación <strong>de</strong>l Par<strong>la</strong>mento<br />
Europeo y <strong>de</strong> los par<strong>la</strong>mentos nacionales en <strong>la</strong> evolución <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s activida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> cada uno<br />
<strong>de</strong> ellos.<br />
Un paso importante <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> el punto <strong>de</strong> vista orgánico es <strong>la</strong> creación <strong>de</strong> un Comité<br />
permanente en el Consejo con objeto <strong>de</strong> garantizar <strong>de</strong>ntro <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión el fomento y <strong>la</strong><br />
intensificación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> cooperación operativa en materia <strong>de</strong> seguridad interior, que se <strong>de</strong>nominará<br />
CoSI 24 . Este Comité propiciará <strong>la</strong> coordinación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> actuación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s autorida<strong>de</strong>s<br />
competentes <strong>de</strong> los Estados miembros, sin perjuicio <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> actuación <strong>de</strong>l CoREPER, específicamente<br />
en materia policial y aduanera, protección <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s fronteras exteriores y cooperación<br />
judicial en materia penal.<br />
El CoSI será responsable <strong>de</strong> evaluar <strong>la</strong> orientación general y <strong>la</strong> eficacia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> cooperación<br />
operativa con el objetivo <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>terminar <strong>de</strong>ficiencias y adoptar recomendaciones <strong>para</strong><br />
resolver<strong>la</strong>s. A su vez tiene también el mandato, junto con el Comité Político y <strong>de</strong> Seguridad<br />
(CPS), <strong>de</strong> asistir al Consejo con arreglo a <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>nominada “cláusu<strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> solidaridad” (artículo<br />
222 TFUE), que establece que <strong>la</strong> UE “movilizará todos los instrumentos <strong>de</strong> que disponga”,<br />
<strong>para</strong> ayudar a un Estado miembro que haya sido objeto <strong>de</strong> un ataque terrorista o víctima <strong>de</strong><br />
una catástrofe natural o <strong>de</strong> origen humano.<br />
En sus trabajos podrán participar los órganos y organismos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión afectados<br />
-Eurojust, Europol, Frontex y <strong>otros</strong> órganos pertinentes-, y en principio contribuirá a garantizar<br />
una actuación coherente entre ellos. El resultado <strong>de</strong> estos trabajos se pondrá también<br />
en conocimiento <strong>de</strong>l Par<strong>la</strong>mente Europeo y <strong>de</strong> los par<strong>la</strong>mentos nacionales, lo que significa<br />
que no va a haber un control par<strong>la</strong>mentario genuino.<br />
23 Comunicación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comisión, <strong>de</strong> 20 <strong>de</strong> abril <strong>de</strong> 2010, Garantizar el espacio <strong>de</strong> libertad, seguridad y<br />
justicia <strong>para</strong> los ciudadanos europeos – P<strong>la</strong>n <strong>de</strong> acción por el que se aplica el Programa <strong>de</strong> Estocolmo,<br />
CoM (2010) 171 final.<br />
24 Cada Estado miembro enviará <strong>de</strong>legados ministeriales <strong>para</strong> participar en el CoSI. Existe libertad <strong>para</strong><br />
nombrar a uno o más representantes, aunque el número será limitado a fin <strong>de</strong> garantizar su eficacia.
el espacio <strong>de</strong> libertad, seguridad y justicia y <strong>la</strong> cibercriminalidad en <strong>la</strong> Unión europea<br />
269<br />
Se hab<strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> cooperación y <strong>de</strong> coordinación porque el TFUE <strong>de</strong>ja c<strong>la</strong>ro que todo lo<br />
regu<strong>la</strong>do aquí no afecta al ejercicio <strong>de</strong> responsabilida<strong>de</strong>s que incumben a los Estados miembros<br />
en cuanto al mantenimiento <strong>de</strong>l or<strong>de</strong>n público y <strong>la</strong> salvaguardia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> seguridad interior.<br />
Esa misma cooperación y coordinación <strong>la</strong> pue<strong>de</strong>n exten<strong>de</strong>r los Estados miembros, bajo su<br />
responsabilidad y en <strong>la</strong> medida en que lo consi<strong>de</strong>ren apropiado, a los servicios competentes<br />
<strong>de</strong> sus administraciones responsables <strong>de</strong> ve<strong>la</strong>r por <strong>la</strong> seguridad nacional 25 . Sin embargo,<br />
cuando se trata <strong>de</strong> cooperación administrativa entre sus servicios competentes y con <strong>la</strong> Comisión,<br />
los Estados no tienen tanta libertad porque será el Consejo el que tome <strong>la</strong>s medidas<br />
<strong>para</strong> garantizar<strong>la</strong>, a propuesta <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comisión o por iniciativa <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> cuarta parte <strong>de</strong> los Estados<br />
miembros, y previa consulta al Par<strong>la</strong>mento Europeo. Esto significa a sensu contrario<br />
que el CoSI no participa ni en <strong>la</strong> e<strong>la</strong>boración <strong>de</strong> actos legis<strong>la</strong>tivos –<strong>la</strong>bor que todavía le<br />
correspon<strong>de</strong> al CoREPER–, ni en <strong>la</strong> dirección <strong>de</strong> operaciones.<br />
La creación <strong>de</strong> CoSI obligará a revisar <strong>la</strong>s competencias <strong>de</strong> dos Comités ya existentes<br />
en el seno <strong>de</strong>l Consejo: el Comité <strong>de</strong>l artículo 36 (CATS) y el Comité Estratégico <strong>de</strong> Inmigración,<br />
Fronteras y Asilo (CEIFA). Igualmente se creará un Grupo “terrorismo”, grupo único<br />
general que abor<strong>de</strong> todos los aspectos transversales <strong>de</strong>l terrorismo y consoli<strong>de</strong> los distintos<br />
p<strong>la</strong>nes <strong>de</strong> acción re<strong>la</strong>cionados con él 26 .<br />
El Tratado <strong>de</strong> Lisboa también prevé <strong>la</strong> posibilidad <strong>de</strong> crear una Fiscalía Europea a partir<br />
<strong>de</strong> Eurojust, con el fin <strong>de</strong> combatir <strong>la</strong>s infracciones que perjudiquen los intereses financieros<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión. Se establecerá mediante reg<strong>la</strong>mentos, <strong>para</strong> cuya aprobación se recurre a un<br />
procedimiento legis<strong>la</strong>tivo especial: el Consejo se pronunciará por unanimidad, previa aprobación<br />
<strong>de</strong>l Par<strong>la</strong>mento Europeo 27 .<br />
El mandato <strong>de</strong> este cuerpo judicial se concreta en <strong>la</strong> investigación, persecución y puesta<br />
a disposición <strong>de</strong>l juzgado o tribunal nacional competente <strong>de</strong> los responsables <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>litos contra<br />
los intereses financieros <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión. Aunque dicha referencia es según se mire bastante<br />
imprecisa y amplia, se incluye <strong>la</strong> posibilidad <strong>de</strong> ampliar sus competencias <strong>para</strong> alcanzar a<br />
<strong>otros</strong> <strong>de</strong>litos graves que tengan una dimensión transfronteriza.<br />
La institución <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Fiscalía Europea ya aparecía prevista en el Libro Ver<strong>de</strong> sobre <strong>la</strong> protección<br />
<strong>de</strong> los intereses financieros comunitarios <strong>de</strong> 2001 28 . Ahora el Tratado <strong>de</strong> Lisboa viene<br />
a proporcionar una base jurídica expresa <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> instauración <strong>de</strong> este órgano a nivel europeo.<br />
25 El artículo 4.2 TUE <strong>de</strong>ja bien c<strong>la</strong>ro que “<strong>la</strong> seguridad nacional seguirá siendo responsabilidad exclusiva<br />
<strong>de</strong> cada Estado miembro”. A<strong>de</strong>más, el artículo 72 TFUE prevé que el espacio <strong>de</strong> libertad, seguridad<br />
y justicia “se enten<strong>de</strong>rá sin perjuicio <strong>de</strong>l ejercicio <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s responsabilida<strong>de</strong>s que incumben a los Estados<br />
miembros en cuanto al mantenimiento <strong>de</strong>l or<strong>de</strong>n público y <strong>la</strong> salvaguardia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> seguridad interior”.<br />
26 Secretaría General <strong>de</strong>l Consejo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> UE, Los efectos <strong>de</strong>l Tratado <strong>de</strong> Lisboa en el Consejo <strong>de</strong> Justicia y<br />
Asuntos <strong>de</strong> Interior (JAI): más co<strong>de</strong>cisión y nuevas estructuras <strong>de</strong> trabajo, noviembre 2009, en http://<br />
www.consilium.europa.eu<br />
27 Artículo 86 TFUE.<br />
28 Comisión Europea, Libro Ver<strong>de</strong> sobre <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> los intereses financieros comunitarios y <strong>la</strong><br />
creación <strong>de</strong> un Fiscal Europeo, CoM (2001), 11 <strong>de</strong> diciembre <strong>de</strong> 2001.
270 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
Este cuerpo judicial pue<strong>de</strong> convertirse en un actor po<strong>de</strong>roso y fundamental en el área <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> cooperación judicial in <strong>la</strong> UE. Sin duda su <strong>de</strong>sarrollo merecerá una esmerada atención 29 .<br />
3. el tratamiento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> cibercriminalidad en <strong>la</strong> ue<br />
3.1. consi<strong>de</strong>raciones generales<br />
Siendo evi<strong>de</strong>nte que el espacio <strong>de</strong> libertad, seguridad y justicia esta todavía en construcción,<br />
<strong>la</strong> UE ya había hecho frente a <strong>la</strong>s conductas ilícitas que podían afectar a <strong>la</strong> consecución<br />
<strong>de</strong>l mercado único utilizando una base jurídica general –antiguo artículo 95 TCE– y el<br />
instrumento más a<strong>de</strong>cuado <strong>para</strong> ese fin –<strong>la</strong>s directivas–.<br />
El mercado común podría resultar perjudicado sobre todo por el <strong>de</strong>sarrollo <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>litos<br />
económicos cometidos a través <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>. Las directivas europeas, aunque en principio sin<br />
efecto directo respecto a los particu<strong>la</strong>res, han estimu<strong>la</strong>do <strong>la</strong>s normas internas (<strong>de</strong> transposición)<br />
que prevén sanciones no sólo administrativas, sino también penales, <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong>s transgresiones<br />
<strong>de</strong> obligaciones o prohibiciones cometidas a través <strong>de</strong> Internet.<br />
Como ejemplo podríamos citar <strong>la</strong> Directiva re<strong>la</strong>tiva a <strong>la</strong> armonización <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>terminados<br />
aspectos <strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>rechos <strong>de</strong> autor y afines en <strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información, que impele a<br />
los Estados a imponer sanciones en su legis<strong>la</strong>ción interna en re<strong>la</strong>ción con <strong>la</strong> vio<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> los<br />
<strong>de</strong>rechos y obligaciones previstos 30 .<br />
Así mismo, en re<strong>la</strong>ción con <strong>la</strong> investigación <strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>litos en el entorno <strong>de</strong> re<strong>de</strong>s<br />
informáticas, en <strong>la</strong> UE disponemos <strong>de</strong> una Directiva sobre conservación <strong>de</strong> datos 31 . Este<br />
instrumento obliga a los Estados miembros a adoptar medidas <strong>para</strong> que ciertos datos en<br />
tráfico y comunicaciones sean retenidas por periodos no inferiores a seis meses y no superiores<br />
a dos años <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> el momento en que se producen. Esta conservación <strong>de</strong> datos pue<strong>de</strong><br />
resultar especialmente útil en <strong>la</strong> investigación <strong>de</strong> activida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong>lictivas, permitiendo a los<br />
especialistas seguir <strong>la</strong>s huel<strong>la</strong>s hasta dar con el sistema don<strong>de</strong> se originó el <strong>de</strong>lito y el autor<br />
último <strong>de</strong>l mismo. El <strong>de</strong>bate en torno a <strong>la</strong>s medidas consagradas en esta directiva se centra<br />
en <strong>la</strong> búsqueda <strong>de</strong> equilibrio entre <strong>la</strong> seguridad y <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos <strong>de</strong> los usuarios <strong>de</strong><br />
Internet 32 .<br />
29 “Brussels eyes single European public prosecutor”, eurobserver, 1.8.2007.<br />
30 Directiva 2001/29/CE <strong>de</strong>l Par<strong>la</strong>mento Europeo y <strong>de</strong>l Consejo, <strong>de</strong> 22 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2001, re<strong>la</strong>tiva a <strong>la</strong><br />
armonización <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>terminados aspectos <strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>rechos <strong>de</strong> autor y <strong>de</strong>rechos afines a los <strong>de</strong>rechos <strong>de</strong><br />
autor en <strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información, Do L 167, 22.6.2001, p. 10.<br />
31 Directiva 2006/24/CE <strong>de</strong>l Par<strong>la</strong>mento Europeo y <strong>de</strong>l Consejo, <strong>de</strong> 15 <strong>de</strong> marzo <strong>de</strong> 2006, sobre conservación<br />
<strong>de</strong> datos generados o tratados en re<strong>la</strong>ción con <strong>la</strong> prestación <strong>de</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong> comunicaciones<br />
electrónicas <strong>de</strong> acceso público o re<strong>de</strong>s públicas <strong>de</strong> comunicaciones, Do L 105, 13.4.2006, p. 54.<br />
32 Véase, por ejemplo, VILASAU SoLANA, M., “La Directiva 2006/24/CE sobre conservación <strong>de</strong><br />
datos <strong>de</strong>l tráfico en <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones electrónicas: seguridad v. privacidad”, Revista <strong>de</strong> Internet, Derecho<br />
y Política, 3 (2006), pp. 1-15.
el espacio <strong>de</strong> libertad, seguridad y justicia y <strong>la</strong> cibercriminalidad en <strong>la</strong> Unión europea<br />
271<br />
El panorama cambiará con el espacio <strong>de</strong> libertad, seguridad y justicia porque, aunque<br />
<strong>la</strong> competencia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> UE sigue limitada a <strong>de</strong>terminadas conductas y continúa sometida al<br />
principio <strong>de</strong> subsidiariedad, existe <strong>la</strong> base jurídica propia <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> adopción <strong>de</strong> instrumentos<br />
<strong>de</strong> armonización penal.<br />
No obstante, usando los rudimentarios cauces que ofrecía el tercer pi<strong>la</strong>r y <strong>la</strong>s disposiciones<br />
generales sobre el mercado interior, <strong>la</strong> UE ya había comenzado a <strong>la</strong>brar un camino<br />
con el objetivo <strong>de</strong> aproximar legis<strong>la</strong>ciones que nos ha provisto <strong>de</strong> una serie <strong>de</strong> actos jurídicos<br />
<strong>de</strong> bastante interés.<br />
3.2. algunos instrumentos europeos en <strong>la</strong> lucha contra <strong>la</strong> cibercriminalidad 33<br />
3.2.1. La Decisión Marco sobre ataques contra sistemas <strong>de</strong> información 34<br />
Esta <strong>de</strong>cisión marco está basada en <strong>la</strong> Convención sobre Cibercrimen <strong>de</strong>l Consejo <strong>de</strong><br />
Europa, y <strong>la</strong> razón que llevó a establecer ambos instrumentos radica en <strong>la</strong> constatación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
existencia <strong>de</strong> ataques contra los sistemas <strong>de</strong> información, en particu<strong>la</strong>r como consecuencia<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> amenaza <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>lincuencia organizada. La posibilidad <strong>de</strong> ataques terroristas contra esos<br />
sistemas que forman parte <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s infraestructuras vitales <strong>de</strong> los Estados miembros <strong>de</strong>safía el<br />
<strong>de</strong>sarrollo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información y <strong>de</strong>l espacio <strong>de</strong> libertad, seguridad y justicia,<br />
exigiendo una respuesta a nivel europeo.<br />
Dada <strong>la</strong> naturaleza transnacional <strong>de</strong> los mo<strong>de</strong>rnos sistemas <strong>de</strong> información, los ataques<br />
suelen revestir un carácter también transfronterizo, lo que p<strong>la</strong>ntea <strong>la</strong> necesidad urgente <strong>de</strong><br />
proseguir <strong>la</strong> aproximación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s legis<strong>la</strong>ciones penales en este ámbito. La distancia y <strong>la</strong>s divergencias<br />
significativas que existen entre <strong>la</strong>s legis<strong>la</strong>ciones <strong>de</strong> los Estados miembros pue<strong>de</strong>n<br />
dificultar <strong>la</strong> lucha contra <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>lincuencia organizada y el terrorismo y, a su vez, complicar <strong>la</strong><br />
cooperación eficaz <strong>de</strong> los servicios <strong>de</strong> policía y <strong>la</strong>s administraciones <strong>de</strong> justicia en materia <strong>de</strong><br />
ataques contra los sistemas <strong>de</strong> información.<br />
Al igual que <strong>la</strong> Convención sobre Cibercrimen, <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>cisión marco europea se proponía<br />
obligar a los Estados a asegurar que el acceso sin autorización a sistemas <strong>de</strong> información (artículo<br />
2), <strong>la</strong> obstaculización o interrupción ilegal y <strong>de</strong> manera significativa <strong>de</strong>l funcionamiento<br />
<strong>de</strong> un sistema informático (artículo 3) y <strong>la</strong> intromisión, faltando <strong>la</strong> autorización, <strong>para</strong> borrar,<br />
dañar, <strong>de</strong>teriorar, alterar, suprimir o hacer inaccesibles datos informáticos (artículo 4). Todas<br />
estas actuaciones serán sancionables como conductas penales, salvo en los casos menos graves.<br />
Así mismo, se hará punible <strong>la</strong> inducción, <strong>la</strong> complicidad y <strong>la</strong> tentativa <strong>para</strong> cometer<br />
esos <strong>de</strong>litos en <strong>la</strong>s legis<strong>la</strong>ciones penales internas.<br />
33 Haremos referencia a los que consi<strong>de</strong>ramos más <strong>de</strong>stacados dada su trascen<strong>de</strong>ncia en <strong>la</strong> aproximación<br />
o en <strong>la</strong> armonización <strong>de</strong> legis<strong>la</strong>ciones, aunque se podrían incluir más actos cuya repercusión, sin embargo,<br />
ha sido muy limitada. Por ejemplo, <strong>la</strong> Decisión 2000/375/JAI <strong>de</strong>l Consejo, <strong>de</strong> 29 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong><br />
2000, re<strong>la</strong>tiva a <strong>la</strong> lucha contra <strong>la</strong> pornografía infantil en Internet, Do L 138, 9.6.2000, p. 1.<br />
34 Decisión Marco 2005/222/JAI <strong>de</strong>l Consejo, <strong>de</strong> 24 <strong>de</strong> febrero <strong>de</strong> 2005, re<strong>la</strong>tiva a los ataques contra<br />
los sistemas <strong>de</strong> información, Do L 69, 16.3.2005, p. 67.
272 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
3.2.2. Directiva sobre comercio electrónico 35<br />
Los proveedores <strong>de</strong> Internet que transmiten y almacenan el contenido ilegal <strong>de</strong> <strong>otros</strong> autores<br />
–entre enormes cantida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> datos legales–, generalmente lo hacen sin el conocimiento <strong>de</strong><br />
esos contenidos y, en particu<strong>la</strong>r, sin el conocimiento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> legalidad o ilegalidad <strong>de</strong> los mismos<br />
<strong>de</strong> acuerdo con <strong>la</strong> legis<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> los países a lo <strong>la</strong>rgo <strong>de</strong> los cuales los datos han sido transmitidos.<br />
Así, respecto a <strong>la</strong> diseminación <strong>de</strong> contenidos ilegales que fomenten el terrorismo u otras<br />
formas <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>lincuencia grave, <strong>la</strong> cuestión que se p<strong>la</strong>ntea es si los proveedores <strong>de</strong> Internet (que<br />
almacenan el contenido <strong>de</strong> terceros) así como los proveedores <strong>de</strong>l acceso a <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> (que transmiten<br />
el contenido <strong>de</strong> terceros) pue<strong>de</strong>n resultar responsables por <strong>la</strong> ilegalidad <strong>de</strong> los mismos.<br />
Lo mismo cabría preguntarnos <strong>de</strong> los buscadores y en general <strong>de</strong> todos los links <strong>de</strong> Internet.<br />
Los intentos llevados a cabo en varios países <strong>de</strong> hacer frente a estos problemas a través<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s normas penales generales <strong>de</strong> participación han <strong>de</strong>jado c<strong>la</strong>ro que éstas no son a<strong>de</strong>cuadas<br />
<strong>para</strong> ser aplicadas en el mundo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s nuevas tecnologías, el cual necesita <strong>de</strong> reg<strong>la</strong>s específicas<br />
con el fin <strong>de</strong> cumplir con el principio <strong>de</strong> seguridad jurídica.<br />
La Directiva sobre comercio electrónico aborda estos problemas. Este instrumento<br />
busca contribuir al correcto funcionamiento <strong>de</strong>l mercado interior asegurando <strong>la</strong> libre circu<strong>la</strong>ción<br />
<strong>de</strong> los servicios <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información entre los Estados miembros. Así,<br />
el artículo 3.2 prohíbe a cualquier Estado miembro restringir <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> prestación <strong>de</strong><br />
servicios <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información <strong>de</strong> otro Estado miembro por razones inherentes<br />
al ámbito coordinado. Sólo en <strong>la</strong>s situaciones previstas en los apartados 4 a 6 <strong>de</strong>l mismo<br />
artículo se permiten <strong>de</strong>rogaciones al apartado 2 (por ejemplo, protección <strong>de</strong>l or<strong>de</strong>n público,<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> salud pública, <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> seguridad pública o <strong>de</strong> los consumidores).<br />
La Directiva trata <strong>de</strong> armonizar <strong>la</strong> responsabilidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s personas físicas y jurídicas<br />
que proporcionan servicios en <strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información. Si nos referimos a <strong>la</strong> mera<br />
conducción o transmisión <strong>de</strong> datos, el proveedor <strong>de</strong> acceso a Internet se encuentra prácticamente<br />
exento <strong>de</strong> responsabilidad tanto penal como civil (artículo 12), a condición <strong>de</strong> que<br />
no haya originado él mismo los datos, no los modifique o seleccione. Lo mismo ocurre con<br />
los que prestan servicios <strong>de</strong> transmisión <strong>de</strong> datos, cuando guardan automática, temporal y<br />
provisionalmente una información, con <strong>la</strong> única finalidad <strong>de</strong> hacer más eficaz <strong>la</strong> transmisión<br />
ulterior <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> misma, lo que se viene <strong>de</strong>nominando caching (artículo 13). Cuando se trata <strong>de</strong><br />
almacenamiento <strong>de</strong> datos, el prestador <strong>de</strong>l servicio no será consi<strong>de</strong>rado responsable, salvo si<br />
se prueba que tenía conocimiento efectivo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> ilegalidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información o <strong>la</strong> actividad<br />
(artículo 14). No obstante, <strong>la</strong> norma que mejor resume <strong>la</strong> filosofía <strong>de</strong> toda <strong>la</strong> Directiva es el<br />
artículo 15, que proc<strong>la</strong>ma <strong>la</strong> inexistencia <strong>de</strong> obligación general <strong>de</strong> supervisión.<br />
El régimen <strong>de</strong> responsabilidad es importante no sólo <strong>para</strong> garantizar el libre intercambio<br />
<strong>de</strong> información y <strong>la</strong> seguridad jurídica <strong>de</strong> los proveedores <strong>de</strong> Internet, sino también<br />
35 Directiva 2000/31/CE <strong>de</strong>l Par<strong>la</strong>mento Europeo y <strong>de</strong>l Consejo, <strong>de</strong> 8 <strong>de</strong> junio <strong>de</strong> 2000, re<strong>la</strong>tiva a ciertos<br />
aspectos jurídicos <strong>de</strong> los servicios <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información, en particu<strong>la</strong>r el comercio electrónico<br />
en el mercado interior (Directiva sobre el comercio electrónico), Do L 178, 17.7.2000, p. 1.
el espacio <strong>de</strong> libertad, seguridad y justicia y <strong>la</strong> cibercriminalidad en <strong>la</strong> Unión europea<br />
273<br />
<strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> persecución <strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>litos cometidos y <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> prevención <strong>de</strong> contenidos ilegales en<br />
el futuro. Con ello, se trata sobre todo <strong>de</strong> que los proveedores <strong>de</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> sociedad<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información se vean forzados a borrar o bloquear contenidos ilegales <strong>de</strong> sus servidores<br />
una vez que han sido advertidos <strong>de</strong> su existencia. Transmitir a los proveedores este tipo <strong>de</strong><br />
conductas que les lleven a avistar <strong>la</strong> información ilegal y automáticamente <strong>de</strong>scolgar<strong>la</strong>, fomentar<br />
<strong>la</strong> concienciación, <strong>de</strong>sarrol<strong>la</strong>r <strong>la</strong> autorregu<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong>ntro <strong>de</strong>l sector y publicar códigos<br />
<strong>de</strong> conducta son algunas <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s herramientas <strong>para</strong> prevenir los contenidos ilícitos en Internet.<br />
3.2.3. La Decisión Marco sobre lucha contra el terrorismo 36<br />
Esta <strong>de</strong>cisión marco se centra en los resultados <strong>de</strong> los actos terroristas que llevan a <strong>la</strong><br />
producción <strong>de</strong> un daño físico, con <strong>la</strong> concurrencia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> intencionalidad <strong>de</strong> conseguir un fin<br />
político.<br />
El objetivo <strong>de</strong> esta <strong>de</strong>cisión es hacer más eficaz <strong>la</strong> lucha contra el terrorismo en toda <strong>la</strong><br />
UE y será aplicable a todo acto terrorista cometido <strong>de</strong> forma intencionada que, por su naturaleza<br />
o su contexto, pueda lesionar gravemente a un país o a una organización internacional.<br />
Según el artículo 1, estos actos <strong>de</strong>ben ser cometidos con el fin <strong>de</strong> amenazar a <strong>la</strong> pob<strong>la</strong>ción,<br />
obligar a los po<strong>de</strong>res públicos o a una organización internacional a realizar un acto o a abstenerse<br />
<strong>de</strong> realizarlo, o <strong>de</strong>sestabilizar gravemente o <strong>de</strong>struir <strong>la</strong>s estructuras fundamentales políticas,<br />
constitucionales, económicas o sociales <strong>de</strong> un país o <strong>de</strong> una organización internacional,<br />
cometidos por uno o más individuos y contra uno o más países. Y entre los actos <strong>la</strong> letra d)<br />
incluye <strong>la</strong>s <strong>de</strong>strucciones masivas <strong>de</strong> insta<strong>la</strong>ciones gubernamentales o públicas, sistemas <strong>de</strong><br />
transporte, infraestructuras, incluidos los sistemas informáticos, p<strong>la</strong>taformas fijas enc<strong>la</strong>vadas<br />
en <strong>la</strong> p<strong>la</strong>taforma continental, lugares públicos o propieda<strong>de</strong>s privadas, que puedan poner en<br />
peligro vidas humanas o producir un gran perjuicio económico.<br />
Y se incluye no sólo <strong>la</strong> comisión <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s conductas antes <strong>de</strong>scritas por cualquiera <strong>de</strong> los<br />
miembros <strong>de</strong> este grupo, sino también <strong>la</strong> dirección y <strong>la</strong> mera participación en <strong>la</strong>s activida<strong>de</strong>s<br />
<strong>de</strong> un grupo terrorista, incluido el suministro <strong>de</strong> información o medios materiales, o<br />
mediante cualquier forma <strong>de</strong> financiación <strong>de</strong> sus activida<strong>de</strong>s, con conocimiento <strong>de</strong> que esa<br />
participación contribuirá a <strong>la</strong>s activida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong>lictivas <strong>de</strong>l grupo terrorista 37 . Cada día más,<br />
todos estos comportamientos encuentran en <strong>la</strong>s nuevas tecnologías <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información y <strong>la</strong><br />
comunicación el instrumento perfecto <strong>para</strong> <strong>de</strong>sarrol<strong>la</strong>rse. Por ello, <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>cisión marco cubre<br />
igualmente <strong>la</strong>s conductas <strong>de</strong> apoyo a grupos terroristas, in<strong>de</strong>pendientemente <strong>de</strong> su motivación<br />
política o económica, también cuando se llevan a cabo a través <strong>de</strong> Internet.<br />
El texto que venimos analizando también prevé <strong>la</strong> responsabilidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s personas jurídicas,<br />
por lo que los Estados miembros <strong>de</strong>ben tipificar los <strong>de</strong>litos que sean cometidos<br />
36 Decisión Marco 2002/475/JAI <strong>de</strong>l Consejo, sobre lucha contra el terrorismo, Do L 164, 22.6.2002,<br />
p. 3.<br />
37 Ver <strong>la</strong> Convención <strong>de</strong> Naciones Unidas sobre el Crimen organizado Transnacional <strong>de</strong> 8 <strong>de</strong> enero <strong>de</strong><br />
2001 y sus Protocolos.
274 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
por cuenta <strong>de</strong> éstas por cualquier persona, actuando a título particu<strong>la</strong>r o como parte <strong>de</strong><br />
un órgano <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> entidad jurídica. Su responsabilidad se extien<strong>de</strong> a los casos <strong>de</strong> falta <strong>de</strong> vigi<strong>la</strong>ncia<br />
o control por parte <strong>de</strong> ese órgano –o el particu<strong>la</strong>r que forme parte <strong>de</strong> él– sobre <strong>la</strong>s<br />
personas sometidas a su autoridad. La responsabilidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s personas jurídicas se enten<strong>de</strong>rá<br />
sin perjuicio <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> incoación <strong>de</strong> acciones penales contra <strong>la</strong>s personas físicas que sean autores,<br />
incitadores o cómplices <strong>de</strong> los actos terroristas.<br />
La <strong>de</strong>cisión marco aboca a los Estados miembros a criminalizar <strong>la</strong>s amenazas <strong>de</strong> cometer<br />
cualquiera <strong>de</strong> los comportamientos enumerados en <strong>la</strong> misma, que vayan dirigidas contra<br />
una persona, <strong>la</strong>s instituciones o el público en general. Y tampoco importa si esa amenaza es<br />
comunicada vía Internet o por los medios <strong>de</strong> comunicación tradicionales.<br />
Con el fin <strong>de</strong> castigar los actos terroristas los Estados miembros <strong>de</strong>berán prever en su<br />
legis<strong>la</strong>ción nacional sanciones penales efectivas, proporcionadas y disuasorias que pue<strong>de</strong>n<br />
conllevar <strong>la</strong> extradición 38 . Todos los Estados miembros <strong>de</strong>ben aumentar <strong>la</strong>s penas privativas<br />
<strong>de</strong> libertad previstas <strong>para</strong> esos mismos <strong>de</strong>litos cuando concurra motivación (política) terrorista.<br />
Estas penas podrán <strong>red</strong>ucirse si el autor abandona <strong>la</strong> actividad terrorista o co<strong>la</strong>bora<br />
con <strong>la</strong>s autorida<strong>de</strong>s judiciales y policiales <strong>para</strong> impedir o atenuar los efectos <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>lito, <strong>para</strong><br />
i<strong>de</strong>ntificar y procesar a los <strong>otros</strong> autores <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>lito, <strong>para</strong> encontrar pruebas o <strong>para</strong> impedir<br />
que se cometan <strong>otros</strong> actos terroristas 39 . Esta previsión es especialmente importante en el<br />
caso <strong>de</strong>l ciberterrorismo, don<strong>de</strong> el anonimato que garantiza Internet hace muy difícil <strong>la</strong><br />
i<strong>de</strong>ntificación <strong>de</strong> los responsables, así como hal<strong>la</strong>r pruebas concluyentes <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>terminadas<br />
conductas terroristas cometidas a través <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> 40 .<br />
Respecto a su ámbito <strong>de</strong> aplicación, <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>cisión marco no sólo compren<strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>litos <strong>de</strong><br />
terrorismo cometidos en o contra los Estados miembros, sino también los supuestos en que<br />
<strong>la</strong>s conductas realizadas en el territorio <strong>de</strong> uno o más Estados miembros (p<strong>la</strong>nificar, entregar,<br />
financiar) contribuyan a <strong>la</strong> realización <strong>de</strong> un acto terrorista en un tercer país. Precisamente,<br />
<strong>la</strong> mayoría <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s veces éste será el supuesto en el que encaje <strong>la</strong> conducta ciberterrorista, pues<br />
un ataque a través <strong>de</strong> Internet pue<strong>de</strong> ser <strong>la</strong>nzado <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> prácticamente todo el mundo contra<br />
objetivos que se encuentren a miles <strong>de</strong> kilómetros.<br />
Como los medios a través <strong>de</strong> los que se pue<strong>de</strong> producir un atentado terrorista no están<br />
i<strong>de</strong>ntificados en <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>cisión marco, ésta cubre tanto los violentos ataques tradicionales ya<br />
conocidos, como los más mo<strong>de</strong>rnos basados en <strong>la</strong>s nuevas tecnologías <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información y<br />
<strong>la</strong> comunicación.<br />
38 Se adapta el concepto <strong>de</strong> “organización criminal”, ya contemp<strong>la</strong>do en <strong>la</strong> Acción Común <strong>de</strong>l Consejo<br />
<strong>de</strong> 21 <strong>de</strong> diciembre <strong>de</strong> 1998, añadiéndole <strong>la</strong> pa<strong>la</strong>bra terrorismo.<br />
39 En re<strong>la</strong>ción con <strong>la</strong> cooperación entre Estados miembros <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> investigación y persecución <strong>de</strong> los<br />
<strong>de</strong>litos <strong>de</strong> terrorismo, <strong>la</strong> Decisión 2005/671/JAI ha sido diseñada <strong>para</strong> mejorar el intercambio <strong>de</strong><br />
información en caso <strong>de</strong> actos terroristas, a través <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> medidas prácticas. Decisión<br />
2005/671/JAI <strong>de</strong>l Consejo, <strong>de</strong> 20 <strong>de</strong> septiembre <strong>de</strong> 2005, sobre intercambio <strong>de</strong> información y cooperación<br />
concerniente a <strong>de</strong>litos terroristas, Do J 253, 29.9.2005, p. 22.<br />
40 Váse SAITA, A., “Antiforensics: The Looming Arms Race”, Information Security, 6-5 (2003), p. 13.
el espacio <strong>de</strong> libertad, seguridad y justicia y <strong>la</strong> cibercriminalidad en <strong>la</strong> Unión europea<br />
3.2.4. Directiva sobre b<strong>la</strong>nqueo <strong>de</strong> capitales y financiación <strong>de</strong>l terrorismo 41<br />
275<br />
Siguiendo <strong>la</strong>s recomendaciones <strong>de</strong>l Grupo <strong>de</strong> Acción Financiera Internacional (GAFI) 42 ,<br />
<strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>nominada Tercera Directiva antib<strong>la</strong>nqueo p<strong>la</strong>ntea una serie <strong>de</strong> medidas preventivas<br />
contra <strong>la</strong> utilización fraudulenta <strong>de</strong>l sistema financiero que conlleve <strong>la</strong> recogida <strong>de</strong> fondos o<br />
bienes <strong>para</strong> fines terroristas.<br />
El esfuerzo comunitario por combatir el b<strong>la</strong>nqueo <strong>de</strong> dinero 43 quedó patente en <strong>la</strong>s<br />
Directivas <strong>de</strong> 1991 y 2001 44 . La puesta al día <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s disposiciones sobre el tema ha dado lugar<br />
a <strong>la</strong> Tercera Directiva, cuyo objetivo final es mejorar <strong>la</strong> lucha contra el crimen organizado y<br />
el terrorismo.<br />
El b<strong>la</strong>nqueo <strong>de</strong> capitales y <strong>la</strong> financiación <strong>de</strong>l terrorismo se efectúan, con frecuencia,<br />
en un contexto internacional. Las medidas adoptadas únicamente en el ámbito nacional o<br />
incluso comunitario, sin coordinación ni cooperación internacionales, tendrían efectos muy<br />
limitados45 . Sin este tipo <strong>de</strong> medidas a nivel <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> UE, los b<strong>la</strong>nqueadores <strong>de</strong> dinero y los<br />
patrocinadores <strong>de</strong>l terrorismo podrían aprovechar <strong>la</strong> libre circu<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> capitales y <strong>la</strong> libre<br />
prestación <strong>de</strong> servicios financieros <strong>para</strong> facilitar sus activida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong>lictivas.<br />
De conformidad con <strong>la</strong>s nuevas normas internacionales, <strong>la</strong> Tercera Directiva antib<strong>la</strong>nqueo<br />
exige a <strong>la</strong>s entida<strong>de</strong>s y personas a quienes se aplica46 , <strong>la</strong> i<strong>de</strong>ntificación y comprobación<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> i<strong>de</strong>ntidad <strong>de</strong>l titu<strong>la</strong>r real <strong>de</strong> una transacción o actividad. La comunicación <strong>de</strong> esta información<br />
<strong>de</strong>be realizarse con arreglo a <strong>la</strong>s disposiciones re<strong>la</strong>tivas a <strong>la</strong> transferencia <strong>de</strong> datos<br />
41 Directiva 2005/60/CE <strong>de</strong>l Par<strong>la</strong>mento Europeo y <strong>de</strong>l Consejo, <strong>de</strong> 26 <strong>de</strong> octubre <strong>de</strong> 2005, re<strong>la</strong>tiva a <strong>la</strong><br />
prevención <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> utilización <strong>de</strong>l sistema financiero <strong>para</strong> el b<strong>la</strong>nqueo <strong>de</strong> capitales y <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> financiación<br />
<strong>de</strong>l terrorismo, Do L 309, 25.11.2005, p.15.<br />
42 GAFI, Documento Consultivo <strong>de</strong> 30 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2002, versión consolidada <strong>de</strong> 20 <strong>de</strong> junio <strong>de</strong> 2003<br />
que incluye 40 Recomendaciones, con un Glosario y Notas Interpretativas; en http://www.fatf-gafi.org<br />
43 Véase HETZER, W., “Der Geruch <strong>de</strong>s Gel<strong>de</strong>s-Ziel, Inhalt und Wirkung <strong>de</strong>r Gesetze gegen Geldwäsche”,<br />
Neue Juristische Wocheschrift, (1993), p. 3298.<br />
44 Directiva 91/308/CEE <strong>de</strong>l Consejo, <strong>de</strong> 10 <strong>de</strong> junio <strong>de</strong> 1991, re<strong>la</strong>tiva a <strong>la</strong> prevención <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> utilización<br />
<strong>de</strong>l sistema financiero <strong>para</strong> el b<strong>la</strong>nqueo <strong>de</strong> capitales, Do L 166 <strong>de</strong> 28.6.1991, p. 7, modificada por<br />
<strong>la</strong> Directiva 2001/97/CE <strong>de</strong>l Par<strong>la</strong>mento Europeo y <strong>de</strong>l Consejo, <strong>de</strong> 4 <strong>de</strong> diciembre <strong>de</strong> 2001, sobre<br />
b<strong>la</strong>nqueo <strong>de</strong> capitales, Do L 344 <strong>de</strong> 28.12.2001, p. 76.<br />
45 Véase RoSADo DoMINGUEZ, F., El b<strong>la</strong>nqueo <strong>de</strong> dinero. Deficiencias en zonas internacionales <strong>de</strong><br />
riesgo, en VVAA, Prevención y represión <strong>de</strong>l b<strong>la</strong>nqueo <strong>de</strong> capitales, Madrid: Consejo General <strong>de</strong>l Po<strong>de</strong>r<br />
Judicial, 2001, p. 155.<br />
46 La Directiva se aplica a entida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> crédito, entida<strong>de</strong>s financieras, auditores, contables externos y<br />
asesores fiscales, proveedores <strong>de</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong> socieda<strong>de</strong>s y fi<strong>de</strong>icomisos, agentes <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> propiedad inmobiliaria,<br />
casinos, notarios y <strong>otros</strong> profesionales in<strong>de</strong>pendientes <strong>de</strong>l Derecho cuando participen, ya<br />
actuando en nombre <strong>de</strong> su cliente y por cuenta <strong>de</strong>l mismo, en cualquier transacción financiera o inmobiliaria.<br />
También se aplica a otras personas físicas o jurídicas que comercien con bienes únicamente<br />
en <strong>la</strong> medida en que los pagos se efectúen al contado y por importe igual o superior a 15.000 euros,<br />
ya se realicen en una o en varias transacciones entre <strong>la</strong>s que parezca existir algún tipo <strong>de</strong> re<strong>la</strong>ción.
276 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
a terceros países previstas en <strong>la</strong> Directiva sobre tratamiento <strong>de</strong> datos personales 47 y en <strong>la</strong><br />
legis<strong>la</strong>ción nacional en materia <strong>de</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos y secreto profesional.<br />
Los Estados miembros se comprometen a establecer sanciones eficaces, proporcionadas<br />
y disuasorias <strong>de</strong> Derecho interno en caso <strong>de</strong> incumplimiento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s disposiciones nacionales<br />
que se adopten en aplicación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> presente Directiva. Se <strong>de</strong>ben prever sanciones tanto personas<br />
físicas como jurídicas.<br />
La propia Directiva en uno <strong>de</strong> sus consi<strong>de</strong>randos asegura que sus disposiciones también<br />
<strong>de</strong>ben ser <strong>de</strong> aplicación cuando <strong>la</strong>s activida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s entida<strong>de</strong>s y personas contemp<strong>la</strong>das en<br />
<strong>la</strong> misma se lleven a cabo a través <strong>de</strong> Internet. Esto pone <strong>de</strong> manifiesto que <strong>la</strong> normativa<br />
aquí tratada sirve <strong>para</strong> los casos <strong>de</strong> ciberterrorismo, cuando aprovechando el anonimato que<br />
granjea <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>, los terroristas pretendan lograr financiación <strong>para</strong> sus activida<strong>de</strong>s a través <strong>de</strong>l<br />
b<strong>la</strong>nqueo <strong>de</strong> dinero y otras activida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong>lictivas igual <strong>de</strong> lucrativas.<br />
Varios Estados miembros, entre ellos España, no han transpuesto todavía esta Directiva,<br />
hecho que ha sido <strong>de</strong>nunciado por <strong>la</strong> Comisión Europea ante el Tribunal <strong>de</strong> Justicia. El<br />
retraso <strong>de</strong> España sorpren<strong>de</strong>, <strong>de</strong> un <strong>la</strong>do, porque muchos preceptos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> normativa comunitaria<br />
ya se encuentran reflejados en el Derecho interno, por lo que no se requieren gran<strong>de</strong>s<br />
cambios legis<strong>la</strong>tivos 48 . Y <strong>de</strong> otro, porque el gobierno español se ha convertido en diversos<br />
foros internacionales en adalid <strong>de</strong> una mayor dureza contra los <strong>para</strong>ísos fiscales, lugares privilegiados<br />
<strong>para</strong> el frau<strong>de</strong> fiscal y el b<strong>la</strong>nqueo <strong>de</strong> capitales.<br />
4. a modo <strong>de</strong> conclusión<br />
En los últimos años <strong>la</strong> preocupación por los <strong>de</strong>litos cometidos contra o con <strong>la</strong> utilización<br />
<strong>de</strong> estructuras informáticas ha ido creciendo en <strong>la</strong> UE al mismo ritmo que se han<br />
multiplicado los casos re<strong>la</strong>cionados <strong>de</strong> un modo u otro con <strong>la</strong>s nuevas tecnologías <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información<br />
y <strong>la</strong> comunicación. Cada día son más <strong>la</strong>s acciones penales que tienen como objetivo<br />
el ataque al propio sistema cibernético, aunque lo que todavía es más común son los comportamientos<br />
punibles tradicionales que ahora se cometen utilizando medios informáticos.<br />
El reciente informe presentado por Europol acerca <strong>de</strong>l crimen organizado en <strong>la</strong> EU<br />
(oCTA 2011) 49 seña<strong>la</strong> Internet como un medio c<strong>la</strong>ve <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> mayor parte <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s activida<strong>de</strong>s<br />
el crimen organizado. A<strong>de</strong>más <strong>de</strong> los ciber<strong>de</strong>litos re<strong>la</strong>cionados con <strong>la</strong> alta tecnología informática,<br />
el frau<strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong> tarjetas <strong>de</strong> crédito, <strong>la</strong> distribución <strong>de</strong> pornografía infantil a través <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
47 Directiva 95/46/CE <strong>de</strong>l Par<strong>la</strong>mento Europeo y <strong>de</strong>l Consejo, <strong>de</strong> 24 <strong>de</strong> octubre <strong>de</strong> 1995, re<strong>la</strong>tiva a <strong>la</strong><br />
protección <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s personas físicas en lo que respecta al tratamiento <strong>de</strong> datos personales y a <strong>la</strong> libre<br />
circu<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> estos datos, Do L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31. Directiva modificada por el Reg<strong>la</strong>mento<br />
(CE) 1882/2003, Do L 284, 31.10.2003, p. 1.<br />
48 Ley 19/1993, <strong>de</strong> 28 <strong>de</strong> diciembre, sobre Medidas <strong>de</strong> prevención <strong>de</strong>l b<strong>la</strong>nqueo <strong>de</strong> capitales, revisada<br />
por <strong>la</strong> Ley 19/2003, <strong>de</strong> 4 <strong>de</strong> julio, que transponía <strong>la</strong> Segunda Directiva sobre b<strong>la</strong>nqueo <strong>de</strong> capitales.<br />
49 EURoPoL, EU organised Crime Threat Assessment, oCTA 2011, The Hague, 28 April 2011, pp.<br />
5-6.
el espacio <strong>de</strong> libertad, seguridad y justicia y <strong>la</strong> cibercriminalidad en <strong>la</strong> Unión europea<br />
277<br />
<strong>red</strong>, <strong>la</strong> piratería audio-visual, <strong>la</strong> extensión <strong>de</strong>l uso <strong>de</strong> Internet respalda <strong>la</strong> e<strong>la</strong>boración, obtención<br />
y distribución <strong>de</strong> drogas <strong>de</strong> diseño, <strong>la</strong> trata <strong>de</strong> seres humanos, <strong>la</strong> inmigración ilegal,<br />
el mercado <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s falsificaciones, el tráfico con especies en vías <strong>de</strong> extinción y otras muchas<br />
activida<strong>de</strong>s criminales. Igualmente, <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> <strong>de</strong> re<strong>de</strong>s se usa como vía segura <strong>de</strong> comunicación<br />
entre los <strong>de</strong>lincuentes y como medio eficaz <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>vado <strong>de</strong> dinero <strong>para</strong> numerosos grupos<br />
criminales, entre ellos los terroristas y <strong>la</strong>s mafias. La sensación <strong>de</strong> anonimato y <strong>la</strong> publicidad<br />
masiva que ofrece <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>, incrementa <strong>la</strong> discreción y <strong>la</strong> rentabilidad <strong>de</strong> estos servicios, resultando<br />
a su vez en una mayor dificultad <strong>para</strong> i<strong>de</strong>ntificar a los criminales a través <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s técnicas<br />
policiales tradicionales.<br />
La UE comenzó su <strong>la</strong>bor <strong>para</strong> combatir estas conductas sobre <strong>la</strong> base que le proporcionaba<br />
el <strong>de</strong>nominado tercer pi<strong>la</strong>r comunitario <strong>de</strong>dicado a <strong>la</strong> cooperación policial y judicial<br />
en materia penal. Hoy en día con el espacio <strong>de</strong> libertad, seguridad y justicia regu<strong>la</strong>do en el<br />
TFUE, aunque <strong>la</strong> competencia comunitaria sigue siendo limitada a <strong>de</strong>terminadas conductas<br />
y continúa sometida al principio <strong>de</strong> subsidiariedad, <strong>la</strong> UE dispone <strong>de</strong> una base jurídica específica<br />
<strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> adopción <strong>de</strong> instrumentos <strong>de</strong> armonización penal.<br />
En <strong>de</strong>finitiva, los instrumentos europeos más operativos <strong>para</strong> prevenir y castigar los<br />
actos re<strong>la</strong>cionados con el fenómeno <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> cibercriminalidad en <strong>la</strong> UE, abocan a <strong>la</strong> armonización<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s normas sustantivas y procedimentales nacionales y a <strong>la</strong> cooperación internacional<br />
en dicho ámbito. Se trata <strong>de</strong> evitar en lo posible el mantenimiento y creación <strong>de</strong> <strong>para</strong>ísos<br />
cibernéticos y <strong>la</strong> diferencia punitiva <strong>de</strong> un país a otro. De forma <strong>para</strong>le<strong>la</strong>, también resulta<br />
necesario arbitrar mecanismos que resuelvan los conflictos <strong>de</strong> jurisdicción y reforzar los instrumentos<br />
<strong>de</strong> cooperación policial y judicial en materia <strong>de</strong> cibercrimen.
15<br />
ANONymIty, “trAsH tAlk” AND<br />
CyBer-smeArINg ON tHe INterNet<br />
Anne W. Salisbury<br />
Attorney at Law. Guzov Ofsink, LLC<br />
AbstrAct: With the increasing prevalence of email, chat rooms, social networking websites and<br />
web logs, the Internet has become essential to the free exchange of i<strong>de</strong>as and opinions, albeit, at times,<br />
absurd, insulting, profane or rhetorical. A common misconception is that you can blog or post material<br />
anonymously or pseudonymously and your i<strong>de</strong>ntity is forever hid<strong>de</strong>n. In fact, there are legal ways<br />
to discover the i<strong>de</strong>ntity of anonymous or pseudonymous online speakers.<br />
The recent wave of <strong>la</strong>wsuits against internet service provi<strong>de</strong>rs attempting to force internet service<br />
provi<strong>de</strong>rs to reveal the names of anonymous online commenters arguably threaten the free exchange<br />
of i<strong>de</strong>as on the internet.<br />
In my recent case, an anonymous blogger faced a petition from New York mo<strong>de</strong>l named Lisku<strong>la</strong><br />
Cohen to force Google to reveal the i<strong>de</strong>ntity of the Blogger who had posted anonymous statements<br />
online, calling Ms. Cohen a “skank” and “ho” among other insulting loose, hyperbolic statements.<br />
Despite its seemingly petty un<strong>de</strong>rpinnings, actions such as these have the potential to harm fundamental<br />
free speech rights. Without proper safeguards, forcibly unmasking online commenters could<br />
have a dangerous chilling effect upon what has become the p<strong>red</strong>ominant forum for free speech in<br />
mo<strong>de</strong>rn society.<br />
Un<strong>de</strong>r U.S. <strong>la</strong>w, a Petitioner must carry the bur<strong>de</strong>n of <strong>de</strong>monstrating a meritorious c<strong>la</strong>im for <strong>de</strong>famation,<br />
before he or she can force an ISP to reveal the i<strong>de</strong>ntity of an anonymous online blogger or<br />
commenter.<br />
Keywords: anonymity, free speech, ISPs, online <strong>de</strong>famation, chilling effects.<br />
Should bloggers who post messages anonymously that others consi<strong>de</strong>r <strong>de</strong>famatory be<br />
able to keep their i<strong>de</strong>ntities unknown? Anyone tempted to say a reflexive “no” needs to stop<br />
and consi<strong>de</strong>r some of the unforeseen and serious ramifications.<br />
From its inception, the internet has been characterized by the prevalence of anonymous<br />
(or pseudonymous) speech. Instead of using their true names to post, bloggers and<br />
on-line commenters often choose to post using pseudonyms (assumed names) or anonymously<br />
(no name at all) 1 .<br />
During the disputed Iranian elections, the uprising in Egypt and recent pro-<strong>de</strong>mocracy<br />
cyber-activism in countries such as China and Burma, blogs and social media sites<br />
1 Jeremy Stone Weber, Note, Defining Cyberlibel: A First Amendment Limit for Libel Suits Against<br />
Individuals Arising from Computer Bulletin Board Speech, 46 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 235, 239-41<br />
(1995).
280 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
allowed people to provi<strong>de</strong> an uncenso<strong>red</strong> account of what was really happening in the world<br />
surrounding them. These ordinary citizens turned citizen journalists, cyber-activists and<br />
chroniclers –particu<strong>la</strong>rly in oppressive regimes– <strong>de</strong>sperately need the cloak of anonymity to<br />
protect against retaliation, harassment, or even physical safety.<br />
Forcibly revealing an anonymous blogger’s true i<strong>de</strong>ntity at the command of a judge or<br />
other governmental official <strong>de</strong>als a severe blow to healthy dissent and discourse in countries<br />
where it is most vital.<br />
However, the same anonymity that allows those seeking to expose the corruption or<br />
oppression insi<strong>de</strong> a brutal regime can also be used in less-lofty en<strong>de</strong>avors,e.g.: the familiar<br />
“trash-talkers” found throughout the internet throwing out insults and invective while hiding<br />
behind a fake name. For those who strongly believe in forcibly unmasking these on-line<br />
insulters, it behooves them to think carefully about stifling the good speech while stamping<br />
out the bad. Many legitimately fear that forced non-anonymity might have a chilling effect<br />
on the good as well as “bad” speech. By forcing transparency and stripping bloggers and<br />
commenters of the cloak of anonymity, crucial discussions will be stifled along with the<br />
trivial and petty.<br />
1. tHe role of anonymity<br />
Anonymous and pseudononymous communications have an important p<strong>la</strong>ce in our<br />
political and social discourse. In fact, in America, the tradition of anonymous speech is ol<strong>de</strong>r<br />
than the United States itself 2 . The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that the<br />
right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment. A much-cited passage<br />
from a 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:<br />
Protections for anonymous speech are vital to <strong>de</strong>mocratic discourse. Allowing dissenters<br />
to shield their i<strong>de</strong>ntities frees them to express critical, minority views… Anonymity<br />
is a shield from the tyranny of the majority… It thus exemplifies the purpose behind<br />
the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particu<strong>la</strong>r: to protect unpopu<strong>la</strong>r<br />
individuals from retaliation… at the hand of an intolerant society 3 .<br />
Although protections for anonymity were first applied to protect the authors of pamphlets<br />
and leaflets, the Court has since ma<strong>de</strong> clear that these protections extend to mo<strong>de</strong>rn<br />
forms of on-line communication 4 . There are two opposing views on the virtues on-line<br />
2 our Founding fathers Alexan<strong>de</strong>r Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote the Fe<strong>de</strong>ralist Papers<br />
–the fundamental document outlining the philosophy of the United State’s entire system of government,<br />
the authors used the pseudonym “Publius” See Alexan<strong>de</strong>r Hamilton, John Jay, and James<br />
Madison (Jacob E. Cooke, ed., The Fe<strong>de</strong>ralist (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1961).<br />
3 McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334, 342-43, 115 S.Ct. 1511 (1995) McIntyre, 514 U.S.<br />
at 347, 357<br />
4 See e.g. Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 870, 117 S.Ct. 2329, 138 L.Ed.2d 874 (1997)
Anonymity, “trash talk” and cyber-smearing on the Internet<br />
281<br />
anonymity. There are those who think people abuse their anonymity to engage in irresponsible<br />
attacks on the internet without any accountability –whether it be socially or legally– and<br />
those who think anonymity is the cornerstone of free and vigorous <strong>de</strong>bate and that its negative<br />
effects are outweighed by the positive benefits of this free and open discourse.<br />
one prominent blogger who ma<strong>de</strong> his start pseudononymously summarize these competing<br />
aims thusly:<br />
While it enables some to hurl reckless charges and gross epithets, it also facilitates the<br />
engagement of more individuals in on-line discussion and <strong>de</strong>bate. There are many<br />
un<strong>de</strong>rstandable reasons why intelligent and knowledgeable people in various fields are<br />
reluctant to blog un<strong>de</strong>r their own name. Adopting a pseudonym is not necessarily a<br />
cowardly or sinister act 5 .<br />
i<strong>de</strong>ntifying information<br />
Usually, bloggers provi<strong>de</strong> their true i<strong>de</strong>ntities to the Internet Service Provi<strong>de</strong>r (“ISP”)<br />
when setting up the blog, but adopt entirely new personae when presenting their view, facts<br />
or opinions to the public 6 . But, many posters on message boards, chatrooms or Twitter have<br />
not provi<strong>de</strong>d their true i<strong>de</strong>ntities to anyone 7 . The only i<strong>de</strong>ntifier is the IP address which<br />
can pinpoint the location of the computer terminal, but not the i<strong>de</strong>ntity of the user. This<br />
ability to remain anonymous by using pseudonyms or false names to i<strong>de</strong>ntify themselves<br />
on-line can create significant hardships for those hoping to sue posters or commenters for<br />
<strong>de</strong>famation and libel.<br />
A common mistaken belief is that by posting anonymously or pseudonymously, one<br />
cannot be sued because one’s i<strong>de</strong>ntity is forever hid<strong>de</strong>n. In fact, there are legal procedures<br />
that individuals, companies, and the government can use to discover the i<strong>de</strong>ntity of an anonymous<br />
or pseudonymous on-line speaker un<strong>de</strong>r certain circumstances.<br />
5 Jonathan Adler, Another Blogging Pseudonym Bites the Dust, volokh.com/posts/1244411084.shtml<br />
June 7, 2009 at 7:39pm<br />
6 “Blog services typically offer users a number of options in terms of anonymity. People can choose<br />
to be totally anonymous, pseudonymous, or i<strong>de</strong>ntifiable. For example, when a user starts to set up<br />
a new blog on Blogger, s/he is only requi<strong>red</strong> to provi<strong>de</strong> a user name, email address, and a disp<strong>la</strong>y<br />
name. only the disp<strong>la</strong>y name will be shown on the blog, because it is used to sign blog posts.<br />
However, users can choose an easily igno<strong>red</strong> meaningless sign to avoid providing a name. A pseudonym<br />
or a real name is equally acceptable. Provision of any other personal profile information,<br />
such as one’s real name, gen<strong>de</strong>r, date of birth, location, job, homepage, and interests, is optional.<br />
Users can select to share or withhold their profile information as they like.” Qian, H. and Scott, C.<br />
R. (2007), Anonymity and Self-Disclosure on Weblogs Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,<br />
12: 1428–1451.<br />
7 While you have a right to engage in anonymous speech in the U.S., there are certain situations in<br />
which you can lose this protection. For one, certain sites simply do not allow their users to be anonymous.<br />
Social networking sites, for example, like Facebook, often require their users to act un<strong>de</strong>r their<br />
real names
282 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
1.1. suits for <strong>de</strong>famation<br />
Recently, in the United States, an increasing number of suits have been filed by p<strong>la</strong>intiffs<br />
who c<strong>la</strong>im to have been <strong>de</strong>famed by anonymous “postings” in comment sections, blogs,<br />
tweets or elsewhere on-line. of course the anonymity presents a unique problem: the inju<strong>red</strong><br />
party doesn’t know whom to sue. Unlike the p<strong>la</strong>intiffs in most traditional <strong>de</strong>famation<br />
c<strong>la</strong>ims, these p<strong>la</strong>intiffs are unable to name their <strong>de</strong>famers, since only the screen names of the<br />
posters are ascertainable 8 . Before they can sue these alleged <strong>de</strong>famers, these p<strong>la</strong>intiffs have to<br />
find out who they are by filing actions refer<strong>red</strong> to as “John Doe” <strong>la</strong>wsuits.<br />
1.2. Process<br />
A p<strong>la</strong>intiff sues an unknown anonymous blogger or commenter (“John or Jane Doe”) who<br />
allegedly libeled the p<strong>la</strong>intiff on-line. once the p<strong>la</strong>intiff has filed a John Doe <strong>la</strong>wsuit, the p<strong>la</strong>intiff<br />
subpoenas the ISP (for example, Google) where the offending post appea<strong>red</strong> <strong>de</strong>manding that it<br />
turn over information revealing the i<strong>de</strong>ntity of the John or Jane Doe. This could mean the real<br />
name, phone number an address, or just the IP address, <strong>de</strong>pending on the situation.<br />
This tool is supposed to be used only where the P<strong>la</strong>intiff needs the i<strong>de</strong>ntity in or<strong>de</strong>r to<br />
proceed with a legal action. In reality, some p<strong>la</strong>intiffs file John Doe <strong>la</strong>wsuits against anonymous<br />
Internet users only to expose their i<strong>de</strong>ntities, not because they want to pursue a<br />
legally valid c<strong>la</strong>im against them. In many instances the motivation behind these petitions to<br />
unmask is the same as in traditional <strong>de</strong>famation cases – an inju<strong>red</strong> party is seeking to <strong>red</strong>ress<br />
the supposed harm to their reputation that the <strong>de</strong>famation has caused 9 . In some cases, however,<br />
the p<strong>la</strong>intiff may be more interested in simply unmasking the i<strong>de</strong>ntity of the anonymous<br />
speaker than in obtaining a judicial remedy 10 .<br />
To <strong>de</strong>termine whether the ISP should have to reveal the user’s i<strong>de</strong>ntity, courts have<br />
been forced to ba<strong>la</strong>nce the p<strong>la</strong>intiff’s interest in pursuing a <strong>de</strong>famation c<strong>la</strong>im against the First<br />
Amendment rights of anonymous speakers.<br />
1.3. brief summary of u. s. <strong>de</strong>famation <strong>la</strong>w<br />
In brief, un<strong>de</strong>r U.S. <strong>la</strong>w, <strong>de</strong>famation requires a statement that is:<br />
8 See Julie Hil<strong>de</strong>n, Why Anonymous Internet Speakers Can’t Count on ISPs to Protect Them, at http://<br />
writ.news.find<strong>la</strong>w.com/hil<strong>de</strong>n/20010101.html (Jan. 1, 2001) (“[I]f the target of anonymous, damaging<br />
Internet speech wants to seek out the speaker, the ISP is still the entity to which he must direct<br />
his subpoena. After all, he can’t serve a subpoena on a person he can’t even i<strong>de</strong>ntify.”).<br />
9 Jennifer o’Brien, “Putting a Face to a (Screen) Name: The First Amendment Implications of Compelling<br />
ISPs to Reveal the I<strong>de</strong>ntities of Anonymous Internet Speakers in on-line Defamation Cases,”<br />
70 Fordham Law Review 2745 (2002).<br />
10 Nadine Strossen, Protecting Privacy and Free Speech in Cyberspace, 89 Geo. L.J. 2103, 2106-07<br />
(2001) (discussing recent efforts of the American Civil Liberties Union to ensure protection for<br />
anonymous and pseudoanonymous communications un<strong>de</strong>r the First Amendment).
Anonymity, “trash talk” and cyber-smearing on the Internet<br />
283<br />
a) a fact (not opinion);<br />
b) false;<br />
c) <strong>de</strong>famatory;<br />
d) concerning another person;<br />
e) published to a third party; and<br />
f) with some <strong>de</strong>gree of fault or malice 11 .<br />
The first prong –<strong>de</strong>termining whether a statement is one of fact or “opinion”– is a<br />
much-litigated component of <strong>de</strong>famation <strong>la</strong>w, particu<strong>la</strong>rly in the context of on-line <strong>de</strong>famation.<br />
This is a crucial point, because expressions of opinion, no matter how ru<strong>de</strong> or how<br />
offensive, are absolutely protected un<strong>de</strong>r U.S. <strong>la</strong>w 12 . In <strong>de</strong>termining whether a particu<strong>la</strong>r<br />
statement constitutes actionable <strong>de</strong>famation so as to survive a motion to dismiss, New York<br />
courts have consistently followed the standard set by the Court of Appeals in the seminal<br />
case of Gross v. New York Times Co., involving a three (3) part analysis:<br />
(1) whether the specific <strong>la</strong>nguage in issue has a precise meaning which is readily un<strong>de</strong>rstood;<br />
(2) whether the statements are capable of being proven true or false; and (3)<br />
whether either the full context of the communication in which the statement appears or the<br />
broa<strong>de</strong>r social context and surrounding circumstances are such as to signal rea<strong>de</strong>rs or listeners<br />
that what is being read or heard is likely to be opinion, not fact 13 .<br />
The First Amendment provi<strong>de</strong>s broad protection for such statements of rhetorical hyperbole<br />
“no matter how offensive” 14 . This dispositive inquiry must be ma<strong>de</strong> from the perspective<br />
of an “ordinary, reasonable” viewer of the website at issue 15 .<br />
11 Restatement (Second) of Torts § 558 (1977).<br />
12 Torain v. Liu, 279 Fed. Appx 46, No. 07-3672-cv, 2008 WL 2164659, at *1 (2d Cir. May 22, 2008).<br />
13 Gross v. New York Times Co., 82 N.Y.2d 146, 623 N.E.2d 1163, 603 N.Y.S.2d 813, (1993), 82<br />
N.Y.2d at 153 (emphasis ad<strong>de</strong>d) (citations and quotation marks omitted).<br />
14 See, e.g., Mann v. Abel, 10 N.Y.3d 271, 279, 885 N.E.2d 884, 856 N.Y.S.2d 31 (2008); See also, Old<br />
Dominion Branch No. 496, Nat’l Ass’n of Letter Carriers v. Austin, 418 U.S. 264, 286, 94 S.Ct. 2770,<br />
2780, 41 L.Ed.2d 745 (1974) (protecting “rhetorical hyperbole, a lusty and imaginative expression<br />
of contempt” such as <strong>de</strong>fendant’s characterization of p<strong>la</strong>intiff as a “scab” and a “traitor” with “rotten<br />
principles”); Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 50, 108 S.Ct. 876, 99 L.Ed.2d 41 (1988)<br />
(First Amendment <strong>de</strong>feated c<strong>la</strong>ims for, inter alia, libel based upon a parody that “could not reasonably<br />
have been interpreted as stating actual facts”); 600 W. 115th St. Corp. v. Von Gutfeld, 80 N.Y.2d 130,<br />
139, 603 N.E.2d 930, 589 N.Y.S.2d 825 (1992) (“loose, figurative or hyperbolic” speech negates “the<br />
impression that an apparently verifiable assertion was in-ten<strong>de</strong>d” and is not actionable); Roth v. United<br />
Fe<strong>de</strong>ration of Teachers, 5 Misc3d 888,897, 787 N.Y.S.2d 603, 610 (Sup. Ct. Kings 2004) (“statements<br />
of opinion are absolutely privileged and shiel<strong>de</strong>d from c<strong>la</strong>ims of <strong>de</strong>famation un<strong>de</strong>r article I, §<br />
8 of the New York State Constitution, no matter how vituperative or unreasonable the opinions may<br />
be”) (emphasis ad<strong>de</strong>d) (citations omitted).<br />
15 See Mr. Chow of New York v. Ste. Jour Azur S.A., 759 F.2d 219(2d Cir. 1985); Home v. Matthews, No.<br />
97Civ.3605 (JSM), 1997 WL 598452, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 1997) (“[i]n <strong>de</strong>termining whether
284 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
In <strong>de</strong>termining whether the challenged statements are protected opinion, courts must<br />
look at the <strong>la</strong>nguage itself to <strong>de</strong>termine whether it has “a precise meaning which is readily<br />
un<strong>de</strong>rstood” and whether it is “capable of being proven true or false 16 ” as well as the context<br />
in which the statements were ma<strong>de</strong>. It is imperative that courts learn to view libel allegations<br />
within the unique context of the Internet.<br />
2. bad facts make bad <strong>la</strong>w: tHe lisku<strong>la</strong> coHen case<br />
In a recent, prece<strong>de</strong>nt-setting case of mine that may have far-reaching consequences<br />
in the burgeoning social media sphere, former mo<strong>de</strong>l, Lisku<strong>la</strong> Cohen, brought an action<br />
against Google to force Google to unmask the i<strong>de</strong>ntity of an anonymous blogger who had<br />
insulted her, calling her a “skank” and a “ho” in a series of blog posts on a single day.<br />
The New York State Judge si<strong>de</strong>d with Ms. Cohen and or<strong>de</strong><strong>red</strong> Google to turn over<br />
i<strong>de</strong>ntifying information about the anonymous blogger 17 . The ruling has divi<strong>de</strong>d the blogosphere,<br />
with some praising the <strong>de</strong>cision, and others fearing it sets a dangerous prece<strong>de</strong>nt for<br />
informational privacy on the internet. Hund<strong>red</strong>s of articles, blogs, TV shows and other media<br />
have commented on this case, which has now been dubbed the “skank case” 18 . Privacy<br />
groups have publicly expressed concerns about this ruling 19 .<br />
Although there is a vocal chorus app<strong>la</strong>uding the ruling because of the belief that<br />
anonymity on the internet is nothing more than a <strong>de</strong>vice for “cowards” to hurl insults<br />
without suffering consequences 20 , others fear that this <strong>de</strong>cision will have harmful and<br />
unforeseen repercussions. Free speech and privacy advocates fear once this form of censorship<br />
is established on-line, it will stifle more than just the petty and personal invective, but<br />
will muffle and inhibit all discussions – from lofty political discourse to casual, offhand<br />
the p<strong>la</strong>intiff has been <strong>de</strong>famed, the court must test the statement by its effect upon the average and<br />
ordinary rea<strong>de</strong>r to whom the publication is addressed”). In this inquiry, courts look “at the content<br />
of the whole communication, its tone and apparent purpose . . . to <strong>de</strong>termine whether a reasonable<br />
person would view [it] as expressing or implying any facts.” Immuno A,G. v .J. Moor-Jankowsi, 77<br />
N.Y.2d 235, 250, 254, 567 N.E.2d 1270,1278, 1281, 566 N.Y.S.2d 906, 914, 1281 (1991).<br />
16 Mann, 10 N.Y.3d at 271, 279.<br />
17 Cohen v. Google Inc., 25 Misc.3d 945, 887 N.Y.S.2d 424 (Sup. Ct. New York County 2009).<br />
18 A Google search of the case reveals hund<strong>red</strong>s of press reports concerning this case and the potential<br />
implications, e.g. Jose Martinez, Mo<strong>de</strong>l Lisku<strong>la</strong> Cohen sues Google over blogger’s ‘skank’ comment,<br />
january 6, 2009, NY Daily News, http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/01/05/2009-01-05_<br />
mo<strong>de</strong>l_lisku<strong>la</strong>_cohen_sues_google_over_blo.html?print=1&page=all (<strong>la</strong>st visited May 24, 2011);<br />
The Two Si<strong>de</strong>s of Accused Mo<strong>de</strong>l-Skank Lisku<strong>la</strong> Cohen, August 21, 2009, http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2009/08/the_two_si<strong>de</strong>s_of_accused_mo<strong>de</strong>l.html<br />
(<strong>la</strong>st visited May 24, 2011)<br />
19 For example, the Electronic Freedom Foundation, The Reporter’s Committee for Freedom of Speech,<br />
the American Civil Liberties Union, among other groups, have expressed displeasure in the ruling.<br />
20 Judge H. Lee Sarokin: Does Anonymity on the Internet Breed Bravery or Cowardice?, Huffington<br />
Post, June 9, 2010.
Anonymity, “trash talk” and cyber-smearing on the Internet<br />
285<br />
comments on silly blogs. The ruling has incur<strong>red</strong> starkly divi<strong>de</strong>d reaction, with some praising<br />
the <strong>de</strong>cision, and others expressing fear it sets a dangerous prece<strong>de</strong>nt that will enable<br />
companies, individuals and even governments to forcibly unmask internet commentators<br />
that they take a dislike to.<br />
2.1. facts of cohen case<br />
In brief, Lisku<strong>la</strong> Cohen was a thirty-six-year-old mo<strong>de</strong>l living in New York City 21 . on<br />
August 21, 2008, an anonymous blogger (the “Blogger”) posted five messages about Ms.<br />
Cohen on a website owned by Google, Inc. that allows users to create and publish their own<br />
blogs. The blogger posted these messages on a blog entitled “SKANKS IN NYC.” The postings<br />
inclu<strong>de</strong>d pictures of Ms. Cohen accompanied by captions <strong>de</strong>scribing her as: a “skank”;<br />
“skanky”; our #1 skanky superstar”; and a “ho.” Some of the pictures <strong>de</strong>picted Ms. Cohen in<br />
a sexually suggestive manner, and one caption suggested that Ms. Cohen was experienced<br />
in performing oral sex 22 .<br />
Ms. Cohen maintained she had been <strong>de</strong>famed by the Blogger who posted photos of her,<br />
along with <strong>de</strong>rogatory comments. Ms. Cohen argued that the Blogger’s comments constituted<br />
<strong>de</strong>famation per se because they “impugn[ed] her chastity. 23 ” Further, Ms. Cohen argued<br />
that the Blogger’s statements, particu<strong>la</strong>rly the use of “skank” and “ho,” were actionable<br />
statements of fact rather than of opinion. Id. The Blogger argued that the statements were<br />
opinion because the statements “skank” and “ho” are not capable of being proven true or<br />
false and the context of the statements on a blog “signal[s] rea<strong>de</strong>rs . . . that what is being read<br />
or heard is likely to be opinion, not fact. 24 ”<br />
The court held that Ms. Cohen “sufficiently established the merits of her proposed<br />
cause of action for <strong>de</strong>famation . . . and that the information sought is material and necessary<br />
to i<strong>de</strong>ntify the potential <strong>de</strong>fendant.” Id. Specifically, the court ruled that the words “skank”<br />
and “ho,” as used in the blogger’s commentary, constituted statements of fact rather than<br />
of opinion because they were capable of being proven true or false and, when taken in context,<br />
conveyed a sense to a rea<strong>de</strong>r that the comments were factual in nature 25 . The Blogger<br />
argued that its statements constitute no more than “rhetorical hyperbole” and “vigorous<br />
epithets 26 ” and are therefore non-actionable opinions entitled to absolute protection un<strong>de</strong>r<br />
21 Dareh Gregorian, Ex-Vogue Mo<strong>de</strong>l Sna<strong>red</strong> in Ugly Web, N.Y. Post, Jan. 6, 2009, http://www.nypost.<br />
com/p/news/regional/ex_vogue_mo<strong>de</strong>l_sna<strong>red</strong>_in_ugly_web_aUTAquID0xeSF3RGKc6RcJ.<br />
22 Cohen, 25 Misc.3d at 950, 887 N.Y.S.2d at 428.<br />
23 Cohen, 25 Misc.3d at 947, 887 N.Y.S.2d at 426.<br />
24 Cohen, 25 Misc.3d at 950, 887 N.Y.S.2d at 428 (quoting Gross v. New York Times Co., 82 N.Y.2d<br />
146, 153, 603 N.Y.S.2d 813, 623 N.E.2d 1163 (1993).<br />
25 Id.<br />
26 Id.
286 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article 1, Section 8 of the New York<br />
Constitution 27 .<br />
The Blogger further argued that no reasonable viewer of the Blog would or could conclu<strong>de</strong><br />
that the statements referring to Petitioner as a “skank”, or “skanky”, or “acting like a<br />
ho” actually purport to convey verifiable statements of fact. These loose statements carry an<br />
unmistakable comic tone and constitute mere rhetoric, which, in a forum notorious for the<br />
unbridled exchange of caustic comments, invective and insult, would never be construed by<br />
a reasonable viewer as conveying actual facts about Ms. Cohen. Accordingly, the Blogger asked<br />
the Court to keep their i<strong>de</strong>ntity a secret because the Petitioner’s threatened <strong>de</strong>famation<br />
c<strong>la</strong>im would fail as a matter of <strong>la</strong>w.<br />
2.2. fact v. opinion<br />
Prior the Google v. Cohen case, it seemed beyond dispute that words such as “skank”<br />
and “ho” were not statements of objective fact, capable of being true or false28 .<br />
In light of the nature and tone of the specific <strong>la</strong>nguage at issue here and the way in<br />
which all members of society, but young adults in particu<strong>la</strong>r, attribute different meanings to<br />
particu<strong>la</strong>r words and phrases over time, such that the usage and meaning of any particu<strong>la</strong>r<br />
term may well change over time, it is important that the Court remain mindful of the axiomatic<br />
principle that:<br />
Whether <strong>la</strong>nguage has that ten<strong>de</strong>ncy <strong>de</strong>pends, among other factors, upon the temper of<br />
the time, the current of contemporary public opinion, with the result that words, harmless<br />
27 The First Amendment provi<strong>de</strong>s, in pertinent part: “Congress shall make no <strong>la</strong>w... abridging the freedom<br />
of speech, or of the press.” Article 1, Section 8 of the New York Constitution states: “Every<br />
citizen may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for<br />
the abuse of that right; and no <strong>la</strong>w shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the<br />
press. In all criminal prosecutions or indictments for libels, the truth may be given in evi<strong>de</strong>nce to the<br />
jury; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous is true, and was published<br />
with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be ac-quitted; and the jury shall have the<br />
right to <strong>de</strong>termine the <strong>la</strong>w and the fact.”<br />
28 See, e.g., Seelig v. Infinity Broadcasting Corp., 97 Cal. App,4 th 798, 811, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 108, 118 (1 st<br />
Dist. App. Ct. 2002) (“[t]he phrase ‘big skank’ is not actionable because it is too vague to be capable<br />
of being proven true or false”); Nunez v. A-T Financial Information, Inc., 957 F. Supp. 438, 442<br />
(S.D.N.Y. 1997) (rejecting s<strong>la</strong>n<strong>de</strong>r per se based on statement that “you, you need to suck more. You<br />
need to get out your knee pads and start sucking”, finding that such statements were mere innuendo);<br />
Bolton v. Strawbridge, 156 N.Y.S.2d 722, 724 (Sup. Ct. Westchester 1956) (statement that “you’d do<br />
anything for five dol<strong>la</strong>rs, so I am told in the vil<strong>la</strong>ge” did not impute unchastity); Pearlstein v. Draizin,<br />
190 Misc. 27, 73 N.Y.S.2d 594 (Sp. Term 1947) (statement “charging the p<strong>la</strong>intiff with being a<br />
‘tramp’ is not actionable per se”); Ward v. Zelikovsky, 136 N.J. 516, 537, 643 A.2d 972, 982 (1994)<br />
(“‘Bitch’ in its common everyday use is vulgar but non-actionable name-calling that is incapable of<br />
objective truth or falsity”).
Anonymity, “trash talk” and cyber-smearing on the Internet<br />
287<br />
in one age, in one community, may be highly damaging to reputation at another time<br />
or in a different p<strong>la</strong>ce 29 .<br />
Here, Blogger argued that the loose, hyperbolic use of the words “ho” and “skank”<br />
exemplify precisely the type of rhetorical hyperbole and vigorous epithets that both the Supreme<br />
Court and New York courts alike have vigorously protected. These words have become<br />
a popu<strong>la</strong>r form of “trash talk” ubiquitous across the Internet as well as network television<br />
and should be treated no differently than “jerk” or any other form of loose and vague insults<br />
that the Constitution protects.<br />
2.3. The context of the blog informing <strong>de</strong>famatory meaning<br />
Even if a Court were to find the “skank” and “ho” comments at issue in Cohen v. Google<br />
to be capable of a <strong>de</strong>famatory meaning, the context negated any impression that a verifiable<br />
factual assertion was inten<strong>de</strong>d. Context is critical, if not dispositive, to the <strong>de</strong>termination<br />
of whether a statement is protected opinion 30 . Here, any ordinary visitor to a website entitled<br />
“SKANKS IN NYC” would undoubtedly expect this very sort of loose hyperbole and<br />
would have un<strong>de</strong>rstood the challenged statements to be statements of opinion, not objective<br />
fact, especially in light of their immediate context – a garbled mishmash of unintelligible<br />
captions based on Petitioner’s own public photos containing their own vague yet familiar<br />
epithets. Simi<strong>la</strong>rly, in one New Jersey case, the Court found that no reasonable person could<br />
read a book named “Hot Chicks with Douchebags,” and believe it was meant to contain<br />
assertions of fact that “anyone would take seriously” 31 .<br />
In Cohen v Google, the critical issue of context cannot be overstated. In recent years<br />
blogs have become a phenomenon, providing an excessively popu<strong>la</strong>r medium not only for<br />
conveying i<strong>de</strong>as, but also for mere venting purposes, affording the less outspoken a protected<br />
forum for voicing gripes, leveling invectives, and ranting about anything at all. In this<br />
way, the blogs have evolved as the mo<strong>de</strong>rn day soapbox for one’s personal opinions. Contemporary<br />
<strong>de</strong>finitions of the term “blog” hinge on the personal –rather than factual– outlet<br />
provi<strong>de</strong>d by Internet blogs today. For instance, the Merriam Webster on-line Dictionary<br />
<strong>de</strong>fines a “blog” as “a Web site that contains an on-line personal journal with reflections,<br />
comments, and often hyperlinks provi<strong>de</strong>d by the writer” 32 .<br />
29 Mencher v. Chesley, 297 N.Y. 94, 100, 259 (1947)<br />
30 See Immun A.G., 77 N.Y.2d 235, 250, 254, 567 N.E.2d 1270,1278, 1281, 566 N.Y.S.2d 906, 914,<br />
1281 (1991) (“statements must first be viewed in their context in or<strong>de</strong>r for courts to <strong>de</strong>termine<br />
whether a reasonable person would view them as expressing or implying any facts”); Knievel v. ESPN,<br />
393 F.3d 1068, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[t]he context in which the statement appears is <strong>para</strong>mount in<br />
our analysis, and in some cases it can be dispositive”); Koch v. Goldway, 817 F.2d 507, 509 (9th Cir.<br />
1987) (“[c]ontext does resolve the matter”).<br />
31 See Gorze<strong>la</strong>ny v. Simon & Schuster, Inc. No. BER-L-7775-08 at *4-5 (N.J. Super. Feb. 6, 2009)<br />
32 Merriam Webster’s Collegiate® Dictionary, Eleventh Edition, retrievable from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blog.<br />
( ).
288 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
The Ninth Circuit recognized as much in a recent case where a photograph of Evel<br />
Knievel was posted on www.expn.com, a website that covers “extreme” sports such as skateboarding<br />
and motorcycle racing. The photograph contained a caption saying “Evel Knievel<br />
proves that you’re never too old to be a pimp.” The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s<br />
dismissal of Knievel’s <strong>de</strong>famation <strong>la</strong>wsuit reasoning that “although the word ‘pimp’ may<br />
be reasonably capable of a <strong>de</strong>famatory meaning when read in iso<strong>la</strong>tion, we agree with the<br />
District Court’s assessment that ‘the term loses its meaning when consi<strong>de</strong><strong>red</strong> in the context<br />
presented here.’” 33 . The court cited the youthful, loose nature of the website and reiterated<br />
the importance of the context in which the photo appea<strong>red</strong> in holding that a reasonable<br />
person would interpret the caption as hyperbole rather than as a factual allegation34 .<br />
In Cohen v. Google, the judge igno<strong>red</strong> the all-important analysis of the specific context<br />
at issue here, namely, “banter blogs” such as the Blog at issue here, which is obviously an<br />
amateur work of authorship in every sense. Any reasonable viewer would instantly un<strong>de</strong>rstand<br />
the Blog to be nothing more than a personal opinion page with otherwise irrelevant<br />
rhetoric. No reasonable viewer would construe the Blog – p<strong>red</strong>ominated as it is by a host<br />
of grammatical and typographical errors and employment of s<strong>la</strong>ng terms such as “ho” and<br />
“skank” – and conclu<strong>de</strong> that the Blog conveys or even purports to convey a single statement<br />
of fact about Petitioner. “It is the full context of the communication in which the statement<br />
appears [and] the broa<strong>de</strong>r social context and surrounding circumstances are such as to signal<br />
rea<strong>de</strong>rs or listeners that what is being read or heard is likely to be opinion, not fact” 35 .<br />
In sum, Judge Mad<strong>de</strong>n rejected the argument that any ordinary viewer of the blog at<br />
issue would conclu<strong>de</strong> that the Blogger’s statements –ma<strong>de</strong> in a comic tone with hyperbolic<br />
<strong>la</strong>nguage and in contexts known for expressions of caustic comments– were not conveying<br />
actual facts about Petitioner, but rather were nothing more than “rhetorical hyperbole,” “vigorous<br />
epithets” and statements of opinion. Judge Mad<strong>de</strong>n forced Google to reveal the i<strong>de</strong>ntity<br />
of the Blogger. After nearly two years of fallout, an appel<strong>la</strong>te court in New York issued<br />
an opinion that suggested that the Cohen v. Google case should have come out the other way.<br />
on May 12, 2011, an appel<strong>la</strong>te court in New York ruled that certain allegedly <strong>de</strong>famatory<br />
should be interpreted as opinions because they appea<strong>red</strong> on-line and were autho<strong>red</strong><br />
anonymously:<br />
The culture of Internet communications, as distinct from that of print media such a<br />
newspapers and magazines, has been characterized as encouraging a ‘freewheeling, anything-goes<br />
writing style’... rea<strong>de</strong>rs give less cre<strong>de</strong>nce to allegedly <strong>de</strong>famatory remarks<br />
published on the Internet than to simi<strong>la</strong>r remarks ma<strong>de</strong> in other contexts 36 ...<br />
33 Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1074 (9 th Cir. 2005).<br />
34 Id.<br />
35 Gross v. New York Times, 82 N.Y.2d 146, 153, 623 N.E.2d 1163, 1167, 603 N.Y.S.2d 813, 817<br />
36 Sandals Resorts Intl. Ltd. v Google, Inc., –N.Y.S.2d–, 2011 WL 1885939*8, 2011 NY Slip op 04179,<br />
(1 st Dep’t May 19, 2011).
Anonymity, “trash talk” and cyber-smearing on the Internet<br />
289<br />
That <strong>la</strong>nguage could affect a wi<strong>de</strong> swath of these forced-unmasking cases, turning the<br />
ti<strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong>dly in favor of anonymous posters.<br />
Although contributing to the full and free nature of speech on the Internet, anonymous<br />
speech has undoubtedly presented unique problems for those seeking justice for<br />
on-line <strong>de</strong>famation they have suffe<strong>red</strong>. When faced with petitions seeking to force the unmasking<br />
of an on-line poster, Courts must ba<strong>la</strong>nce the right of the p<strong>la</strong>intiff to <strong>red</strong>ress of his<br />
injury against that of the <strong>de</strong>fendant to speak anonymously.
COMUNICACIONES SOBRE DERECHO AL OLVIDO,<br />
PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS Y PRIVACIDAD
16<br />
BeHAVIOUrAl ADVertIsINg IN<br />
eleCtrONIC COmmUNICAtIONs<br />
A benefit to electronic communication <strong>de</strong>velopment<br />
and an intrusion of individual’s right to privacy<br />
and data protection<br />
Jelena Burnik<br />
Attorney at Law. Guzov Ofsink, LLC<br />
AbstrAct: online behavioural advertising enables tracking of internet user activity and <strong>de</strong>livering<br />
only relevant advertisements, based on the data collected and analysed over a period of time. Its<br />
potential in terms of advertising efficiency and user experience enhancement is vast however users,<br />
privacy pressure groups, specialists, and regu<strong>la</strong>tory bodies have expressed many concerns about user<br />
privacy and data protection.<br />
Up to date coherent regu<strong>la</strong>tion of behavioural advertising is a non-solved issue. The main issue to<br />
start with is user consent to collection of his/her data for the purpose of behavioural advertising. The<br />
regu<strong>la</strong>tors and the industry are still negotiating ways to obtain consent, causing legal uncertainty for<br />
the companies conducting behavioural advertising and the individuals, concerned about their privacy<br />
and data protection. The EU and the US have presented different solutions: US p<strong>la</strong>ces more emphasis<br />
on industry self-regu<strong>la</strong>tion, whereas EU insists on guidance in statutory regu<strong>la</strong>tion, possibly backed<br />
up by self-regu<strong>la</strong>tion.<br />
This paper argues that a mix of regu<strong>la</strong>tory approaches (statutory regu<strong>la</strong>tion and self-regu<strong>la</strong>tion) is<br />
necessary for better ba<strong>la</strong>ncing the potential behavioural targeting has for <strong>de</strong>velopment of electronic<br />
communications with an a<strong>de</strong>quate privacy and data protection. The regu<strong>la</strong>tors and the industry need<br />
to cooperate in <strong>de</strong>veloping privacy friendly solutions that will foster innovation and <strong>de</strong>velopment of<br />
electronic communications market. Crucial concepts for the future regu<strong>la</strong>tion are Privacy by Design,<br />
Privacy Enhancing Technologies and Privacy Impact Assessments.<br />
Keywords: behavioural advertising, data protection, prior consent, cookies, self-regu<strong>la</strong>tion, privacy-friendly<br />
solutions.<br />
1. introduction<br />
Behavioural advertising enables tracking of internet user activity (web browsing, ente<strong>red</strong><br />
search terms, viewed content) and then <strong>de</strong>livering only relevant advertisements, based<br />
on the data collected and analysed over a period of time (WP29, 2010; LSE, 2009b). In the<br />
<strong>la</strong>st few years it has been employed by service provi<strong>de</strong>rs at different <strong>la</strong>yers on the internet:<br />
at application <strong>la</strong>yer (website publishers and advertising networks), navigation <strong>la</strong>yer (search<br />
engines) and most recently at connectivity <strong>la</strong>yer, in connection with internet service provi<strong>de</strong>rs.<br />
It also has the potential to be exploited through digital TV p<strong>la</strong>tform (Burke, 2003;<br />
Näränen, 2003). Its potential in terms of advertising efficiency and user experience enhan-
294 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
cement is vast, however, since the introduction users, privacy pressure groups, specialists,<br />
and regu<strong>la</strong>tory bodies have exposed many concerns about user privacy and data protection.<br />
The attempts of behavioural advertising executed by internet service provi<strong>de</strong>rs were highly<br />
criticized (Bohm, 2008; C<strong>la</strong>yton, 2008, out-<strong>la</strong>w.com, 2008, IWGDPT, 2010, Cooper,<br />
2010) and currently there is no such activity in the EU. That is why this paper focuses on<br />
behavioural advertising executed by other service provi<strong>de</strong>rs on the internet, and does not<br />
question the internet service provi<strong>de</strong>rs.<br />
Up to date coherent regu<strong>la</strong>tion of behavioural advertising is a non-solved issue. The main<br />
issue to start with is user consent to collection of his/her data (by means of a cookie) for the<br />
purpose of behavioural advertising. Currently the industry is operating an opt-out principle,<br />
meaning that it may collect information on users via cookies, but has to offer them a way to<br />
opt-out. In reality opting-out is often not such an easy and transparent process and the public<br />
is un<strong>de</strong>r educated about cookies and behavioural advertising. The current opt-out principle<br />
thus does not suffice in protecting users’ right to privacy and data protection.<br />
As an answer to this <strong>de</strong>ficiency both, EU and US, started to employ means to better<br />
ba<strong>la</strong>nce the rights of users and the interests of the industry. US p<strong>la</strong>ced emphasis on industry<br />
self-regu<strong>la</strong>tion, which in the end provi<strong>de</strong>d for an enhanced way to opt-out and for provisions<br />
on user education. The concerned public however warns that self-regu<strong>la</strong>tion alone did<br />
not provi<strong>de</strong> for efficient user protection and calls for the US to introduce statutory measures.<br />
In the EU, on the other hand, the ePrivacy Directive was changed 1 , and introduced an optin<br />
principle. The industry now has to acquire consent prior to p<strong>la</strong>cing a cookie on the user’s<br />
computer. This caused an outcry in the industry which suggested a self-regu<strong>la</strong>tory co<strong>de</strong>,<br />
more simi<strong>la</strong>r to the US requirements, cent<strong>red</strong> on an enhanced opt-out. The negotiations as<br />
to the meaning of the changed Directive are still taking p<strong>la</strong>ce in the EU – does it require<br />
strict opt-in or is an enhanced opt-out enough. The answer may in the end wary <strong>de</strong>pending<br />
on how the Directive will be implemented in different Member States.<br />
Legal frameworks in the EU and US are thus far from being clear and quite different<br />
when it comes to regu<strong>la</strong>tion of on-line practices and rights of the users. The US currently<br />
employs self-regu<strong>la</strong>tion, whereas EU (for now) insists on guidance in statutory regu<strong>la</strong>tion,<br />
possibly backed up by self-regu<strong>la</strong>tion (WP29, 2010; Kroes, 2010). The regu<strong>la</strong>tors and the<br />
industry are still negotiating on the main issue –how to acquire user consent to such advertising<br />
practices. Companies conducting behavioural advertising and individuals, whose rights<br />
may have been breached, are thus facing legal uncertainties, additionally because many service<br />
provi<strong>de</strong>rs come from the US but operate in the EU as well. Changes in frameworks<br />
have been announced to happen on both si<strong>de</strong>s in the next years (EC, 2010; FTC, 2010; Department<br />
of Commerce, 2010), however, in the light of regu<strong>la</strong>tion <strong>de</strong>velopment so far it is a<br />
1 Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2002/22/<br />
EC on universal service and users’ rights re<strong>la</strong>ting to electronic communications networks and services,<br />
Directive 2002/58/EC concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in<br />
the electronic communications sector and Regu<strong>la</strong>tion (EC) No 2006/2004 on cooperation between<br />
national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection <strong>la</strong>ws.
Behavioural advertising in electronic communications<br />
295<br />
legitimate fear that the ba<strong>la</strong>nce between the rights and wishes of the industry and the rights<br />
and expectations of individuals regarding their privacy and data protection, may be struck<br />
closer to the industry si<strong>de</strong>, in the light of two competing economies and concentration of<br />
ownership on the electronic communications markets.<br />
In this context of rapid <strong>de</strong>velopments of advertising practices, often invading the rights of<br />
individuals, and not yet clearly <strong>de</strong>fined standards regarding privacy and data protection in legal<br />
frameworks in the EU and US, I strongly believe that in<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nt aca<strong>de</strong>mic research is nee<strong>de</strong>d<br />
to aid the <strong>de</strong>bate on the matter and to help shaping the frameworks of the future. The research<br />
conducted so far is more or less the input by different stakehol<strong>de</strong>rs which present support of their<br />
cases, however scarce aca<strong>de</strong>mic resources are currently avai<strong>la</strong>ble to c<strong>la</strong>rify the issues at stake.<br />
The main purpose of the present paper is to contribute to the <strong>de</strong>bate by trying answer<br />
the question, to what extent does behavioural advertising call for a different regu<strong>la</strong>tory<br />
approach due to its intrusive nature in terms of user privacy and data protection. I will firstly<br />
present an overview of behavioural advertising practices and critically assess its positive effect<br />
on the electronic communication industry <strong>de</strong>velopment together with the issues of privacy<br />
and data protection it engages. Secondly I will evaluate regu<strong>la</strong>tory tools, currently avai<strong>la</strong>ble<br />
in the EU and US, for limiting the impact of behavioural advertising on user privacy and<br />
data protection and i<strong>de</strong>ntify the main risks and strengths of the situation today. The paper<br />
will <strong>la</strong>ter focus on the role and efficiency of statutory regu<strong>la</strong>tion versus self-regu<strong>la</strong>tion in the<br />
provision of user protection together with protection of industry’s interests. In the end I<br />
will propose elements I see necessary for regu<strong>la</strong>tion of behavioural advertising in the future<br />
and argue that a mix of regu<strong>la</strong>tory approaches (statutory regu<strong>la</strong>tion and self-regu<strong>la</strong>tion) is<br />
necessary for better ba<strong>la</strong>ncing the potential behavioural targeting has for <strong>de</strong>velopment of<br />
electronic communication with an a<strong>de</strong>quate privacy and data protection.<br />
I propose to explore the issue through the conceptual lens of the political economy of media<br />
which emphasises that media are foremost commercial organizations which produce and<br />
distribute commodities (Murdock and Golding, 1997). They operate in a dual market of producing<br />
products for the audiences and at the same time producing audiences and <strong>de</strong>livering<br />
them to advertisers (Smythe in Mosco, 1996: 148-149). Media markets are becoming more<br />
and more controlled by <strong>la</strong>rge multi-national corporations (Mansell, 2004; Rogers, 2004; Van<br />
Couvering 2003, Noam, 2009) and competitiveness of countries in terms of media markets<br />
is an increasingly important factor (Galperin, 2004). The <strong>de</strong>sire for competitiveness in global<br />
media markets often creates regu<strong>la</strong>tory environment fit to support the industry (Grant, 2006),<br />
however, serious privacy concerns invoked by new forms of advertising activity and increased<br />
concentration of power in the hands of a few corporations may require rethinking of the regu<strong>la</strong>tory<br />
approach towards behavioural advertising in electronic communications.<br />
2. current state of P<strong>la</strong>y regarding beHaVioural adVertising<br />
As advertising is a major supporter, if not a necessary condition of free internet content,<br />
of which users benefit the most, targeting is seen as a great improvement due to its possibi-
296 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
lities of precise segmentation. The knowledge about users, who are getting increasingly segmented<br />
and ignorant towards the click-on ads on websites, enables advertisers to target specifically<br />
and thus loose much less money on non-relevant audiences. It also enhances users’<br />
experience –as much of the content, now even the ads, can be personalized and relevant.<br />
2.1. behavioural advertising and electronic service provi<strong>de</strong>rs<br />
Behavioural advertising executed by service provi<strong>de</strong>rs (to mention just a few of the biggest<br />
such as AoL, Microsoft, Yahoo!, eBay, Google, Facebook, etc.) involves the following<br />
roles: Publishers who are the website owners looking for revenues by selling space to disp<strong>la</strong>y<br />
ads on their website (first party), advertising networks, the most important distributors of<br />
behavioural advertising since they connect publishers with advertisers (third party) and advertisers<br />
who want to promote a product or service to a specific audience (WP29, 2010; LSE,<br />
2009b; CNIL, 2009).<br />
It involves use of tracking technologies, usually a “cookie”, p<strong>la</strong>ced on the user’s computer<br />
each time the user visits a website. The cookie is assigned a unique cookie ID, by which<br />
users are recognized when they revisit the website. Because normally cookies are p<strong>la</strong>ced by<br />
an ad network - a third party that is distinct from the web server that disp<strong>la</strong>ys the main<br />
content of the webpage (i.e. the publisher) they are often refer<strong>red</strong> to as “third party cookies”.<br />
Cookies have different life spans 2 . Some ad networks are rep<strong>la</strong>cing or supplementing traditional<br />
tracking cookies with new enhanced tracking technologies such as “F<strong>la</strong>sh Cookies”,<br />
which cannot be <strong>de</strong>leted through the traditional privacy settings of a web browser (WP29,<br />
2010). The danger of this practice is that it may lead to the accumu<strong>la</strong>tion of significant<br />
amount of data about a single user and raises serious concerns about user privacy and data<br />
protection. The <strong>de</strong>bate about behavioural advertising heated up especially with the introduction<br />
of targeted advertising at Internet Service Provi<strong>de</strong>r level due to its unique position of<br />
connection provi<strong>de</strong>rs (Bohm, 2008; C<strong>la</strong>yton, 2008; FTC, 2007; ICo, 2008; NAI, 2008;<br />
oFCoM, 2008). Because the trials of the technology by ISPs were ma<strong>de</strong> without explicit<br />
user consent 3 UK is currently un<strong>de</strong>rgoing and infringement procedure initiated by the European<br />
Commission (EC, 2009a, 2009b).<br />
Any behavioural advertising inclu<strong>de</strong>s the use of tracing <strong>de</strong>vices p<strong>la</strong>ced on users computer<br />
and thus almost always involves acquiring of personal i<strong>de</strong>ntifiable data, because it at least<br />
inclu<strong>de</strong>s IP-addresses and UIDs, which constitute personal data (WP29, 2010). Because it<br />
involves personal data processing many re<strong>la</strong>ted issues arise: transparency of advertising activity,<br />
user consent and notice, security of collected data, limited retention of data, using users’<br />
sensitive data for advertising, and secondary use of collected data for other purposes (Bohm<br />
2 “Persistent cookies” either have a precise expiry date far in the future or until they are manually <strong>de</strong>leted.<br />
3 The EU Directive on privacy and electronic communications 2002/58/EC requires EU Member<br />
States to ensure confi<strong>de</strong>ntiality of the communications and re<strong>la</strong>ted traffic data by prohibiting un<strong>la</strong>wful<br />
interception and surveil<strong>la</strong>nce unless the users concerned have consented (Article 5(1)).
Behavioural advertising in electronic communications<br />
297<br />
2008; C<strong>la</strong>yton 2008; CNIL 2009; FIPR, 2008; FTC, 2007, LSE, 2009b; WP29 2010). The<br />
industry is re<strong>la</strong>tively sensitive towards privacy concerns. As a result, a key differentiator in<br />
the operation of these advertising p<strong>la</strong>tforms comes down to how (much) personal information<br />
is processed (LSE, 2009b).<br />
2.2. regu<strong>la</strong>tory context in the eu – The new “cookie directive” requires prior consent<br />
Legal guidance regarding behavioural advertising, conducted by electronic service provi<strong>de</strong>rs<br />
has been given in June 2010 by Article 29 Data Protection Working Party (WP29) 4 .<br />
In its non-binding opinion WP29 does not question the economic benefits that behavioural<br />
advertising may bring for stakehol<strong>de</strong>rs’, but states that such practice must not be carried out<br />
at the expense of individuals’ rights to privacy and data protection. In particu<strong>la</strong>r, the opinion<br />
notes that advertising network provi<strong>de</strong>rs (who are seen as the responsible data controllers<br />
in most cases 5 ) are bound by the new Article 5(3) 6 of the e-Privacy Directive pursuant to<br />
which p<strong>la</strong>cing and obtaining information through cookies is only allowed with the informed<br />
consent of the user. Behavioural advertising is based on the use of i<strong>de</strong>ntifiers that enable the<br />
creation of very <strong>de</strong>tailed user profiles which, in most cases, will be <strong>de</strong>emed personal data,<br />
thus Data Protection Directive is also applicable. Those engaged in behavioural advertising<br />
have to comply with requirements regarding the provision of notice, sensitive data processing,<br />
the rights of individuals to access, rectify, object to data thus collected, and other (WP29, 2010).<br />
WP29 c<strong>la</strong>rifies that “consent” by <strong>de</strong>fault web browser settings may not be sufficient to<br />
comply with both directives, and states that to <strong>de</strong>liver valid consent browsers should reject<br />
third-party cookies by <strong>de</strong>fault, and convey clear, comprehensive and fully visible information.<br />
Most web browsers currently do not meet these requirements. WP29 also states that consent<br />
must expire after a certain period of time, and that there must be a simple way for users to<br />
be able to revoke it. Finally, the user’s consent must be informed and the WP29 “consi<strong>de</strong>rs<br />
that providing a minimum of information directly on the screen, interactively, easily visible and<br />
un<strong>de</strong>rstandable, would be the most effective way to comply with this principle.” Furthermore,<br />
information should be provi<strong>de</strong>d repeatedly using messages appearing on the webpage to<br />
remind individuals that their behaviour is being monito<strong>red</strong> (WP29, 2010).<br />
4 This Working Party was set up un<strong>de</strong>r Article 29 of Directive 95/46/EC. It is an in<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nt<br />
European advisory body on data protection and privacy.<br />
5 The roles of website publishers may differ <strong>de</strong>pending on context, and thus require a case-by-case<br />
analysis. The Working Party acknowledges that although the website publishers may in some<br />
cases be consi<strong>de</strong><strong>red</strong> data controllers, they may be subject to limited data protection obligations.<br />
The Working Party emphasizes several times that in or<strong>de</strong>r to protect the privacy of individuals,<br />
cooperation between ad network provi<strong>de</strong>rs and publishers is essential. Cooperation with web<br />
browser <strong>de</strong>velopers also is crucial.<br />
6 Article 5(3) of the e-Privacy Directive 2002/56/EC was amen<strong>de</strong>d by Directive 2009/136 – the<br />
former article requi<strong>red</strong> srevice provi<strong>de</strong>rs to offer an opt-out option when p<strong>la</strong>cing cookies, whereas<br />
the new article specifically requires an informed opt-it prior p<strong>la</strong>cing the cookie.
298 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
Currently the industry is still operating the opt-out principle, as was requi<strong>red</strong> by the<br />
e-Privacy Directive. The amendments are to be transposed to national legis<strong>la</strong>tion by May<br />
2011, however only a small number of Member States is expected to finish the transposition<br />
by that date. Therefore it is currently not possible to enforce the opt-in principle, additionally<br />
because the industry strongly opposes the opinion and does not seem to be cooperating.<br />
2.2.1. The industry response<br />
After publication of the opinion Europe’s media and advertising industry 7 united to<br />
reject the opinion, saying that it takes no account of the consumers’ support for interestbased<br />
advertising nor of the exchange in value they receive between effective advertising and<br />
access to high quality media content for free. The industry believes that Europe’s internet<br />
would become less attractive to users and would significantly un<strong>de</strong>rmine the growth potential<br />
of the digital economy, jeopardise the existence of European online companies and call<br />
into question the EU’s ambitious Digital Agenda. The industry is in favour of self-regu<strong>la</strong>tion<br />
which offers a more nuanced approach (WFA, 2010; IAB Europe, 2010a; EACA, 2010), a<br />
mo<strong>de</strong>l of regu<strong>la</strong>tion closer to the US one, which has according to Global Privacy Alliance 8<br />
<strong>de</strong>live<strong>red</strong> good results in ba<strong>la</strong>ncing consumer concern and industry innovation (GPA, 2010).<br />
In September 2010 came a call from Neelie Kroes, the Vice-Presi<strong>de</strong>nt of the European<br />
Commission responsible for the Digital Agenda who recognizes that Europe should work<br />
towards a realistic solution which will enhance users’ trust but not impe<strong>de</strong> the growth of<br />
the digital economy. She sees self-regu<strong>la</strong>tion as a possible solution if compliant with EU<br />
regu<strong>la</strong>tions and invites the industry to act quickly in <strong>de</strong>veloping a co<strong>de</strong> that would base<br />
on transparency, consent, user friendly solution, possibly by browser settings and effective<br />
enforcement (Kroes, 2010).<br />
To support the industry’s case, IAB Europe recently published their own research,<br />
which finds that user benefits from Web services are <strong>la</strong>rge –very significantly <strong>la</strong>rger than the<br />
advertising revenues earned from providing those services, and very significantly <strong>la</strong>rger, too,<br />
than any disturbance linked to advertising and privacy issues (IAB Europe, 2010b). In April<br />
2011 the self-regu<strong>la</strong>tory framework for Europe came to light. The EASA co<strong>de</strong> p<strong>la</strong>ces much<br />
emphasis on the notice to individuals and centres on a consumer oriented website, where<br />
the individual will be able to exercise its right to opt-out. The website http://www.youronlinechoices.com/<br />
educates the user in an accessible <strong>la</strong>nguage about cookies and behavioural<br />
advertising (EASA, 2011). The website is a valuable tool for the users, but would have to<br />
offer the users choice to opt-in to be consi<strong>de</strong><strong>red</strong> as following the requirements of the Directive.<br />
The self-regu<strong>la</strong>tion initiative in the EU thus offers some improvements for the now<br />
7 such as World Fe<strong>de</strong>ration of Advertisers, Interactive Advertising Bureau Europe, European Association<br />
of Communications Agencies and others.<br />
8 The Global Privacy Alliance (“GPA”) is comprised of a cross section of global businesses from the financial<br />
services, automobile, aerospace, consumer products, computer and computer software, communications<br />
and electronic commerce sectors.
Behavioural advertising in electronic communications<br />
299<br />
un<strong>de</strong>r-regu<strong>la</strong>ted <strong>la</strong>ndscape of behavioural advertising but fails to provi<strong>de</strong> the crucial – an<br />
option for a prior consent to cookies being p<strong>la</strong>ced on user’s computers for the purpose of<br />
behavioural targeting. The co<strong>de</strong>’s comp<strong>la</strong>ints mechanism also does not inclu<strong>de</strong> any external<br />
subjects<br />
2.3. regu<strong>la</strong>tory context in the us – reliance on self-regu<strong>la</strong>tion<br />
The US privacy framework is composed of sectoral <strong>la</strong>ws combined with constitutional,<br />
statutory, regu<strong>la</strong>tory and common <strong>la</strong>w protections, in addition to industry self-regu<strong>la</strong>tion.<br />
Sectoral <strong>la</strong>ws govern the handling of personal data consi<strong>de</strong><strong>red</strong> most sensitive 9 . In addition<br />
to these sectoral <strong>la</strong>ws, the Fe<strong>de</strong>ral Tra<strong>de</strong> Commission (FTC) combats unfair or <strong>de</strong>ceptive<br />
business practices and provi<strong>de</strong>s guidance for businesses regarding privacy and security practices.<br />
Advertising practices on the internet are thus left primarily to industry self-regu<strong>la</strong>tion<br />
(Department of Commerce, 2010a). Behavioural targeting and the <strong>la</strong>ck of user protection<br />
was initially addressed by the FTC and Network Advertising Initiative (NAI) with a draft<br />
of a self-regu<strong>la</strong>tory co<strong>de</strong> that called for a <strong>de</strong>finition of behavioural advertising practices, and<br />
principles which advertisers should respect in or<strong>de</strong>r to protect the users (FTC, 2007; NAI,<br />
2008).<br />
2.3.1. Self-regu<strong>la</strong>tory co<strong>de</strong> for behavioural advertising<br />
Later on in 2010, as a response to this call, a coalition of marketing associations 10<br />
issued Self-Regu<strong>la</strong>tory Principles for Online Behavioral Advertising with an implementation<br />
gui<strong>de</strong>, to address consumer concerns about the use of personal information and interest<br />
based advertising while preserving the innovative and robust advertising that supports the<br />
vast array of free online content and the ability to <strong>de</strong>liver relevant advertising to consumers.<br />
The Principles are as follows: (1) the Education Principle calls for organizations to educate<br />
individuals and businesses about online behavioural advertising; (2) the Transparency<br />
Principle calls for clearer and easily accessible disclosures to consumers about data collection;<br />
(3) the Consumer Control Principle provi<strong>de</strong>s consumers with an expan<strong>de</strong>d ability to choose<br />
whether data is collected and used for online behavioural advertising purposes. This choice<br />
will be avai<strong>la</strong>ble through a link from the notice provi<strong>de</strong>d on the Web page where data is collected.<br />
It requires ISPs to obtain the consent of users before engaging in online behavioural<br />
advertising, and take steps to <strong>de</strong>-i<strong>de</strong>ntify the data used for such purposes; (4) the Data<br />
Security Principle calls for organizations to provi<strong>de</strong> appropriate security and limited reten-<br />
9 For instance, the Communications Act inclu<strong>de</strong>s privacy protections that telecommunication provi<strong>de</strong>rs<br />
and cable operators must follow when handling the personal information of subscribers. The<br />
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act stipu<strong>la</strong>tes how ‘‘cove<strong>red</strong>’’ health care entities can<br />
use and disclose data. The Fair C<strong>red</strong>it Reporting Act governs how consumer reporting agencies share<br />
personal information (Department of Commerce, 2010a).<br />
10 American Association of Advertising Agencies, Association of National Advertisers, Direct Marketing<br />
Association, Interactive Advertising Bureau, Council of Better Business Bureaus.
300 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
tion of data; (5) the Material Changes Principle calls for consumer consent before a material<br />
change is ma<strong>de</strong> to an entity’s data collection; (6) the Sensitive Data Principle recognizes that<br />
data collected from children and used for online behavioural advertising merits heightened<br />
protection, and requires parental consent for behavioural advertising to children; (7) the Accountability<br />
Principle calls for <strong>de</strong>velopment of programs to further advance these Principles,<br />
including programs to monitor and report instances of uncorrected non-compliance with<br />
these Principles to appropriate government agencies (American Association of Advertising<br />
Agencies, Association of National Advertisers, Direct Marketing Association, Interactive Advertising<br />
Bureau, Council of Better Business Bureaus, 2010a and b).<br />
2.3.2. US recognizes issues with behavioural advertising<br />
Recently, in December 2010 the FTC, recognizing recent problems, issued a report<br />
that proposes a framework to ba<strong>la</strong>nce the privacy interests of consumers with innovation<br />
that relies on consumer information to <strong>de</strong>velop beneficial new products and services. The<br />
report suggests implementation of a Do Not Track mechanism –likely a persistent setting<br />
on consumers’ browsers– so consumers can choose whether to allow the collection of data<br />
regarding their online searching and browsing activities. The report recommends companies<br />
to adopt a privacy by <strong>de</strong>sign approach by building privacy protections into their everyday<br />
business practices, to provi<strong>de</strong> reasonable security for consumer data, limited collection and<br />
retention of such data, and reasonable procedures to promote data accuracy. The report also<br />
proposes that stakehol<strong>de</strong>rs un<strong>de</strong>rtake a broad effort to educate consumers about commercial<br />
data practices and the choices avai<strong>la</strong>ble to them (FTC, 2010). In January 2011 Mozil<strong>la</strong> as<br />
the first industry entity announced p<strong>la</strong>ns to incorporate a Do Not Track feature into their<br />
next browser release, taking a clear lead and building a practical way forward for people who<br />
want privacy when they browse the web (Reitman, 2011).<br />
The Department of Commerce <strong>la</strong>ter presented its own green paper on online privacy,<br />
which echoes many of the above concerns. As a solution it recommends consi<strong>de</strong>ration of<br />
broad adoption of comprehensive Fair Information Practice Principles. But the Commerce<br />
Department seems reluctant to endorse enforceable consumer privacy rules. The green<br />
paper instead recommends the creation of a Privacy Policy Office within the Commerce<br />
Department that would help <strong>de</strong>velop voluntary privacy co<strong>de</strong>s of conduct within a<br />
multi-stakehol<strong>de</strong>r negotiation process (Department of Commerce, 2010b). As a response<br />
the Electronic Frontier Foundation (an NGo) states “that approach has serious problems.<br />
Agency rulemaking is by no means i<strong>de</strong>al, but it is governed by <strong>la</strong>w and yields legal rules subject<br />
to judicial review based on a <strong>de</strong>fined administrative record. Multi-stakehol<strong>de</strong>r negotiation is<br />
more political, and such a political consensus may only lead to general principles that are hard<br />
to enforce. It’s also less accountable to the facts; we’re concerned about how it would get verifiable<br />
information about commercial surveil<strong>la</strong>nce technologies, practices and data flows. Nor is<br />
it clear that businesses would follow voluntary co<strong>de</strong>s of conduct. Multi-stakehol<strong>de</strong>r negotiation<br />
may have a p<strong>la</strong>ce within agency rulemaking, but it doesn’t strike us as a substitute for enforceable<br />
rules (Tien, 2010).
Behavioural advertising in electronic communications<br />
3. a reflection on tHe two inter-<strong>de</strong>Pendant regu<strong>la</strong>tory<br />
frameworks<br />
301<br />
Some of the most prominent p<strong>la</strong>yers in the field of behavioural marketing come from<br />
the US, but operate in the EU too. Statutory regu<strong>la</strong>tion in the EU is currently stricter,<br />
however enforcement is hard to achieve due to the above <strong>de</strong>scribed industry reluctance. The<br />
framework and safeguards that US provi<strong>de</strong> to protect the consumers are thus very important<br />
for the EU consumers. And so are the gaps in the protection. To mention just a few: US<br />
mo<strong>de</strong>l does not specifically call for the subjects not to perform tracking on children, enforcement<br />
of self-regu<strong>la</strong>tory co<strong>de</strong> is not clearly <strong>de</strong>fined and viable.<br />
US traditionally p<strong>la</strong>ces more emphasis on digital economy success, therefore creating<br />
regu<strong>la</strong>tory environment more fit to support this goal, however in the light of consumer unease<br />
towards their data processing, US is announcing changes to the overall framework to follow<br />
in the next years. But as observed above, it still sees flexible self-regu<strong>la</strong>tion as the most<br />
appropriate to meet the challenges of the future. It also criticizes EU mo<strong>de</strong>l of regu<strong>la</strong>tion for<br />
p<strong>la</strong>cing too little emphasis on education of consumers and respectively argues, that notice of<br />
the advertising activity is the most important - then the consumer may be left free to <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong><br />
whether targeting is acceptable for him (Department of Commerce, 2010b). Whether the<br />
consumer is always equipped enough to judge his best interests, that is another question. The<br />
global industry also calls for Europe to reconsi<strong>de</strong>r its ways of reliance on statutory regu<strong>la</strong>tion<br />
and come closer to the US mo<strong>de</strong>l of self-regu<strong>la</strong>tion, a more flexible way of ensuring consumer<br />
rights (GPA, 2010). It seems very much possible that a form of self-regu<strong>la</strong>tion, more or less<br />
compliant with the requirements and interpretations of the directives, would come to light in<br />
EU, as a consequence of industry objection to the current obligations and in or<strong>de</strong>r not to hin<strong>de</strong>r<br />
EU competitiveness. Even though the prominence of WP29 opinion is recognized, the<br />
industry also has a strong argument in tight regu<strong>la</strong>tion stifling the European digital economy.<br />
The question however is, whether rapidly evolving industry should rely on self-regu<strong>la</strong>tion<br />
with respect to filling the gaps in consumer privacy protection, or whether statutory<br />
regu<strong>la</strong>tion measures should limit the amount of information that online advertisers can<br />
collect and use (Boucher Ferguson, 2008). Self-regu<strong>la</strong>tion is often seen as effective on the<br />
internet, however in the case of behavioural advertising the standards are far from being as<br />
clear as in the case of traditional advertising, and leaving it to the industry to <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong> might<br />
be a step back from protection of consumers. Additionally the industry is <strong>de</strong>veloping very<br />
fast, an example are the freshly emerging practices of non-transparent profile trading 11 . Self–<br />
11 Three privacy groups have filed a comp<strong>la</strong>int with the U.S. Fe<strong>de</strong>ral Tra<strong>de</strong> Commission about behavioral<br />
advertising practices, accusing Google, Yahoo and other advertising vendors of creating a “Wild<br />
West” atmosphere with few rules for protecting consumer privacy. The comp<strong>la</strong>int, centers around the<br />
practice of real-time trading and sale of individual Internet users’ profiles, based on their interests<br />
and surfing habits. The growing and little un<strong>de</strong>rstood practice, combined with targeted ad vendors<br />
incorporating a wi<strong>de</strong>r range of outsi<strong>de</strong> data sources to build user profiles, constitutes a major privacy<br />
vio<strong>la</strong>tion, the groups said in their comp<strong>la</strong>int. “A user is bought and sold for targeting and retargeting
302 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
regu<strong>la</strong>tion is captu<strong>red</strong> by the interests of the industry by <strong>de</strong>fault – it may as well occur, that<br />
new, potentially unfair practices would start occurring without being bound by the co<strong>de</strong>s<br />
or sanctioned by co<strong>de</strong>s. Also it might be argued that self-regu<strong>la</strong>tory bodies in this context<br />
would <strong>la</strong>ck c<strong>red</strong>ibility due to concentration of power in internet media market<br />
3.1. statutory regu<strong>la</strong>tion versus self-regu<strong>la</strong>tion<br />
The main strengths of European approach towards regu<strong>la</strong>tion of behavioural advertising,<br />
are the possibility of harmonization of regu<strong>la</strong>tion throughout the Member States, the technological<br />
neutrality of the Directive 12 and the possibility of setting a common standard to protect<br />
the rights of individuals. The opponents would however argue that the common standard may<br />
as well be the lowest common <strong>de</strong>nominator, lower than what might be the standard when<br />
self-regu<strong>la</strong>ting across the industry sector. The problem EU regu<strong>la</strong>tion is also the margin of<br />
appreciation the Member States have in implementation of Directives. As <strong>de</strong>scribed, it is yet<br />
not clear, how will the cookie-consent article be implemented in different Member States. Will<br />
they require strict opt-in, or will a softer version –with an enhanced opt-out prevail.<br />
In the years to come the EU framework will un<strong>de</strong>rgo changes, but most likely different<br />
interpretations regarding applicability to specific electronic services and activities will still<br />
be present. To say that the Data Protection Directive and the ePrivacy Directive offer all the<br />
answers to how regu<strong>la</strong>te behavioural advertising to protect the rights of individuals and at<br />
the same time protect wi<strong>de</strong>r interests of information society <strong>de</strong>velopment is not at all realistic.<br />
The Directives set standards which need to be applied to all data processing, including by<br />
the conductors of behavioural advertising (prior consent, based on a notice, etc.), however,<br />
to ba<strong>la</strong>nce the interests of the industry with the rights of individuals, much is left to the<br />
industry in terms of the technical means with which to achieve compliance and at the same<br />
time further their own goals.<br />
Many on the above arguments speak of the benefits of self-regu<strong>la</strong>tion in specific industry<br />
sectors. The case for self-regu<strong>la</strong>tion rests primarily on consi<strong>de</strong>rations of expertise and efficiency.<br />
Self-regu<strong>la</strong>tory bodies, comprised of industry p<strong>la</strong>yers can <strong>de</strong>finitely provi<strong>de</strong> a high level<br />
of expertise, and the rules, set by the industry are theoretically more realistic to abi<strong>de</strong> by the<br />
members. This contributes to efficiency of such regu<strong>la</strong>tion, as it is more flexible than statutory<br />
regu<strong>la</strong>tion. on the other hand worries tend to centre on concerns regarding accountability<br />
and fairness of procedures. If left free to regu<strong>la</strong>te itself, the industry can hardly prove to be accountable.<br />
However, if exposed to certain level of external control, self-regu<strong>la</strong>tory systems can<br />
produce <strong>de</strong>sirable results. The external control might be in the form of rules that are approved<br />
by other bodies, agency oversight, judicial review, comp<strong>la</strong>ints handling mechanisms, reporting<br />
-- all without their awareness and consent.” (Center for Digital Democracy, U.S. PIRG, World Privacy<br />
Forum (2010)).<br />
12 Among the strenghts of the Data Protection Directive are also: the Directive serves as a refence mo<strong>de</strong>l<br />
for good practice, the principle based framework permits flexibility, the Directive has improved awareness<br />
of data protection concerns (Robinson, 2009).
Behavioural advertising in electronic communications<br />
303<br />
requirements etc. It is recommen<strong>de</strong>d for the self-regu<strong>la</strong>tory framework to inclu<strong>de</strong> representation<br />
of consumers and other stakehol<strong>de</strong>rs, and a<strong>de</strong>quate sanctions for non-observance of the<br />
co<strong>de</strong>. Another problem is membership, as the self-regu<strong>la</strong>tory co<strong>de</strong> usually binds the signatories<br />
of it, which may leave p<strong>la</strong>yers on the market, not bound to the rules (Baldwin and Cave, 1999).<br />
In the EU, self-regu<strong>la</strong>tory co<strong>de</strong>s on data protection can be validated through Working<br />
Party 29, which was the case with the Fe<strong>de</strong>ration of European Direct and Interactive Marketing<br />
co<strong>de</strong> of conduct (FEDMA, 2010). However, as the first attempt show, the self-regu<strong>la</strong>tory<br />
co<strong>de</strong> for behavioural advertising would not pass validation, as it ignores the changes of<br />
the ePrivacy Directive. The EASA co<strong>de</strong> doesn’t address the issue of consent and as such fails<br />
to be compliant with the requirements of statutory regu<strong>la</strong>tion.<br />
4. imPlications for regu<strong>la</strong>tion of beHaVioural targeting in<br />
tHe future<br />
4.1. The crucial elements of future behavioural advertising regu<strong>la</strong>tion<br />
Learning from all the above experience I will firstly focus on some of the main elements<br />
I believe should be of utmost importance in the future regu<strong>la</strong>tion of behavioural advertising.<br />
Firstly I will touch upon the element of user’s consent to his/her data being collected and<br />
used for the purpose of behavioural advertising The consumer concerns about the current<br />
situation clearly show that the industry is failing to provi<strong>de</strong> them with meaningful choice<br />
regarding the use of their data. online advertising practices <strong>la</strong>ck transparency and the users<br />
<strong>la</strong>ck the power to freely <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong> on their own data. With this in mind this paper strongly<br />
argues for a version of informed prior consent to be acqui<strong>red</strong> by the company before p<strong>la</strong>cing<br />
a cookie and collecting data on internet users. Although the arguments of the industry that<br />
opposes this view and calls instead for a stronger opt-out regime are legitimate, the fact remains,<br />
that only with prior consent the advertising practice becomes transparent.<br />
As US experience shows, the enhanced opt-out, provi<strong>de</strong>d by self-regu<strong>la</strong>tion, did not<br />
fully succeed in convincing the consumers and other relevant public as to the benefits of<br />
re<strong>la</strong>tively un-transparent behavioural advertising. Therefore, to gain users trust the industry<br />
should also consi<strong>de</strong>r being more positive towards gaining a prior consent and towards <strong>de</strong>velopment<br />
of innovative solutions that would enable transparent ways of advertising.<br />
Regarding the means for obtaining user consent, browsers and other mechanisms such as<br />
the proposed to-not-track in the toolbar should be taken into account as they might be best to<br />
serve the purpose of user protection. At the same time these mechanisms seem the closest to<br />
the industry <strong>de</strong>sire not to obtain consent for every cookie in real time, as this would hamper<br />
the users’ internet experience. of course when <strong>de</strong>veloped to such level as to ensure users can<br />
actually exercise their choice by opting-in to the advertising cookies they prefer. Intrinsically<br />
linked to the question of consent is the notice on data processing. The notice should convey<br />
all the necessary information to make advertising activity transparent in an easily accessible<br />
<strong>la</strong>nguage. Education of users, trough <strong>de</strong>dicated websites, such as suggested by the European<br />
self-regu<strong>la</strong>tory initiative is a valuable tool for achieving positive results.
304 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
4.2. The interp<strong>la</strong>y between self-regu<strong>la</strong>tory and statutory means of regu<strong>la</strong>tion<br />
Learning from the US self-regu<strong>la</strong>tory framework and the European self-regu<strong>la</strong>tory proposal<br />
it is reasonable to conclu<strong>de</strong> that sole reliance on self-regu<strong>la</strong>tion as a primary regu<strong>la</strong>tory<br />
tool is not sufficient to protect user privacy and data protection in the context of behavioural<br />
advertising. Self-regu<strong>la</strong>tion alone will not provi<strong>de</strong> for a true opt-in, which is crucial for<br />
transparency of advertising activity and consumer trust. on the other hand solely statutory<br />
regu<strong>la</strong>tion will most likely not provi<strong>de</strong> for enhanced rules and initiatives, such as consumer<br />
websites. A mix of regu<strong>la</strong>tory approaches is therefore arguably best for ba<strong>la</strong>ncing the potential<br />
behavioural targeting has for <strong>de</strong>velopment of electronic communication with an a<strong>de</strong>quate<br />
privacy and data protection. Setting harmonized standards with statutory regu<strong>la</strong>tion, but<br />
accompanied with self-regu<strong>la</strong>tory initiatives (compliant with the standards but offering a<br />
higher level of protection) seems a better way to regu<strong>la</strong>te. In terms of the European initiative<br />
– if the co<strong>de</strong> was to be compliant with the requirements of the Directive(s) regarding the<br />
prior consent, but would further on provi<strong>de</strong> for internal comp<strong>la</strong>ints mechanisms, education<br />
of users, etc., the interests would have been ba<strong>la</strong>nced better. It is therefore necessary for the<br />
regu<strong>la</strong>tors to work hand in hand with the industry, as the industry should be invited and<br />
supported to <strong>de</strong>velop privacy friendly solutions while at the same time further innovation.<br />
The final suggestion this paper offers is for the regu<strong>la</strong>tors, the industry and other affected<br />
stakehol<strong>de</strong>rs to p<strong>la</strong>ce more emphasis on the use and support of <strong>de</strong>velopment of Privacy<br />
Enhancing Technologies (PETs), the use of Privacy Impact Assessments 13 , Privacy by Design<br />
principle (Cavoukian, 2009) and certifications of privacy-friendly products and services as<br />
a form of self-regu<strong>la</strong>tion 14 . The regu<strong>la</strong>tors should endorse and the industry should embrace<br />
the use of the above tools and concepts, as transparency and care for user privacy and data<br />
protection throughout <strong>de</strong>velopment of advertising solutions and practices will in the future<br />
most likely present a competitive advantage and not only additional bur<strong>de</strong>n.<br />
5. conclusion<br />
Behavioural advertising online is currently a hot issue. The benefits it offers to electronic<br />
communications markets <strong>de</strong>velopment have to be benchmarked against the issues of<br />
privacy and data protection it engages. Up to date coherent regu<strong>la</strong>tion of behavioural advertising<br />
is a non-solved issue, mostly because of the problem of user consent to collection of<br />
his/her data for the purpose of behavioural advertising. Currently the industry is operating<br />
13 Privacy Impact Assessments are in the centre of the concept of Privacy by Design, which envisages<br />
care for the protection of privacy in all phases of a project which inclu<strong>de</strong>s processing of personal data.<br />
They are crucial in the initial phases because the retrospective actions are usually time consuming and<br />
require radical changes to the system.<br />
14 Such as European Privacy Seal which at the same time foster consumer protection and trust and<br />
provi<strong>de</strong> a marketing incentive to manufacturers and vendors for privacy relevant goods and services<br />
(European Privacy Seal, 2010).
Behavioural advertising in electronic communications<br />
an opt-out principle, but that does not suffice in protecting users’ right to privacy and data<br />
protection.<br />
305<br />
As an answer to this <strong>de</strong>ficiency, EU and US, started to employ means to better ba<strong>la</strong>nce<br />
the rights of users and the interests of the industry. US p<strong>la</strong>ces emphasis on industry selfregu<strong>la</strong>tion,<br />
which provi<strong>de</strong>s for an enhanced way to opt-out together with emphasis on consumer<br />
education. The concerned public however warns that self-regu<strong>la</strong>tion alone does not<br />
provi<strong>de</strong> for efficient user protection and calls for the US to introduce statutory measures. In<br />
the EU, on the other hand, the amen<strong>de</strong>d ePrivacy Directive introduced an opt-in principle,<br />
and the industry would now have to acquire consent prior to p<strong>la</strong>cing a cookie on the user’s<br />
computer. This caused an outcry in the industry which suggested a self-regu<strong>la</strong>tory co<strong>de</strong>,<br />
more simi<strong>la</strong>r to the US requirements, cent<strong>red</strong> on enhanced opt-out. The negotiations as to<br />
the meaning of the amen<strong>de</strong>d Directive are still taking p<strong>la</strong>ce in the EU –does it require strict<br />
opt-in or in enhanced opt-out enough.<br />
At the moment the ba<strong>la</strong>nce between the interests of the industry and the rights of<br />
individuals to privacy and data protection is struck closer to the industry si<strong>de</strong>. Different<br />
stakehol<strong>de</strong>rs are arguing their cases supported by evi<strong>de</strong>nce that fits their interests. There is<br />
a <strong>la</strong>ck of in<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nt aca<strong>de</strong>mic research that would take into account all the dimensions<br />
of the situation. The goal of the present paper was to contribute to filling this gap by trying<br />
to answer the question, to what extent do user privacy and data protection issues require<br />
rethinking of regu<strong>la</strong>tory system for behavioural targeting, to better ba<strong>la</strong>nce the interests of<br />
all affected parties.<br />
Learning from the US regu<strong>la</strong>tory framework and the European self-regu<strong>la</strong>tory proposal<br />
it is reasonable to conclu<strong>de</strong> that sole reliance on self-regu<strong>la</strong>tion as a primary regu<strong>la</strong>tory tool<br />
is not sufficient to protect user privacy and data protection in the context of behavioural<br />
advertising. This paper strongly argues for a mix of regu<strong>la</strong>tory approaches complementing<br />
each-other for ba<strong>la</strong>ncing the potential behavioural targeting has for <strong>de</strong>velopment of electronic<br />
communication with an a<strong>de</strong>quate privacy and data protection, starting with a true<br />
choice offe<strong>red</strong> to users. It is therefore necessary for the regu<strong>la</strong>tors to work hand in hand with<br />
the industry, as the industry should be invited and supported to <strong>de</strong>velop privacy friendly<br />
solutions while at the same time further the <strong>de</strong>velopment of electronic communications.<br />
6. bibliograPHy<br />
20/80 THINKING (2008). Privacy Impact Assessment. Last accessed 15. 12. 2009, from<br />
http://www.phorm.com/assets/reports/Phorm_PIA_Final.pdf.<br />
American Association of Advertising Agencies, Association of National Advertisers,<br />
Direct Marketing Association, Interactive Advertising Bureau, Council<br />
of Better Business Bureaus (2010, July). Self-Regu<strong>la</strong>tory Principles for online<br />
Behavioral Advertising, Last assessed 15. 12. 2010, from http://www.iab.net/media/<br />
file/ven-principles-07-01-09.pdf.
306 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
At Kearney (2010). A viable future mo<strong>de</strong>l for the internet. Last assessed 30. 1. 2011, from<br />
http://www.atkearney.com/images/global/pdf/Viable_Future_Mo<strong>de</strong>l_for_Internet.pdf.<br />
Baldwin, R. & CAVE, M. (1999). Un<strong>de</strong>rstanding regu<strong>la</strong>tion. Theory, Strategy, and Practice.<br />
New York: oxford University Press.<br />
Bennett, C. J. (1992). Regu<strong>la</strong>ting privacy: Data protection and public policy in Europe and<br />
the United States. Ithaca Cornell University Press.<br />
Bohm, N. (2008). The Phorm “Webwise” System - a Legal Analysis. Last accessed 2. 11.<br />
2008, from: http://www.fipr.org/080423phormlegal.pdf.<br />
Boucher Ferguson, R. (2008). A Battle Is Brewing over online Behavioral Advertising.<br />
Last accessed 30. 6. 2008, from: http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Enterprise-Apps/A-Battle-Is-Brewing-over-online-Behavioral-Advertising-Market/.<br />
Burke, D. (2003). Your TV is watching you. Last accessed 30. 4. 2008, from: http://www.<br />
open<strong>de</strong>mocracy.net/.<br />
Cavoukian, A. (2008). Privacy and radical pragmatism. Change the Paradigm. ontario: Information<br />
and Privacy Commissioner of ontario.<br />
Centre For Digital Democracy, U.S. Pirg, World Privacy Forum (2010, April 8). Before<br />
the Fe<strong>de</strong>ral Tra<strong>de</strong> Commission. Comp<strong>la</strong>int, Request for Investigation, Injunction,<br />
and other Relief, In the Matter of Real-time targeting and auctioning, Data Profiling,<br />
optimization and Economic Loss to Consumers and Privacy, Last accessed 31. 1. 2011,<br />
from http://www.uspirg.org/uploads/eb/6c/eb6c038a1fb114be75ecabab05b4b90b/<br />
FTCfiling_Apr7_10.pdf.<br />
C<strong>la</strong>yton, R. (2008). The Phorm “Webwise” System. Last accessed 2. 11. 2008, from: http://<br />
www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/080404phorm.pdf.<br />
Cooper, A. (2010). The Singu<strong>la</strong>r Challenges of ISP Use of Deep Packet Inspection. Last accessed<br />
30. 1, 2011, from http://www.<strong>de</strong>eppacketinspection.ca/the-singu<strong>la</strong>r-challengesof-isp-use-of-<strong>de</strong>ep-packet-inspection/.<br />
CNIL Commission Nationale <strong>de</strong> l'Informatique el <strong>de</strong>s Liberies (2009). Targeted online Advertising.<br />
Last accessed 12. 1. 2010, from http://pg.droit.officelive.com/Documents/<br />
online%20Targeted%20Advertising%20-%20CNIL%20Report%202009%20-%20<br />
Cabinet%20Gelly.pdf).<br />
Department of Commerce (2010a). Notice of Inquiry. Information Privacy and Innovation<br />
in the Internet Economy. Fe<strong>de</strong>ral Register / Vol. 75, No. 78 / Friday, April 23.<br />
Last accessed January 28, from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/frnotices/2010/FR_Privacy-<br />
NoI_04232010.pdf.<br />
Department of Commerce, Internet Policy Task Force (2010b). Commercial Data<br />
Privacy and Innovation in the Internet Economy: A Dynamic Policy Framework. Last<br />
accessed January 28, from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/reports/2010/IPTF_Privacy_<br />
GreenPaper_12162010.pdf.<br />
EACA European Association of Communications Agencies (2010, June 25). Europe’s data<br />
privacy regu<strong>la</strong>tors’ <strong>la</strong>test opinion on cookies is out of step with online businesses and
Behavioural advertising in electronic communications<br />
307<br />
their consumers. Last accessed January 25, from http://www.eaca.be/news/press<strong>de</strong>tail.<br />
asp?release=253.<br />
EASA European Advertising Standards Alliance (2011, April 14). Best Practice Recommendation<br />
for online Behavioural Advertising. Last assessed 20. 5. 2011, from http://<br />
www.easa-alliance.org/News/News/page.aspx/46?xf_itemId=131&xf_selectionDatapartId=91.<br />
EC European Commission IoN (1995). Directive 95/46/EC on data protection. Brussels:<br />
EC.<br />
EC European Commission (2002). Directive 2002/58/EC on privacy and electronic communications.<br />
Brussels: EC.<br />
EC European Commission (2009a): Telecoms: Commission <strong>la</strong>unches case against UK over<br />
privacy and personal data protection, Brussels, 14. April 2009, Last accessed 14. 3.<br />
2010, from http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/570&for<br />
mat=HTML&aged=0&<strong>la</strong>nguage=EN&guiLanguage=en.<br />
EC European Commission (2009b): Telecoms: Commission steps up UK legal action over<br />
privacy and personal data protection, Brussels, 29. october, Last accessed 14. 3. 2010,<br />
from http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/1626.<br />
EC European Commission (2010, November): Communication from the Commission to<br />
the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the<br />
Committee of the regions “A Comprehensive Approach on Data Protection in the<br />
European Union”. Last accessed 16. 12. 2011, from http://ec.europa.eu/justice/news/<br />
consulting_public/0006/com_2010_609_en.pdf.<br />
European Privacy Seal (2010, July). Position paper on the impact of the new “Cookie<br />
Law” on certifiability of behavioural advertising systems according to EuroPriSe. Last<br />
accessed 30. 1. 2011, from https://www.european-privacy-seal.eu/results/Position-<br />
Papers/PDF%20-%20EuroPriSe%20position%20paper%20on%20the%20new%20<br />
cookie%20<strong>la</strong>w.pdf.<br />
FEDMA Fe<strong>de</strong>ration of European Direct And Interactive Marketing (2010). European<br />
Co<strong>de</strong> of Practice For The Use of Personal Data In Direct Marketing Electronic Communications<br />
Annex. Brussels.<br />
FIPR Foundation for Information Policy Research (2008). open Letter to the Information<br />
Commissioner. Last accessed 30. 6. 2008, from: http://www.fipr.org/080317icoletter.<br />
html.<br />
FTC Fe<strong>de</strong>ral Tra<strong>de</strong> Commission (2007). FTC Staff Proposes online Behavioral Advertising<br />
Privacy Principles. Last accessed 30. 6. 2008, from: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2007/12/<br />
principles.shtm.<br />
FTC Fe<strong>de</strong>ral Tra<strong>de</strong> Commission (2010, December). Protecting Consumer Privacy in an<br />
Era of Rapid Change, A proposed framework for Business and Policymakers, Preliminary<br />
FTC Staff Report. Last accessed 31. 1. 2011 from http://www.ftc.gov/<br />
os/2010/12/101201privacyreport.pdf.
308 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
Galperin, H. (2004). New Television, Old Politics. The Transition to Digital Television in the<br />
United States and Britain. New York: Cambridge University Press.<br />
GPA Global Privacy Alliance (2010, September 17). Comments of the Global Privacy Alliance<br />
on Cookies and Web Beacons, Last accessed 11. 11. 2010, from http://www.ip-rs.si/fileadmin/user_upload/Pdf/novice/GPA_Comments_on_Cookies_and_Web_Beacons.pdf.<br />
Grant, J. (2006). “oFCoM buys into product p<strong>la</strong>cement: consultation on issues re<strong>la</strong>ted to<br />
product p<strong>la</strong>cement”. Entertainment Law Review, 1-5.<br />
Home office (2008). Home office notice. Last accessed 2. 11. 2011, from: http://cryptome.org/ho-phorm.htm.<br />
IAB Europe Interactive Advertising Bureau Europe (2010a, June 25). Industry unites to<br />
reject privacy opinion. Last accessed 25. 1. 2011, from http://www.iabuk.net/en/1/<br />
europeanmediaindustryunitesagainstarticle29opinion.mxs.<br />
IAB Europe Interactive Advertising Bureau Europe (2010b, September).Consumers driving<br />
the digital uptake. The economic value of online advertising-based services for<br />
consumers. Last accessed 25. 1. 2011, from http://iabeurope.eu/media/39559/whitepaper%20_consumerdrivingdigitaluptake_final.pdf.<br />
ICo Information Commissioner’s office (2008). Phorm – Webwise and open Internet<br />
Exchange. Last accessed 14. 1. 2009, from: http://www.ico.gov.uk/.<br />
IWGDPT International Working Group on Data Protection in Telecommunications<br />
(2010). Working Paper on the Use of Deep Packet Inspection for Marketing Purposes.<br />
Last accessed 6. 1. 2011, from www.datenschutz-berlin.<strong>de</strong>/attachments/726/<br />
WP_DPI_07_09_2010_675_41_10__2_.pdf.<br />
KRoES, N. (2010, September 17). Towards more confi<strong>de</strong>nce and more value for European<br />
Digital Citizens. Speech at European Roundtable on the Benefits of online Advertising<br />
for Consumers, Brussels. Last accessed 30. 1. 2011, from http://europa.eu/rapid/<br />
pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/10/452.<br />
LSE London School of Economics and Political Science, 80/20 Thinking, Working Group<br />
on Consumer Consent (2009a). From legitimacy to informed consent: mapping best practices<br />
and i<strong>de</strong>ntifying risks. London.<br />
LSE London School of Economics and Political Science, Policy Engagement Network The<br />
Information Systems and Innovation Group (2009b). Online Advertising, Confronting<br />
the Challenges. London.<br />
Mansell, R. (2004). “Political economy, power and new media”. New Media & Society, 6(1), 96-105.<br />
Mocso, V. (1996). The political economy of communication: rethinking and renewal. London;<br />
Thousand oaks: Sage Publications.<br />
Murdock, G., & Golding, P. (1997). “For a Political Economy of Mass Communications”.<br />
In: The Political Economy of the Media. Cheltenham; Brookfield: Edward Elgar, pp. 3-32.<br />
Näränen, P. (2003). “European Regu<strong>la</strong>tion of Digital Television: The opportunity Lost<br />
and Found?” In: G. Ferrel Lowe & T. Hujanen (Eds.), Broadcasting & Convergence:<br />
New Articu<strong>la</strong>tions of the Public Service Remit. Göteborg: NoRDICoM, pp. 57–69.
Behavioural advertising in electronic communications<br />
309<br />
NAI Network Advertising Initiative (2008). Self-regu<strong>la</strong>tory Co<strong>de</strong> of Conduct for online<br />
Behavioral Advertising. Last accessed 30. 6. 2008, from: http://www.networkadvertising.org/networks/principles.asp.<br />
Noam, Eli M. (2009). Media Ownership and Concentration an America. oxford: University<br />
Press.<br />
oFCoM (2008). Delivering super-fast broadband in the UK, setting the right policy framework.<br />
Last accessed 2. 11. 2008, form: http://ofcom.org.uk<br />
office of The Privacy Commissioner of Canada. Deep Packet Inspection. A Collection<br />
of Essays from Industry Experts. Last accessed 29. 1. 2011, from http://dpi.priv.<br />
gc.ca/in<strong>de</strong>x.php/essays/.<br />
ohm, P. (2009). Broken Promises of Privacy: Responding To The Surprising Failure Of Anonymization.<br />
Article presented at Harvard University’s Center for Research and Computer<br />
Science.<br />
out-Law (2008). The <strong>la</strong>w of Phorm. Last accessed 3. 12. 2008, from: http://www.out-<strong>la</strong>w.<br />
com/page-9090.<br />
Reitman, R. (2011, January 24). Mozil<strong>la</strong> Leads the Way on Do Not Track. Last accessed<br />
30. 1. 2011, from http://www.eff.org/<strong>de</strong>eplinks/2011/01/mozil<strong>la</strong>-leads-the-way-ondo-not-track.<br />
Robinson, N. et al. (2009). Review of the EU Data Protection Directive. Last accessed<br />
10. 5. 2011, from http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/<br />
<strong>de</strong>tailed_specialist_gui<strong>de</strong>s/review_of_eu_dp_directive.pdf.<br />
Rogers, R. (2004). Information Politics on the Web. Cambridge: The MIT Press.<br />
Tien, L. (2010). Commerce Department’s online Privacy Report a Positive Step, But Self-<br />
Regu<strong>la</strong>tion Isn’t Enough. Last accessed 28. 1. 2011, from http://www.eff.org/<strong>de</strong>eplinks/2010/12/commerce-<strong>de</strong>partments-online-privacy-report.<br />
Van Couvering, E. (2004). New Media? The Political Economy of Internet Search Engines.<br />
Last accessed 6. 1. 2008, from: http://personal.lse.ac.uk/vancouve/IAMCR-<br />
CTP_SearchEnginePoliticalEconomy_EVC_2004-07-14.pdf.<br />
Wells, T. (2006). How and Why Behavioral Advertising Works. Last accessed 30. 6. 2008,<br />
from: http://www.seochat.com/c/a/Website-Marketing-Help/How-and-Why-Behavioral-Advertising-Works/<br />
WFA World Fe<strong>de</strong>ration of Advertisers (2010, June 28). WFA responds to EU opinion on<br />
interest-based advertising. Last accessed 25. 1. 2011, from http://www.wfanet.org/globalnews.cfm?id=381.<br />
WP29 Article 29 Data Protection Working Party (2010, June). opinion 2/2010 on online<br />
behavioral advertising. Last accessed 31. 7. 2010, from http://ec.europa.eu/justice/<br />
policies/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2010/wp171_en.pdf.<br />
Working Party 29 (2010, June 13). opinion 4/2010 on the European co<strong>de</strong> of conduct of<br />
FEDMA for the use of personal data in direct marketing. Last accessed 30. 1. 2011,<br />
from http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2010/wp174_en.pdf
17<br />
DAtA trANsfer frOm germANy Or sPAIN<br />
tO tHIrD COUNtrIes. QUestIONs Of CIVIl lIABIlIty<br />
fOr PrIVACy rIgHts INfrINgemeNt<br />
Philipp E. Fischer<br />
LL.M. School of Law of Queen Mary University of London and Technical University Dres<strong>de</strong>n.<br />
Lawyer, based in Munich, Germany<br />
Rafael Ferraz Vazquez<br />
Brazilian <strong>la</strong>wyer, specialised in Intellectual Property Laws. Master on Intellectual Property<br />
and Information Society at the University of Alicante (Magister Lucentinus)<br />
AbstrAct: In the present welfare and economy the digital information p<strong>la</strong>ys a prominent role. Every<br />
data flow has become steadily faster as well as broa<strong>de</strong>r because of<br />
• new technological measures,<br />
• quantity and information power of data controllers and -storage units,<br />
• expanding networks of international affiliated groups who increasingly <strong>de</strong>pend on the avai<strong>la</strong>bility<br />
of new technologies to exchange data,<br />
• new business mo<strong>de</strong>ls such as Cloud Computing, highly frequented and worldwi<strong>de</strong> sha<strong>red</strong><br />
internet-based applications, and<br />
• politicians´ po<strong>la</strong>rised and partisan <strong>de</strong>bates between net neutrality and tight regu<strong>la</strong>tion of IT<br />
business practices through international standardisation.<br />
Thus, quotidian business processes suffer a challenging level of technological, commercial and political<br />
complexity and inter<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>ncies of international data transfers.<br />
Deep in this whirlpool of data flow, personal data, any information which concerns personal and<br />
objective re<strong>la</strong>tions of the respective person, can be inclu<strong>de</strong>d. Data transfers third (non-EU and non-<br />
EEA) countries created higher risk potentials for the affected person(s) as the Web 2.0 processes<br />
personal data across national bor<strong>de</strong>rs “at the click of a mouse”, bor<strong>de</strong>rs have practically lost their<br />
meaning.<br />
Important cases of data breaches in German and Spanish companies have startled today’s “Information<br />
Society”. If data leaves a secu<strong>red</strong> area, an uninten<strong>de</strong>d flow of information is provoked<br />
which is, already <strong>de</strong>monstrated by the occurrence of “WikiLeaks”, afterwards not only technically<br />
hardly control<strong>la</strong>ble. This has heated up the public discussion, calls have become lou<strong>de</strong>r to improve<br />
the different legal frameworks regarding civil liability of data sen<strong>de</strong>r (controller) and data receiver<br />
(processor).<br />
Keywords: international data transfer, data protection, privacy rights infringement, civil liability,<br />
data controller, data processor, Bun<strong>de</strong>sdatenschutzgesetz, BDSG, LoPD, Net Neutrality, European<br />
Data Protection Directive, EU-DPD, Safe Harbor, Binding Corporate Rules, BCR, Standard Contractual<br />
C<strong>la</strong>uses, SCC, supervisory authority, a<strong>de</strong>quacy test, a<strong>de</strong>quate level of data protection, applicable<br />
<strong>la</strong>w, jurisdiction, tort statute, contract statute, data protection statute.
312 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
1. toPicality and comPlexity<br />
In the present welfare and economy the information as such p<strong>la</strong>ys a prominent role and<br />
forms an important basis of the society. Important cases of data breaches in German 1 and<br />
Spanish 2 companies have startled today’s “Information Society” and have heated up the public<br />
discussion about the civil liability of data sen<strong>de</strong>r (controller) and data receiver (processor).<br />
The issue at stake in international transfers of personal data is very simple: “If a country<br />
has established a level of legal protection for the fundamental rights of its citizens, it is<br />
unlikely to accept that such protection can be escaped simply by exporting the personal data<br />
to a third country” 3 .<br />
But as we will emphasize, the data protection measures could fail if more attention is<br />
not given to enforcement measures, especially in view of data transfers from Germany or<br />
Spain to third countries. As Wand and Griffiths wisely stated: “Cross-bor<strong>de</strong>r data transfer<br />
and enforcement is one of the most complicated issues concerning the protection of personal<br />
data and privacy. There are bi<strong>la</strong>teral and multi<strong>la</strong>teral agreements about seeking to enhance<br />
and encourage cooperation between the countries on these matters” 4 .<br />
We spot many complex issues on the <strong>de</strong>sk if we bring forward the important question<br />
of how the infringement of privacy rights should be handled on a global data transfer level.<br />
This contribution will try to illuminate the reasons of the inability of the legal profession to<br />
a<strong>de</strong>quately cope with this complexity and to give some answers.<br />
1.1. technological complexity<br />
A global data flow is close-knit with the quickly progressive <strong>de</strong>velopment of the information<br />
technology. It has become steadily faster through new technical measures as well as<br />
broa<strong>de</strong>r because of the increased number and information power of data controllers and<br />
–storage units. This favors the economic, scientific and social <strong>de</strong>velopment, but however, also<br />
has a shady si<strong>de</strong>: Deep in this whirlpool of data flow, personal data can be found. Does data<br />
leave a secu<strong>red</strong> area, then this originates an uninten<strong>de</strong>d flow of digital personal information<br />
which, already shown by the occurrence of „WikiLeaks“, is afterwards not only technically<br />
hardly control<strong>la</strong>ble. Technological phenomena like behavioural advertising, social networks,<br />
1 “T-Mobile Lost 17 Million Subscribers’ Personal Data,” Information Week, october 6, 2008, avai<strong>la</strong>ble at<br />
http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/attacks/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=210700232<br />
[Last accessed: 30 May 2011]<br />
2 “C<strong>red</strong>it card security breach fear”, BBC News, avai<strong>la</strong>ble at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8366204.stm<br />
[Last accessed: 30 May 2011]<br />
3 ALDHoUSE, F. The transfer of Personal Data to Third Countries Un<strong>de</strong>r the EU Directive 95/46/<br />
EC. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology. Issue 13, Volume 1, p. 75 - 79.<br />
4 WANG, F.F. and GRIFFITHS, N. (2010) “Protecting privacy in automated transaction systems: A<br />
legal and technological perspective in the European Union”, International Review of Law, Computers<br />
& Technology, Issue 24, Volume 2, p. 153 - 162.
Data transfer from germany or spain to third countries. Questions of civil liability for privacy rights…<br />
313<br />
road toll collecting and geo-location <strong>de</strong>vices profoundly changed the way in which data are<br />
processed and pose enormous challenges for data protection.<br />
Cloud Computing, to mention only one illustrious example for data transfers to non-<br />
European countries in the course of new IT <strong>de</strong>velopments, has recently become a highly<br />
frequented internet-based application. Many people are using it, but due to the <strong>la</strong>ck of<br />
knowledge, often do not care about their personal data. From a <strong>la</strong>wyer´s perspective Cloud<br />
Computing is highly problematic. Mainly because users have no control over the accessauthorised<br />
persons, <strong>de</strong>stination and exact location during the flow of their personal data.<br />
1.2. commercial complexity<br />
The European Data Protection Supervisor states: “The progressive abolition of tra<strong>de</strong> barriers<br />
has given businesses an increasing worldwi<strong>de</strong> dimension. Cross-bor<strong>de</strong>r data processing<br />
and international transfers have tremendously increased over the past years. Furthermore, data<br />
processing has become ubiquitous due to Information and Communication Technologies” 5 .<br />
Mo<strong>de</strong>rn companies generate masses of digital information every day. Many different<br />
companies with own juridical personality can belong to an affiliated group. This wi<strong>de</strong>spread<br />
network of international affiliated groups increasingly <strong>de</strong>pend on the avai<strong>la</strong>bility of new<br />
technologies, their everyday major business processes have created a challenging level of<br />
technological complexity and inter<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>ncies. This brings us to the c<strong>la</strong>ssic issue of the<br />
increasing transfer of personal data in the framework of current globalisation and the question<br />
of how to allow the <strong>la</strong>rge amount of data transfer the integrated economy requires<br />
(multinational companies internal data, commercial partnerships, trans-bor<strong>de</strong>rs merging<br />
and acquisitions, outsourcing, exchanging of information between governmental authorities<br />
and many other situations require such transfer), and at the same time, ensure respect<br />
for citizen’s privacy rights. Lawyers try to handle this ba<strong>la</strong>nce by ensuring legal compliance<br />
in multinational IT businesses.<br />
1.3. Political complexity<br />
Politicians have discove<strong>red</strong> the invasion of privacy as a new item on their agenda. Proponents<br />
of both si<strong>de</strong>s are fighting a hard discussion between Net Neutrality and more regu<strong>la</strong>tion<br />
of the Internet and its data flows. An over-regu<strong>la</strong>tion could possibly <strong>de</strong>rive from new or<br />
upcoming international legal treaties, such as the Lisbon Treaty 6 or binding global instruments.<br />
5 opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the Communication from the Commission<br />
to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee<br />
of the Regions - “A comprehensive approach on personal data protection in the European Union, p.<br />
5, http://idpc.gov.mt/dbfile.aspx/EDPS_11.pdf [Last accessed: 30 May 2011]<br />
6 Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European<br />
Community, signed at Lisbon of 13 December 2007, official Journal of the European Union, C 306,<br />
Volume 50, 17 December 2007
314 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
Art.16 TFEU 7 contains an individual right of the data subject and a direct legal basis<br />
for a strong EU-wi<strong>de</strong> data protection <strong>la</strong>w. Furthermore, the abolition of the pil<strong>la</strong>r structure<br />
obliges the European Parliament and Council to provi<strong>de</strong> for data protection in all areas of<br />
EU <strong>la</strong>w. The Stockholm Programme 8 consistently states in this regard that the Union must<br />
secure a comprehensive strategy to protect data within the EU and in its re<strong>la</strong>tions with other<br />
countries. Another important <strong>de</strong>velopment regards the adoption of international standards<br />
on the protection of personal data and privacy, which might possibly lead to the adoption of<br />
a binding global instrument on data protection. In or<strong>de</strong>r to find a ba<strong>la</strong>nce with the calls for<br />
Net Neutrality, their common goal should be ensuring effective and consistent protection<br />
in a technologically driven and globalised environment without overreaction. Too often, in<br />
our haste to plug legis<strong>la</strong>tive holes we rush in and unleash a whole host of uninten<strong>de</strong>d consequences.<br />
So, storm clouds are forming around a topic that will undoubtedly overshadow the<br />
current Net Neutrality <strong>de</strong>bate: Privacy. Questions arise if transparency, non-blocking and<br />
the prevention of unreasonable discrimination will help to strengthen Net Neutrality. And<br />
if they do so, should privacy legis<strong>la</strong>tion be improved in or<strong>de</strong>r to tackle a data stream being<br />
as free as never before? of course privacy is an important issue but should it encroach on<br />
what makes the internet so good? Transparency as a key part of the Net Neutrality <strong>de</strong>bate, is<br />
it really an antagonist to privacy?<br />
2. legal instruments of tHe euroPean union<br />
The above mentioned “factual mortgages” now c<strong>la</strong>sh with data transfers which are very<br />
relevant for business. First it has to be shown to which juridical control such data transfers<br />
to third countries are subjected by the EU Data Protection Directive 9 (EU-DPD) and which<br />
principles and exceptions have to be taken into account. Afterwards the most important<br />
contractual instruments of the EU will be examined, which have complementary and specifying<br />
functions besi<strong>de</strong> the EU-DPD.<br />
2.1. european data Protection directive (eu-dPd)<br />
A row of actions of the parties involved in a data transfer is prohibited by different legal<br />
frameworks. Norms have been <strong>de</strong>signed to protect the transmission of personal data. No<br />
7 Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, official Journal C<br />
115, 09/05/2008, p. 0047 - 0199<br />
8 The Stockholm Programme An open and secure Europe serving and protecting citizens, oJ C115,<br />
04/05/2010, p. 1-38, at p. 10<br />
9 Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 october 1995 on the<br />
protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of<br />
such data, official Journal L 281 , 23/11/1995, p. 0031 - 0050
Data transfer from germany or spain to third countries. Questions of civil liability for privacy rights…<br />
315<br />
specific problems arise concerning a cross-bor<strong>de</strong>r data transport as long as the transfer takes<br />
p<strong>la</strong>ce within the member states of the European Union (EU) or European Economic Area<br />
(EEA), they do arise during a data transfer into a third country.<br />
Art.2 EU-DPD offers relevant <strong>de</strong>finitions, the most important ones (e.g. personal data,<br />
processing, recipient, data controller, data processor) are provi<strong>de</strong>d by Art.2 (a) – (h) EU-<br />
DPD. According to the role of the data controller and data recipient, a usual data transfer<br />
can be divi<strong>de</strong>d into teams 10 :<br />
Sen<strong>de</strong>r = Controller<br />
Sen<strong>de</strong>r = Processor<br />
Receiver = Processor Receiver = Controller<br />
Controller-Processor Transfer<br />
(contracted data processing)<br />
Processor-Processor Transfers (subcontracted<br />
data processing)<br />
Controller-Controller Transfers<br />
(transfer of functions)<br />
Processor-Controller Transfers<br />
(unusual)<br />
The distinction between controller and processor is not always clear in practice and has<br />
to be subjected to a comprehensive consi<strong>de</strong>ration of all circumstances. Regarding certain<br />
data the receiver could become a “processor” and for other data a “controller”. The basic<br />
concept is that a controller makes <strong>de</strong>cisions about what data to collect and how to use it,<br />
while a processor performs operations on data only on behalf of the controller and according<br />
to its instructions. Recommendations 11 of the Art.29 Data Protection Working Party 12 are of<br />
help to differentiate: Crucial becomes the question of who <strong>de</strong>termines the purpose (“why?”)<br />
and the essential means (“how?”) of the processing. It is <strong>de</strong>cisive which data transmitter is<br />
actually authorised to <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong> on these questions. Who <strong>de</strong>termines the purpose or <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong>s on<br />
essential elements of technical means of the data processing automatically becomes a data<br />
controller. Essential means of the data processing concern legality. The member states <strong>de</strong>veloped<br />
one helpful question on that differentiation. In Germany, for example, who appears<br />
towards the affected persons as responsible for the data, or with whom the affected person<br />
has a legal re<strong>la</strong>tion or for whose business purposes the processing is carried out.<br />
The Directive also brings a set of principles to be observed by the member states. Art.23<br />
EU-DPD directs the member states to guarantee the protection of personal data by a corresponding<br />
national regu<strong>la</strong>tion on liability. Every un<strong>la</strong>wful data processing as well as any<br />
infringement of national <strong>la</strong>ws having implemented this Directive shall raise liability, in particu<strong>la</strong>r<br />
omitted information and c<strong>la</strong>rification duties or the omitted conclusion of a contract<br />
10 Based upon: HELBING, T., “Datenschutz im Konzern: Internationale Datentransfers (Teil 1)”, German<br />
version avai<strong>la</strong>ble at http://www.thomashelbing.com/<strong>de</strong>/datenschutz-konzern-internationaledatentransfers-standardvertragsk<strong>la</strong>useln-safe-harbor-binding-corporate-rules-teil-1<br />
[Last accessed: 30<br />
May 2011]<br />
11 Art. 29 Data Protection Working Party, “opinion 1/2010 on the concepts of “controller” and “processor””,<br />
16 February 2010, WP 169<br />
12 http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/privacy/workinggroup/in<strong>de</strong>x_en.htm [Last accessed: 30 May<br />
2011]
316 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
for the purposes of Art.26 (2) EU-DPD. The resulted damage must be caused causally. The<br />
affected person meets the bur<strong>de</strong>n of proof concerning his damages as well as the legal cause,<br />
so it must be proven that causality, or a “sufficient causal link” re<strong>la</strong>tes the data controller´s<br />
or data processor´s actions to the damage in question.<br />
Although the wording of Art.23 (1) EU-DPD lefts unanswe<strong>red</strong> whether the liability<br />
is <strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nt on fault, a fault-based liability has to be presumed, otherwise the exculpation<br />
rule of Art.23 (2) EU-DPD would not be necessary. It is doubtful whether only material or<br />
also immaterial disadvantages are meant with “damage” for the affected person; even in the<br />
recitals of the EU-DPD no statements can be found on this issue; hence, a margin of discretion<br />
can be assumed as to be turned over to any member state.<br />
Art.25 (1) EU-DPD imposes on member states to prohibit the transfer of personal<br />
data to third countries <strong>la</strong>cking simi<strong>la</strong>r legal protections, unless a) the national supervisory<br />
authority (Art.25 (2) EU-DPD) or the European Commission approves the data transfer, b)<br />
one of several limited exceptions applies (Art.26 (1) EU-DPD) or c) approved safeguards are<br />
in p<strong>la</strong>ce (Art. 25 (6), Art.26 (2), Art. 26 (4) EU-DPD).<br />
The European Commission has recognised through “a<strong>de</strong>quacy tests” (Art.25 (4) EU-<br />
DPD, Art.25 (6) EU-DPD, Art.31 (2) EU-DPD) a sufficient level of protection (Art.25 (1)<br />
EU-DPD) only for a few countries 13 . The EU member states must allow a data transfer to<br />
one of countries (Art. 31 (2), Art. 25 (6) EU-DPD). other countries should soon be un<strong>de</strong>r<br />
review for a possible addition to the white list if their <strong>la</strong>ws are ultimately <strong>de</strong>emed a<strong>de</strong>quate 14 .<br />
For the remaining countries an a<strong>de</strong>quate level of data protection must be guaranteed individually.<br />
Four of them are most often used: Unambiguous consent and several contractual<br />
instruments as the accession to Safe Harbor Principles, the conclusion of Standard Contractual<br />
C<strong>la</strong>uses (SCC) or the adoption of Binding Corporate Rules (BCR).<br />
It has to be carefully taken into account where Art.26 EU-DPD stands within the<br />
system of principles and <strong>de</strong>rogations on a European and on a national basis. The Art.29<br />
Data Protection Working Party states that “The juxtaposition of these different rules on<br />
transfers of personal data may give a <strong>para</strong>doxical impression, and can easily give rise to<br />
misun<strong>de</strong>rstanding. […] Un<strong>de</strong>r these provisions, the data controller originating the transfer<br />
neither has to make sure that the receiver will provi<strong>de</strong> a<strong>de</strong>quate protection nor usually needs<br />
to obtain any kind of prior authorisation for the transfer from the relevant authorities, if<br />
this procedure would be applicable. Furthermore, these provisions do not require the data<br />
receiver to comply with the Directive requirements as regards any processing of the data in<br />
his own country (e.g. principles of purpose, security, right of access, etc.)” 15 .<br />
13 Switzer<strong>la</strong>nd, Canada, Argentina, Guernsey, Isle of Man, Israel (with <strong>de</strong>cision of 31 January 2011<br />
(2011/61/EU)<br />
14 Some Latin American countries and Morocco which has recently adopted new legis<strong>la</strong>tion to protect<br />
personal data<br />
15 Art. 29 Data Protection Working Party, “Working document on a common interpretation of Article<br />
26(1) of Directive 95/46/EC”, 24 october 1995, WP 114, p. 6
Data transfer from germany or spain to third countries. Questions of civil liability for privacy rights…<br />
317<br />
on the one hand, <strong>de</strong>rogations of Art.26 (1) EU-DPD can apply, e.g. Art.26 (1) a)<br />
EU-DPD: Such consent must be given by the person whose personal data is to be transfer<strong>red</strong>.<br />
It must be “clear, freely, given and informed”, Art.26 (1) EU-DPD. Consent can be<br />
refused and be withdrawn any time. Technological measures to ensure a consent that may<br />
be evi<strong>de</strong>nced and enforced <strong>la</strong>ter on can greatly vary one from another. The range inclu<strong>de</strong>s<br />
e.g. user pop-ups with an option to consent by ticking the box of their choice before they<br />
may continue entering the website. A problematic issue is the freedom of consent in an<br />
employment context. The Art.29 Data Protection Working Party has released a document<br />
in which it states that employees would not be able to freely give their consent due to their<br />
subordination link with their employer (“reliance on consent should be confined to cases<br />
where the worker has a genuine free choice and is subsequently able to withdraw the consent<br />
without <strong>de</strong>triment”) 16 . In practice however, this form of consent can be a valid <strong>de</strong>rogation<br />
un<strong>de</strong>r certain circumstances: The data transfer is submitted to the works council or it is<br />
ma<strong>de</strong> clearly for the benefit of the employee, without small print. Nevertheless, the Art.29<br />
Data Protection Working Party consi<strong>de</strong>rs that “consent is unlikely to provi<strong>de</strong> an a<strong>de</strong>quate<br />
long-term framework for data controllers in cases of repeated or even structural transfers for<br />
the processing in question”. This opinion is clearly opposed to the exemptions in Art.26 (1)<br />
EU-DPD.<br />
on the other hand, to transfer the <strong>de</strong>rogation provisions of Art.26 (2), (4) EU-DPD into<br />
practice, several contractual instruments have been <strong>de</strong>veloped: Safe Harbor Privacy Principles,<br />
BCR, SCC I 17 and SCC II 18 and “Standard contractual c<strong>la</strong>uses for data processors established<br />
in third countries” (SCC-DP) 19 . Their consequences of liability can exist in addition to national<br />
<strong>la</strong>w. All instruments differ in terms of standardisation level and liability rules:<br />
2.2. safe Harbor 20<br />
With regard to the US, the European Commission adopted the Decision on Safe Harbor<br />
whereby “for the purposes of Art.25 (2) of Directive 95/46/EC, for all the activities falling<br />
within the scope of that Directive, the Safe Harbor Privacy Principles […] as set out in Annex<br />
16 Art. 29 Data Protection Working Party WP 48, “opinion 8/2001 on the processing of personal data<br />
in the employment context”, 13 September 2001, WP 48, p. 3<br />
17 Commission Decision 2001/497/EC of 15 June 2001 on standard contractual c<strong>la</strong>uses for the transfer<br />
of personal data to third countries, un<strong>de</strong>r Directive 95/46/EC, official Journal L 181 , 04/07/2001,<br />
p. 0019 - 0031<br />
18 Commission Decision 2004/915/EC of 27 December 2004 amending Decision 2001/497/EC as regards<br />
the introduction of an alternative set of standard contractual c<strong>la</strong>uses for the transfer of personal<br />
data to third countries, official Journal L 385 , 29/12/2004, p. 0074 - 0084<br />
19 Commission Decision 2010/87/EU of 5 February 2010 on standard contractual c<strong>la</strong>uses for the transfer<br />
of personal data to processors established in third countries un<strong>de</strong>r Directive 95/46/EC of the<br />
European Parliament and of the Council, official Journal L 39, 12/02/2010, p. 0005 - 0018<br />
20 http://www.export.gov/safeharbor [Last accessed: 30 May 2011]
318 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
I to this Decision, implemented in accordance with the guidance provi<strong>de</strong>d by the frequently<br />
asked questions […] are consi<strong>de</strong><strong>red</strong> to ensure an a<strong>de</strong>quate level of protection for personal data<br />
transfer<strong>red</strong> from the Community to organizations established in the United States” 21 . The Safe<br />
Harbor Principles issued and the accompanying Frequently Asked Question 22 set forth the<br />
provisions ensuring the a<strong>de</strong>quate level of data protection. Nevertheless, national supervisory<br />
authorities do often critical look at the level of protection in Safe Harbor principles. Sometimes<br />
the representation by a US entity that it is Safe Harbor certified now is not enough according<br />
to national supervisory agencies because, in their view, European and US regu<strong>la</strong>tors<br />
currently do not ensure that the US companies comply with the self-certification.<br />
2.3. binding corporate rules (bcr)<br />
BCRs serve to create a uniform contractual basis for the exchange of personal data in<br />
an affiliated group (Privacy Policy). An a<strong>de</strong>quate data protection level can be thereby guaranteed<br />
at all companies of the group but not to group-external companies. This solution is,<br />
based on the expression of Safe Harbor, also called “Safe Haven”.<br />
A liability regime corresponding to Art.22, 23 EU-DPD has to be inclu<strong>de</strong>d in the BCR.<br />
If the head office of the affiliated companies involved in the data transfer is inner-European,<br />
this office is liable for the breaches of contract of all his affiliated companies beyond the<br />
EU. If she is not seated in the domestic market, a group member resi<strong>de</strong>nt in the EU must<br />
be named by the group of companies. This “liable team member” must prove that it has<br />
sufficient assets to pay compensation for damages resulting from the breach of the BCRs 23 .<br />
If the involved companies have their seats in different EU countries, the regu<strong>la</strong>tions in the<br />
BCR must be approved by every single responsible authority (in Germany coordinated with<br />
the “Düsseldorfer Kreis”) 24 . The liable team member must not compensate for breaches of<br />
other inner-European team members 25 .<br />
The same rights must be granted to the affected person towards the liable team member,<br />
as if the liable action had been committed by a member within the EU. This regime is no legal,<br />
but a contractual liability. His results are <strong>de</strong>termined by the applicable (substantive) <strong>la</strong>w<br />
e.g. in Germany or Spain, according to the BCR. This shows how important the <strong>de</strong>termination<br />
of the applicable <strong>la</strong>w is for cases of data transfers to third countries. Another significant<br />
21 Art. 1 of the Decision regarding the Safe Harbor Principles as an A<strong>de</strong>quate Level of Protection;<br />
[2000] o.J. L 215/7; http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/dataprot/a<strong>de</strong>quacy/in<strong>de</strong>x.htm.,<br />
[Last accessed: 30 May 2011]<br />
22 http:///www.export.gov/safeharbor [Last accessed: 30 May 2011]<br />
23 Art. 29 Data Protection Working Party, “Working Document setting up a table with the elements<br />
and principles to be found in Binding Corporate Rules”, 24 June 2008, WP 153<br />
24 The “Düsseldorfer Kreis” is a working group of representatives from Germany’s sixteen state data<br />
protection authorities that provi<strong>de</strong>s a uniform “German” approach to data protection questions.<br />
25 Art. 29 Data Protection Working Party, “Working Document Setting up a framework for the structure<br />
of Binding Corporate Rules”, 24 June 2008, WP 154
Data transfer from germany or spain to third countries. Questions of civil liability for privacy rights…<br />
question then remains, to what extent restrictions of liability are allowed, the Art.29 Data<br />
Protection Working Party gives no exact statement on this.<br />
2.4. standard contractual c<strong>la</strong>uses (scc)<br />
319<br />
The Council and the European Parliament have given the Commission the power to<br />
<strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong>, on the basis of Art.26 (4) of Directive 95/46/EC that certain SCCs offer sufficient<br />
safeguards as requi<strong>red</strong> by Art.26 (2). However, it is admitted that individual contracts do<br />
not, of course, provi<strong>de</strong> an a<strong>de</strong>quate level of protection for an entire country. The European<br />
Commission has approved two alternative sets of SCCs for use in transferring personal data<br />
to a data “controller” outsi<strong>de</strong> the EU/EEA (SCC I and SCC II), and a set of SCCs to be used<br />
when transferring data to a “processor” (SCC-DP).<br />
SCCs are contract <strong>de</strong>faults, complementing and specifying the <strong>de</strong>man<strong>de</strong>d minimum<br />
standards of data protection, Art.25 (2) EU-DPD. The rights and duties of the parties are<br />
regu<strong>la</strong>ted and must be adopted consistently. The member states are bound by the <strong>de</strong>cisions<br />
of the EU commission. Thus, the member states must recognise that the companies which<br />
use the SCCs show an a<strong>de</strong>quate data protection level. Then permission by the supervisory<br />
authority is not obligatory as far as the supervisory authorities are able to check the use<br />
of the contractual c<strong>la</strong>uses and they are presented to the authority on inquiry. As soon as,<br />
however, modified contractual c<strong>la</strong>uses are used, an official authorisation by the supervisory<br />
authority must be caught up.<br />
SCCs are not used where data is being transfer<strong>red</strong> to a US company that participates in the<br />
Safe Harbor program, or to a company relying on informed consent, Binding Corporate Rules<br />
approved by one national supervisory authority, or one of the other <strong>de</strong>rogations un<strong>de</strong>r Art.26<br />
EU-DPD. US companies –which have not self-certified for Safe Harbor– and other countries<br />
beyond the EU anyhow have a further possibility to ensure an a<strong>de</strong>quate level of protection. According<br />
to EU-DPD, a transfer to a third country, which does not ensure an a<strong>de</strong>quate level<br />
of protection, may take p<strong>la</strong>ce in cases “where the controller adduces a<strong>de</strong>quate safeguards with<br />
respect to the protection of the privacy and fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals and<br />
as regards the exercise of the corresponding rights”; the Directive follows to state “such safeguards<br />
may in particu<strong>la</strong>r result from appropriate contractual c<strong>la</strong>uses”, Art.26 (2) EU-DPD.<br />
The SCCs in some way recognise the difficulty of data subjects to seek compensation.<br />
Not only by establishing the applicable <strong>la</strong>w and the responsability of the data exporter, but<br />
also by providing that alternative dispute resolution (ADR) could be used as well as that the<br />
data subject could be represented by entities (recitals number 20, 21 and 22 of Decision<br />
2010/87/EU). In case it is not possible to seek compensation for the data exporter, the same<br />
<strong>de</strong>cision says that the data importer should offer ADR means.<br />
2.4.1. Version 1 (SCC I)<br />
The SCC I were adopted by the EU already in 2001. However, it appea<strong>red</strong> afterwards<br />
in practice that the realities of the data transfers as well as the application of current business<br />
mo<strong>de</strong>ls have not been consi<strong>de</strong><strong>red</strong> enough. Thus, practitioners did not often apply these con-
320 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
tract <strong>de</strong>faults. The most practice-re<strong>la</strong>ted case that data should be transfer<strong>red</strong> by a data controller<br />
to a data processor was not cove<strong>red</strong> and the bureaucratic requirements were re<strong>la</strong>tively<br />
high. This hin<strong>de</strong><strong>red</strong> the application of SCC I although especially SCC I should facilitate the<br />
data flow. Besi<strong>de</strong>s, companies often did not accept their obligation to agree on conciliatory<br />
proceedings over liability.<br />
Un<strong>de</strong>r the SCC I, data exporter and data importer were jointly and severally liable.<br />
They were in<strong>de</strong>mnified from it only if none of both would have been found responsible for<br />
the vio<strong>la</strong>tion of personal data (c<strong>la</strong>use 6 (1)). Between the parties, data exporter and data<br />
importer are obliged to <strong>de</strong>c<strong>la</strong>re in<strong>de</strong>mnity if they have inclu<strong>de</strong>d the optional c<strong>la</strong>use 6 (3) in<br />
the contract. In particu<strong>la</strong>r because of the problems which result from this joint and several<br />
liability, the SCC I were criticized and seldom used.<br />
2.4.2.Version 2 (SCC II)<br />
From the 15/5/2010 on the new SCC II must be used, the old c<strong>la</strong>uses are amen<strong>de</strong>d.<br />
Already existing arrangements keep their validity as long as in the contractual re<strong>la</strong>tion data<br />
is transfer<strong>red</strong> and transmission as well as processing remains unchanged. The concerns addressed<br />
in SCC II is that processors today often subcontract some processing, storage, and<br />
technical support functions to third parties. This is common in cloud computing, where several<br />
entities might be involved in handling and storing the data. SCC II are <strong>de</strong>signed to ensure<br />
that the company that remains responsible as the data controller in Europe is informed<br />
about any proposed subcontracting, and that all parties handling the data are subjected to<br />
the same obligations of confi<strong>de</strong>ntiality and security. They contain a mandatory arbitration<br />
c<strong>la</strong>use to which many companies have objected. Four different liabilities for the breach of<br />
data protection rules can be i<strong>de</strong>ntified: Contractual liability according to the SCC II (either<br />
between the contracting parties or against third person), and Tortious liability (based on the<br />
SCC II or national <strong>la</strong>w).<br />
Between the parties of the SCC II, every contracting party is liable “inter partes” for<br />
the damages which are caused by an offence against the c<strong>la</strong>uses. This liability is limited to<br />
the <strong>de</strong> facto suffe<strong>red</strong> damage, “punitive damages” are therefore exclu<strong>de</strong>d26 .<br />
In case of damages to a third person, every party is liable for damages caused by the<br />
infringement of rights which arise for an affected third person directly from the SCC II. The<br />
affected person can immediately assert his right against the data importer or data exporter<br />
as a third party beneficiary un<strong>de</strong>r one condition: If the data importer infringes obligations<br />
from the SCC II, the data exporter must take action on requirement of the affected person<br />
first and has to act upon the data importer with the aim that the <strong>la</strong>tter fulfils his obligations.<br />
only if the exporter is not able to remedy the wrong conduct of the data importer within<br />
one month, the affected person can proceed directly against the importer.<br />
26 Tthis limitation is probably valid also for the re<strong>la</strong>tion to the third person affected by the offence.
Data transfer from germany or spain to third countries. Questions of civil liability for privacy rights…<br />
321<br />
When the tortious liability is to be applied, the data exporter is liable for offences conducted<br />
by the data importer because of fault through a poor choice of one’s vicarious agent<br />
(culpa in eligiendo) if he has not assu<strong>red</strong> himself within the scope of the reasonable time of<br />
the fact that the data importer is able to fulfil his juridical obligations. The data exporter is,<br />
nevertheless, able to absolve itself from liability, if he proves that he has taken all reasonable<br />
efforts to fulfil his obligations of choice (Annex, C<strong>la</strong>use III b s. 2).<br />
All the mentioned SCC II regu<strong>la</strong>tions do not change the liability of the data exporter<br />
according to national data protection <strong>la</strong>ws, which remains untouched, because these cannot<br />
be exclu<strong>de</strong>d by contractual arrangement between the contracting parties of the SCC II. If<br />
the SCC II <strong>de</strong>fault documents are adopted by the parties without changes, an authorisation<br />
by a data protection authority of an EU member state is not necessary. The current SCC<br />
II permit the simplified employment of subsidiaries. In<strong>de</strong>ed, an EU-based company must<br />
make sure that the subsidiary complies with the European data security level.<br />
2.4.3. Special version for data processors established in third countries (SCC-DP) 27<br />
If personal data is transmitted within the scope of a contracted data processing from<br />
the EU in a third country, the SCC-DP apply. Contracted data processing is <strong>de</strong>fined that<br />
a company or<strong>de</strong>rs personal data as for example customer’s data or employee’s data to be<br />
processed by a foreign company, see above. Relevant areas of the contracted data processing<br />
are in this particu<strong>la</strong>r respect forms of IT outsourcing (external data servers, external human<br />
resources data management etc.). The SCC-DP cover transfers from the EU to a data in a<br />
third country, although data protection authorities “may” allow use of the SCC-DP in such<br />
situations as well.<br />
Annex C<strong>la</strong>use 6 (1) SCC-DP obliges the parties to grant to the affected person a contractual<br />
c<strong>la</strong>im for compensation against the data exporter because of certain breaches of<br />
obligations of the data importer and/or the subcontractor. Annex C<strong>la</strong>use 3 (1) SCC-DP provi<strong>de</strong>s<br />
direct c<strong>la</strong>ims of the affected person against the data exporter. Exceptionally the affected<br />
person can also proceed directly against the data importer if the <strong>la</strong>tter or his subcontractor is<br />
responsible for a breach of obligations and the data exporter does not exist anymore on a factual<br />
or juridical basis, Annex C<strong>la</strong>use 3 (2) SCC-DP. The arbitration c<strong>la</strong>use has been <strong>de</strong>leted.<br />
3. jurisdiction and aPPlicable <strong>la</strong>w<br />
Especially fresh business mo<strong>de</strong>ls such as Cloud Computing, the newest driver to illustrate<br />
the speed and breadth of the online environment, allow data to be processed across<br />
27 Commission Decision 2010/87/EU of 5 February 2010 on standard contractual c<strong>la</strong>uses for the transfer<br />
of personal data to processors established in third countries un<strong>de</strong>r Directive 95/46/EC of the<br />
European Parliament and of the Council, official Journal L 39, 12/02/2010, p. 0005 - 0018
322 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
national bor<strong>de</strong>rs “at the click of a mouse” 28 , bor<strong>de</strong>rs have practically lost their meaning. This<br />
“free flow of data” 29 confronts the <strong>la</strong>w with questions of International Private Law (IPL).<br />
3.1. jurisdiction<br />
Brussels I 30 set rules to <strong>de</strong>termine which court should hear a case when there is a crossbor<strong>de</strong>r<br />
conflict. Possible infringements of privacy rights are subjected to Art.5 No. 3 Brussels<br />
I. The “locus <strong>de</strong>licti” encloses according to Art.5 No. 3 Brussels I all p<strong>la</strong>ces at which a<br />
constituent fact of a tortious act has been realised, so the p<strong>la</strong>ce of performance as well as the<br />
p<strong>la</strong>ce of effect.<br />
An interpretation of the scope of Art.5 No. 3 Brussels I, stating that only a bare „accessibility“<br />
of the contents is sufficient for its application, would lead actually to a p<strong>la</strong>intiff‘s free<br />
choice jurisdiction. Then the p<strong>la</strong>intiff would mostly choose the country with the worldwi<strong>de</strong><br />
strictest privacy rights. The court having jurisdiction could then not be foreseen any more by<br />
the alleged tortfeasor. This result is somehow opposite to basic principles of international jurisdiction<br />
rules. The “p<strong>la</strong>ce of effect” could possibly be put down to „<strong>de</strong>signated space” of the<br />
data transfer. In<strong>de</strong>ed, this approach bumps into consi<strong>de</strong>rable difficulties when there is not<br />
such a space in the geographic sense regarding Internet services. Privacy rights are because of<br />
their immateriality basically “everywhere and nowhere” resi<strong>de</strong>nt, however, their abstractness<br />
becomes then more concrete, as soon as they are affected. Since the actions affecting the privacy<br />
right can be absolutely assigned to a certain p<strong>la</strong>ce. Hence, there must also be in case of<br />
“online infringement” of a privacy right a p<strong>la</strong>ce of effect. This “objectification” of the privacy<br />
right leads then to the question where then this site of crime should lie.<br />
Hence, it is discussed to limit the <strong>de</strong>cision authority of the court already at the level of<br />
the jurisdiction to attenuate the problem of the application of a huge number of different<br />
legal systems. The ECJ took care of these questions in “Shevill V. Press Alliance” 31 to avoid<br />
an unreasonable preferential treatment of the affected person. The ECJ held that:<br />
• the p<strong>la</strong>ce where the damage occurs is the p<strong>la</strong>ce where the publication is distributed,<br />
when the victim is known in that p<strong>la</strong>ce (<strong>para</strong>graph 29); and<br />
• the p<strong>la</strong>ce of the event giving rise to the damage takes p<strong>la</strong>ce is the country where the<br />
newspaper was produced (<strong>para</strong>graph 24).<br />
28 KUNER, C., “An international legal framework for data protection: Issues and prospects”, Computer <strong>la</strong>w<br />
& Security Review, 2009, vol. 25, iss. 5, p. 307-317 (308)<br />
29 KUNER, C., “An international legal framework for data protection: Issues and prospects”, Computer <strong>la</strong>w<br />
& Security Review, 2009, vol. 25, iss. 5, p. 307-317 (309)<br />
30 Council Regu<strong>la</strong>tion (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and<br />
enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, official Journal, L 012 , 16/01/2001, p.<br />
0001 – 0023, p. 1<br />
31 ECJ, Case C-68/93, “Fiona Shevill and others v Presse Alliance SA”, Decision of 07/03/1995
Data transfer from germany or spain to third countries. Questions of civil liability for privacy rights…<br />
323<br />
The ECJ also held in Shevill that as regards the assessment by the English court applying<br />
Article 5(3) of Brussels I of whether „damage“ actually occur<strong>red</strong> or not, the national<br />
court should apply national rules provi<strong>de</strong>d that the result did not impair the effectiveness of<br />
the general objectives of the Regu<strong>la</strong>tion. Furthermore the ECJ held that where a libel causes<br />
damage in several different EU Member States, the victim may sue in any of the jurisdictions<br />
where the libel is published in respect of the damage suffe<strong>red</strong> in that jurisdiction. For<br />
this purpose the unrestricted choice of <strong>la</strong>w rule of the inju<strong>red</strong> person has been limited. The<br />
cognitive authority of the courts at the p<strong>la</strong>ce of success (Art.5 No. 3 Brussels I) is limited to<br />
the respective local damage. If the inju<strong>red</strong> person wants to assert his whole damage suffe<strong>red</strong><br />
in different states, he must sue at the p<strong>la</strong>ce(s) of performance, so before the courts of that<br />
state in which the potential tortfeasor is resi<strong>de</strong>nt. The argument of the ECJ, to reach familiarity<br />
with the subject by limiting the cognitive authority, nevertheless, does not fit with<br />
privacy-juridical and data protection-juridical torts which are scatte<strong>red</strong> to the four winds.<br />
The current Brussels I regu<strong>la</strong>tion creates uncertainty and disproportionate risk of <strong>la</strong>w<br />
suits in multiple jurisdictions and many call for amendments to Brussels I to remove the<br />
uncertainty which Art.5 No. 3 Brussels I and Shevill have together created. The German<br />
courts 32 have already <strong>de</strong>alt with this subject and have held international jurisdiction for German<br />
courts if the data transfer shows „clear re<strong>la</strong>tions“ to Germany. However, this solution<br />
is still no clear and therefore not i<strong>de</strong>al and it remains to be seen how this problem is solved.<br />
3.2. applicable <strong>la</strong>w<br />
3.2.1. Contract statute<br />
a) SCC<br />
SCC I, II and SCC-DP <strong>de</strong>termine that basically the right of the country in which the<br />
data exporter is resi<strong>de</strong>nt (“established”) applies, C<strong>la</strong>use 10 SCC, C<strong>la</strong>use 4 Annex to SCC II,<br />
C<strong>la</strong>use 9 SCC-DP. The parties are obliged to contractually agree on the application of this<br />
national <strong>la</strong>w, the free choice of <strong>la</strong>w rule is <strong>red</strong>uced to zero.<br />
The SCC II grant to the data importer a choice between a) the national <strong>la</strong>ws of the<br />
country in which the data exporter is resi<strong>de</strong>nt, b) the principles of Appendix A and c) the<br />
regu<strong>la</strong>tions of a recognition <strong>de</strong>cision provi<strong>de</strong>d by Art.25 (6) EU-DPD. Nevertheless, this<br />
inclu<strong>de</strong>s no choice of <strong>la</strong>w, because Art.12 Rome I 33 does not allow a choice of <strong>la</strong>w for data<br />
protection issues. Thus, the choice of <strong>la</strong>w cannot be valid through a)-c) but only on the basis<br />
of other contractual arrangements in substantive <strong>la</strong>w, not in the conflict of <strong>la</strong>ws rules.<br />
32 Bun<strong>de</strong>sgerichtshof (BGH), Case „Sedlmayr“, Decision of 10/11/2009 - VI ZR 217/08 (oLG Hamburg);<br />
Bun<strong>de</strong>sgerichtshof (BGH), Case „New York Times“, Decision of 02/03/2010 - VI ZR 23/09<br />
(oLG Düsseldorf)<br />
33 Regu<strong>la</strong>tion (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on<br />
the <strong>la</strong>w applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I), official Journal of the European Union, L<br />
177, p. 0006-0016
324 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
C<strong>la</strong>use 11 SCC-DP provi<strong>de</strong>s an obligation for the parties to agree upon this choice<br />
of <strong>la</strong>w also regarding the subcontractor’s re<strong>la</strong>tion. This choice of <strong>la</strong>w contract itself, which<br />
inclu<strong>de</strong>s the corresponding national <strong>la</strong>ws of the data exporter, is mostly to be assessed by<br />
another national <strong>la</strong>w, in this case of the respective (sub)contractor.<br />
b) BCR<br />
Un<strong>de</strong>r IPL, BCRs are qualified as private <strong>la</strong>w contracts. Due to possible specific national<br />
<strong>la</strong>ws in the data exporter´s country, agreement can be drafted as uni<strong>la</strong>teral or multi<strong>la</strong>teral<br />
within the affiliated group 34 . If German courts have jurisdiction and a German lex<br />
fori is given, the subject matter of contract is assessed by the contract statute. The <strong>la</strong>tter is<br />
<strong>de</strong>termined by a) choice of <strong>la</strong>w (Art.3 (1) Rome I 35 ), and - in the absence of choice of <strong>la</strong>w - b)<br />
the p<strong>la</strong>ce of typical performance of the contract (Art.4 (2) Rome I) or the <strong>la</strong>w of the p<strong>la</strong>ce of<br />
the closest connection to the contract (Art.4 (4) Rome I). If a member of the affiliated group<br />
and BCR´s contract party breaches his obligations of the BCR, the contract statute assesses<br />
issues of this contract for the benefit of a third party (the affected person).<br />
The p<strong>la</strong>ce of the closest connection to the contract often is hardly <strong>de</strong>terminable, a<br />
choice of <strong>la</strong>w agreement should be inclu<strong>de</strong>d in the BCRs. It has to be taken into account<br />
that the affected person can choose between raising a c<strong>la</strong>im at the courts of the state where<br />
the data exporter is resi<strong>de</strong>nt, where the <strong>de</strong>signated liable group member is resi<strong>de</strong>nt or an<br />
administrative appeal at the national supervisory authority. Against the background that<br />
the resi<strong>de</strong>ncy of the data exporter can change, the contractual parties are better advised to<br />
choose the <strong>la</strong>w of the liable group member.<br />
3.2.2. Tort statute / Data protection statute<br />
a) Rules of IPL in international <strong>la</strong>ws<br />
Some questions regarding tort- and data protection statute are unclear and still to be<br />
answe<strong>red</strong> by the European Commission. In the meantime, one can refer to important opinions<br />
given by the Art. 29 Data Protection Working Party:<br />
• Controller established in one or more Member States, Art. 4 (1) a EU-DPD<br />
“With regard to Art. 4 (1) a EU-DPD, the reference to “an” establishment means that<br />
the applicability of a Member State’s <strong>la</strong>w will be trigge<strong>red</strong> by the location of an establishment<br />
of the controller in that Member State, and other Member States’ <strong>la</strong>ws could be trigge<strong>red</strong> by<br />
the location of other establishments of that controller in those Member States. To trigger the<br />
application of the national <strong>la</strong>w, the notion of the “context of activities” of the establishment is<br />
<strong>de</strong>cisive. It implies that the establishment of the controller is involved in activities implying the<br />
34 ICC Report on binding corporate rules for international transfers of personal data”, 28.10.2004,<br />
www.iccwbo.org [Last accessed: 30 May 2011]<br />
35 Regu<strong>la</strong>tion (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on<br />
the <strong>la</strong>w applicable to contractual obligations (“Rome I”), official Journal of the European Union, L<br />
177/6, 04/07/2008
Data transfer from germany or spain to third countries. Questions of civil liability for privacy rights…<br />
325<br />
processing of personal data, taking into consi<strong>de</strong>ration its <strong>de</strong>gree of involvement in the processing<br />
activities, the nature of the activities and the need to guarantee effective data protection” 36 .<br />
• Controller not established on Community territory but processing data through equipment<br />
located in a Member State, Art. 4 (1) c EU-DPD<br />
“With regard to the “use of equipment” provision in Art.4 (1) c, which may entail the<br />
application of the Directive to controllers not established in the EU/EEA territory, the<br />
opinion c<strong>la</strong>rifies that it should apply in those cases where there is no establishment in the<br />
EU/EEA which would trigger the application of Art. 4 (1) a or where the processing is not<br />
carried out in the context of such an establishment. The opinion also notes that a broad<br />
interpretation of the notion of “equipment’ –justified by its expression by “means” in other<br />
EU <strong>la</strong>nguages– may in some cases result in European data protection <strong>la</strong>w being applicable<br />
where the processing in question has no real connection with the EU/EEA” 37 .<br />
b) Rules of IPL in national <strong>la</strong>ws<br />
• German IPL<br />
According to § 1 (5) BDSG the scope of applicability of national data protection <strong>la</strong>ws<br />
to cross-bor<strong>de</strong>r data transfers within the EU is dominated not by the territorial principle,<br />
but the country of resi<strong>de</strong>nce principle. The applicable national <strong>la</strong>w is trigge<strong>red</strong> not by the<br />
p<strong>la</strong>ce of the collecting or processing of data, but by the p<strong>la</strong>ce where the controller has his<br />
seat. The purpose of this regu<strong>la</strong>tion is to guarantee that an international operative company<br />
during his activities within the EU is obliged to meet the provisions of the <strong>la</strong>w at the<br />
company´s seat only.<br />
Nevertheless, the territoriality principle does apply if the controller in another EU state<br />
has a subsidiary in Germany and pursues from this point a data processing; the German<br />
BDSG becomes applicable for the data processing of this subsidiary. § 1 (5) 2 BDSG applies<br />
if a controller pursues a data processing to Germany from outsi<strong>de</strong> of the EU or EEA. For<br />
these cases the territorial principle remains applicable. Nevertheless, according to § 1 (5) 4<br />
BDSG the country of resi<strong>de</strong>nce principle again takes effect if the data is processed through<br />
Germany, so a bare date transfer which cannot be accessed in Germany.<br />
Un<strong>de</strong>r German <strong>la</strong>w it remains argumentative whether c<strong>la</strong>ims for compensation are to<br />
be tied to a se<strong>para</strong>te connecting factor in § 7 BDSG, so that the tort statute would apply and<br />
Art. 40 EGBGB 38 appoints to the p<strong>la</strong>ce of performance or alternatively to the p<strong>la</strong>ce of effect;<br />
or whether these c<strong>la</strong>ims for compensation are subjected to the „data protection statute“ of<br />
§ 1 (5) BDSG. An infringement of privacy rights in Germany then leads to the application<br />
36 Art. 29 Data Protection Working Party, “opinion 8/2010 on applicable <strong>la</strong>w”, 16 December 2010,<br />
WP 179, p. 2<br />
37 Art. 29 Data Protection Working Party, “opinion 8/2010 on applicable <strong>la</strong>w”, 16 December 2010,<br />
WP 179, p. 2<br />
38 Einführungsgesetz zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch (EGBG), <strong>la</strong>st version of 17 January 2011 (BGBl.<br />
2011 I, p. 34), English version avai<strong>la</strong>ble at http://www.gesetze-im-internet.<strong>de</strong>/englisch_bgbeg/in<strong>de</strong>x.<br />
html [Last accessed: 31 May 2011]
326 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
of either the German <strong>la</strong>w or the right of domicile of the affected person. To avoid a legal<br />
fragmentation, Art.41 (2) 1 EGBGB opens the possibility of prior application of the contract<br />
statute (i.e. the <strong>la</strong>w that applies to the SCC or BCR) as the <strong>la</strong>w of a substantially closer<br />
connection which in this respect then edges out the tort statute.<br />
• Spanish IPL<br />
The Spanish Law 15/1999 Art. 2 (1) a) LoPD (Ley orgánica <strong>de</strong> Protección <strong>de</strong> Datos<br />
-LoPD) governs any processing of personal data<br />
“a) when the processing is carried out on Spanish territory as part of the activities of an<br />
establishment belonging to the person responsible for the processing.<br />
b) When the person responsible for the processing is not established on Spanish territory but is<br />
subject to Spanish <strong>la</strong>w pursuant to the norms of public international <strong>la</strong>w.<br />
c) When the person responsible for the processing is not established on the territory of the<br />
European Union and is using for the processing means situated on Spanish territory,<br />
unless such means are used solely for transit purposes.”<br />
3.3. outlook<br />
“At present, Rome II does not apply to infringement of privacy rights, whereas Brussels<br />
I does. However, because in all cross-bor<strong>de</strong>r cases of privacy vio<strong>la</strong>tions, the jurisdiction<br />
un<strong>de</strong>r Brussels I is the first matter to be settled, the absence of a rule to <strong>de</strong>termine thereafter<br />
which country’s <strong>la</strong>w should apply is an issue for media companies when <strong>de</strong>fending cases<br />
of <strong>de</strong>famation and vio<strong>la</strong>tions of privacy in countries outsi<strong>de</strong> the p<strong>la</strong>ce of editorial control<br />
because un<strong>de</strong>r Brussels I, media companies find themselves <strong>de</strong>fending cases according to<br />
foreign <strong>la</strong>ws, often in multiple jurisdictions” 39 .<br />
The European data protection <strong>la</strong>ws still rely upon the territoriality principle. The liability<br />
of a data controller is judged according to the <strong>la</strong>w of the state in which the data is<br />
collected or processed. This principle becomes problematical in terms of Cloud Computing,<br />
because data is sto<strong>red</strong> worldwi<strong>de</strong> and it is unclear which components of data can concern<br />
personal data. Also cloud service companies can sometimes hardly ascertain on which server<br />
the data lies at which time. This causes two dangers: „Forum shopping” on the one hand and<br />
on the other hand that a judge simply states not to have jurisdiction. Even if one can <strong>de</strong>termine<br />
the p<strong>la</strong>ce of the data for a certain time, this can change, and with it also the applicable<br />
<strong>la</strong>w, within fractions of one second. Hence, the territoriality principle should be given up in<br />
this respect in or<strong>de</strong>r to apply a national <strong>la</strong>w when the controller, resi<strong>de</strong>nt in a third country,<br />
directs his performances recognizably to users in this state.<br />
Approaches:<br />
• Restriction on a main p<strong>la</strong>ce of effect at the p<strong>la</strong>ce where the data processing is concentrated<br />
to. In <strong>de</strong>fault of such a p<strong>la</strong>ce in the seat of the controller.<br />
39 http://www.epceurope.org/factsheets/epc-brussels-I-and-rome-II-fact-sheet-april-2010.pdf
Data transfer from germany or spain to third countries. Questions of civil liability for privacy rights…<br />
327<br />
• Restriction on a main p<strong>la</strong>ce of effect at the p<strong>la</strong>ce of the primary centre of interest of<br />
the affected person<br />
• Mosaic principle: All affected legal systems at the different p<strong>la</strong>ces of effect are applicable,<br />
merely only concerning that damage which has taken effect in the area of application<br />
of the respective legal system.<br />
4. german substantiVe <strong>la</strong>w<br />
4.1. case study<br />
A typical case nowadays: A German company is part of an international affiliated group.<br />
The American parent company <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong>s to introduce a new human resources information system<br />
(HRIS). This system is centrally run by an IT service company belonging to the group, technically<br />
supported by other resi<strong>de</strong>nt IT service companies and customer-re<strong>la</strong>ted supported by a<br />
callcenter agency seated in Asia; all of them share the same Cloud Computing services (SaaS).<br />
How can such a scenario comply with the <strong>la</strong>w, who would be liable for the infringement<br />
of privacy rights, taking into account e.g. German Data Protection Law?<br />
4.2. system of bdsg<br />
The implementation of the EU-DPD in the BDSG contains a two-step audit for a <strong>la</strong>wful<br />
data transfer to third countries:<br />
• 1 st step: Legal basis for the transfer of data<br />
• 2 nd step: A<strong>de</strong>quate level of data protection of the data receiver<br />
The se<strong>para</strong>tion of both steps is indisputable and is also carried out by supervisory authorities.<br />
However, unfortunately, it is still a wi<strong>de</strong>spread mistake that the second step is<br />
enough to meet the requirements of the European data protection level. It is totally misjudged<br />
that together with an a<strong>de</strong>quate level of data protection legal basis is still requi<strong>red</strong>, e.g.<br />
it is not true that only a Safe Harbor “certification” of the US company or use of the SCC<br />
II already complies with all requirements of EU-DPD. Reason for the commingling of both<br />
steps may be that some aspects during the first step also p<strong>la</strong>y a role during the second step.<br />
E.g. if an approval must be caught up for a data transfer to a third country within the scope<br />
of the first step (legal basis), the second step can be discussed at the same time, while with a<br />
corresponding <strong>de</strong>c<strong>la</strong>ration of consent an exemption is created.<br />
4.3. subsumtion to the regu<strong>la</strong>tions of bdsg<br />
4.3.1. Legal basis (first step)<br />
a) § 3 BDSG<br />
Talking about “data transfer” assumes neither a physical transmission for the purposes<br />
of handing over the data carrier nor the storage of the receiver. Data is already been trans-
328 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
fer<strong>red</strong> if the receiver has access to the data, e.g. see and recall data, in cases when another<br />
group company receives access to a company computer with personal data. This wi<strong>de</strong> interpretation<br />
arises in § 3 (4) No. 3 b) BDSG from the <strong>de</strong>finition of “transmission” in § 3<br />
BDSG.<br />
Different companies with own juridical personality can belong to an affiliated group.<br />
A transmission is given, finally, also if the data transmitter (first juridical personality) and<br />
data receiver (second juridical personality) belong to the same group (§3 (4) No. 3 b BDSG).<br />
Also a data access of the parent company on employee’s data of the subsidiary means transmission,<br />
as well as a central customer’s file which is pursued on computers of the parent<br />
company and is fed with customer’s data of all subsidiaries. Each of these companies is a<br />
“data controller” for the purposes of § 3 (7) BDSG.<br />
As a consequence the data exchange within the group is still treated as a “data exchange<br />
between foreign companies”, being absent the “group privilege” of the BDSG. Hence, in<br />
the above mentioned example, the German company must check if the passing on of the<br />
employee’s data to the computer centre and to the other IT service companies is <strong>la</strong>wful.<br />
b) § 4 BDSG<br />
“The collection, processing and use of personal data shall be <strong>la</strong>wful only if permitted or<br />
or<strong>de</strong><strong>red</strong> by this Act or other <strong>la</strong>w, or if the data subject has provi<strong>de</strong>d consent”, § 4 (1) BDSG.<br />
E.g. § 11 (contracted data processing), § 32 (employee’s data) and § 28 (1) 1 No. 2 (interest<br />
consi<strong>de</strong>ration c<strong>la</strong>use) BDSG have to be taken into consi<strong>de</strong>ration as <strong>de</strong>rogations for a groupinternal<br />
data transfer.<br />
c) § 7 BDSG<br />
“If a controller harms a data subject through collection, processing or use of his or her<br />
personal data which is un<strong>la</strong>wful or improper un<strong>de</strong>r this Act or other data protection provisions,<br />
the controller or its supporting organization shall be obligated to compensate the data<br />
subject for damage suffe<strong>red</strong>”, § 7 BDSG.<br />
d) § 11 BDSG<br />
outsourcing or the acquisition of computer centre services usually meets the <strong>de</strong>finition<br />
of a “contracted data processing”, “<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nt on instruction” in terms of § 11 BDSG. Such<br />
contracted data processing is a “transmission” and needs a legal basis. In or<strong>de</strong>r to transfer<br />
data to third countries, data controller and data processor must agree on a contracted data<br />
processing which complies with § 11 BDSG.<br />
During a contracted data processing (controller-processor) a row by points must be<br />
fixed in the contract to make sure that the data receiver processes the data only after the<br />
instructions of the data transmitter. The German legis<strong>la</strong>tor has established in § 11 BDSG<br />
a 10-points catalogue of regu<strong>la</strong>tion objects. In contrast, the EU-DPD requires “only” one<br />
written contract. It is <strong>de</strong>batable, to what extent § 11 BDSG is also valid for processors in<br />
third countries. Using the SCC for the data export in third countries it has to be distinguished<br />
after whether the receiver is a processor or controller, because in each case different<br />
sets of c<strong>la</strong>uses apply.
Data transfer from germany or spain to third countries. Questions of civil liability for privacy rights…<br />
329<br />
The “Düsseldorfer Kreis” has summarized already in 2007 the most frequent case<br />
groups of international contracted data processings and has given practical tips. Therefore,<br />
the German company should conclu<strong>de</strong> SCC either with the subsidiary, or the subsidiary<br />
should join the agreed SCC between the original German and American contracting partners<br />
by a corresponding formal obligation. Besi<strong>de</strong> they have to ensure that also the subsidiary<br />
is pledged to the regu<strong>la</strong>tions provi<strong>de</strong>d in § 11 BDSG.<br />
4.3.2. A<strong>de</strong>quate level of data protection (second step)<br />
a) §§ 4 b and 4 c BDSG<br />
The data transfer to third countries must meet the requirements of § 4 b and § 4 c<br />
BDSG. A data transfer may basically not take p<strong>la</strong>ce to a third country if this level of protection<br />
cannot be guaranteed, §§ 4 b (2), 4 b (3) BDSG. Then measures of the supervisory<br />
authority and penalties according to §§ 43, 44 BDSG are possible.<br />
But § 4 c (1) BDSG provi<strong>de</strong>s various <strong>de</strong>rogations after which a transmission can be<br />
allowed. E.g. the effective consent of the affected person or that the transmission is necessary<br />
for the fulfilment of a contract between the affected person and the data controller. To<br />
obtain an unanimous consent is normally not suitable in practice. The other <strong>de</strong>rogations in<br />
§ 4 c (1) no. 2-6 BDSG do not have practical relevance to legitimise the export of data of a<br />
group company to another.<br />
§ 4 c (2) BDSG allows the transfer into the third country if the national supervisory<br />
authority allows the data transfer because the data exporter and the data importer – in the<br />
above mentioned example the IT service company of the group – do provi<strong>de</strong> guarantees by<br />
taking further legal measures concerning the exercise of the personal rights of the affected<br />
persons and of associated rights. As such measures are consi<strong>de</strong><strong>red</strong>:<br />
• Participation of American companies in the Safe-Harbor-Programme<br />
• Use of BCR<br />
• Use of the SCC<br />
• Individual Contractual C<strong>la</strong>uses authorised by the supervisory authority<br />
To gain control within an international affiliated group over a sufficient data protection<br />
level (the second step), the following actions are recommen<strong>de</strong>d: First it must be ascertained<br />
which data should be transfer<strong>red</strong> by and to which group companies. This concerns questions<br />
about the quality of data (particu<strong>la</strong>rly Art.8 (1) EU-DPD, § 3 (IX) BDSG), transfer directions,<br />
inten<strong>de</strong>d purpose, instructor (starting point), forwardings, etc. Step 2 confronts us<br />
with mapping, which company in the group is the data controller and which role the data<br />
receiver takes. The role of the single companies as a data controller and data processor is of<br />
essential meaning for several issues:<br />
• Applicable Law: The <strong>la</strong>w of the EU member state is applicable in which the controller<br />
is resi<strong>de</strong>nt.<br />
• Responsability: The controller is responsible for the compliance of the data protection<br />
regu<strong>la</strong>tions.
330 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
• Contractual re<strong>la</strong>tionship: In or<strong>de</strong>r to carry out a contracted data processing, some<br />
contract contents have to ensure that the data receiver processes the data only after the<br />
instructions of the data controller.<br />
During the <strong>la</strong>st step an arrangement of a contract has to be done which contains the<br />
corresponding c<strong>la</strong>uses.<br />
b) German approach to Safe Harbor<br />
The uppermost supervisory authority for data protection in German, the “Düsseldorfer<br />
Kreis”, has issued an opinion 40 that requires additional steps for German entities using the<br />
Safe Harbor Principles for the transfer of personal data from Germany to the United States.<br />
Previously it was assumed that registration un<strong>de</strong>r the Safe Harbor by a US receiver was, by<br />
itself, a<strong>de</strong>quate for the transfers to proceed. Now, in Germany at least, greater diligence is<br />
requi<strong>red</strong> by the exporter of the data to the US to confirm that the Safe Harbor principles are<br />
fulfilled by the receiver in the US.<br />
The US Fe<strong>de</strong>ral Tra<strong>de</strong> Commission 41 does no exhaustive audit of the Safe Harbor selfcertifications.<br />
A study 42 which has uncove<strong>red</strong> consi<strong>de</strong>rable <strong>de</strong>ficits in the actual conversion of Safe<br />
Harbor principles might also have contributed to the step of the German authorities. The supervisory<br />
authorities do not question the Safe Harbor programme basically, however, require from<br />
the data exporter to make sure that the data receiver meets the legal requirements. If this does<br />
not succeed, alternative instruments have to function as a fall-back-point, in particu<strong>la</strong>r the SCC.<br />
5. sPanisH substantiVe <strong>la</strong>w<br />
5.1. spanish legal framework<br />
In or<strong>de</strong>r to obtain data protection <strong>la</strong>w enforcement, the possibilities are limited to three<br />
options: National Protection Authorities, alternative dispute resolutions or court litigation 43 .<br />
In the Spanish case, the national authority is the „Agencia Españo<strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> Protección <strong>de</strong> Datos“<br />
(AEPD). In regard to cross-bor<strong>de</strong>r transfer, the Spanish Law 15/1999 (Ley orgánica <strong>de</strong><br />
Protección <strong>de</strong> Datos - LoPD 44 ) stipu<strong>la</strong>tes the duties of AEPD, where it is inclu<strong>de</strong>d the<br />
40 Decision of 28/29 April 2010, German version only: http://www.bfdi.bund.<strong>de</strong>/Sha<strong>red</strong>Docs/Publikationen/Entschliessungssammlung/DuesseldorferKreis/290410_SafeHarbor.html?nn=409242,<br />
[Last<br />
accessed: 30 May 2011]<br />
41 http://www.ftc.gov, [Last accessed: 30 May 2011]<br />
42 http://www.galexia.com/public/research/articles/research_articles-pa08.html, [Last accessed: 30 May<br />
2011]<br />
43 WANG, F.F. and GRIFFITHS, N. (2010), “Protecting privacy in automated transaction systems: A<br />
legal and technological perspective in the European Union”, International Review of Law, Computers<br />
& Technology, Issue 24, Volume 2, pp. 153 - 162.<br />
44 An English version of LoPD is avai<strong>la</strong>ble at: https://www.agpd.es/portalwebAGPD/canaldocumentacion/legis<strong>la</strong>cion/estatal/common/pdfs_ingles/Ley_orgnica_15-99_ingles.pdf
Data transfer from germany or spain to third countries. Questions of civil liability for privacy rights…<br />
331<br />
power to give authorisations of data transfer for those countries that do not provi<strong>de</strong> the<br />
“same level 45 ” of protection given in Spain. only in 2010, 148 of such authorisations 46 were<br />
given. Being in third countries, the data will be regu<strong>la</strong>ted by that country’s legis<strong>la</strong>tion but<br />
it is not rare that third countries do not provi<strong>de</strong> the same level of data protection given in<br />
Spain.<br />
It is interesting to note that most of Spanish data importers are located in Latin<br />
American countries, China and United States. Five years after the EU-DPD most of those<br />
countries would not still be consi<strong>de</strong><strong>red</strong> as a<strong>de</strong>quate 47 countries to receive data transfer, once<br />
they hadn´t enough guarantees for confi<strong>de</strong>ntial data. But even for those countries <strong>la</strong>beled as<br />
a<strong>de</strong>quate, as we mentioned at the beginning of the text, some attention should be drawn to<br />
enforcement measures.<br />
As highlighted before, and according to the Art.29 Data Protection Working Group,<br />
oECD and several authors state that enforcement is the main issue to provi<strong>de</strong> guarantees<br />
and answers to this question. How to enforce national legis<strong>la</strong>tion is a thorny issue. The<br />
Spanish LoPD in its Art.2.1 <strong>de</strong>fines the scope of application, briefly resumed as when the<br />
process is carried out on the Spanish territory or the technical means used in or<strong>de</strong>r to carry<br />
out the data processing are located there. Also, if according to international public <strong>la</strong>w principles<br />
the governing <strong>la</strong>w is the Spanish 48 .<br />
5.2. system of loPd<br />
once the Spanish legis<strong>la</strong>tion, or national legis<strong>la</strong>tion of any member state, applies accordingly<br />
to the territoriality principle, there appears the need to restrict or at least oversee<br />
the transfer of confi<strong>de</strong>ntial data to third countries. In the EU-DPD, that need is trans<strong>la</strong>ted<br />
in the division of three scenarios for the data transfer from the EU and third countries:<br />
countries with a<strong>de</strong>quate protection, countries non-a<strong>de</strong>quate but un<strong>de</strong>r the exceptions of<br />
the Art.26.1 and non-a<strong>de</strong>quate countries that require authorisation. The Spanish legis<strong>la</strong>tion<br />
adopted a slightly different approach: there is a general statement of when data transfer may<br />
45 The wording found in the Spanish Data Protection Act (LoPD) is slightly different from that<br />
brought in the Directive 95/46/EC. While the EC Directive speaks of “a<strong>de</strong>quate” level of protection<br />
in third countries, the Spanish legis<strong>la</strong>tion speaks of “equivalent” level of protection. It is interesting to<br />
note that the “Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of<br />
Personal Data” first provision was simi<strong>la</strong>r to the Spanish one. In the practice this difference does not<br />
have any legal consequence, especially if we note that the Spanish authorities and Regu<strong>la</strong>tion LoPD<br />
recognises as “equivalent” all the countries approved by the European Commission as a<strong>de</strong>quate.<br />
46 https://www.agpd.es/portalwebAGPD/resoluciones/autorizacion_transf/auto_transf_2010/in<strong>de</strong>xi<strong>de</strong>s-idphp.php<br />
[Last accessed: 30 May 2011]<br />
47 Data Protection Roundup, Privacy Laws and Business International Newsletter. avai<strong>la</strong>ble at: http://<br />
www.worldlii.org/cgi-bin/disp.pl/int/journals/PLBIN/2000/13.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query<br />
=data%20transfer [Last accessed: 30 May 2011]<br />
48 Art.2.1 LoPD
332 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
not occur (Art.33 LoPD) followed by a single list of exceptions (Art.34). The effect in both<br />
cases is that only the transfer to countries outsi<strong>de</strong> the EEA are un<strong>de</strong>r the requirements of<br />
a<strong>de</strong>cuation (Art.55 RLoPD) and the control of the national data authorities.<br />
This way, for those who are not consi<strong>de</strong><strong>red</strong> to have the same Spanish level of protection<br />
(outsi<strong>de</strong> the EEA) there is a need of an authorisation from the Spanish data protection authority.<br />
Also, the countries that the European Commission approved 49 do not need such approval. Such<br />
countries that were consi<strong>de</strong><strong>red</strong> by the Commission as having an a<strong>de</strong>quate level of protection,<br />
presently only a few, also are recognized by the Spanish authorities, according to the exception<br />
brought by the Art.3(k) of LoPD and Art.66 of the Regu<strong>la</strong>tion LoPD, which basically gives<br />
the Commission the same power of authorizing that the Director of the AEPD presently enjoys.<br />
Although there is some criticism 50 from the Art.29 Data Protection Working Group<br />
in respect to the application of the exceptions mentioned above, the Spanish Courts somehow<br />
went in the opposite direction. The Spanish Supreme Court 51 , in 2006, <strong>de</strong>c<strong>la</strong><strong>red</strong> that<br />
the Spanish Agency could not regu<strong>la</strong>te or impose proceedings such as further information<br />
regarding the transfer of data within the EEA. The reasoning was that if the Spanish legis<strong>la</strong>tion<br />
and the Directive itself established such exceptions the AEPD could not, by the means<br />
of co<strong>de</strong> of proceedings impose such obligations.<br />
5.2.1. Authorisation through AEPD<br />
As the Art.33 LoPD mentions, in or<strong>de</strong>r to be allowed by the AEPD’s Director, some<br />
guarantees should be provi<strong>de</strong>d before the transfer. Those guarantees come often in a form of<br />
contractual c<strong>la</strong>uses, good professional practice rules or BCRs.<br />
Regarding contractual c<strong>la</strong>uses there are two options. The data exporter can provi<strong>de</strong><br />
an ad hoc contract and it will be analysed by the AEPD, or he can make use of one of the<br />
SCCs provi<strong>de</strong>d by the European Commission 52 . Both options are brought by the Regu<strong>la</strong>tion<br />
LoPD, Art.70. The <strong>la</strong>st version of the SCC brings some interesting provisions regarding<br />
enforcement, see above.<br />
It is to early to assess the consequences of such provisions in Spain, but it is a start<br />
regarding the compensation for data breaches. But in view of this first option for the data<br />
transfer, it seems that the guarantees are in p<strong>la</strong>ce and the enforcement is greatly facilitated,<br />
giving that un<strong>de</strong>r this contract, the data exporter will be held responsible for the damages,<br />
whether caused by him or not, and that the national legis<strong>la</strong>tion of where the data subject is<br />
will be applied.<br />
49 list of approved countries is avai<strong>la</strong>ble at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/privacy/thridcountries/<br />
in<strong>de</strong>x_en.htm [Last accessed: 30 May 2011]<br />
50 Art. 29 Data Protection Working Party, “Working document on a common interpretation of Article<br />
26(1) of Directive 95/46/EC”, 24 october 1995, WP 114<br />
51 http://sentencias.juridicas.com/docs/00257672.html [Last accessed: 30 May 2011]<br />
52 Decisions 2001/497/CE, 2002/16/CE, 2004/915/CE and 2010/87/UE.
Data transfer from germany or spain to third countries. Questions of civil liability for privacy rights…<br />
333<br />
The third option of the Spanish data exporters are the BCR or Standard Co<strong>de</strong>s of<br />
Conduct (Art.32 LoPD). Those rules are <strong>de</strong>signed when a group of companies from the<br />
same affiliated group wants to transfer data between their companies. It is also possible to<br />
be a sectoral rule (therefore not the same group of companies), proposed for example by an<br />
association (Title IX, Chapter V of RLoPD).<br />
one main issue regarding the binding effect of those rules is the provision of Art.72<br />
(2) of the RLoPD: “The co<strong>de</strong>s of conduct shall have the status of co<strong>de</strong>s of ethics or good<br />
professional practice and shall be binding on subscribers.”<br />
one request is that the rules are binding, and consequently the Spanish legis<strong>la</strong>tion<br />
could regu<strong>la</strong>te the private data transfer<strong>red</strong> (Art.70.4 LoPD). The co<strong>de</strong> can also regu<strong>la</strong>te the<br />
compensation for data subjects. In a presentation ma<strong>de</strong> by the AEPD Director on problems<br />
regarding the International Transfer of Data 53 , it was highlighted that the <strong>la</strong>ck of uniformity<br />
in several European legis<strong>la</strong>tion and foreign legis<strong>la</strong>tion, would result in some uncertainty<br />
regarding data protection and application of such BCR as an instrument of protection. This<br />
is foreseeable, once most of the sector rules come as a mean of self-regu<strong>la</strong>tion and in many<br />
cases are merely recommendations, not binding. In or<strong>de</strong>r to provi<strong>de</strong> enough guarantees for<br />
a data transfer (as requested by the Art.33 LoPD and Art.72 (2) RLoPD), some binding<br />
instruments would be necessary, like a contract. only by such instrument all the units of<br />
the company, all employees and all further companies engaged in a business re<strong>la</strong>tion would<br />
be obliged to follow the Spanish data protection rules, and therefore provi<strong>de</strong> enough guarantees.<br />
The result of such observations is that although some options to fulfil the requirements<br />
are offe<strong>red</strong>, in many cases some contractual c<strong>la</strong>uses are necessary in or<strong>de</strong>r to ensure that data<br />
importer or processors are un<strong>de</strong>r the scope of Spanish legis<strong>la</strong>tion.<br />
5.2.2. Subcontracting<br />
In a consultation 54 addressed to the AEPD, it is easily noted how does the Spanish<br />
scheme for data transfer works. In such consultation the question of authorization for hiring<br />
a sub-processor in a third country that did not provi<strong>de</strong> an a<strong>de</strong>quate level of data protection<br />
was possible and what were the options in such case. In his answer, the AEPD first set the<br />
standards for hiring a sub-processor within Spain. In such case there were two options:<br />
• The sub- processor works on behalf and un<strong>de</strong>r the responsibility of the data controller,<br />
according to Art.12 (2) LoPD<br />
53 Presentation avai<strong>la</strong>ble at https://www.agpd.es/portalwebAGPD/jornadas/transferencias_internacionales_datos/common/pdfs/Problematica_juridica_TIs.pdf<br />
54 Answer in Spanish of the consultation avai<strong>la</strong>ble at https://www.agpd.es/portalwebAGPD/canaldocumentacion/informes_juridicos/transferencias_internacionales/common/pdfs/2004-0582_Subcontrataci-oo-n-<strong>de</strong>-un-encargado-<strong>de</strong>l-tratamiento-en-tercer-pais-que-no-ofrece-nivel-a<strong>de</strong>cuado-<strong>de</strong>protecci-oo-n.pdf<br />
[Last accessed: 30 May 2011]
334 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
• The sub processor works on his own name and responsibility, in which case the following<br />
conditions: 1. That the hiring of the processor was expressly inclu<strong>de</strong>d in the<br />
offer or contract with the data controller; 2. That the acts performed by the sub processor<br />
is specified in the contract or offer; 3. That the processing of personal data is done<br />
un<strong>de</strong>r the data controllers instructions.<br />
After setting such conditions in the Spanish environment, the transferring element of<br />
third countries was ad<strong>de</strong>d to the equation. It was highlighted that in the consultation, it<br />
was mentioned the possibility of using the Standard Contractual C<strong>la</strong>uses brought by the<br />
<strong>de</strong>cisions of the European Commission, for example the repealed Decision 2002/16/EC.<br />
The AEPD expressed that this SCC, as all the other SCCs, did not allowed responsibility<br />
of more than one data controller at the same time, only one part of the contract is held<br />
responsible for the processing, either the controller or a data processor. This way, in respect<br />
to the consultation, it was not possible to obtain the authorization of AEPD to allow the<br />
sub-processing in a non-a<strong>de</strong>quate third country, once that it is not possible that both data<br />
importer and exporter are data controllers.<br />
In a more recent consultation 55 the answer was clearer easier to provi<strong>de</strong>. This because<br />
the Regu<strong>la</strong>tions of the LoPD were already in force and the Art.21 (1) LoPD brings a provision<br />
on Possibility of Subcontracting Services. Summarizing the possibilities, the AEPD<br />
emphasizes that the Controller must always take part in the contract. It was listed the following<br />
options, all of them including the SCC:<br />
a) Processor, acting on behalf and responsibility of the controller, signs a contract with the<br />
sub processor<br />
b) The processor, having the authorization and power to do so in name of the sub processor,<br />
signs a contract with the controller.<br />
c) The controller and the processor sign a contract which the sub processor adhere by a<br />
different instrument with the participation of all parts, controller, processor and sub<br />
processor.<br />
Those options were the case of applying for the AEPD’s authorization, but there is<br />
always the option to transfer the data according to the exceptions of the Art.34 LoPD, as<br />
obtaining the data subject authorization or transferring to some of the United States safe<br />
harbors.<br />
5.2.3. Alternative route: The <strong>de</strong>rogation of Art.34 (e) LOPD<br />
It was clea<strong>red</strong> limited by the Spanish Courts that the exceptions brought by the EU-<br />
DPD and implemented in the Art.34 LoPD make unnecessary the authorisation of the<br />
AEPD. one of those exceptions is that “e) The data subject has given his unambiguous<br />
55 Answer in Spanish of the consultation avai<strong>la</strong>ble at https://www.agpd.es/portalwebAGPD/canaldocumentacion/informes_juridicos/transferencias_internacionales/common/pdfs/2008-0108_Transferencia-Internacional-<strong>de</strong>-encargado-a-subencargado.pdf<br />
[Last accessed: 30 May 2011]
Data transfer from germany or spain to third countries. Questions of civil liability for privacy rights…<br />
consent to the proposed transfer.” This exception in many cases can represent an easy way to<br />
avoid the analysis of the AEPD for data transfer.<br />
335<br />
This basically put the data exporter in a p<strong>la</strong>ce where he can choose which route to take:<br />
By informing the data subject about the transfer or applying some of the tools for providing<br />
a guarantee that would make possible the authorisation of the AEPD. In many cases obtaining<br />
the consent of the users or those inclu<strong>de</strong>d in the database may be the easiest option and<br />
may tie the hands of the AEPD regarding the avoidance of the transfer of the data to other<br />
territories where there are not enough guarantees.<br />
The Spanish national legis<strong>la</strong>tion brings very few provisions on the consent of data<br />
subject, but it can be noted that there is a concern on the fact that this consent was really<br />
conscious. This concern reflects in protective provisions regarding this consent, as the Art.11<br />
(3) LoPD.<br />
5.3. The limited role of aePd<br />
According to Art.37 LoPD, the AEPD is entitled to ensure the compliance of the<br />
legis<strong>la</strong>tion and to impose penalties in case of infringement. Also, the authority can receive<br />
comp<strong>la</strong>ints (Art.18 LoPD) about infringements and finally impose sanctions.<br />
The LoPD suffe<strong>red</strong> a recent reform regarding the administrative sanctions in case of<br />
non-compliance to the data protection legis<strong>la</strong>tion. The recent Law 2/2011 clearly lowe<strong>red</strong><br />
the sanctions by changing the gravity of some actions, establishing smaller amounts of<br />
the fines in case of infringement as well as stopping consi<strong>de</strong>ring infringement others actions.<br />
Apparently in the name of further economic <strong>de</strong>velopment (main purpose of the Law<br />
2/2011), the data protection should receive lower sanctions. Even though the modifications<br />
do not represent a major change, the thinking behind it can be dangerous to the privacy<br />
rights in the future.<br />
5.4. data subject and the compensation for damages<br />
But it is important to distinguish that those sanctions are not in<strong>de</strong>mnity for the data<br />
subjects that might have their personal data published or illegally transfer<strong>red</strong>. This is an<br />
exclusive administrative procedure. In or<strong>de</strong>r to obtain compensation, Art.19 LoPD establishes<br />
“3. In the case of files in private ownership, the case shall be heard by the civil courts.”<br />
Regarding the type of damages the data subject can seek, Art.19 LoPD is not very<br />
clear when it says: “[…] suffer damage to their possessions or rights, shall have the right to<br />
damages.” It seems that the roles of the type of damages are open, whether it is material or<br />
moral damages. Another discussion concerns the types of responsibility applying to the data<br />
controller. There is p<strong>la</strong>ce of compensation by the fact there is a failure to comply with the<br />
LoPD, or should the damages be proved?<br />
Those answers still need to be exp<strong>la</strong>ined by the National Courts, once the cases of<br />
court actions un<strong>de</strong>r the Art.19 are very rare and so far have not called any attention. This is
336 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
because the possibility to recover damage through a long and expensive court action clearly<br />
works as a barrier for those trying to enforce their rights.<br />
Much better would be the possibility to obtain any kind of fair, secure and inexpensive<br />
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). As noted, the recent 2010 European Commission<br />
<strong>de</strong>cision regarding the SCC established the possibility of ADR regarding the data importer.<br />
Provisions allowing ADR for data exporters or even for data controllers within Spain and EEA<br />
would be of great use. In Spain, a regional association of e-commerce of Andalucía <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong>d to<br />
offer a mediation services in some cases 56 . This is a great initiative and should be foste<strong>red</strong> as a<br />
way to give simple and fast means to citizens in obtaining rights to damage. Such alternative<br />
would also require a reform of Art.19 LoPD, which restricts such in<strong>de</strong>mnity only to the courts.<br />
6. comParatiVe <strong>la</strong>w analysis<br />
It is interesting to note how EU Member States implemented the EU-DPD. As to<br />
regard the <strong>de</strong>finitions, both legis<strong>la</strong>tions (German BDSG and Spanish LoPD) ma<strong>de</strong> use of<br />
broad <strong>de</strong>finitions of what constitutes a transmission of data or, as <strong>de</strong>fined in Spain, assignment<br />
or communication of data. This intends to serve the purpose not to allow the circumvention<br />
of the data protection legis<strong>la</strong>tion through data transfer actions that could not be<br />
consi<strong>de</strong><strong>red</strong> as a transmission of data.<br />
Regarding the damages, some slight difference is found in both legis<strong>la</strong>tions. While the<br />
BSDG says “…compensate the data subject for damage suffe<strong>red</strong>” the LoPD talks about “…<br />
damage to their goods or rights…” Again, this writing difference should not represent different<br />
implementation of the EU-DPD, but it seems that the Spanish legis<strong>la</strong>tion wanted to c<strong>la</strong>rify<br />
that moral damages should also be compensated.<br />
The BSDG (§ 4) prohibits international transmission of data if the level of protection<br />
cannot be guaranteed, and says that “a<strong>de</strong>quate safeguards” should be in p<strong>la</strong>ce in or<strong>de</strong>r the<br />
transmission to be allowed. Meanwhile, the LoPD requires a “com<strong>para</strong>ble protection” and<br />
if not, asks for “a<strong>de</strong>quate guarantees” (Art.33 LoPD).<br />
Such measures, or guarantees, may consist in an open-list once the Individual Contractual<br />
C<strong>la</strong>uses may also be suitable to provi<strong>de</strong> the level of protection requi<strong>red</strong> for a transmission.<br />
Nevertheless, the Spanish legis<strong>la</strong>tion also mentions the use of Co<strong>de</strong> of Conduct<br />
(Art.33) as a tool for ensuring the data privacy protection.<br />
Such small differences do not result in greater difference in the way companies can look<br />
for national legis<strong>la</strong>tion compliance in case of transmission for third countries. The practical<br />
gui<strong>de</strong> brought to the German Law above, is as well suitable to the Spanish Legis<strong>la</strong>tion.<br />
Still, legis<strong>la</strong>tion within the EU is not harmonised enough. The German Approach to<br />
the Safe Harbor Principles shall serve as one example. Even the European Data Protection<br />
56 Information about the service is avai<strong>la</strong>ble at the webpage http://www.proteccion<strong>de</strong>datosenandalucia.<br />
es/?p=414 [Last accessed: 30 May 2011]
Data transfer from germany or spain to third countries. Questions of civil liability for privacy rights…<br />
337<br />
Supervisor states that “ […] International transfers (Articles 25-26). This is an area which has<br />
given rise to wi<strong>de</strong>spread criticism because of the <strong>la</strong>ck of a uniform practice throughout the EU.<br />
Stakehol<strong>de</strong>rs criticised that the Commission’s <strong>de</strong>cisions on a<strong>de</strong>quacy are interpreted and implemented<br />
very differently by the Member States. Binding Corporate Rules (BCRs) are a further<br />
element where the EDPS recommends further harmonisation (see Chapter 9)” 57 .<br />
7. conclusion<br />
Cloud Computing is <strong>de</strong>emed to become the standard technological solution in the<br />
world. Will the data protection measures be able to keep path with the technology boost of<br />
easiness of communications? While the countries struggle to provi<strong>de</strong> data protection, and<br />
avoid that data from their territory is not be transfe<strong>red</strong> to data “<strong>para</strong>dises” where control<br />
of privacy and confi<strong>de</strong>ntiality is inexistent, the international commerce <strong>de</strong>mands more and<br />
more transfer of data.<br />
It is also clear that data protection cannot be limited to EU members, US or a short list<br />
of countries. The need of an international cooperation regarding minimal global standards<br />
(original i<strong>de</strong>a of the 1980 oECD initiative for establishing principles of data protection) is<br />
essential to provi<strong>de</strong> a <strong>de</strong>finite solution for this global problem. Meanwhile, the supervisory<br />
agencies try to ensure compliance without <strong>de</strong><strong>la</strong>ying the transfer of data to companies.<br />
The solution may consist of several measures. It should consist of a technological neutral<br />
solution, otherwise it would fall in likeliness to be over<strong>la</strong>pped by short-term future technologies.<br />
As an essential mean for data transfer (and maybe the only one applied), Net Neutrality<br />
should also be respected. More efficient schemes of authorisations, mainly from the<br />
EU, should be p<strong>la</strong>ced as soon as possible for the supervisory agencies. And, maybe the most<br />
urgent call, better enforcement for data breaches including easier and more accessible compensation<br />
for non-compliance with data privacy legis<strong>la</strong>tions should be provi<strong>de</strong>d to citizens.<br />
This <strong>la</strong>st solution may lead to a movement of clear and effective international legis<strong>la</strong>tions.<br />
Each data exporter finds oneself confronted with this kind of <strong>de</strong>cision tree if exporting<br />
data from Spain or Germany:<br />
• Export to EU/EEA members only<br />
• Export on the basis of Art. 26 (1) EU-DPD <strong>de</strong>rogations (e.g. consent of the data<br />
subject)<br />
• Export to US companies who join the Safe Harbor Programme, together with a previous<br />
check of the national supervisory authority´s opinion on Safe Harbor<br />
57 opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the Communication from the Commission<br />
to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee<br />
of the Regions - “A comprehensive approach on personal data protection in the European Union, p.<br />
14, http://idpc.gov.mt/dbfile.aspx/EDPS_11.pdf [Last accessed: 30 May 2011]
338 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
• Export to countries inclu<strong>de</strong>d in the EU Commission´s list of countries with a<strong>de</strong>quate<br />
protection level Export to others countries and using other contractual instruments<br />
only un<strong>de</strong>r authorisation of the national supervisory authority after providing guarantees.<br />
Anyhow, the exporter should use one of the contractual instruments e<strong>la</strong>borated by the<br />
EU. Each of the instruments has its specific advantages and disadvantages, the choice of the<br />
“right” instrument <strong>de</strong>pends on the affected data, data flows, structure of his affiliated group<br />
and, in the end, the value which the data security has in the own company. In particu<strong>la</strong>r<br />
cases it can also make sense to use different instruments for different data, streams or company<br />
shares.<br />
The following table 58 tries to summarise the mentioned advantages and disadvantages<br />
as a kind of “roadmap”:<br />
SCC BCR Safe Harbor<br />
<strong>de</strong>scription<br />
Contracts with given c<strong>la</strong>uses of<br />
the EU commission<br />
implementation cost<br />
(+) Quick and easy convertible,<br />
because standard c<strong>la</strong>uses in<br />
which only appendices have to<br />
be filled out.<br />
(-) Consi<strong>de</strong>rable administrative<br />
expenses by different obligatory<br />
compulsory registrations and<br />
obligations to obtain a permit<br />
in EU member states<br />
(-) Increasingly unclear if<br />
huge amount of group<br />
companies, if net-like data<br />
transfers (transmission of many<br />
companies to many companies)<br />
and if changes in data<br />
directions and group structure<br />
Binding in-house gui<strong>de</strong>lines<br />
concerning the handling of<br />
personal data<br />
(-) High conversion expenses<br />
because of comprehensive<br />
content <strong>de</strong>faults<br />
(-) Protracted procedure<br />
to obtain the approval of<br />
all supervisory authorities,<br />
however, at <strong>la</strong>st facilitated by<br />
mutual recognition.<br />
observation of certain Safe<br />
Harbor Principles through the<br />
US company including selfcertification.<br />
(+) Quick and slightly<br />
introduceable, because selfcertification<br />
and re<strong>la</strong>tively<br />
general principles<br />
58 Based upon: HELBING, T., “Datenschutz im Konzern: Internationale Datentransfers (Teil 2)”, German<br />
version avai<strong>la</strong>ble at http://www.thomashelbing.com/<strong>de</strong>/datenschutz-konzern-internationaledatentransfer-teil-2-safe-harbor-bcr-binding-corporate-rules-eu-standardvertragsk<strong>la</strong>useln<br />
[Last accessed:<br />
30 May 2011]
Data transfer from germany or spain to third countries. Questions of civil liability for privacy rights…<br />
SCC BCR Safe Harbor<br />
individualisation opportunities<br />
(-) None / difficult adaptation<br />
to the commercial <strong>la</strong>w<br />
specifications of the group<br />
company<br />
liability<br />
(-) joint and several liability of<br />
the exporting and importing<br />
group company<br />
(-) Group companies in<br />
third countries submit to EU<br />
regu<strong>la</strong>tions/supervision<br />
special features<br />
typical use<br />
Short-term conversion from<br />
easy (e.g., star-shaped) and<br />
static (itself not changing) data<br />
flows.<br />
8. bibliograPHy<br />
(+)Individual adaptation to the<br />
specific features of the group<br />
company possible<br />
(+) promotes consciousness for<br />
data security in the company<br />
(-) Liability of an EU-group<br />
company for braches of privacy<br />
rights of group company<br />
beyond the EU<br />
(+) Suitable to standardise data<br />
security level within the whole<br />
affiliated group and to produce<br />
data security organisation andcompliance.<br />
(+) Demonstrates to the outsi<strong>de</strong><br />
a high value of the data security<br />
in the group<br />
Medium-term and long-term<br />
conversion of a comprehensive<br />
strategy to the safeguarding<br />
of data security level,<br />
implementing of a data security<br />
organisation and safeguarding<br />
the data security compliance in<br />
big affiliated groups.<br />
(-)No adaptation to the<br />
commercial <strong>la</strong>w specifications<br />
of the group company<br />
339<br />
(+) Activation of subcontractors<br />
slightly possible<br />
(-) Surveil<strong>la</strong>nce of the FTC<br />
(-) only for transfer in US<br />
possible, as far as receiver is<br />
subjected to supervision of the<br />
FTC is <strong>de</strong>feated<br />
(-) Scepticism of some<br />
(e.g. German) supervisory<br />
authorities<br />
US companies which receive<br />
subsidiaries in the EU / EWR<br />
(star-shaped data flow)<br />
Aldhouse, F., “The transfer of Personal Data to Third Countries Un<strong>de</strong>r the EU Directive<br />
95/46/EC”, International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, Issue 13, Volume<br />
1, p. 75 - 79.<br />
Helbing, T., “Datenschutz im Konzern: Internationale Datentransfers (Teil 2)”, German<br />
version avai<strong>la</strong>ble at http://www.thomashelbing.com/<strong>de</strong>/datenschutz-konzern-interna-
340 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
tionale-datentransfer-teil-2-safe-harbor-bcr-binding-corporate-rules-eu-standardvertragsk<strong>la</strong>useln<br />
[Last accessed: 30 May 2011]<br />
Kuner, C., “An international legal framework for data protection: Issues and prospects”,<br />
Computer <strong>la</strong>w & Security Review, 2009, vol. 25, Issue 5, p. 307 - 317<br />
Wang, F.F. And Griffiths, N., “Protecting privacy in automated transaction systems: A<br />
legal and technological perspective in the European Union”, International Review of<br />
Law, Computers & Technology, 2010, Issue 24, Volume 2, p. 153 - 162
18<br />
lA PrIVACIDAD De lAs COmUNICACIONes<br />
eN lA INVestIgACIóN PeNAl: UNO De lOs retOs De lA<br />
JUstICIA eN UNA sOCIeDAD glOBAlIzADA<br />
Inmacu<strong>la</strong>da López-Barajas Perea<br />
Profesora Contratada Doctora <strong>de</strong> Derecho Procesal <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
Universidad Nacional <strong>de</strong> Educación a Distancia<br />
AbstrAct: La aplicación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s nuevas tecnologías <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información y <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> comunicación ha supuesto<br />
<strong>la</strong> superación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s formas tradicionales <strong>de</strong> comunicación. La facilidad <strong>de</strong> acceso así como el<br />
carácter anónimo y <strong>de</strong>scentralizado <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> facilita <strong>la</strong> comisión <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>lito y dificulta su persecución.<br />
Los esquemas clásicos <strong>de</strong> actuación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s autorida<strong>de</strong>s encargadas <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> prevención y persecución <strong>de</strong><br />
los <strong>de</strong>litos han quedado obsoletos. Resulta necesario acudir a nuevas técnicas <strong>de</strong> investigación. Se<br />
abre paso el <strong>de</strong>sarrollo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s tecnologías dirigidas a <strong>la</strong> interceptación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones que permiten<br />
a<strong>de</strong>más el almacenamiento y reutilización <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información obtenida. En <strong>la</strong> utilización <strong>de</strong> estos<br />
mo<strong>de</strong>rnos instrumentos resulta necesario pon<strong>de</strong>rar <strong>de</strong>spacio <strong>la</strong> injerencia en <strong>la</strong> esfera <strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>rechos<br />
fundamentales, aun en el caso <strong>de</strong> que estén previstas en <strong>la</strong> Ley, <strong>para</strong> que no se <strong>de</strong>svirtúe su contenido<br />
esencial dada <strong>la</strong> potencia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> tecnología utilizada. Como ha dicho el Tribunal Europeo <strong>de</strong> Derecho<br />
humanos <strong>la</strong> vida privada es un término abierto no susceptible <strong>de</strong> una <strong>de</strong>finición exhaustiva, que <strong>de</strong>ber<br />
ser interpretado a <strong>la</strong> luz <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s condiciones actuales <strong>de</strong> vida propias <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información<br />
en <strong>la</strong> que estamos inmersos <strong>para</strong> proteger al individuo <strong>de</strong> forma real y efectiva en aquellos ámbitos a<br />
los que se refiere.<br />
Esta realidad contrasta con <strong>la</strong> parquedad <strong>de</strong> nuestra regu<strong>la</strong>ción vigente. Resulta urgente una actualización<br />
<strong>de</strong> nuestra normativa procesal como medio <strong>de</strong> confrontación <strong>para</strong> lograr <strong>la</strong> represión eficaz<br />
<strong>de</strong> estas nuevas formas <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>lincuencia <strong>de</strong>ntro <strong>de</strong>l respeto a los principios básicos <strong>de</strong>l Derecho Penal<br />
y <strong>de</strong>l proceso <strong>de</strong>bido.<br />
pAlAbrAs clAve: privacidad, intimidad, protección <strong>de</strong> datos, <strong>de</strong>recho al secreto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones,<br />
investigación penal, tecnologías <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> comunicación y <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información.<br />
1. <strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información y <strong>la</strong> Protección <strong>de</strong> los<br />
<strong>de</strong>recHos<br />
La aplicación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s nuevas tecnologías ha supuesto <strong>la</strong> superación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s formas tradicionales<br />
<strong>de</strong> comunicación, mediante una expansión <strong>de</strong> los contenidos transmitidos, que<br />
abarcan no sólo <strong>la</strong> voz, sino también <strong>otros</strong> datos en soportes y formatos diversos. Hasta hace<br />
pocas décadas <strong>la</strong> telefonía fija era <strong>la</strong> única vía <strong>de</strong> telecomunicación al alcance real <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> ciudadanía.<br />
Hoy se pue<strong>de</strong> afirmar que <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones telefónicas clásicas han quedado superadas<br />
o, mejor dicho absorbidas, por <strong>la</strong>s telemáticas o electrónicas. Las centrales digitales<br />
<strong>de</strong> conmutación automática, totalmente electrónicas y contro<strong>la</strong>das por or<strong>de</strong>nador, permiten
342 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
a<strong>de</strong>más multitud <strong>de</strong> servicios complementarios al propio establecimiento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> comunicación<br />
como por ejemplo los <strong>de</strong>nominados servicios <strong>de</strong> valor añadido 1 .<br />
El uso generalizado <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> telefonía móvil ha ampliado consi<strong>de</strong>rablemente <strong>la</strong>s faculta<strong>de</strong>s<br />
<strong>de</strong> control <strong>de</strong> los sujetos dado el enorme volumen <strong>de</strong> información que pue<strong>de</strong> obtenerse y<br />
registrarse como consecuencia <strong>de</strong> su utilización. Los operadores disponen <strong>de</strong> una gran base<br />
<strong>de</strong> datos que permite almacenar multitud <strong>de</strong> datos, entre <strong>otros</strong>, los datos <strong>de</strong> localización que<br />
indican <strong>la</strong> posición geográfica <strong>de</strong>l equipo terminal <strong>de</strong> un usuario 2 .<br />
El número <strong>de</strong> personas que participan en esos procesos es cada vez mayor, en contraste<br />
con lo que sucedía hace escasos años en que sólo unos pocos tenían acceso a <strong>la</strong>s nuevas formas<br />
<strong>de</strong> telecomunicación. Una <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s características básicas <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> comunicación en Internet<br />
consiste en <strong>la</strong> existencia <strong>de</strong> unas mínimas barreras <strong>de</strong> entrada <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> comunicación, tanto<br />
<strong>para</strong> emisores como <strong>para</strong> los receptores. Se trata <strong>de</strong> un espacio abierto a los usuarios que<br />
pue<strong>de</strong>n acce<strong>de</strong>r a <strong>la</strong> información y a los servicios propios <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> cualquiera que sea <strong>la</strong> parte<br />
<strong>de</strong>l p<strong>la</strong>neta en que se encuentren 3 . La instantaneidad y <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>saparición <strong>de</strong> distancias son <strong>la</strong>s<br />
notas que caracterizan <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones que se producen en <strong>la</strong> nueva realidad <strong>de</strong>rivada <strong>de</strong>l<br />
progreso tecnológico 4 .<br />
A<strong>de</strong>más, el acceso a internet constituye no solo un servicio sino un <strong>de</strong>recho que los<br />
po<strong>de</strong>res públicos <strong>de</strong>ben garantizar y proteger. El <strong>de</strong>recho a acce<strong>de</strong>r libremente a <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> es<br />
un <strong>de</strong>recho cuya titu<strong>la</strong>ridad correspon<strong>de</strong> a todas <strong>la</strong>s personas. Por ello, los po<strong>de</strong>res públicos<br />
<strong>de</strong>ben adoptar <strong>la</strong>s medidas necesarias <strong>para</strong> que el acceso a Internet sea universal, <strong>de</strong> forma<br />
que <strong>la</strong>s nuevas tecnologías estén al alcance <strong>de</strong> todos los sujetos en cualquier punto <strong>de</strong>l Estado,<br />
por remoto que éste sea y, a ser posible, en <strong>la</strong>s mismas condiciones que en cualquier gran<br />
ciudad 5 . Deben <strong>de</strong>sarrol<strong>la</strong>rse <strong>la</strong>s medidas necesarias <strong>para</strong> evitar que <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> sea accesible a los<br />
ciudadanos únicamente en función <strong>de</strong> criterios <strong>de</strong> rentabilidad 6 . La Unión Internacional <strong>de</strong><br />
Telecomunicaciones, en <strong>la</strong> Conferencia Mundial <strong>de</strong> Desarrollo <strong>de</strong> Telecomunicaciones <strong>de</strong><br />
2002, señaló que correspon<strong>de</strong> a los gobiernos crear y promover un entorno propicio que permita<br />
un acceso razonable y asequible a los servicios básicos <strong>de</strong> telecomunicaciones <strong>para</strong> todos.<br />
La Directiva 2002/22/CE, re<strong>la</strong>tiva al servicio universal y a los <strong>de</strong>rechos <strong>de</strong> los usuarios<br />
en re<strong>la</strong>ción con <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s y los servicios <strong>de</strong> comunicaciones electrónicas contemp<strong>la</strong> ya el ac-<br />
1 Wikipedia.org.<br />
2 PÉREZ GIL, J., ”Los datos sobre localización geográfica en <strong>la</strong> investigación penal”, en Protección <strong>de</strong><br />
datos y proceso penal (Coord. Pedraz Penalva), La Ley, 2010, pp. 307-353.<br />
3 LLANEZA GoNZÁLEZ, P., Internet y comunicaciones digitales, Bosch, Barcelona, 2000, p. 207.<br />
4 Vid. URBANo CASTRILLo Y MAGRo SERVET, La prueba tecnológica en <strong>la</strong> Ley <strong>de</strong> Enjuiciamiento<br />
Civil, Thomson-Aranzadi, 2003.<br />
5 En <strong>la</strong> Unión Europea, <strong>la</strong> iniciativa <strong>de</strong> 1999 <strong>de</strong>nominada “e-Europa. Una Sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Información<br />
<strong>para</strong> todos”, puso <strong>de</strong> manifiesto el insuficiente <strong>de</strong>sarrollo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s nuevas aplicaciones y servicios, todavía<br />
lentos, inseguros, caros y poco extendidos entre <strong>la</strong> pob<strong>la</strong>ción.<br />
6 Vid. Comisión Especial sobre re<strong>de</strong>s informáticas, Boletín oficial <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s Cortes Generales Senado, 27<br />
<strong>de</strong> diciembre <strong>de</strong> 1999.
<strong>la</strong> privacidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones en <strong>la</strong> investigación penal: uno <strong>de</strong> los <strong>retos</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> justicia…<br />
343<br />
ceso a Internet como parte <strong>de</strong>l servicio universal <strong>de</strong> telecomunicaciones. Por su parte, <strong>la</strong> Ley<br />
General <strong>de</strong> Telecomunicaciones 32/2003, <strong>de</strong> 3 <strong>de</strong> noviembre, establece que <strong>la</strong> conexión a<br />
<strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> telefónica pública <strong>de</strong>be permitir comunicaciones <strong>de</strong> fax y datos a velocidad suficiente<br />
<strong>para</strong> acce<strong>de</strong>r <strong>de</strong> forma funcional a Internet. El hecho <strong>de</strong> que <strong>la</strong>s nuevas tecnologías se hayan<br />
incorporado en <strong>la</strong> gestión y control <strong>de</strong> los servicios públicos más importantes <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> sociedad<br />
refuerza <strong>la</strong> necesidad <strong>de</strong> garantizar su acceso a todos los sujetos.<br />
Sin perjuicio <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> protección otorgada por <strong>la</strong> legis<strong>la</strong>ción general <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>fensa <strong>de</strong> los<br />
consumidores y <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> normativa específica sobre protección <strong>de</strong> datos, recientemente se ha<br />
establecido un régimen <strong>de</strong> protección específica <strong>para</strong> los usuarios <strong>de</strong> los servicios <strong>de</strong> comunicaciones<br />
electrónicas que incluye nuevas garantías y <strong>de</strong>rechos adicionales en sus re<strong>la</strong>ciones<br />
con los operadores fortaleciendo así su nivel <strong>de</strong> protección. El art. 31 <strong>de</strong>l RD 899/2009, <strong>de</strong><br />
22 <strong>de</strong> mayo, por el que se aprueba <strong>la</strong> Carta <strong>de</strong> Derechos <strong>de</strong>l Usuario <strong>de</strong> los Servicios <strong>de</strong> Comunicaciones<br />
Electrónicas dispone que <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos personales en los servicios <strong>de</strong><br />
comunicaciones electrónicas se regirá por <strong>la</strong> Ley 32/2003, <strong>de</strong> 3 <strong>de</strong> noviembre, General <strong>de</strong> Telecomunicaciones,<br />
por el título V <strong>de</strong>l Reg<strong>la</strong>mento aprobado por el Real Decreto 424/2005,<br />
<strong>de</strong> 15 <strong>de</strong> abril y, en lo no previsto por dichas normas, por lo dispuesto en <strong>la</strong> legis<strong>la</strong>ción<br />
vigente sobre protección <strong>de</strong> datos <strong>de</strong> carácter personal.<br />
Pero, el carácter c<strong>la</strong>ramente positivo <strong>de</strong> los avances tecnológicos en el ámbito <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> telefonía<br />
y <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones electrónicas al que nos hemos referido, no impi<strong>de</strong> que su uso<br />
pueda <strong>de</strong>rivarse hacia <strong>la</strong> consecución <strong>de</strong> fines <strong>de</strong>lictivos. El carácter anónimo y <strong>de</strong>scentralizado<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> ha sido aprovechado por los criminales <strong>para</strong> comunicarse y cometer más <strong>de</strong>litos.<br />
Internet es un medio perfecto <strong>para</strong> el anonimato. La usurpación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> i<strong>de</strong>ntidad digital es<br />
una práctica cada vez más frecuente. La facilidad <strong>para</strong> generar nuevos dominios o accesos a <strong>la</strong><br />
<strong>red</strong>, tanto localizados como remotos, han <strong>de</strong>jado anticuados los esquemas clásicos <strong>de</strong> actuación<br />
utilizados por <strong>la</strong>s autorida<strong>de</strong>s encargadas <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> prevención y persecución <strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>litos.<br />
Para contrarrestar los sofisticados medios <strong>de</strong> que se sirven los grupos criminales organizados,<br />
así como el carácter internacional <strong>de</strong> su actividad, resulta necesario recurrir a nuevas<br />
técnicas <strong>de</strong> investigación 7 . La Policía judicial tiene que contar con los medios necesarios<br />
toda vez que <strong>la</strong> eficacia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> actividad probatoria se fundamenta, en última instancia, en <strong>la</strong><br />
eficacia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> actuación policial previa. Se abre paso el <strong>de</strong>sarrollo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s nuevas tecnologías<br />
dirigidas a <strong>la</strong> interceptación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones que a su vez permiten el almacenamiento<br />
y reutilización <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información obtenida.<br />
Esta realidad contrasta con <strong>la</strong> parquedad, insuficiencia e ina<strong>de</strong>cuación <strong>de</strong> nuestra regu<strong>la</strong>ción<br />
procesal vigente. La lucha contra <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>lincuencia <strong>de</strong>be producirse <strong>de</strong>ntro <strong>de</strong> los<br />
límites autorizados por el Convenio Europeo sobre Derechos Humanos, <strong>de</strong> tal forma que<br />
<strong>la</strong>s medidas adoptadas no <strong>red</strong>uzcan los niveles <strong>de</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>rechos fundamentales<br />
que caracterizan <strong>la</strong>s socieda<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong>mocráticas.<br />
7 ZARAGoZA AGUADo, J. A., “Tratamiento penal y procesal <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s organizaciones criminales en el<br />
Derecho español. Especial referencia al tráfico ilegal <strong>de</strong> drogas”, en Delitos contra <strong>la</strong> salud pública y el<br />
contrabando, CGPJ, 2000.
344 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
2. el secreto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones<br />
El secreto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones se reconoce como garantía en todas <strong>la</strong>s Constituciones,<br />
así como en <strong>la</strong>s normas internacionales, entre otras, en <strong>la</strong> Dec<strong>la</strong>ración Universal <strong>de</strong><br />
Derechos Humanos 8 y en el Pacto Internacional <strong>de</strong> Derechos Civiles y Políticos 9 .<br />
En una sociedad tecnológicamente avanzada como <strong>la</strong> actual, el secreto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones<br />
constituye no sólo una garantía <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> libertad individual sino <strong>de</strong> <strong>otros</strong> múltiples<br />
<strong>de</strong>rechos y liberta<strong>de</strong>s como <strong>la</strong> propiedad, el secreto <strong>de</strong>l sufragio activo, <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> opinión,<br />
i<strong>de</strong>ológica y <strong>de</strong> pensamiento, <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> empresa o <strong>la</strong> confi<strong>de</strong>ncialidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> asistencia<br />
letrada. Como ha <strong>de</strong>c<strong>la</strong>rado el Tribunal Constitucional, constituye un instrumento <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>sarrollo<br />
cultural, científico y tecnológico colectivo y, en todo caso, una garantía <strong>de</strong>l pluralismo<br />
y <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>mocracia 10 . Basta recordar que, el secreto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones, concretado en<br />
el secreto postal, y por tanto, con el ámbito muchísimo mas <strong>red</strong>ucido que en <strong>la</strong> actualidad,<br />
constituyó un pi<strong>la</strong>r fundamental <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Revolución Francesa en su lucha frente al po<strong>de</strong>r <strong>de</strong>l<br />
Estado.<br />
En nuestro texto constitucional se reconoce, con el rango <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>recho fundamental,<br />
en el art.18.3, según el cual “se garantiza el secreto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones y, en especial, <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong>s postales, telegráficas y telefónicas, salvo resolución judicial”. Queda sujeto a <strong>la</strong> protección<br />
reforzada que establece el que art.53.2 CE <strong>de</strong> manera que cualquier ciudadano podrá recabar<br />
su tute<strong>la</strong> ante los Tribunales ordinarios por un procedimiento basado en los principios<br />
<strong>de</strong> preferencia y sumariedad y, en su caso, a través <strong>de</strong>l recurso <strong>de</strong> amparo ante el Tribunal<br />
Constitucional.<br />
El art. 8 <strong>de</strong>l Convenio Europeo <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> Protección <strong>de</strong> los Derechos Humanos y <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s<br />
Liberta<strong>de</strong>s Fundamentales 11 , <strong>de</strong> forma más amplia, establece que toda persona tiene <strong>de</strong>recho<br />
al respeto <strong>de</strong> su vida privada y familiar, <strong>de</strong> su domicilio y <strong>de</strong> su correspon<strong>de</strong>ncia. El Tribunal<br />
Europeo <strong>de</strong> Derechos Humanos ha puesto <strong>de</strong> manifiesto que <strong>la</strong> vida privada es un término<br />
abierto no susceptible <strong>de</strong> una <strong>de</strong>finición exhaustiva, que <strong>de</strong>ber ser interpretado a <strong>la</strong> luz <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s<br />
8 En su art. 12 establece que “Nadie será objeto <strong>de</strong> injerencias arbitrarias en su vida privada, su familia,<br />
su domicilio o su correspon<strong>de</strong>ncia, ni <strong>de</strong> ataques a su honra y su reputación. Toda persona tiene<br />
<strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Ley contra tales injerencias y ataques”.<br />
9 Con idéntico contenido, su art. 17 dispone que“1. Nadie será objeto <strong>de</strong> injerencias arbitrarias o<br />
ilegales en su vida privada, su familia, su domicilio o su correspon<strong>de</strong>ncia, ni <strong>de</strong> ataques ilegales a su<br />
honra y su reputación. 2. Toda persona tiene <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Ley contra esas injerencias<br />
y ataques”.<br />
10 SSTC 281/2006, 56/2003, 123/2002.<br />
11 Art. 8 “1. Toda persona tiene <strong>de</strong>recho al respeto <strong>de</strong> su vida privada y familiar, <strong>de</strong> su domicilio y <strong>de</strong> su<br />
Correspon<strong>de</strong>ncia. 2. No podrá haber injerencia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> autoridad pública en el ejercicio <strong>de</strong> este <strong>de</strong>recho<br />
salvo cuando esta injerencia esté prevista por <strong>la</strong> Ley y constituya una medida que, en una sociedad<br />
<strong>de</strong>mocrática, sea necesaria <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> seguridad nacional, <strong>la</strong> seguridad pública, el bienestar económico <strong>de</strong>l<br />
país, <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>fensa <strong>de</strong>l or<strong>de</strong>n y <strong>la</strong> prevención <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s infracciones penales, <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> salud o <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
moral, o <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>rechos y <strong>la</strong>s liberta<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> terceros”.
<strong>la</strong> privacidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones en <strong>la</strong> investigación penal: uno <strong>de</strong> los <strong>retos</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> justicia…<br />
345<br />
condiciones actuales <strong>de</strong> vida propias <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información en <strong>la</strong> que estamos inmersos<br />
<strong>para</strong> proteger al individuo <strong>de</strong> forma real y efectiva en aquellos ámbitos a los que se refiere 12 .<br />
Por su parte, el art. 33 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Ley General <strong>de</strong> Telecomunicaciones 32/2003, <strong>de</strong> 3 <strong>de</strong> noviembre,<br />
dispone que los operadores que exploten re<strong>de</strong>s públicas <strong>de</strong> comunicaciones o que<br />
presten servicios <strong>de</strong> comunicaciones electrónicas disponibles al público <strong>de</strong>berán garantizar el<br />
secreto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones <strong>de</strong> conformidad con los artículos 18.3 y 55.2 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Constitución,<br />
<strong>de</strong>biendo adoptar <strong>la</strong>s medidas técnicas necesarias. En análogo sentido se manifiesta el art. 18<br />
g) <strong>de</strong>l Reg<strong>la</strong>mento <strong>de</strong> Servicios <strong>de</strong> Comunicaciones Electrónicas aprobado por RD 424/2005,<br />
<strong>de</strong> 15 <strong>de</strong> abril, según el cual los operadores que exploten re<strong>de</strong>s públicas <strong>de</strong> comunicaciones<br />
electrónicas <strong>de</strong>berán procurar <strong>la</strong> seguridad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s públicas contra el acceso no autorizado<br />
y garantizar <strong>la</strong> confi<strong>de</strong>ncialidad <strong>de</strong> los mensajes transmitidos y el secreto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones.<br />
Mas recientemente, el art. 5.2 <strong>de</strong>l Real Decreto 899/2009, <strong>de</strong> 22 <strong>de</strong> mayo, por el que<br />
se aprueba <strong>la</strong> carta <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>rechos <strong>de</strong>l usuario <strong>de</strong> los servicios <strong>de</strong> comunicaciones electrónicas,<br />
dispone que los operadores no podrán acce<strong>de</strong>r a <strong>la</strong> línea <strong>de</strong> un usuario final sin su consentimiento<br />
expreso e inequívoco.<br />
La doctrina 13 ha <strong>de</strong>stacado <strong>la</strong> enorme virtualidad expansiva <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> vida privada<br />
y al secreto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones en un contexto en el que existe una gran capacidad tecnológica<br />
<strong>de</strong> control social en manos <strong>de</strong>l Estado. La garantía <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> esfera privada es<br />
uno <strong>de</strong> los gran<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong>safíos <strong>de</strong> los or<strong>de</strong>namientos jurídicos en <strong>la</strong> actualidad toda vez que los<br />
ciudadanos se sienten cada vez más amenazados en su ámbito <strong>de</strong> libertad personal. Como ha<br />
seña<strong>la</strong>do nuestro Tribunal Constitucional, los avances tecnológicos que en los últimos tiempos<br />
se han producido en el ámbito <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s telecomunicaciones, especialmente en conexión con el<br />
uso <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> informática, hacen necesario un nuevo entendimiento <strong>de</strong>l concepto <strong>de</strong> comunicación<br />
y <strong>de</strong>l objeto <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho fundamental, que extienda <strong>la</strong> protección a esos nuevos ámbitos, como<br />
se <strong>de</strong>riva necesariamente <strong>de</strong>l tenor literal <strong>de</strong>l art. 18.3 CE 14 . Nuestra jurispru<strong>de</strong>ncia se enfrenta<br />
al nuevo reto <strong>de</strong> tener que <strong>de</strong>limitar los riesgos que <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> esfera privada se <strong>de</strong>rivan <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> utilización<br />
en <strong>la</strong> investigación penal <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s mo<strong>de</strong>rnas técnicas <strong>de</strong> investigación 15 .<br />
3. <strong>la</strong> Protección <strong>de</strong> datos <strong>de</strong> carÁcter Personal, <strong>la</strong> intimidad y<br />
el secreto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones<br />
El sector <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones electrónicas es un ámbito don<strong>de</strong> confluyen tres <strong>de</strong>rechos<br />
fundamentales íntimamente re<strong>la</strong>cionados: el <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> intimidad, el <strong>de</strong>recho al secre-<br />
12 Caso Raninen c. Fin<strong>la</strong>ndia, Sentencia <strong>de</strong> 16 <strong>de</strong> diciembre <strong>de</strong> 1997; Caso Burghartz c. Suiza, Sentencia<br />
<strong>de</strong> 22 <strong>de</strong> febrero <strong>de</strong> 1994.<br />
13 ARZoZ SANTISTEBAN, X., “Derecho al respeto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> vida privada y familiar” en Convenio Europeo<br />
<strong>de</strong> Derechos Humanos. Comentario sistemático, Thomson-Civitas, 2004, p. 260.<br />
14 STC 70/2002.<br />
15 PÉREZ GIL, J.,”Los datos sobre localización geográfica en <strong>la</strong> investigación penal”, op. cit., pp. 346 Y 347.
346 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
to <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones y el <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos frente al uso <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> informática,<br />
también <strong>de</strong>nominado <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> auto<strong>de</strong>terminación informativa 16 .<br />
La especificidad <strong>de</strong> los intereses jurídicos protegidos en cada caso supone el reconocimiento<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> posibilidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>limitar progresivamente <strong>de</strong>terminados aspectos parciales<br />
pero sustantivos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> vida privada y convertirlos en contenidos materialmente autónomos,<br />
susceptibles <strong>de</strong> aplicación se<strong>para</strong>da e in<strong>de</strong>pendiente respecto <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho general al respeto a<br />
<strong>la</strong> vida privada 17 . Así, aunque que se trate <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>rechos conexos, resulta necesario proce<strong>de</strong>r a<br />
su <strong>de</strong>limitación toda vez que se están sujetos a un régimen jurídico diferente.<br />
Un c<strong>la</strong>ro ejemplo viene representado por el <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos que ha adquirido<br />
con el tiempo un estatus jurídico propio y ha sido reconocido por nuestro Tribunal<br />
Constitucional como un <strong>de</strong>recho fundamental autónomo respecto a <strong>la</strong> intimidad 18 . Encuentra<br />
su fundamento en el art.18.4 CE y se regu<strong>la</strong> por <strong>la</strong> Ley 15/1999, <strong>de</strong> 13 <strong>de</strong> diciembre <strong>de</strong><br />
Protección <strong>de</strong> Datos <strong>de</strong> Carácter Personal. En el or<strong>de</strong>namiento comunitario su régimen jurídico<br />
se integra por <strong>la</strong> Directiva 95/46/CE, re<strong>la</strong>tiva a <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s personas físicas en<br />
lo que respecta al tratamiento <strong>de</strong> los datos personales y a <strong>la</strong> libre circu<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> estos datos y,<br />
por <strong>la</strong> Directiva 2002/58/CE re<strong>la</strong>tiva <strong>la</strong> tratamiento <strong>de</strong> los datos personales y a <strong>la</strong> protección<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> intimidad en el sector <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones electrónicas.<br />
La libertad informática o <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> auto<strong>de</strong>terminación informativa ha sido calificado<br />
por una parte <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> doctrina 19 como un <strong>de</strong>recho fundamental propio <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> actual sociedad <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> información en <strong>la</strong> que estamos inmersos. Los partidarios <strong>de</strong> esta posición 20 consi<strong>de</strong>ran que<br />
no existe ningún problema <strong>para</strong> que se produzcan nuevas concreciones o nuevos “<strong>de</strong>sprendimientos”<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>rechos fundamentales vincu<strong>la</strong>dos al <strong>de</strong>sarrollo tecnológico. De hecho, el Tribunal<br />
constitucional Alemán ha reconocido recientemente el nuevo <strong>de</strong>recho fundamental a <strong>la</strong><br />
integridad <strong>de</strong> los sistemas técnicos <strong>de</strong> información frente a <strong>la</strong>s intromisiones que se producen<br />
como consecuencia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> aparición <strong>de</strong> técnicas <strong>de</strong> acceso on line que permiten obtener <strong>de</strong> forma<br />
remota información <strong>de</strong> un sistema informático sin necesidad <strong>de</strong> acce<strong>de</strong>r al espacio físico en el<br />
que se encuentra situado (programas espía- spyware). Esta conducta que supone una grave in-<br />
16 MARTÍN REToRTILLo BAQUER, L., “Consi<strong>de</strong>raciones comunes a los artículos 49, 50 y 51 <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> Ley General <strong>de</strong> Telecomunicaciones”, en AAVV, Comentarios a <strong>la</strong> Ley General <strong>de</strong> Telecomunicaciones,<br />
Cívitas, Madrid, 1998, p. 428.<br />
17 Cfr. ARZoZ SANTISTEBAN?, X., “Derecho al respeto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> vida privada y familiar” en Convenio<br />
Europeo <strong>de</strong> Derechos Humanos, op. cit., p. 256.<br />
18 Vid. STC 292/2000.<br />
19 oLIVER LALANA, D., “El <strong>de</strong>recho fundamental virtual a <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos. Tecnología transparente<br />
y normas privadas”, Diario La Ley, Nº 5592, <strong>de</strong> 22 <strong>de</strong> julio <strong>de</strong> 2002; ÁLVAREZ GARCÍA,<br />
F., “El acceso por parte <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s Fuerzas y Cuerpos <strong>de</strong> Seguridad <strong>de</strong>l Estado a ficheros <strong>de</strong> datos personales”,<br />
en Protección <strong>de</strong> datos y proceso penal (Coord. Pedraz Penalva), La Ley, 2010, pp.65-67; PÉREZ<br />
LUño, A. E., “El <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> auto<strong>de</strong>terminación informativa”, Anuario <strong>de</strong> jornadas 1989-1990,<br />
Servicio <strong>de</strong> Estudios <strong>de</strong>l IVAP, 1991, pp. 299-331.<br />
20 ÁVAREZ GARCÍA, F.J., “El acceso por parte <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s fuerzas y cuerpos <strong>de</strong> seguridad <strong>de</strong>l Estado a ficheros<br />
<strong>de</strong> datos personales”, en Protección <strong>de</strong> datos y proceso penal (Coord. Pedraz Penalva), La Ley, 2010, p.65.
<strong>la</strong> privacidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones en <strong>la</strong> investigación penal: uno <strong>de</strong> los <strong>retos</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> justicia…<br />
347<br />
trusión en <strong>la</strong> intimidad <strong>de</strong> los usuarios afectados no se encontraba a<strong>de</strong>cuadamente tute<strong>la</strong>da por<br />
el <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> invio<strong>la</strong>bilidad <strong>de</strong>l domicilio. Por ello, afirma que será <strong>la</strong> evolución tecnológica<br />
<strong>la</strong> que marcará el paso en esta materia (BVerfGE 27 <strong>de</strong> febrero <strong>de</strong> 2008).<br />
De forma diferente, <strong>otros</strong> autores 21 entien<strong>de</strong>n que el nuevo <strong>de</strong>recho fundamental a <strong>la</strong><br />
libertad informática no es tal, sino que constituye una manifestación más <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong><br />
intimidad <strong>de</strong>terminado por el uso generalizado <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s nuevas tecnologías <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información<br />
y <strong>la</strong> comunicación a través <strong>de</strong> medios electrónicos y telemáticos. Su contenido se concreta<br />
en el <strong>de</strong>recho que tiene toda persona a contro<strong>la</strong>r <strong>la</strong> información sobre si misma cuando sus<br />
datos personales han sido sometidos a tratamiento informatizado. Por ello, consi<strong>de</strong>ran que<br />
el uso <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> informática no es más que una nueva forma <strong>de</strong> manejar <strong>la</strong> información.<br />
Con objeto <strong>de</strong> fijar el régimen jurídico al que <strong>de</strong>ben adscribirse los datos <strong>de</strong> tráfico y,<br />
en consecuencia, <strong>la</strong>s garantías <strong>para</strong> que sea lícita su utilización, tomamos como punto <strong>de</strong><br />
partida los pronunciamientos <strong>de</strong>l Tribunal Constitucional sobre el contenido <strong>de</strong>l art.18 <strong>de</strong><br />
nuestro Texto Constitucional.<br />
En primer lugar, <strong>de</strong>be <strong>de</strong>limitarse el ámbito <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos con<br />
respecto al <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> intimidad. A juicio <strong>de</strong>l Tribunal Constitucional, el <strong>de</strong>recho fundamental<br />
a <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos, comparte con el <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> intimidad el objetivo <strong>de</strong><br />
ofrecer una eficaz protección constitucional <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> vida privada personal y familiar, si bien se<br />
diferencia <strong>de</strong>l mismo en dos aspectos fundamentales.<br />
La primera nota distintiva se refiere al objeto <strong>de</strong> protección <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho fundamental a <strong>la</strong><br />
protección <strong>de</strong> datos que es más amplio. No se <strong>red</strong>uce sólo a los datos íntimos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> persona sino<br />
a cualquier tipo <strong>de</strong> dato personal, sea o no íntimo, cuyo conocimiento o empleo por terceros<br />
pueda afectar a sus <strong>de</strong>rechos, sean o no fundamentales. Por consiguiente, también alcanza a<br />
aquellos datos personales públicos que, por el hecho <strong>de</strong> serlo, esto es, <strong>de</strong> ser accesibles al conocimiento<br />
<strong>de</strong> cualquiera, no escapan al po<strong>de</strong>r <strong>de</strong> disposición <strong>de</strong>l afectado. El que los datos sean <strong>de</strong><br />
carácter personal no significa que sólo tengan protección los re<strong>la</strong>tivos a <strong>la</strong> vida privada o íntima<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> persona, sino que los datos am<strong>para</strong>dos son todos aquellos que permitan <strong>la</strong> i<strong>de</strong>ntificación<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> persona, pudiendo servir <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> confección <strong>de</strong> su perfil i<strong>de</strong>ológico, racial, sexual, económico<br />
o <strong>de</strong> cualquier otra índole, o que sirvan <strong>para</strong> cualquier otra utilidad que, en <strong>de</strong>terminadas<br />
circunstancias, constituya una amenaza <strong>para</strong> el individuo. Así, el <strong>de</strong>recho fundamental a <strong>la</strong> protección<br />
<strong>de</strong> datos amplía <strong>la</strong> garantía constitucional a aquellos <strong>de</strong> esos datos que sean relevantes<br />
o tengan inci<strong>de</strong>ncia en el ejercicio <strong>de</strong> cualesquiera <strong>de</strong>rechos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> persona, sean o no re<strong>la</strong>tivos<br />
al honor, <strong>la</strong> i<strong>de</strong>ología, <strong>la</strong> intimidad personal y familiar o a cualquier otro bien constitucionalmente<br />
am<strong>para</strong>do 22 . No es imprescindible que i<strong>de</strong>ntifiquen c<strong>la</strong>ra e inequívocamente a su titu<strong>la</strong>r,<br />
sino que pue<strong>de</strong>n ser datos que sirvan como medio <strong>para</strong> i<strong>de</strong>ntificarlo.<br />
La segunda peculiaridad que posee el <strong>de</strong>recho fundamental a <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos<br />
y lo distingue <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> intimidad personal y familiar <strong>de</strong>l art. 18.1 CE radica en su<br />
21 Vid. oRTÍ VALLEJo, A., Derecho a <strong>la</strong> intimidad e informática, Comares, Granada, 1995; CARBoNELL<br />
MATEU, J.C. y GoNZÁLEZ CUSSAC, J.L., Derecho Penal, Parte Especial, Valencia, 1999, p.170.<br />
22 SSTC 110/1984, 144/1999.
348 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
contenido. A diferencia <strong>de</strong> este último que confiere a <strong>la</strong> persona el po<strong>de</strong>r jurídico <strong>de</strong> imponer<br />
a terceros el <strong>de</strong>ber <strong>de</strong> abstenerse <strong>de</strong> toda intromisión en <strong>la</strong> esfera íntima <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> persona y <strong>la</strong><br />
prohibición <strong>de</strong> hacer uso <strong>de</strong> lo así conocido, el <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos atribuye a su<br />
titu<strong>la</strong>r un haz <strong>de</strong> faculta<strong>de</strong>s consistente en diversos po<strong>de</strong>res jurídicos cuyo ejercicio impone a<br />
terceros <strong>de</strong>beres, que no se contienen en el <strong>de</strong>recho fundamental a <strong>la</strong> intimidad 23 . Se garantiza<br />
a <strong>la</strong> persona un po<strong>de</strong>r <strong>de</strong> control y disposición sobre sus datos personales imponiendo a<br />
terceros <strong>de</strong>terminados <strong>de</strong>beres <strong>de</strong> hacer. Sirvan como ejemplo, el <strong>de</strong>recho a que se requiera<br />
el previo consentimiento <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> recogida y uso <strong>de</strong> los datos personales, el <strong>de</strong>recho a saber y<br />
ser informado sobre el <strong>de</strong>stino y uso <strong>de</strong> esos datos y, el <strong>de</strong>recho a acce<strong>de</strong>r, rectificar y cance<strong>la</strong>r<br />
dichos datos 24 .<br />
De todo lo expuesto se <strong>de</strong>duce que el <strong>de</strong>recho fundamental a <strong>la</strong> intimidad referido en<br />
el art. 18.1 CE no aporta por sí solo una protección suficiente frente a esta nueva realidad<br />
<strong>de</strong>rivada <strong>de</strong>l progreso tecnológico, dadas <strong>la</strong>s amplísimas posibilida<strong>de</strong>s que <strong>la</strong> informática<br />
ofrece tanto <strong>para</strong> recoger como <strong>para</strong> comunicar datos personales. Afirma nuestro Tribunal<br />
Constitucional 25 que <strong>la</strong> garantía <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> vida privada <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> persona y <strong>de</strong> su reputación poseen<br />
hoy una dimensión positiva que exce<strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>l ámbito propio <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho fundamental a <strong>la</strong> intimidad<br />
(art. 18.1 CE), y que se traduce en un <strong>de</strong>recho <strong>de</strong> control sobre los datos re<strong>la</strong>tivos a<br />
<strong>la</strong> propia persona. La l<strong>la</strong>mada “libertad informática” es así el <strong>de</strong>recho a contro<strong>la</strong>r el uso <strong>de</strong> los<br />
mismos datos insertos en un programa informático (habeas data) y compren<strong>de</strong>, entre <strong>otros</strong><br />
aspectos, <strong>la</strong> oposición <strong>de</strong>l ciudadano a que <strong>de</strong>terminados datos personales sean utilizados<br />
<strong>para</strong> fines distintos <strong>de</strong> aquel legítimo que justificó su obtención.<br />
Lo expuesto no ha impedido que el propio Tribunal Constitucional conecte ambos <strong>de</strong>rechos,<br />
afirmando que un sistema normativo que, autorizando <strong>la</strong> recogida <strong>de</strong> datos incluso<br />
con fines legítimos, y <strong>de</strong> contenido aparentemente neutro, no incluyese garantías a<strong>de</strong>cuadas<br />
frente a su uso potencialmente invasor <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> vida privada <strong>de</strong>l ciudadano, a través <strong>de</strong> su tratamiento<br />
técnico, vulneraría el <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> intimidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> misma manera que lo harían <strong>la</strong>s<br />
intromisiones directas en el contenido nuclear <strong>de</strong> ésta 26 .<br />
Por su parte, el TEDH afirma que el mero hecho <strong>de</strong> memorizar datos re<strong>la</strong>tivos a <strong>la</strong> vida<br />
privada <strong>de</strong> una persona constituye una injerencia en el sentido <strong>de</strong>l artículo 8, con in<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>ncia<br />
<strong>de</strong> que <strong>la</strong> información memorizada se utilice o no posteriormente. Sin embargo, <strong>para</strong><br />
<strong>de</strong>terminar si <strong>la</strong> información <strong>de</strong> carácter personal conservada por <strong>la</strong>s autorida<strong>de</strong>s hace que<br />
entre en juego uno <strong>de</strong> los aspectos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> noción <strong>de</strong> vida privada, el Tribunal tendrá <strong>de</strong>bidamente<br />
en cuenta el contexto particu<strong>la</strong>r en el que ha sido recogida y conservada <strong>la</strong> información,<br />
el carácter <strong>de</strong> los datos consignados, <strong>la</strong> manera en <strong>la</strong> que son utilizados y tratados y los<br />
resultados que pue<strong>de</strong>n extraerse <strong>de</strong> ellos 27 .<br />
23 SSTC 73/1982, 89/1987, 231/1988, 197/1991, 134/1999 y 115/2000.<br />
24 STC 254/1993.<br />
25 SSTC 202/1999, 202/2000.<br />
26 STC 143/1994.<br />
27 STEDH <strong>de</strong> 4 <strong>de</strong> diciembre <strong>de</strong> 2008, caso S. y Marper contra Reino Unido.
<strong>la</strong> privacidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones en <strong>la</strong> investigación penal: uno <strong>de</strong> los <strong>retos</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> justicia…<br />
349<br />
Una vez <strong>de</strong>limitado el ámbito <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos respecto al <strong>de</strong>recho a<br />
<strong>la</strong> intimidad, proce<strong>de</strong> ahora, <strong>de</strong>limitarlo con re<strong>la</strong>ción al <strong>de</strong>recho al secreto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones.<br />
Para ello resulta necesario aten<strong>de</strong>r al aspecto dinámico o estático <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> comunicación.<br />
De esta manera, mientras dura el proceso <strong>de</strong> comunicación, resulta afectado el <strong>de</strong>recho al<br />
secreto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones, ya incida <strong>la</strong> injerencia sobre el contenido <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> comunicación<br />
o sobre sus elementos externos o adyacentes. En cambio, cuando <strong>la</strong> comunicación se ha<br />
consumado y se almacenan en una base los datos re<strong>la</strong>tivos a <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones, pasan a<br />
configurarse como datos <strong>de</strong> carácter personal.<br />
A juicio <strong>de</strong>l Tribunal Constitucional 28 , los datos <strong>de</strong>l emisor y receptor <strong>de</strong> una comunicación,<br />
una vez finalizada ésta ya no <strong>de</strong>ben protegerse por el <strong>de</strong>recho fundamental al secreto<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones, a pesar <strong>de</strong> su estrecha conexión con <strong>la</strong> comunicación realizada, sino<br />
a través <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s normas que regu<strong>la</strong>n <strong>la</strong> intimidad u <strong>otros</strong> <strong>de</strong>rechos, toda vez que no suponen<br />
una interferencia en un proceso <strong>de</strong> comunicación.<br />
Así, <strong>la</strong> entrega por <strong>la</strong> operadora <strong>de</strong>l listado <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s l<strong>la</strong>madas ya ejecutadas con anterioridad<br />
<strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> un <strong>de</strong>terminado número <strong>de</strong> teléfono no afecta al contenido propio <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho al secreto<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones, toda vez que se trata, en <strong>de</strong>finitiva, <strong>de</strong> datos <strong>de</strong> carácter personal, custodiados<br />
en ficheros automatizados, a los que se refiere <strong>la</strong> Ley orgánica 15/1999, <strong>de</strong> 13 <strong>de</strong> diciembre,<br />
<strong>de</strong> Protección <strong>de</strong> Datos <strong>de</strong> Carácter Personal en <strong>de</strong>sarrollo <strong>de</strong> lo previsto en el apartado 4 <strong>de</strong>l<br />
artículo 18 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Constitución. En el<strong>la</strong>, se establece que el tratamiento automatizado <strong>de</strong> los datos<br />
<strong>de</strong> carácter personal requerirá el consentimiento <strong>de</strong>l afectado, el cual, sin embargo, no será preciso<br />
cuando <strong>la</strong> cesión que <strong>de</strong>ba efectuarse tenga por <strong>de</strong>stinatario al Defensor <strong>de</strong>l Pueblo, al Ministerio<br />
Fiscal o a los Jueces o Tribunales en el ejercicio <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s funciones que tiene atribuidas.<br />
De hecho, tal información, propia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> investigación judicial en <strong>la</strong> fase <strong>de</strong> instrucción,<br />
es simi<strong>la</strong>r a <strong>la</strong> re<strong>la</strong>tiva al movimiento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s cuentas corrientes bancarias y no afecta en forma<br />
alguna al secreto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones telefónicas. El registro <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s l<strong>la</strong>madas efectuadas<br />
<strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> un <strong>de</strong>terminado número <strong>de</strong> teléfono forma parte <strong>de</strong>l conjunto <strong>de</strong> datos que <strong>la</strong>s correspondientes<br />
compañías telefónicas obtienen y conservan <strong>para</strong> po<strong>de</strong>r <strong>de</strong>terminar el precio<br />
que periódicamente <strong>de</strong>be abonarles el titu<strong>la</strong>r <strong>de</strong> aquél, <strong>de</strong> forma semejante a como hacen <strong>la</strong>s<br />
entida<strong>de</strong>s bancarias con los titu<strong>la</strong>res <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s cuentas corrientes, al remitirles periódicamente<br />
información sobre el movimiento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s mismas 29 .<br />
La Agencia Españo<strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> Protección <strong>de</strong> Datos ha reconocido conforme con <strong>la</strong> normativa<br />
vigente, <strong>la</strong> cesión <strong>de</strong> datos reservados <strong>de</strong> carácter personal a petición <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Policía judicial,<br />
esto es, sin mediar resolución judicial previa, en situaciones excepcionales cuando se trate<br />
<strong>de</strong> datos necesarios <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> prevención y represión <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>terminados <strong>de</strong>litos graves, siempre<br />
que estén <strong>de</strong>bidamente motivados y se comunique inmediatamente a <strong>la</strong> autoridad judicial.<br />
Una vez expuesta <strong>la</strong> posición mayoritaria <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> jurispru<strong>de</strong>ncia <strong>de</strong>l Tribunal Constitucional<br />
y <strong>de</strong>l Tribunal Supremo 30 , resulta necesario <strong>de</strong>stacar que no han faltado resoluciones <strong>de</strong><br />
28 STC 70/2002.<br />
29 SSTS 459/1999 y <strong>de</strong> 7 <strong>de</strong> diciembre <strong>de</strong> 2001.<br />
30 STS <strong>de</strong> 11 <strong>de</strong> diciembre <strong>de</strong> 2003.
350 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
estos mismos Tribunales discrepantes o imprecisas que no <strong>de</strong>limitan el régimen <strong>de</strong> garantía<br />
<strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho al secreto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones <strong>de</strong>l régimen propio <strong>de</strong> los datos <strong>de</strong> tráfico <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones ya mantenidas.<br />
Como ejemplo, pue<strong>de</strong> citarse <strong>la</strong> reciente STC 230/2007, <strong>de</strong> 5 <strong>de</strong> noviembre don<strong>de</strong> se<br />
analiza un supuesto en el que <strong>la</strong> Policía accedió a los registros <strong>de</strong> l<strong>la</strong>madas <strong>de</strong> varios teléfonos<br />
móviles sin el consentimiento <strong>de</strong> los titu<strong>la</strong>res ni autorización judicial. En <strong>la</strong> mencionada sentencia,<br />
<strong>de</strong> forma contradictoria con <strong>la</strong> doctrina expuesta, en lugar <strong>de</strong> afirmar <strong>la</strong> no afectación<br />
<strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho al secreto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones, toda vez que no resultaba afectado el proceso<br />
<strong>de</strong> comunicación mismo, el Tribunal Constitucional proc<strong>la</strong>mó <strong>la</strong> vulneración <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho<br />
reconocido en el art.18.3. Para ello se fundó, en <strong>la</strong> doctrina constitucional en virtud <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
cual <strong>la</strong> i<strong>de</strong>ntificación <strong>de</strong> los intervinientes en <strong>la</strong> comunicación queda cubierta por el secreto<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones, cuando lo relevante en el caso analizado no radicaba en el ámbito<br />
objetivo <strong>de</strong>l secreto que, por supuesto, incluye <strong>la</strong> i<strong>de</strong>ntidad subjetiva <strong>de</strong> los interlocutores,<br />
sino en el momento en el que se produjo <strong>la</strong> injerencia en que el proceso <strong>de</strong> comunicación<br />
ya había concluido. Una <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s notas esenciales <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> comunicación es, precisamente, que<br />
se trata <strong>de</strong> un proceso que se <strong>de</strong>sarrol<strong>la</strong> en un <strong>la</strong>pso <strong>de</strong> tiempo <strong>de</strong>terminado, durante el cual<br />
únicamente se dispensa <strong>la</strong> protección específica otorgada por el 18.3 CE.<br />
4. <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>tección <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s c<strong>la</strong>Ves imsi e imei<br />
Tal y como hemos seña<strong>la</strong>do, <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>limitación <strong>de</strong>l ámbito <strong>de</strong> protección <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho al<br />
secreto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones tiene importantes consecuencias prácticas, toda vez que marca<br />
<strong>la</strong> frontera <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> investigación policial en <strong>la</strong> materia, <strong>la</strong> cual no pue<strong>de</strong> afectar al núcleo protegido<br />
por dicho <strong>de</strong>recho fundamental sin que medie autorización judicial.<br />
No pue<strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>sconocerse que <strong>la</strong> enorme variedad <strong>de</strong> datos <strong>de</strong> carácter personal y <strong>la</strong> pluralidad<br />
<strong>de</strong> bases <strong>de</strong> información en po<strong>de</strong>r <strong>de</strong> sujetos muy diversos, dificulta mucho <strong>la</strong> posibilidad<br />
<strong>de</strong> conseguir una legis<strong>la</strong>ción uniforme sobre <strong>la</strong> materia en el marco <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> investigación<br />
penal31 . Existen multitud <strong>de</strong> normas reg<strong>la</strong>mentarias sectoriales que contemp<strong>la</strong>n excepciones<br />
a <strong>la</strong> norma general.<br />
Un buen ejemplo concreto que ilustra lo expuesto es <strong>la</strong> obtención por <strong>la</strong> Policía Judicial<br />
<strong>de</strong> los códigos (IMSI e IMEI) <strong>de</strong> los teléfonos móviles mediante el rastreo <strong>de</strong>l espacio<br />
radioeléctrico.<br />
El IMSI (Internacional Mobile Subscriber I<strong>de</strong>ntity- I<strong>de</strong>ntidad Internacional <strong>de</strong>l Abonado<br />
a un Móvil) es una re<strong>la</strong>ción alfanumérica vincu<strong>la</strong>da a una tarjeta SIM <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> mundial<br />
GSM. El IMEI (Internacional Mobile Equipment I<strong>de</strong>ntity- I<strong>de</strong>ntidad internacional <strong>de</strong><br />
31 PEDRAZ PENALVA, E., “La utilización en el proceso penal <strong>de</strong> datos personales recopi<strong>la</strong>dos sin<br />
indicios <strong>de</strong> comisión <strong>de</strong>lictiva”, en Protección <strong>de</strong> datos y proceso penal (Coord. Pedraz Penalva), La Ley,<br />
2010, p.34.
<strong>la</strong> privacidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones en <strong>la</strong> investigación penal: uno <strong>de</strong> los <strong>retos</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> justicia…<br />
351<br />
Equipo Móvil) es un código vincu<strong>la</strong>do a un teléfono móvil GSM y que, por tanto, i<strong>de</strong>ntifica<br />
un terminal <strong>de</strong> telefonía móvil.<br />
La técnica consistente en <strong>la</strong> i<strong>de</strong>ntificación <strong>de</strong> estos códigos (IMSI e IMEI) ha sido <strong>de</strong>finida<br />
como un procedimiento que permite <strong>de</strong>tectar <strong>la</strong>s c<strong>la</strong>ves <strong>de</strong> los teléfonos móviles que llevan<br />
<strong>la</strong>s personas que se encuentran a <strong>de</strong>terminada distancia mediante el rastreo <strong>de</strong>l espacio radioeléctrico.<br />
Los captadores <strong>de</strong> IMSI simu<strong>la</strong>n <strong>la</strong> estación base <strong>de</strong> telefonía. Se basa en <strong>la</strong> existencia<br />
<strong>de</strong> un teléfono operativo, sin necesidad <strong>de</strong> que se esté siendo utilizado en ese momento.<br />
En un primer momento <strong>la</strong> jurispru<strong>de</strong>ncia consi<strong>de</strong>ró que esta técnica suponía una intromisión<br />
en el <strong>de</strong>recho al secreto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones en <strong>la</strong> medida en que, por una vía<br />
más indirecta (<strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>l código <strong>de</strong>l terminal), se pue<strong>de</strong> obtener el mismo efecto <strong>de</strong> invasión<br />
<strong>de</strong>l ámbito <strong>de</strong>l secreto (SSTS <strong>de</strong> 23 <strong>de</strong> enero <strong>de</strong> 2007 y <strong>de</strong> 19 <strong>de</strong> febrero <strong>de</strong> 2008). Pocos<br />
meses <strong>de</strong>spués, cambió <strong>de</strong> criterio al consi<strong>de</strong>rar que no afectaba al núcleo protegido por el<br />
art. 18.3 CE, toda vez que <strong>la</strong> obtención <strong>de</strong> esta información, por sí so<strong>la</strong>, no permite conocer<br />
<strong>la</strong> i<strong>de</strong>ntidad <strong>de</strong> los comunicantes, ni <strong>la</strong> titu<strong>la</strong>ridad <strong>de</strong>l teléfono móvil, ni dato alguno sobre<br />
el tráfico <strong>de</strong> l<strong>la</strong>madas entrantes o salientes <strong>de</strong>l sospechoso. No se interviene ningún aspecto<br />
re<strong>la</strong>cionado con <strong>la</strong> comunicación sino el terminal mismo objeto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> investigación. A<strong>de</strong>más,<br />
esa numeración pue<strong>de</strong> llegar a aprehen<strong>de</strong>rse, incluso, sin necesidad <strong>de</strong> que el proceso <strong>de</strong><br />
comunicación se halle en curso.<br />
Por ello, el voto particu<strong>la</strong>r <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> STS <strong>de</strong> 23 <strong>de</strong> enero <strong>de</strong> 2007entendió que esta información<br />
no pue<strong>de</strong> constituir, por sí misma, materia am<strong>para</strong>da por el secreto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones,<br />
pues afirmar lo contrario supondría confundir los medios que posibilitan <strong>la</strong> comunicación<br />
con <strong>la</strong> comunicación misma. Por ello, no pue<strong>de</strong>n ser consi<strong>de</strong>rados condiciones<br />
específicas <strong>de</strong> comunicación sino que se trata <strong>de</strong> datos <strong>de</strong> carácter personal que se integran<br />
<strong>de</strong>ntro <strong>de</strong>l ámbito <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> auto<strong>de</strong>terminación informativa.<br />
Ello no obstante, no <strong>de</strong>be olvidarse que <strong>la</strong> Ley <strong>de</strong> Conservación <strong>de</strong> Datos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s Comunicaciones<br />
Electrónicas 25/2007 <strong>de</strong> 18 <strong>de</strong> octubre, incluye <strong>de</strong>ntro <strong>de</strong> su ámbito <strong>de</strong> aplicación<br />
los datos IMSI e IMEI (art. 3.1 e)), <strong>para</strong> cuya cesión resulta exigible <strong>la</strong> misma reg<strong>la</strong><br />
impuesta que al resto <strong>de</strong> los datos a los que se refiere, esto es, <strong>la</strong> preceptiva autorización<br />
judicial. Con esta especial protección podría parecer que el Legis<strong>la</strong>dor los está consi<strong>de</strong>rando<br />
como parte <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho al secreto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones 32 . Pero frente a esa consi<strong>de</strong>ración<br />
<strong>de</strong>be tenerse en cuenta que <strong>la</strong> mencionada Ley tiene por objeto regu<strong>la</strong>r <strong>la</strong> cesión <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> una<br />
base <strong>de</strong> datos <strong>de</strong> un conjunto heterogéneo <strong>de</strong> información, <strong>de</strong>ntro <strong>de</strong> los que se encuentran<br />
también datos intrínsecamente ligados al <strong>de</strong>recho al secreto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones y que,<br />
por en<strong>de</strong>, se sustraen al régimen <strong>de</strong> tute<strong>la</strong> constitucional que ofrece el art. 18.4 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> CE y<br />
sus leyes <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>sarrollo, acogiéndose a <strong>la</strong> protección reforzada que impone el art. 18.3 en el<br />
que, siempre y en todo caso, se exige autorización judicial <strong>para</strong> cualquier forma <strong>de</strong> injerencia.<br />
Sobre este aspecto se ha pronunciado <strong>la</strong> STS 249/2008, <strong>de</strong> 20 <strong>de</strong> mayo según <strong>la</strong> cual<br />
<strong>de</strong>be distinguirse, <strong>de</strong> un <strong>la</strong>do, el supuesto en el cual <strong>la</strong> cesión <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información sobre el IMSI<br />
32 oRTIZ NAVARRo y LUCAS MARTÍN, “Ámbito <strong>de</strong> protección <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho al secreto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones”,<br />
op. cit., p.34.
352 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
se produce <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> los ficheros automatizados que obran en po<strong>de</strong>r <strong>de</strong> los prestadores <strong>de</strong> servicio<br />
(regu<strong>la</strong>da por <strong>la</strong> Ley 25/2007) y, <strong>de</strong> otro, el acceso a esta información <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> el propio<br />
teléfono celu<strong>la</strong>r por <strong>la</strong>s Fuerzas y Cuerpos <strong>de</strong> Seguridad <strong>de</strong>l Estado, sobre <strong>la</strong> nada dice <strong>la</strong> Ley<br />
<strong>de</strong> Conservación <strong>de</strong> Datos.<br />
Frente al silencio <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> nueva regu<strong>la</strong>ción, resulta <strong>de</strong> aplicación lo dispuesto en <strong>la</strong> Ley <strong>de</strong><br />
Protección <strong>de</strong> Datos 15/1999, según <strong>la</strong> cual <strong>la</strong> recogida y tratamiento <strong>para</strong> fines policiales<br />
<strong>de</strong> datos <strong>de</strong> carácter personal por <strong>la</strong>s Fuerzas y Cuerpos <strong>de</strong> Seguridad sin consentimiento <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong>s personas afectadas están limitados a aquellos supuestos y categorías <strong>de</strong> datos que resulten<br />
necesarios <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> prevención <strong>de</strong> un peligro real <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> seguridad pública o <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> represión<br />
<strong>de</strong> infracciones penales, <strong>de</strong>biendo ser almacenados en ficheros específicos establecidos al<br />
efecto, que <strong>de</strong>berán c<strong>la</strong>sificarse por categorías en función <strong>de</strong> su grado <strong>de</strong> fiabilidad (art. 22.2<br />
LoPD).<br />
A<strong>de</strong>más, <strong>la</strong> recogida y tratamiento <strong>de</strong> estos datos por <strong>la</strong>s Fuerzas y Cuerpos <strong>de</strong> Seguridad<br />
podrán realizarse exclusivamente en los supuestos en que sea absolutamente necesario<br />
<strong>para</strong> los fines <strong>de</strong> una investigación concreta, sin perjuicio <strong>de</strong>l control <strong>de</strong> legalidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> actuación<br />
administrativa o <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> obligación <strong>de</strong> resolver <strong>la</strong>s pretensiones formu<strong>la</strong>das en su caso por<br />
los interesados que correspon<strong>de</strong>n a los órganos jurisdiccionales (art. 22.3 LoPD).<br />
Ac<strong>la</strong>ra <strong>la</strong> sentencia citada que <strong>la</strong> facultad <strong>de</strong> recogida <strong>de</strong> datos que <strong>la</strong> Lo 15/1999<br />
otorga a <strong>la</strong>s Fuerzas y Cuerpos <strong>de</strong> Seguridad <strong>de</strong>l Estado, no pue<strong>de</strong>, <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> luego, servir <strong>de</strong><br />
excusa <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> creación <strong>de</strong> un régimen incontro<strong>la</strong>do <strong>de</strong> excepcionalidad a su favor. Pero tampoco<br />
cabe <strong>de</strong>sconocer que <strong>la</strong> recogida <strong>de</strong> ese dato en el marco <strong>de</strong> una investigación criminal<br />
-nunca con carácter puramente exploratorio-, <strong>para</strong> el esc<strong>la</strong>recimiento <strong>de</strong> un <strong>de</strong>lito <strong>de</strong> especial<br />
gravedad, pue<strong>de</strong> reputarse proporcionada, necesaria y, por tanto, ajena a cualquier vulneración<br />
<strong>de</strong> relieve constitucional. También parece evi<strong>de</strong>nte que esa legitimidad que <strong>la</strong> Ley<br />
confiere a <strong>la</strong>s Fuerzas y Cuerpos <strong>de</strong> Seguridad <strong>de</strong>l Estado nunca <strong>de</strong>bería operar en re<strong>la</strong>ción<br />
con datos referidos al contenido <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho al secreto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones (art. 18.3 CE)<br />
o respecto <strong>de</strong> datos susceptibles <strong>de</strong> protección por <strong>la</strong> vía <strong>de</strong>l art. 18.4 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> CE que afectaran<br />
a lo que se ha l<strong>la</strong>mado el núcleo duro <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> privacidad o, con <strong>la</strong> terminología legal, los datos<br />
especialmente protegidos (art. 7.2 Lo 15/1999).<br />
Teniendo en cuenta que el IMSI, por sí solo, no un dato integrable en el concepto<br />
<strong>de</strong> comunicación, ni pue<strong>de</strong> ser encuadrado entre los datos especialmente protegidos, su<br />
recogida o captación técnica no necesita autorización judicial. Sin embargo, <strong>la</strong> obtención<br />
<strong>de</strong> su plena funcionalidad, mediante <strong>la</strong> cesión <strong>de</strong> los datos que obran en los ficheros <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
operadora, sí requerirá el control jurisdiccional <strong>de</strong> su proce<strong>de</strong>ncia.<br />
En el mimo sentido se ha pronunciado <strong>la</strong> posterior STS 776/2008, <strong>de</strong> 18 <strong>de</strong> noviembre<br />
según <strong>la</strong> cual <strong>la</strong> averiguación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s calves alfanuméricas, cuando se lleva a cabo en el<br />
marco <strong>de</strong> una investigación criminal re<strong>la</strong>tiva a un <strong>de</strong>lito <strong>de</strong> especial gravedad, difícilmente<br />
pue<strong>de</strong> consi<strong>de</strong>rarse que suponga una in<strong>de</strong>bida y <strong>de</strong>sproporcionada restricción <strong>de</strong> un <strong>de</strong>recho<br />
fundamental y que, por ello, suponga una vulneración constitucional con sus lógicas consecuencias<br />
(art. 11.1 LoPJ).<br />
Los mismos argumentos se recogen en los siguientes pronunciamientos <strong>de</strong>l Tribunal<br />
Supremo que sostienen que <strong>la</strong>s c<strong>la</strong>ves IMSI pue<strong>de</strong>n ser obtenidas por los agentes policiales
<strong>la</strong> privacidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones en <strong>la</strong> investigación penal: uno <strong>de</strong> los <strong>retos</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> justicia…<br />
por sus propios medios sin que ello acarree nulidad alguna <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s pruebas obtenidas ya que<br />
no entran en el ámbito <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> privacidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones 33 .<br />
353<br />
El Tribunal Constitucional Fe<strong>de</strong>ral Alemán, en su Sentencia <strong>de</strong> 22 <strong>de</strong> agosto <strong>de</strong> 2006 34 ,<br />
<strong>de</strong>c<strong>la</strong>ró conforme a su Ley Fundamental <strong>la</strong> captación <strong>de</strong>l IMSI y <strong>de</strong>l IMEI <strong>para</strong> los fines <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> investigación penal. Consi<strong>de</strong>ra que no se vulnera el <strong>de</strong>recho al secreto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones<br />
pues tales datos no están vincu<strong>la</strong>dos al proceso <strong>de</strong> comunicación, sino que son in<strong>de</strong>pendientes<br />
<strong>de</strong> él. En <strong>la</strong> captación <strong>de</strong> estos datos no hay comunicación humana sino mero<br />
funcionamiento <strong>de</strong> dispositivos técnicos.<br />
Pero <strong>la</strong> jurispru<strong>de</strong>ncia <strong>de</strong> nuestra Sa<strong>la</strong> 2ª ha dado un paso más. La STS 40/2009, <strong>de</strong> 28<br />
<strong>de</strong> enero consi<strong>de</strong>ra que el IMSI y el IMEI difícilmente pue<strong>de</strong>n consi<strong>de</strong>rarse datos <strong>de</strong> carácter<br />
personal. Des<strong>de</strong> el punto <strong>de</strong> vista pericial, <strong>la</strong> doctrina especializada suele enten<strong>de</strong>r que el<br />
IMSI equivale a una <strong>la</strong>bor <strong>de</strong> vigi<strong>la</strong>ncia convencional, en <strong>la</strong> que se <strong>de</strong>termina con quién se<br />
encuentra el vigi<strong>la</strong>do, con quién hab<strong>la</strong>, por dón<strong>de</strong> se <strong>de</strong>sp<strong>la</strong>za o qué objetos toca; o bien cuál<br />
es el domicilio <strong>de</strong> una persona, <strong>para</strong> cuya entrada y registro, conocido tal dato, se solicitará<br />
en su momento el pertinente mandamiento judicial. Así, <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> misma manera en se pue<strong>de</strong><br />
ver en una vigi<strong>la</strong>ncia (mediante prismáticos, por ejemplo), <strong>la</strong> marca y mo<strong>de</strong>lo <strong>de</strong>l teléfono<br />
móvil que utiliza un sospechoso, se pue<strong>de</strong> obtener <strong>la</strong> información <strong>de</strong>l IMSI, mediante estos<br />
“prismáticos especiales inalámbricos”.<br />
Una vez más, proce<strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>nunciar <strong>la</strong> falta <strong>de</strong> una regu<strong>la</strong>ción legal completa <strong>de</strong> esta compleja<br />
materia, tan novedosa y cambiante por otra parte, por lo que <strong>la</strong> jurispru<strong>de</strong>ncia tiene<br />
que llevar a cabo <strong>la</strong> difícil y <strong>de</strong>licada tarea <strong>de</strong> complementar el or<strong>de</strong>namiento jurídico35 .<br />
De hecho, aunque existe ya una jurispru<strong>de</strong>ncia reiterada en esta materia, no es uniforme<br />
pues, en un principio, se dictaron pronunciamientos que contenían criterios contradictorios.<br />
Por eso, en <strong>la</strong> práctica, <strong>la</strong> Policía Judicial suele acudir a <strong>la</strong> autoridad judicial <strong>para</strong> que autorice<br />
el uso <strong>de</strong>l interceptador o, cuando menos, <strong>para</strong> informarle previamente <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> intención <strong>de</strong><br />
utilizarlo. De esta manera, <strong>la</strong>s Fuerzas y Cuerpos <strong>de</strong> Seguridad <strong>de</strong>l Estado evitan incurrir en<br />
responsabilidad por <strong>la</strong> eventual vulneración el <strong>de</strong>recho al secreto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones y <strong>la</strong><br />
obtención ilícita <strong>de</strong> pruebas, lo cual va en <strong>de</strong>trimento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> eficacia <strong>de</strong> su actuación.<br />
5. conclusión<br />
Nuestro Derecho positivo está necesitado <strong>de</strong> una regu<strong>la</strong>ción completa y <strong>de</strong>tal<strong>la</strong>da <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> restricción <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho al secreto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones en el marco <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> investigación<br />
criminal, superando <strong>la</strong> disparidad <strong>de</strong> criterios que, en numerosos aspectos, refleja <strong>la</strong> juris-<br />
33 SSTS <strong>de</strong> 6 <strong>de</strong> julio <strong>de</strong> 2009, 29 <strong>de</strong> junio <strong>de</strong> 2009.<br />
34 2 BvR 1345/2003.<br />
35 SSTS 630/2008, <strong>de</strong> 8 <strong>de</strong> octubre; 776/2008, <strong>de</strong> 18 <strong>de</strong> noviembre; 760/2008, <strong>de</strong> 26 <strong>de</strong> diciembre;<br />
ATS 811/2009, <strong>de</strong> 2 abril).
354 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
pru<strong>de</strong>ncia <strong>de</strong> nuestros Tribunales. Una norma <strong>de</strong>cimonónica no pue<strong>de</strong> dar respuesta por vía<br />
interpretativa a <strong>la</strong> nueva realidad <strong>de</strong>rivada <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones electrónicas.<br />
La normativa administrativa en materia <strong>de</strong> telecomunicaciones, que ha sido <strong>la</strong> vía <strong>para</strong>le<strong>la</strong><br />
utilizada por el legis<strong>la</strong>dor <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> mo<strong>de</strong>rnización <strong>de</strong> esta materia, ha suscitado ciertas<br />
dudas <strong>de</strong> constitucionalidad en cuanto pue<strong>de</strong> incidir, al menos indirectamente, sobre el<br />
<strong>de</strong>recho al secreto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones.<br />
Resulta necesaria una respuesta <strong>de</strong>l legis<strong>la</strong>dor procesal <strong>para</strong> avanzar en el camino <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
actualización y <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> búsqueda <strong>de</strong> mo<strong>de</strong>rnas técnicas <strong>de</strong> investigación que abran nuevas posibilida<strong>de</strong>s<br />
en <strong>la</strong> investigación criminal, como medio necesario <strong>para</strong> hacer frente a los <strong>de</strong>safíos<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>lincuencia en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>, siempre <strong>de</strong>ntro <strong>de</strong>l respeto a los principios básicos <strong>de</strong>l Derecho<br />
Penal y <strong>de</strong>l proceso <strong>de</strong>bido.<br />
6. bibliografÍa sobre <strong>la</strong> materia<br />
Álvarez García, F., “El acceso por parte <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s Fuerzas y Cuerpos <strong>de</strong> Seguridad <strong>de</strong>l Estado a<br />
ficheros <strong>de</strong> datos personales”, en Protección <strong>de</strong> datos y proceso penal, La Ley, 2010.<br />
Arzoz Santisteban, X., “Derecho al respeto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> vida privada y familiar” en Convenio<br />
Europeo <strong>de</strong> Derechos Humanos. Comentario sistemático, Thomson-Civitas, 2004.<br />
Ballesteros Moffa, L.A., “Hacia un difícil equilibrio entre privacidad y seguridad: <strong>la</strong><br />
conservación <strong>de</strong> datos en <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones electrónicas y <strong>la</strong> transferencia <strong>de</strong> datos<br />
<strong>de</strong> pasajeros por <strong>la</strong>s compañías aéreas”, Revista Españo<strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> Derecho Administrativo,<br />
Thomson-Civitas, Nº 137, 2008.<br />
Corripio Gil-Delgado M.R. y Marroig Pol, L., El tratamiento <strong>de</strong> los datos <strong>de</strong> carácter<br />
personal y <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> datos, 2001, Madrid.<br />
De Jorge Mesas, L.F., “La incorporación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s nuevas tecnologías informáticas y <strong>de</strong> telecomunicaciones<br />
al proceso penal”, en Los nuevos medios <strong>de</strong> investigación en el proceso penal.<br />
Especial referencia a <strong>la</strong> tecnovigi<strong>la</strong>ncia, CGPJ, Madrid, 2008.<br />
Etxeberría Guridi, J.F. “La Previsión legal y <strong>la</strong>s diligencias <strong>de</strong> investigación restrictivas <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>de</strong>rechos fundamentales: a propósito <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> STC 49/1999, <strong>de</strong> 5 <strong>de</strong> abril”, Diario La Ley,<br />
Nº 4919, 1999.<br />
Fernán<strong>de</strong>z Espinar, G., “El levantamiento <strong>de</strong>l secreto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones telefónicas en<br />
el marco <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s diligencias <strong>de</strong> investigación y aseguramiento en el proceso penal”, Po<strong>de</strong>r<br />
Judicial, Nº 32, diciembre 1993.<br />
Fernán<strong>de</strong>z Esteban, M. L., Nuevas tecnologías, Internet y Derechos Fundamentales, McGraw<br />
Hill, Madrid, 1998.<br />
Fernán<strong>de</strong>z Lázaro, F., “Medios técnicos en <strong>la</strong> investigación <strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>litos informáticos”, en<br />
Los nuevos medios <strong>de</strong> investigación en el proceso penal. Especial referencia a <strong>la</strong> tecnovigi<strong>la</strong>ncia,<br />
CGPJ, Madrid, 2008.<br />
Fernán<strong>de</strong>z Rodríguez, J.J., Secreto e intervención <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones en Internet, Thomson,<br />
Civitas, Madrid, 2004.
<strong>la</strong> privacidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones en <strong>la</strong> investigación penal: uno <strong>de</strong> los <strong>retos</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> justicia…<br />
355<br />
Guerrero Picó, M. C., El impacto <strong>de</strong> Internet en el <strong>de</strong>recho fundamental a <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong><br />
datos <strong>de</strong> carácter personal, Thomson-Civitas, Navarra, 2006.<br />
Gimeno Sendra, V.:<br />
—, Los procesos penales. Comentarios a <strong>la</strong> Ley <strong>de</strong> Enjuiciamiento Criminal con formu<strong>la</strong>rios<br />
y jurispru<strong>de</strong>ncia, Tomo IV, Bosch, Barcelona, 2000.<br />
—, “Las intervenciones electrónicas y <strong>la</strong> Policía Judicial”, Diario La Ley, Nº 7298, 2009.<br />
González Cuel<strong>la</strong>r Serrano, N.: “Garantías constitucionales <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> persecución penal en el<br />
entorno digital”, en Derecho y Justicia Penal en el siglo XXI, Colex, Madrid, 2006.<br />
Gónzález López, J.J.: Los datos <strong>de</strong> tráfico <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones electrónicas en el proceso penal,<br />
La ley, Madrid, 2007.<br />
González Rus, J.J., “Los ilícitos en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>: Hackers, crackers cyberpunkns, sniffers”, en El<br />
cibercrimen. Nuevos <strong>retos</strong> jurídico- penales, nuevas respuestas político criminales, Biblioteca<br />
Comares <strong>de</strong> Ciencia Jurídica, Granada 2006.<br />
Guerrero Picó, M. C.:<br />
—, “Protección <strong>de</strong> datos personales e Internet: <strong>la</strong> conservación indiscriminada <strong>de</strong> los<br />
datos <strong>de</strong> tráfico”, Revista <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Facultad <strong>de</strong> Derecho <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Universidad <strong>de</strong> Granada,<br />
Nº 8, 2005.<br />
—, El impacto <strong>de</strong> Internet en el Derecho fundamental a <strong>la</strong> Protección <strong>de</strong> Datos <strong>de</strong> Carácter<br />
Personal, Thomson-civitas, Navarra, 2006.<br />
Hubmann, Das Personlichkeitsrecht, Colonia, 1967.<br />
Jiménez Campo, J.:“La garantía constitucional <strong>de</strong>l secreto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones”, en Revista <strong>de</strong><br />
Derecho Constitucional, año 7, Nº 20, Centro <strong>de</strong> Estudios Constitucionales, Madrid, 1987.<br />
L<strong>la</strong>mas Fernán<strong>de</strong>z, M. Y Gordillo Luque, J.M., “Medios técnicos <strong>de</strong> vigi<strong>la</strong>ncia”, en Los<br />
nuevos medios <strong>de</strong> investigación en el proceso penal. Especial referencia a <strong>la</strong> tecnovigi<strong>la</strong>ncia,<br />
CGPJ, Madrid, 2008.<br />
L<strong>la</strong>neza González, P., Internet y comunicaciones digitales, Bosch, Barcelona, 2000.<br />
Llera Suárez-Barcena, E., “El régimen jurídico ordinario <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s observaciones telefónicas<br />
en el proceso penal”, Po<strong>de</strong>r Judicial, Nº 3, septiembre 1996.<br />
López ortega, J.J.:<br />
—, “La protección <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> intimidad en <strong>la</strong> investigación penal: necesidad y proporcionalidad<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> injerencia como presupuesto <strong>de</strong> vali<strong>de</strong>z”, en Perfiles <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho constitucional<br />
a <strong>la</strong> vida privada y familiar, Cua<strong>de</strong>rnos <strong>de</strong> Derecho Judicial, CGPJ, Madrid,<br />
1997.<br />
—, Internet y Derecho Penal, La intervención judicial <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones a través <strong>de</strong> Internet,<br />
Cua<strong>de</strong>rnos <strong>de</strong> Derecho Judicial, X, Consejo General <strong>de</strong>l Po<strong>de</strong>r Judicial, 2001.<br />
Loza Corera, M., y Rodríguez Casal, C., “Nueva legis<strong>la</strong>ción Europea en materia <strong>de</strong><br />
protección <strong>de</strong> datos”, Diario La Ley, Nº 5549, mayo 2002.<br />
Martín Morales, R.: La intervención <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones telefónicas en el proceso penal:<br />
un estudio jurispru<strong>de</strong>ncial, tirant lo b<strong>la</strong>nch, Valencia, 1999.
356 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
Martín Pallín, J.A.: “El equilibrio en <strong>la</strong> conservación <strong>de</strong> datos y secreto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones:<br />
implicaciones en el proceso penal”, La protección <strong>de</strong> datos en <strong>la</strong> cooperación<br />
policial y judicial, Thomson-Aranzadi, 2008<br />
Martín Retortillo Baquer, L., “Consi<strong>de</strong>raciones comunes a los artículos 49, 50 y 51 <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> Ley General <strong>de</strong> Telecomunicaciones”, en Comentarios a <strong>la</strong> Ley General <strong>de</strong> Telecomunicaciones,<br />
Cívitas, Madrid, 1998.<br />
Martínez Ginesta, G., “Límites técnicos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> ayuda prestada por <strong>la</strong>s operadoras en <strong>la</strong><br />
investigación <strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>litos”, en Los nuevos medios <strong>de</strong> investigación en el proceso penal.<br />
Especial referencia a <strong>la</strong> tecnovigi<strong>la</strong>ncia, CGPJ, Madrid, 2008.<br />
Maza Martín, J.M.: “La intervención judicial <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones a través <strong>de</strong> Internet”,<br />
en Internet y Derecho Penal, Cua<strong>de</strong>rnos <strong>de</strong> Derecho Judicial, Nº 10, 2001.<br />
Morales Prats, F., Internet: riesgos <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> intimidad, en “Internet y Derecho Penal”, Cua<strong>de</strong>rnos<br />
<strong>de</strong> Derecho Judicial, Consejo General <strong>de</strong>l Po<strong>de</strong>r Judicial, Madrid, 2002.<br />
Moreno Catena, V.: “Ley <strong>de</strong> conservación <strong>de</strong> datos y garantías procesales”, en La protección<br />
<strong>de</strong> datos en <strong>la</strong> cooperación policial y judicial, Thomson-Aranzadi, 2008<br />
oliver La<strong>la</strong>na, D., “El <strong>de</strong>recho fundamental virtual a <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos. Tecnología<br />
transparente y normas privadas”, Diario La Ley, Nº 5592, 2002.<br />
ortí Vallejo, A., Derecho a <strong>la</strong> intimidad e informática, Comares, Granada, 1995.<br />
ortiz Navarro y Lucas Martín, “Ámbito <strong>de</strong> protección <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho al secreto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones”,<br />
en Práctica Penal, SepinNET revista.<br />
Parejo Alfonso, L., “El <strong>de</strong>recho fundamental a <strong>la</strong> intimidad y sus restricciones”, en Perfiles<br />
<strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho constitucional a <strong>la</strong> vida privada y familiar, Cua<strong>de</strong>rnos <strong>de</strong> Derecho Judicial,<br />
CGPJ, Madrid, 1997.<br />
Pedraz Penalva, E., “La utilización en el proceso penal <strong>de</strong> datos personales recopi<strong>la</strong>dos<br />
sin indicios <strong>de</strong> comisión <strong>de</strong>lictiva”, en Protección <strong>de</strong> datos y proceso penal, La Ley, 2010.<br />
Pérez Gil, J.:<br />
—, ”Los datos sobre localización geográfica en <strong>la</strong> investigación penal”, en Protección <strong>de</strong><br />
datos y proceso penal, La Ley, 2010.<br />
—, “Investigación penal y nuevas tecnologías: algunos <strong>retos</strong> pendientes”, Revista jurídica<br />
<strong>de</strong> Castil<strong>la</strong> y León, Nº 7, octubre, 2005,<br />
Pérez Luño, “El <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> auto<strong>de</strong>terminación informativa”, Anuario <strong>de</strong> jornadas 1989-<br />
1990, Servicio <strong>de</strong> Estudios <strong>de</strong>l IVAP, 1991.<br />
Pérez-Ugena, M. y Pérez-Ugena, A., “Implicaciones constitucionales <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s nuevas tecnologías”,<br />
Revista <strong>de</strong> Derecho Político, Nº 54, 2002.<br />
Rives Seva, A. P. La intervención <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones en <strong>la</strong> jurispru<strong>de</strong>ncia penal, Aranzadi,<br />
Madrid, 2000.<br />
Rodriguez Lainz, J.L.:<br />
—, La intervención <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones telefónicas, Bosch, Barcelona, 2002.
<strong>la</strong> privacidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones en <strong>la</strong> investigación penal: uno <strong>de</strong> los <strong>retos</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> justicia…<br />
357<br />
—, “Dirección IP, IMSI e intervención judicial <strong>de</strong> comunicaciones electrónicas”, Diario<br />
La Ley, Nº 7886, 2009.<br />
Rodríguez Ruiz, B., El secreto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones: tecnología e intimidad, McGraw-Hill,<br />
Madrid, 1998.<br />
Romeo Casabona, C.M.:“La protección penal <strong>de</strong> los mensajes <strong>de</strong> correo electrónico y <strong>de</strong><br />
otras comunicaciones <strong>de</strong> carácter personal a través <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>”, Revista Aranzadi <strong>de</strong> Derecho<br />
y Nuevas Tecnologías, Nº 10, 2006.<br />
Ruiz Miguel, C.: La configuración constitucional <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> intimidad, Tecnos, Madrid,<br />
1995.<br />
Salom Clotet, J., “Inci<strong>de</strong>ncia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> nueva regu<strong>la</strong>ción en <strong>la</strong> investigación <strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>litos<br />
cometidos a través <strong>de</strong> medios informáticos”, en La protección <strong>de</strong> datos en <strong>la</strong> cooperación<br />
policial y judicial, Thomson-Aranzadi, 2008.<br />
Urbano Castrillo, E., Y Magro Servet, V., La prueba tecnológica en <strong>la</strong> Ley <strong>de</strong> Enjuiciamiento<br />
Civil, Thomson-Aranzadi, 2003.<br />
Ve<strong>la</strong>sco Núñez, E.:<br />
—, “Aspectos procesales <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> investigación y <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>fensa en los <strong>de</strong>litos informáticos”,<br />
Diario La Ley, Nº 6506, 2006.<br />
—, “Eliminación <strong>de</strong> contenidos ilícitos y c<strong>la</strong>usura <strong>de</strong> páginas web en Internet (medidas<br />
<strong>de</strong> restricción <strong>de</strong> servicios informáticos), en Los nuevos medios <strong>de</strong> investigación en el<br />
proceso penal. Especial referencia a <strong>la</strong> tecnovigi<strong>la</strong>ncia, CGPJ, Madrid, 2008.<br />
Zaragoza Aguado, J. A., “Tratamiento penal y procesal <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s organizaciones criminales en<br />
el Derecho español. Especial referencia al tráfico ilegal <strong>de</strong> drogas”, en Delitos contra <strong>la</strong><br />
salud pública y el contrabando, CGPJ, 2000.
19<br />
lA BAse ADAms De lA AgeNCIA mUNDIAl ANtIDOPAJe.<br />
PrOBlemAs De PrOteCCIóN De DAtOs<br />
Ricardo Morte Ferrer<br />
Abogado en ejercicio, Palma <strong>de</strong> Mallorca. Vocal <strong>de</strong>l Tribunal Balear <strong>de</strong>l Deporte.<br />
Doctorando en Derecho Deportivo, Universidad <strong>de</strong> Lleida<br />
AbstrAct: En el campo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> lucha contra el dopaje po<strong>de</strong>mos encontrar un c<strong>la</strong>ro ejemplo <strong>de</strong>l eterno<br />
<strong>de</strong>bate entre <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>rechos fundamentales y <strong>la</strong> seguridad. En este <strong>de</strong>bate se manifiesta<br />
una ten<strong>de</strong>ncia bastante c<strong>la</strong>ra a priorizar <strong>la</strong> seguridad sin valorar, al menos esa es mi opinión, <strong>de</strong> forma<br />
a<strong>de</strong>cuada el riesgo que suponen <strong>la</strong>s agresiones contra los <strong>de</strong>rechos fundamentales. En el campo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
lucha contra el dopaje, esta situación se manifiesta en una corriente <strong>de</strong> pensamiento y actuación según<br />
<strong>la</strong> cual el dopaje es uno <strong>de</strong> los mayores problemas con los que nos encontramos y por ello prácticamente<br />
cualquier cosa que se haga <strong>para</strong> solucionar ese problema es válida.<br />
Los principales problemas generados por <strong>la</strong> actividad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Agencia Mundial Antidopaje (WADA-<br />
AMA) 1 en lo que afecta a <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos son: los datos referentes a <strong>la</strong>s localizaciones o “whereabouts”,<br />
<strong>la</strong>s transferencias internacionales <strong>de</strong> datos, <strong>la</strong> falta <strong>de</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>rechos <strong>de</strong> acceso,<br />
cance<strong>la</strong>ción, rectificación y oposición, el consentimiento informado, el tratamiento <strong>de</strong> datos <strong>de</strong> salud<br />
y <strong>la</strong> publicidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s sanciones<br />
El objeto <strong>de</strong> estudio <strong>de</strong> esta comunicación será el anti-doping administration & management<br />
system (adams), popu<strong>la</strong>rmente conocido como Base ADAMS, y <strong>para</strong> centrar el trabajo en algunos<br />
aspectos <strong>de</strong> su utilización, me centraré en <strong>la</strong>s localizaciones y en <strong>la</strong>s transferencias internacionales <strong>de</strong><br />
datos. Se trata <strong>de</strong> una base <strong>de</strong> datos en base Web, que según <strong>la</strong> WADA-AMA simplifica <strong>la</strong>s activida<strong>de</strong>s<br />
diarias <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s organizaciones y atletas involucrados en <strong>la</strong> lucha antidopaje. En mi opinión, <strong>la</strong> Base<br />
ADAMS refleja fielmente todos los problemas <strong>de</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos antes mencionados y p<strong>la</strong>ntea,<br />
a<strong>de</strong>más, algunos problemas técnicos que también mencionaré.<br />
pAlAbrAs clAve: dopaje, lucha antidopaje, whereabouts, protección <strong>de</strong> datos, transferencias internacionales<br />
<strong>de</strong> datos, base ADAMS.<br />
1. introducción al tema <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> lucHa antidoPaje<br />
La WADA-AMA, en su Código Mundial Antidopaje, menciona los siguientes objetivos:<br />
1 La agencia mundial antidopaje (en francés y oficialmente Agence mondiale antidopage, AMA y en<br />
inglés World Anti-Doping Agency, WADA) es una fundación in<strong>de</strong>pendiente sujeta al <strong>de</strong>recho suizo<br />
creada por una iniciativa colectiva apoyada por el CoI. Fue inaugurada el 10 <strong>de</strong> noviembre <strong>de</strong> 1999<br />
en Lausana (Suiza) <strong>para</strong> promover, coordinar y monitorizar <strong>la</strong> lucha contra el dopaje en el <strong>de</strong>porte. Su<br />
se<strong>de</strong> se encuentra actualmente en Montreal (Canadá).
360 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
• Proteger el <strong>de</strong>recho fundamental <strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>portistas a participar en activida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong>portivas<br />
libres <strong>de</strong> dopaje, fomentar <strong>la</strong> salud y garantizar <strong>de</strong> esta forma <strong>la</strong> equidad y <strong>la</strong> igualdad<br />
en el <strong>de</strong>porte <strong>para</strong> todos los <strong>de</strong>portistas <strong>de</strong>l mundo.<br />
• Ve<strong>la</strong>r por <strong>la</strong> armonización, <strong>la</strong> coordinación y <strong>la</strong> eficacia <strong>de</strong> los programas contra el dopaje<br />
a nivel internacional y nacional con respecto a <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>tección, disuasión y prevención<br />
<strong>de</strong>l dopaje.<br />
En primer lugar l<strong>la</strong>ma <strong>la</strong> atención que se mencione el <strong>de</strong>recho fundamental <strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>portistas<br />
a participar en activida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong>portivas libres <strong>de</strong> dopaje, pero no se mencione ningún<br />
otro <strong>de</strong>recho fundamental. En lo que afecta a fomentar <strong>la</strong> salud, es más que evi<strong>de</strong>nte que el<br />
<strong>de</strong>porte <strong>de</strong> alto rendimiento no es sano 2 . Partiendo <strong>de</strong> esa afirmación, creo que se <strong>de</strong>bería hacer<br />
mayor inci<strong>de</strong>ncia en <strong>la</strong> lucha contra el dopaje entre los <strong>de</strong>portistas jóvenes y no centrarse<br />
<strong>de</strong> forma casi exclusiva en el máximo nivel. Referente a <strong>la</strong> equidad y <strong>la</strong> igualdad, quizás convenga<br />
mencionar lo que Jan Ullrich siempre ha comentado referente a su dopaje “yo nunca<br />
he engañado a nadie ni he hecho trampa”, queriendo <strong>de</strong>cir con eso que más o menos todos<br />
los <strong>de</strong>portistas recurren al dopaje y que <strong>la</strong>s diferencias radican en los medios <strong>de</strong> que disponen,<br />
y a ese nivel <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>sigualdad se mantendría aunque <strong>de</strong>sapareciera el dopaje.<br />
2. localizaciones o wHereabouts<br />
En el art.11.1.3 <strong>de</strong> los Estándares Internacionales <strong>de</strong> Control Antidopaje, se requiere a los<br />
atletas incluidos por su Fe<strong>de</strong>ración Internacional en el listado <strong>de</strong> atletas a contro<strong>la</strong>r <strong>para</strong> que<br />
proporcionen su localización durante el siguiente trimestre. Esa localización supone informar<br />
a <strong>la</strong> WADA-AMA, con <strong>la</strong> mencionada ante<strong>la</strong>ción, sobre don<strong>de</strong> estarán disponibles por el período<br />
<strong>de</strong> una hora entre <strong>la</strong>s 6 y <strong>la</strong>s 23h <strong>para</strong> po<strong>de</strong>r ser contro<strong>la</strong>dos. Esa localización no supone<br />
limitación alguna <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> posibilidad <strong>de</strong> po<strong>de</strong>r ser contro<strong>la</strong>dos a cualquier hora <strong>de</strong>l día y en<br />
cualquier lugar en que se encuentren. Hay que mencionar que los atletas pue<strong>de</strong>n comunicar<br />
variaciones en sus localizaciones por medio <strong>de</strong> correo electrónico o <strong>de</strong> mensajes SMS.<br />
La sanción prevista <strong>para</strong> el incumplimiento <strong>de</strong> los antes mencionados requisitos está recogida<br />
en el Art.2.4 Código WADA-AMA:” Vulneración <strong>de</strong> los requisitos sobre <strong>la</strong> disponibilidad<br />
<strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>portista <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> realización <strong>de</strong> controles fuera <strong>de</strong> competición. Incluye el no presentar <strong>la</strong><br />
información requerida sobre su localización, así como los controles que se consi<strong>de</strong>ren fallidos<br />
en base a <strong>la</strong>s normas internacionales <strong>para</strong> controles. Cualquier combinación <strong>de</strong> tres controles<br />
fallidos y/o no presentación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información sobre su localización, que se produzca en un período<br />
<strong>de</strong> dieciocho meses establecido por <strong>la</strong>s organizaciones antidopaje con jurisdicción sobre<br />
el <strong>de</strong>portista constituirá una infracción <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s normas antidopaje”. En un intento por ac<strong>la</strong>rar<br />
<strong>la</strong> críptica <strong>red</strong>acción <strong>de</strong> esta norma, su pue<strong>de</strong> resumir en que el incumplimiento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s normas<br />
referentes a <strong>la</strong>s localizaciones o “whereabouts” equivale a un positivo por dopaje.<br />
2 http://apren<strong>de</strong>enlinea.u<strong>de</strong>a.edu.co/revistas/in<strong>de</strong>x.php/educacionfisicay<strong>de</strong>porte/article/<br />
view/4606/4050, disponible el 10.03.2010
<strong>la</strong> base ADAms <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Agencia mundial Antidopaje. Problemas <strong>de</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos<br />
361<br />
Antes <strong>de</strong> iniciar cualquier reflexión respecto a posibles problemas en el ámbito <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
protección <strong>de</strong> datos, quiero resaltar que, al menos en mi opinión, esta regu<strong>la</strong>ción supone<br />
una f<strong>la</strong>grante vio<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> presunción <strong>de</strong> inocencia. En realidad supone una aplicación <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> presunción <strong>de</strong> culpabilidad.<br />
En primer lugar me gustaría mencionar que <strong>la</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción actual supone una mejora respecto<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> anterior, que exigía localizaciones 24 horas al día, 7 días a <strong>la</strong> semana, 365 días al año.<br />
La justificación <strong>para</strong> el uso <strong>de</strong> estas localizaciones radica, según <strong>la</strong> WADA-AMA, en <strong>la</strong><br />
necesidad <strong>de</strong> realizar controles fuera <strong>de</strong> competición que resulten efectivos. De todas maneras,<br />
hay que resaltar que los datos personales obtenidos por este procedimiento <strong>de</strong>ben ser utilizados<br />
<strong>de</strong> forma proporcionada, <strong>para</strong> fines justificados y siempre <strong>de</strong> acuerdo con los principios <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
protección <strong>de</strong> los datos personales. En este aspecto, el Convenio <strong>de</strong>l Consejo <strong>de</strong> Europa contra<br />
el dopaje en el <strong>de</strong>porte <strong>de</strong> 1989(art.7.3.a) regu<strong>la</strong>ba que los controles antidopaje <strong>de</strong>bían ser llevados<br />
a cabo por medio <strong>de</strong> métodos a<strong>de</strong>cuados y en momentos apropiados, <strong>de</strong> forma que no<br />
supusieran una interferencia <strong>de</strong>sproporcionada en <strong>la</strong> vida privada <strong>de</strong> los atletas. Parece evi<strong>de</strong>nte<br />
que es complicado evitar <strong>la</strong>s interferencias en <strong>la</strong> vida privada <strong>de</strong> los atletas con el aquí estudiado<br />
sistema <strong>de</strong> localizaciones. De todas formas, y aceptando <strong>la</strong> pretendida necesidad <strong>de</strong> recurrir a<br />
este procedimiento, se <strong>de</strong>be proce<strong>de</strong>r a recoger únicamente información que sea relevante <strong>para</strong><br />
el control antidopaje, evitando utilizar información sensible <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> vida privada <strong>de</strong>l atleta o <strong>de</strong><br />
otras personas re<strong>la</strong>cionadas con él, como su pareja o sus parientes.<br />
El Grupo <strong>de</strong> Trabajo <strong>de</strong>l artículo 29 3 ha hecho notar que en <strong>la</strong> valoración <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información<br />
a recoger, en el sentido <strong>de</strong> si es a<strong>de</strong>cuada a <strong>la</strong> ya mencionada finalidad, habría que incluir el factor<br />
<strong>de</strong> riesgo aplicable al <strong>de</strong>portista en cuestión. El ya mencionado grupo ha resaltado también que<br />
esa valoración <strong>de</strong>be ser incluso previa a <strong>la</strong> e<strong>la</strong>boración por parte <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Fe<strong>de</strong>ración Internacional<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> lista <strong>de</strong> atletas a contro<strong>la</strong>r. En <strong>la</strong> e<strong>la</strong>boración <strong>de</strong> esa lista nos encontramos con <strong>la</strong> primera<br />
incongruencia con los presuntos objetivos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> WADA-AMA. Como ya he mencionado anteriormente,<br />
el criterio esencial seguido es el <strong>de</strong> contro<strong>la</strong>r a los atletas <strong>de</strong>l máximo nivel, que no son<br />
necesariamente los <strong>de</strong> máximo riesgo, aunque sí los <strong>de</strong> máximo impacto publicitario.<br />
Aparte <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> hora concreta en <strong>la</strong> que el <strong>de</strong>portista <strong>de</strong>be estar disponible <strong>para</strong> ser contro<strong>la</strong>do,<br />
el formu<strong>la</strong>rio <strong>de</strong> localización incluye información sobre <strong>la</strong>s activida<strong>de</strong>s normales durante el día,<br />
incluyendo si se encuentra en período <strong>de</strong> entrenamiento o no, <strong>de</strong> forma que el <strong>de</strong>portista sea<br />
fácilmente localizable durante el día (art.13.3.3 <strong>de</strong>l International Standard Testing), sin que el ya<br />
mencionado p<strong>la</strong>zo <strong>de</strong> una hora <strong>para</strong> po<strong>de</strong>r ser contro<strong>la</strong>do le libere <strong>de</strong> esa obligación. Pese a que<br />
el Grupo <strong>de</strong> Trabajo <strong>de</strong>l artículo 29 ha consi<strong>de</strong>rado <strong>la</strong> recogida <strong>de</strong> información <strong>para</strong> un volumen<br />
<strong>de</strong> tiempo <strong>de</strong> unas 4 horas como proporcionada, en mi opinión no lo es. Para fundamentar esa<br />
opinión creo que basta con preguntarse si existen otras organizaciones, privadas o públicas, que<br />
puedan efectuar controles <strong>de</strong> ese tipo sin una or<strong>de</strong>n judicial. Aunque será mencionado más tar<strong>de</strong>,<br />
conviene recordar que <strong>la</strong> aceptación <strong>de</strong>l Código WADA-AMA es condición imprescindible <strong>para</strong><br />
po<strong>de</strong>r participar en competición, con lo cual <strong>de</strong>ja <strong>de</strong> ser una <strong>de</strong>cisión totalmente libre, ya que el<br />
negarse a firmar supone que el <strong>de</strong>portista no podrá ejercer su profesión.<br />
3 http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2009/wp162_es.pdf disponible el 20.05.2010.
362 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
3. transferencias internacionales <strong>de</strong> datos. <strong>la</strong> base adams<br />
En este punto habrá dos aspectos a consi<strong>de</strong>rar: los generales que afectan a <strong>la</strong>s transferencias<br />
internacionales <strong>de</strong> datos y los originados por <strong>la</strong>s transferencias internacionales <strong>de</strong><br />
datos a <strong>la</strong> base ADAMS con base en Montreal, Canadá.<br />
Empezando con algunas generalida<strong>de</strong>s sobre <strong>la</strong>s transferencias internacionales <strong>de</strong> datos,<br />
hay que mencionar que <strong>la</strong> norma general en el ámbito <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> UE, <strong>de</strong> acuerdo con <strong>la</strong> Directiva<br />
95/46/CE, es <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> circu<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> datos personales. Esa misma norma, así como <strong>la</strong><br />
LoPD y su Reg<strong>la</strong>mento (RD 1720/2007), imponen garantías adicionales cuando los datos<br />
se encuentran en un territorio cuya legis<strong>la</strong>ción no garantice unas garantías equi<strong>para</strong>bles a <strong>la</strong>s<br />
vigentes en <strong>la</strong> UE. Esa condición se aplica, a<strong>de</strong>más <strong>de</strong> a toda <strong>la</strong> UE, a Is<strong>la</strong>ndia, Noruega y<br />
Liechtenstein. La información al respecto es importante en nuestro caso, ya que <strong>la</strong>s transferencias<br />
internacionales que nos ocupan se producen con Canadá.<br />
Antes <strong>de</strong> pasar al caso concreto objeto <strong>de</strong> estudio mencionaré dos casos que tienen<br />
cierta similitud con el mismo:<br />
• El whistle-blowing o sistemas <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>nuncias o alertas profesionales que vienen exigidos<br />
por <strong>la</strong> normativa estadouni<strong>de</strong>nse (Sarbanes-oxley Act) o japonesa (<strong>de</strong>nominada<br />
coloquialmente “J-SoX”). El Grupo <strong>de</strong> Trabajo <strong>de</strong>l artículo 29 4 , tras <strong>de</strong>scartar que<br />
<strong>la</strong> obligación impuesta por una norma extranjera (Sarbanes-oxley Act) que exija el<br />
establecimiento <strong>de</strong> sistemas <strong>de</strong> información constituya una obligación jurídica en virtud<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> cual se legitime el tratamiento <strong>de</strong> datos en <strong>la</strong> UE, basa <strong>la</strong> legitimidad <strong>de</strong> este<br />
tipo <strong>de</strong> sistemas en <strong>la</strong> causa <strong>de</strong>l “interés legítimo” <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Directiva 95/46/CE [letra f)<br />
<strong>de</strong>l artículo 7]. Se hace referencia a <strong>la</strong> necesidad <strong>de</strong> pon<strong>de</strong>rar ese interés legítimo, <strong>de</strong><br />
forma que no prevalezca sobre los <strong>de</strong>rechos y liberta<strong>de</strong>s fundamentales <strong>de</strong>l interesado/<br />
afectado. De todas formas, conviene <strong>de</strong>stacar que <strong>la</strong>s causas <strong>de</strong> legitimación <strong>de</strong>ben<br />
encontrarse en <strong>la</strong> propia normativa interna <strong>de</strong>l Estado miembro o en el control <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
re<strong>la</strong>ción contractual entre <strong>la</strong>s partes. La AEPD consi<strong>de</strong>ró que si existía conocimiento<br />
pleno <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> existencia <strong>de</strong> este tipo <strong>de</strong> sistemas, éstos podrían encontrarse incardinados<br />
en <strong>la</strong> existencia <strong>de</strong> un vínculo contractual y por lo tanto am<strong>para</strong>dos por <strong>la</strong> Ley orgánica<br />
15/1999, artículo 6.2. 5<br />
• El caso “SWIFT” pone <strong>de</strong> manifiesto también los problemas existentes <strong>para</strong> encontrar<br />
legitimación <strong>para</strong> el tratamiento <strong>de</strong> datos en una norma <strong>de</strong> un Estado no miembro <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> UE:<br />
4 Dictamen 1/2006 re<strong>la</strong>tivo a <strong>la</strong> aplicación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s normas sobre protección <strong>de</strong> datos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> UE a los sistemas<br />
internos <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>nuncia <strong>de</strong> irregu<strong>la</strong>rida<strong>de</strong>s en los ámbitos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> contabilidad, controles <strong>de</strong> auditoría<br />
internos, cuestiones <strong>de</strong> auditoría, lucha contra <strong>la</strong> corrupción y <strong>de</strong>litos financieros y bancarios, WP<br />
117, <strong>de</strong> 1 <strong>de</strong> febrero <strong>de</strong> 2006.<br />
5 Informe <strong>de</strong> 2007 referente a <strong>la</strong> Creación <strong>de</strong> sistemas <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>nuncias internas en <strong>la</strong>s empresas (mecanismos<br />
whistleblowing).localizable en http://www.agpd.es/portalweb/canaldocumentacion/informes_<br />
juridicos/otras_cuestiones/common/pdfs/2007-0128_Creaci-oo-n-<strong>de</strong>-sistemas-<strong>de</strong>-<strong>de</strong>nuncias-internas-en-<strong>la</strong>s-empresas-mecanismos-<strong>de</strong>-whistleblowing.pdf<br />
el 10.03.2011.
<strong>la</strong> base ADAms <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Agencia mundial Antidopaje. Problemas <strong>de</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos<br />
363<br />
El tratamiento y el almacenamiento por duplicado podían haber sido necesarios <strong>para</strong> el<br />
cumplimiento <strong>de</strong> una obligación legal a <strong>la</strong> que esté sujeto el responsable <strong>de</strong>l tratamiento.<br />
SWIFT, con su se<strong>de</strong> en Bélgica, no invocó formalmente una base jurídica <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> legis<strong>la</strong>ción<br />
belga o europea <strong>para</strong> este tratamiento particu<strong>la</strong>r. El Grupo <strong>de</strong> Trabajo observa a<strong>de</strong>más que<br />
no es una obligación legal impuesta por <strong>la</strong> legis<strong>la</strong>ción belga o europea <strong>para</strong> esta actividad<br />
concreta <strong>de</strong> tratamiento <strong>de</strong> datos. A<strong>de</strong>más, el Grupo <strong>de</strong> Trabajo ya <strong>de</strong>c<strong>la</strong>ró en su “Dictamen<br />
SOX”3 que “una obligación impuesta por una norma extranjera (…) pue<strong>de</strong> no constituir<br />
una obligación jurídica en virtud <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> cual se legitime el tratamiento <strong>de</strong> datos en <strong>la</strong> UE.<br />
Cualquier otra interpretación facilitaría el que <strong>la</strong>s normas extranjeras bur<strong>la</strong>ran <strong>la</strong>s normas<br />
comunitarias establecidas en <strong>la</strong> Directiva”. El Grupo <strong>de</strong> Trabajo consi<strong>de</strong>ra que este razonamiento<br />
también es totalmente aplicable en este caso.<br />
El artículo 7, letra c, <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Directiva no pue<strong>de</strong> utilizarse por lo tanto <strong>para</strong> justificar el tratamiento<br />
y almacenamiento por duplicado <strong>de</strong> los datos personales en este caso. 6<br />
Aunque más a<strong>de</strong><strong>la</strong>nte volveré a ocuparme <strong>de</strong>l tema al referirme específicamente a <strong>la</strong><br />
base ADAMS, creo conveniente hacer referencia a un aspecto esencial en el tema <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s<br />
transferencias internacionales <strong>de</strong> datos a países no pertenecientes a <strong>la</strong> UE. Al respecto, el<br />
Grupo <strong>de</strong> Trabajo <strong>de</strong>l Artículo 29, en su “Documento <strong>de</strong> Trabajo sobre Transferencias <strong>de</strong><br />
datos personales a terceros países y aplicación <strong>de</strong> los artículos 25 y 26 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Directiva sobre<br />
protección <strong>de</strong> datos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> UE”, WP 12, adoptado el 24 <strong>de</strong> julio <strong>de</strong> 1998 7 , señaló que los<br />
estándares <strong>de</strong> protección que <strong>de</strong>be ofrecer <strong>la</strong> legis<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> un Estado <strong>para</strong> ser consi<strong>de</strong>rado<br />
como “a<strong>de</strong>cuados” han <strong>de</strong> ser calibrados <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> una doble perspectiva: el contenido <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s<br />
normas aplicables a los datos personales y los mecanismos procedimentales existentes <strong>de</strong>stinados<br />
a garantizar <strong>la</strong> eficacia <strong>de</strong> dichas normas.<br />
En lo referente a los principios <strong>de</strong> contenido, se efectúa una distinción entre principios<br />
<strong>de</strong> contenidos básicos y adicionales, siendo estos últimos aplicables a tipos específicos <strong>de</strong><br />
tratamiento.<br />
Se enumeran seis principios básicos:<br />
• Limitación <strong>de</strong> objetivos: los datos <strong>de</strong>ben tratarse con una finalidad específica y posteriormente<br />
utilizarse o transferirse únicamente en cuanto no sea incompatible con <strong>la</strong><br />
finalidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> transferencia, estableciendo como únicas excepciones <strong>la</strong>s contemp<strong>la</strong>das<br />
en el artículo 13 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Directiva 95/46/CE.<br />
• Proporcionalidad y calidad <strong>de</strong> los datos: los datos <strong>de</strong>ben ser exactos y, cuando sea necesario,<br />
estar actualizados así como a<strong>de</strong>cuados, pertinentes y no excesivos con re<strong>la</strong>ción a<br />
<strong>la</strong> finalidad <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> que se transfieren o traten posteriormente.<br />
6 Dictamen 10/2006, <strong>de</strong>l Grupo <strong>de</strong> Trabajo <strong>de</strong>l artículo 29 sobre el tratamiento <strong>de</strong> datos personales<br />
por parte <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Sociedad <strong>de</strong> Telecomunicaciones Financieras Interbancarias Mundiales (Worldwi<strong>de</strong><br />
Interbank Financial Telecommunications-SWIFT) localizable en http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/<br />
privacy/docs/wpdocs/2006/wp128_es.pdf el 13.03.2011<br />
7 Localizable en https://www.agpd.es/portalweb/canaldocumentacion/docu_grupo_trabajo/<br />
wp29/1998/common/pdfs/wp12_es.pdf el 13.03.2011
364 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
• Transparencia: <strong>de</strong>be informarse a los interesados acerca <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> finalidad <strong>de</strong>l tratamiento<br />
y <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> i<strong>de</strong>ntidad <strong>de</strong>l responsable <strong>de</strong>l tratamiento en el país tercero, y <strong>de</strong> cualquier otro<br />
elemento necesario <strong>para</strong> garantizar un tratamiento legítimo, constando como únicas<br />
excepciones <strong>la</strong>s previstas en los artículos 11.2 y 13 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Directiva 95/46/CE.<br />
• Seguridad: el responsable <strong>de</strong>be adoptar <strong>la</strong>s medidas técnicas y organizativas a<strong>de</strong>cuadas<br />
a los riesgos que presente el tratamiento y toda persona que actúe bajo su autoridad,<br />
incluido el encargado, no <strong>de</strong>be tratar los datos salvo bajo sus instrucciones.<br />
• Derechos <strong>de</strong> acceso, rectificación y oposición: el interesado <strong>de</strong>be tener <strong>de</strong>recho a obtener<br />
una copia <strong>de</strong> todos sus datos y a rectificar los inexactos y, en <strong>de</strong>terminadas situaciones,<br />
también <strong>de</strong>be po<strong>de</strong>r oponerse al tratamiento <strong>de</strong> sus datos, constando como únicas<br />
excepciones <strong>la</strong>s previstas en el artículo 26.1 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Directiva 95/46/CE.<br />
• Restricciones respecto a ulteriores transferencias a países terceros: únicamente <strong>de</strong>ben<br />
permitirse en el caso <strong>de</strong> que el país tercero <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>stino garantice asimismo un nivel <strong>de</strong><br />
protección a<strong>de</strong>cuado, constando como únicas excepciones <strong>la</strong>s previstas en el artículo<br />
26.1 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Directiva 95/46/CE.<br />
Los principios adicionales hacen referencia a los siguientes tipos específicos <strong>de</strong> tratamiento:<br />
• Datos sensibles: cuando se trate <strong>de</strong> categorías <strong>de</strong> datos sensibles (recogidos en el artículo<br />
8 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Directiva 95/46/CE, los ya conocidos <strong>de</strong> salud, religión,..), <strong>de</strong>berán establecerse<br />
protecciones adicionales, tales como el consentimiento explícito <strong>de</strong>l interesado.<br />
• Marketing directo: cuando <strong>la</strong> transferencia tenga por objeto el marketing directo, el interesado<br />
<strong>de</strong>berá tener <strong>la</strong> posibilidad <strong>de</strong> negarse a que sus datos sean tratados con dicho<br />
propósito en cualquier momento.<br />
• Decisión individual automatizada: cuando el objetivo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> transferencia sea <strong>la</strong> adopción<br />
<strong>de</strong> una <strong>de</strong>cisión automatizada en el sentido <strong>de</strong>l artículo 15 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Directiva 95/46/<br />
CE, el interesado <strong>de</strong>berá tener <strong>de</strong>recho a conocer <strong>la</strong> lógica aplicada a dicha <strong>de</strong>cisión, y<br />
<strong>de</strong>berán adoptarse otras medidas <strong>para</strong> proteger el interés legítimo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> persona.<br />
Sobre los mecanismos procedimentales: un mecanismo a<strong>de</strong>cuado <strong>de</strong>be ofrecer tanto un<br />
nivel satisfactorio <strong>de</strong> cumplimiento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s normas como un apoyo y asistencia a los interesados<br />
en el ejercicio <strong>de</strong> sus <strong>de</strong>rechos y vías a<strong>de</strong>cuadas <strong>de</strong> recurso a los que resulten perjudicados<br />
en el caso <strong>de</strong> que no se observen <strong>la</strong>s normas.<br />
Aunque más a<strong>de</strong><strong>la</strong>nte, al estudiar <strong>la</strong> base ADAMS y posteriormente en <strong>la</strong>s conclusiones<br />
<strong>de</strong>l presente trabajo, volveré sobre ello, me gustaría mencionar ya que en mi opinión muchos<br />
<strong>de</strong> estos principios son infringidos <strong>de</strong> forma f<strong>la</strong>grante en <strong>la</strong> actividad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> WADA-AMA.<br />
En lo que afecta a <strong>la</strong>s transferencias internacionales <strong>de</strong> datos ya en el campo concreto <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> lucha antidopaje, hay que mencionar el artículo 36 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Ley orgánica 7/2006, <strong>de</strong> 21 <strong>de</strong><br />
noviembre, <strong>de</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> salud y <strong>de</strong> lucha contra el dopaje en el <strong>de</strong>porte (LoPSLDD),<br />
que establece una cláusu<strong>la</strong> general <strong>de</strong> comunicación internacional <strong>de</strong> los datos re<strong>la</strong>tivos a<br />
“los datos y ficheros re<strong>la</strong>tivos a los controles <strong>de</strong> dopaje”, al indicar que los mismos “podrán<br />
ser cedidos, en los términos previstos en <strong>la</strong> Ley orgánica 15/1999, <strong>de</strong> 13 <strong>de</strong> diciembre, <strong>de</strong><br />
Protección <strong>de</strong> Datos <strong>de</strong> Carácter Personal, a los organismos públicos o privados <strong>de</strong> los que
<strong>la</strong> base ADAms <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Agencia mundial Antidopaje. Problemas <strong>de</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos<br />
365<br />
nuestro país sea parte y que participen en <strong>la</strong> lucha contra el dopaje en el ámbito <strong>de</strong>portivo,<br />
en el marco <strong>de</strong> lo que dispongan los compromisos internacionales legalmente vincu<strong>la</strong>ntes<br />
asumidos por España”.<br />
La regu<strong>la</strong>ción establecida por <strong>la</strong> LoPD es c<strong>la</strong>ve en este tema, aunque en <strong>la</strong> actualidad el<br />
tema ha quedado <strong>de</strong>sarrol<strong>la</strong>do por el RD 1720/2007 en su artículo 65: “La transferencia internacional<br />
<strong>de</strong> datos no excluye en ningún caso <strong>la</strong> aplicación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s disposiciones contenidas<br />
en <strong>la</strong> Ley orgánica 15/1999, <strong>de</strong> 13 <strong>de</strong> diciembre, y en el presente reg<strong>la</strong>mento”. reiterando<br />
los criterios expuestos en un documento tan antiguo como <strong>la</strong> Norma segunda <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Instrucción<br />
1/2000, <strong>de</strong> 1 <strong>de</strong> diciembre, <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> AEPD, re<strong>la</strong>tiva al movimiento internacional <strong>de</strong> datos,<br />
“<strong>la</strong> transferencia internacional <strong>de</strong> datos no excluye <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> aplicación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s disposiciones contenidas<br />
en <strong>la</strong> Ley orgánica 15/1999, conforme a su ámbito <strong>de</strong> aplicación, correspondiendo a<br />
<strong>la</strong> Agencia <strong>de</strong> Protección <strong>de</strong> Datos <strong>la</strong> competencia <strong>para</strong> verificar su cumplimiento”. De ello<br />
cabe extraer que únicamente podrían ser objeto <strong>de</strong> transferencia internacional <strong>de</strong> datos los<br />
datos y ficheros que también podrían serlo en caso <strong>de</strong> tratarse <strong>de</strong> una transferencia <strong>de</strong>ntro<br />
<strong>de</strong>l territorio nacional. Eso supone que sólo podrían realizarse transferencias en el marco y<br />
<strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> finalidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> lucha contra el dopaje, y afectando a datos exactos y actualizados y que<br />
no hubieran sido objeto <strong>de</strong> cance<strong>la</strong>ción. Si <strong>la</strong> LoPD impusiera al responsable <strong>de</strong>l fichero el<br />
<strong>de</strong>ber <strong>de</strong> cance<strong>la</strong>r los datos, <strong>de</strong>bería proce<strong>de</strong>rse a <strong>la</strong> cance<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> los mismos por parte <strong>de</strong>l<br />
cesionario, en este caso también importador <strong>de</strong> los datos.<br />
Referente a los compromisos internacionales, es primordial tener en cuenta si se trata<br />
<strong>de</strong> acuerdos realmente vincu<strong>la</strong>ntes. Este <strong>de</strong>talle es importante ya que <strong>la</strong> transferencia internacional<br />
<strong>de</strong> datos sin contar con <strong>la</strong> necesaria autorización <strong>de</strong>l Director <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Agencia sólo<br />
sería posible, siguiendo el artículo 34 a) LoPD cuando <strong>la</strong> misma resulte “<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> aplicación<br />
<strong>de</strong> tratados o convenios en los que sea parte España”. La AEPD, en su informe respecto al<br />
Anteproyecto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> LoPSLDD, ya hizo notar que el Código Mundial Antidopaje carece <strong>de</strong><br />
ese carácter vincu<strong>la</strong>nte.<br />
Quizás convenga hacer una breve referencia a <strong>la</strong> situación previa a <strong>la</strong> entrada en vigor el<br />
1 <strong>de</strong> febrero <strong>de</strong> 2007 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Convención Internacional contra el Dopaje en el Deporte <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
UNESCo. En esa situación <strong>la</strong> AEPD emitió un informe al respecto el 29 <strong>de</strong> junio <strong>de</strong> 2006<br />
en re<strong>la</strong>ción con un supuesto muy concreto: <strong>la</strong> transmisión por el Consejo Superior <strong>de</strong> Deportes<br />
a <strong>la</strong>s autorida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong>portivas <strong>de</strong> un Estado miembro <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión Europea y parte <strong>de</strong>l<br />
Convenio 135 <strong>de</strong>l Consejo <strong>de</strong> Europa <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>terminados datos re<strong>la</strong>cionados con <strong>la</strong>s investigaciones<br />
llevadas a cabo por <strong>la</strong>s Fuerzas y Cuerpos <strong>de</strong> Seguridad <strong>de</strong>l Estado en re<strong>la</strong>ción con el<br />
posible consumo <strong>de</strong> sustancias dopantes por <strong>de</strong>terminados <strong>de</strong>portistas. La consulta se refería<br />
a “<strong>la</strong> proce<strong>de</strong>ncia o no <strong>de</strong> adoptar medidas <strong>de</strong> cooperación internacional (con el Estado <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>de</strong>stino) encaminadas a <strong>la</strong> erradicación <strong>de</strong>l dopaje en el <strong>de</strong>porte consistentes en remitirles<br />
<strong>la</strong> información re<strong>la</strong>tiva a posibles infracciones a <strong>la</strong> disciplina <strong>de</strong>portiva en esta materia”. El<br />
informe resaltaba lo siguiente:<br />
“En materia <strong>de</strong> lucha contra el dopaje en el <strong>de</strong>porte resulta <strong>de</strong> aplicación lo dispuesto en el<br />
Convenio núm. 135 <strong>de</strong>l Consejo <strong>de</strong> Europa, <strong>de</strong> 16 <strong>de</strong> noviembre <strong>de</strong> 1989, contra el dopaje,<br />
ratificado por España por instrumento <strong>de</strong> 29 <strong>de</strong> abril <strong>de</strong> 1992.
366 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
El artículo 8.1 <strong>de</strong>l citado Convenio establece que” Las partes cooperarán estrechamente en<br />
los ámbitos a que se refiere el presente Convenio y fomentarán una cooperación análoga<br />
entre sus organizaciones <strong>de</strong>portivas”. Asimismo, el artículo 8..c), analizado por esta Agencia<br />
en su informe <strong>de</strong> 25 <strong>de</strong> octubre <strong>de</strong> 2005, ya citado, dispone que “Las Partes se comprometen<br />
a (…)establecer una cooperación bi<strong>la</strong>teral y multi<strong>la</strong>teral entre sus organismos, autorida<strong>de</strong>s<br />
y organizaciones competentes, con el fin <strong>de</strong> alcanzar, incluso en el p<strong>la</strong>no internacional, los<br />
objetivos enunciados en el artículo 4.1”.<br />
En citado artículo 4.1 establece que “Las partes adoptarán, según los casos, disposiciones<br />
legis<strong>la</strong>tivas y reg<strong>la</strong>mentarias o medidas administrativas <strong>para</strong> <strong>red</strong>ucir <strong>la</strong> disponibilidad (y, en<br />
particu<strong>la</strong>r, disposiciones encaminadas a contro<strong>la</strong>r <strong>la</strong> circu<strong>la</strong>ción, <strong>la</strong> tenencia, <strong>la</strong> importación,<br />
<strong>la</strong> distribución y <strong>la</strong> venta) así como <strong>la</strong> utilización en el <strong>de</strong>porte <strong>de</strong> agentes <strong>de</strong> dopaje y <strong>de</strong><br />
métodos <strong>de</strong> dopaje prohibidos y, en particu<strong>la</strong>r, <strong>de</strong> esteroi<strong>de</strong>s anabolizantes”.<br />
De este modo, en <strong>la</strong> medida en que <strong>la</strong> transmisión <strong>de</strong> datos a <strong>la</strong> que se refiere <strong>la</strong> consulta permitiera<br />
el cumplimiento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s finalida<strong>de</strong>s citadas en el artículo 4.1 que acaba <strong>de</strong> ser objeto<br />
<strong>de</strong> reproducción, entre <strong>la</strong>s que se encuentra “<strong>red</strong>ucir <strong>la</strong> utilización en el <strong>de</strong>porte <strong>de</strong> agentes<br />
<strong>de</strong> dopaje y <strong>de</strong> métodos <strong>de</strong> dopaje”, <strong>la</strong> adopción <strong>de</strong> medidas <strong>de</strong> cooperación bi<strong>la</strong>teral <strong>para</strong><br />
el logro <strong>de</strong> dicho fin encontraría encaje en lo dispuesto en el artículo 8.2 c) <strong>de</strong>l Convenio<br />
135 <strong>de</strong>l Consejo <strong>de</strong> Europa, existiendo en consecuencia una norma con rango suficiente que<br />
otorgaría, en dicho supuesto, cobertura a <strong>la</strong> cesión p<strong>la</strong>nteada, haciendo <strong>la</strong> misma posible”.<br />
De todas maneras, hay que recalcar que el informe hace referencia a <strong>la</strong>s transferencias<br />
<strong>de</strong> datos entre Administraciones Públicas <strong>de</strong> los Estados exportador e importador <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
información. Por lo tanto no cabe consi<strong>de</strong>rar que lo aquí expuesto se pudiera aplicar a <strong>la</strong>s<br />
comunicaciones entre <strong>la</strong>s mencionadas Administraciones y <strong>la</strong>s fe<strong>de</strong>raciones <strong>de</strong>portivas internacionales,<br />
o <strong>la</strong>s realizadas entre diferentes fe<strong>de</strong>raciones. Tampoco se pue<strong>de</strong> incluir a <strong>la</strong>s<br />
organizaciones internacionales como <strong>la</strong> WADA-AMA.<br />
Después <strong>de</strong> esta referencia al pasado, hay que mencionar lo regu<strong>la</strong>do por <strong>la</strong> Convención<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> UNESCo ya citada. En su artículo 3 b) establece el <strong>de</strong>ber <strong>de</strong> los Estados <strong>de</strong> “promover <strong>la</strong><br />
cooperación internacional entre los Estados Parte y <strong>la</strong>s principales organizaciones encargadas <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> lucha contra el dopaje en el <strong>de</strong>porte, en particu<strong>la</strong>r <strong>la</strong> Agencia Mundial Antidopaje”, añadiendo<br />
específicamente el artículo 14 que “los Estados Parte se comprometen a prestar apoyo al importante<br />
contenido <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Agencia Mundial Antidopaje en <strong>la</strong> lucha internacional contra el dopaje”.<br />
El artículo 16 impone asimismo a los Estados los <strong>de</strong>beres <strong>de</strong> “facilitar <strong>la</strong> tarea <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
Agencia Mundial Antidopaje y otras organizaciones antidopaje que actúan <strong>de</strong> conformidad<br />
con el Código, a reserva <strong>de</strong> los reg<strong>la</strong>mentos pertinentes <strong>de</strong> los países anfitriones, en <strong>la</strong> ejecución<br />
<strong>de</strong> los controles a sus <strong>de</strong>portistas, durante <strong>la</strong>s competiciones o fuera <strong>de</strong> el<strong>la</strong>s, ya sea en su<br />
territorio o en <strong>otros</strong> lugares”, “alentar y apoyar los acuerdos <strong>de</strong> controles recíprocos entre <strong>la</strong>s<br />
organizaciones antidopaje <strong>de</strong>signadas, <strong>de</strong> conformidad con el Código” y “reconocer mutuamente<br />
los procedimientos <strong>de</strong> control <strong>de</strong>l dopaje <strong>de</strong> toda organización antidopaje y <strong>la</strong> gestión<br />
<strong>de</strong> los resultados <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s pruebas clínicas, incluidas <strong>la</strong>s sanciones <strong>de</strong>portivas correspondientes,<br />
que sean conformes con el Código”.<br />
A continuación pasaré a estudiar los posibles problemas que p<strong>la</strong>ntea <strong>la</strong> transferencia <strong>de</strong><br />
datos a <strong>la</strong> base ADAMS con se<strong>de</strong> en Montreal, Canadá. Como ya hemos visto anteriormente,
<strong>la</strong> base ADAms <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Agencia mundial Antidopaje. Problemas <strong>de</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos<br />
367<br />
<strong>la</strong> cuestión sobre si es o no aceptable que se transfieran datos personales a esta base <strong>de</strong> datos<br />
<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong> si el nivel protección ofrecido en Canadá es a<strong>de</strong>cuado. Aunque el tema podría<br />
parecer fácil <strong>de</strong> resolver, no es así. Tan sólo existe una <strong>de</strong>cisión <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comisión Europea referente<br />
a <strong>la</strong> a<strong>de</strong>cuación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> los datos personales conferida por <strong>la</strong> ley canadiense<br />
Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) 8 , <strong>de</strong>biendo hacerse<br />
notar que esta ley sólo es aplicable a entida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong>l sector privado que recojan, utilicen o<br />
divulguen datos personales en el transcurso <strong>de</strong> sus activida<strong>de</strong>s económicas. De acuerdo con<br />
el Standard <strong>de</strong> Privacidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> WADA, <strong>la</strong> información privada referente a los <strong>de</strong>portistas y<br />
a sus co<strong>la</strong>boradores será contro<strong>la</strong>da por <strong>la</strong> WADA, que será supervisada por <strong>la</strong>s autorida<strong>de</strong>s<br />
canadienses <strong>de</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos, siendo estas últimas únicamente mencionadas <strong>de</strong> forma<br />
genérica, sin especificar <strong>de</strong> qué autorida<strong>de</strong>s se trata.<br />
Como ya he mencionado anteriormente, <strong>la</strong> WADA-AMA es una fundación in<strong>de</strong>pendiente<br />
sujeta al <strong>de</strong>recho suizo, con lo cual queda fuera <strong>de</strong>l ámbito <strong>de</strong> aplicación <strong>de</strong> PIPEDA.<br />
Como ha <strong>de</strong>stacado el Grupo <strong>de</strong> Trabajo <strong>de</strong>l artículo 299 , no existe información respecto a<br />
posibles transferencias <strong>de</strong> datos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> WADA-AMA a otras entida<strong>de</strong>s que posiblemente sí<br />
estuvieran <strong>de</strong>ntro <strong>de</strong> ese ámbito <strong>de</strong> aplicación. El ya mencionado Grupo <strong>de</strong> Trabajo hace referencia<br />
en su documento a una carta con fecha 10.11.2008 enviada por el Canadian Privacy<br />
Commissioner en el que se les informa <strong>de</strong> que <strong>de</strong> acuerdo con el análisis <strong>de</strong> esta última entidad,<br />
los criterios <strong>de</strong> PIPEDA no son aplicables a <strong>la</strong> WADA-AMA, ya que sus activida<strong>de</strong>s no<br />
son <strong>de</strong> tipo económico. En esa misma carta se informa <strong>de</strong> que PIPEDA es aplicable a CGI,<br />
una empresa con <strong>la</strong> que <strong>la</strong> WADA-AMA ha llegado a un acuerdo <strong>para</strong> el mantenimiento <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> base ADAMS. De todas formas, no creo que <strong>la</strong> existencia <strong>de</strong> este acuerdo sea suficiente<br />
<strong>para</strong> consi<strong>de</strong>rar el nivel <strong>de</strong> protección como a<strong>de</strong>cuado, con el agravante que supone el que<br />
los términos <strong>de</strong> ese posible acuerdo no son conocidos. En resumen, <strong>de</strong> acuerdo con <strong>la</strong> información<br />
obtenida <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s autorida<strong>de</strong>s canadienses <strong>de</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos, no es posible<br />
afirmar si los criterios <strong>de</strong> PIPEDA son aplicables a <strong>la</strong> WADA-AMA y a <strong>la</strong> base ADAMS y,<br />
en consecuencia, no es posible afirmar si el nivel <strong>de</strong> protección ofrecido es a<strong>de</strong>cuado o no.<br />
El Grupo <strong>de</strong> Trabajo <strong>de</strong>l artículo 29 realiza algunas reflexiones sobre el hecho <strong>de</strong> que el<br />
uso <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> base ADAMS no es obligatorio, pero sí lo es el intercambio <strong>de</strong> datos entre <strong>la</strong>s diversas<br />
entida<strong>de</strong>s implicadas en <strong>la</strong> lucha antidopaje y <strong>la</strong> disponibilidad <strong>de</strong> los datos <strong>para</strong> todas <strong>la</strong>s<br />
mencionadas entida<strong>de</strong>s implicadas en un <strong>de</strong>terminado caso. Eso supondría <strong>la</strong> existencia <strong>de</strong><br />
problemas adicionales, si recordamos los principios mencionados anteriormente aplicables<br />
a <strong>la</strong>s transferencias internacionales <strong>de</strong> datos, supondría convertir <strong>la</strong>s excepciones en <strong>la</strong> reg<strong>la</strong><br />
habitual, o cual no pue<strong>de</strong> ser nunca un criterio a<strong>de</strong>cuado en un tema tan <strong>de</strong>licado.<br />
8 https://www.agpd.es/portalweb/canaldocumentacion/legis<strong>la</strong>cion/union_europea/<strong>de</strong>cisiones/common/pdfs/B.13-cp--Decisi-oo-n--sobre-<strong>la</strong>-a<strong>de</strong>cuaci-oo-n-<strong>de</strong>-<strong>la</strong>-ley-canadiense.pdf<br />
04.04.2011.<br />
localizable el<br />
9 https://www.agpd.es/portalweb/canaldocumentacion/docu_grupo_trabajo/wp29/2009/common/<br />
wp162_en.pdf localizable el 11.05.2011.
368 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
4. conclusiones<br />
1. El problema <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s localizaciones. La regu<strong>la</strong>ción actual me parece absolutamente <strong>de</strong>sproporcionada<br />
en varios aspectos:<br />
• El tener que estar localizable todos los días <strong>de</strong>l año y en una franja horaria equivalente, o<br />
al menos cercana, a una jornada <strong>de</strong> trabajo es totalmente <strong>de</strong>sproporcionado y <strong>de</strong> hecho<br />
pue<strong>de</strong> que incluso contraproducente <strong>para</strong> el fin perseguido. Po<strong>de</strong>mos estar seguros que<br />
<strong>la</strong> mayor parte <strong>de</strong>l trabajo en los <strong>la</strong>boratorios que producen sustancias dopantes se está<br />
orientando a <strong>la</strong> producción <strong>de</strong> sustancias in<strong>de</strong>tectables que enmascaren otras sustancias<br />
dopantes. La franja horaria libre, entre <strong>la</strong>s 23 y <strong>la</strong>s 6h es ina<strong>de</strong>cuada, especialmente si<br />
se tiene como objetivo proteger <strong>la</strong> salud <strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>portistas, como ya he mencionado <strong>la</strong><br />
regeneración es esencia. Este aspecto se ve agravado en <strong>de</strong>portes como el tenis, don<strong>de</strong><br />
los <strong>de</strong>portistas <strong>de</strong> élite llegan a competir 35 semanas al año. Algunos <strong>de</strong>portistas como<br />
<strong>la</strong> heptatleta Carolina Kluft10 han consi<strong>de</strong>rado <strong>la</strong> posibilidad <strong>de</strong> llevar un chip <strong>de</strong> localización<br />
como el <strong>de</strong> los perros <strong>para</strong> estar seguros <strong>de</strong> estar siempre localizables, pue<strong>de</strong> ser<br />
consi<strong>de</strong>rado una exageración o una provocación, pero refleja <strong>la</strong> situación actual.<br />
• Combinado con el punto anterior, hay que recordar que el no estar localizable tres<br />
veces en un p<strong>la</strong>zo <strong>de</strong> 18 meses cuenta como un positivo. A<strong>de</strong>más <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> exageración<br />
que supone y <strong>la</strong> tensión que origina (recuerdo <strong>de</strong> nuevo lo <strong>de</strong>l chip), comprensible<br />
ya que el período <strong>de</strong> 18 meses no es especialmente <strong>la</strong>rgo si se recuerda que hay que<br />
estar localizable cada día, vulnera <strong>la</strong> presunción <strong>de</strong> inocencia. Cabe mencionar que el<br />
19 <strong>de</strong> diciembre <strong>de</strong> 2009 un tribunal <strong>de</strong> primera instancia <strong>de</strong> Bruse<strong>la</strong>s11 suspendió <strong>la</strong>s<br />
sanciones impuestas a Xavier Malisse y a Yanina Wickmayer por no haber cumplido <strong>la</strong><br />
normativa <strong>de</strong> localizaciones.<br />
• El actual sistema no sólo atenta contra el <strong>de</strong>recho fundamental a <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos,<br />
sino <strong>de</strong> forma c<strong>la</strong>ra contra el <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> intimidad. A este respecto se pronunció <strong>la</strong><br />
Audiencia Nacional en Sentencia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Sa<strong>la</strong> 4ª, <strong>de</strong> 8 <strong>de</strong> octubre <strong>de</strong> 2007, referente al<br />
Código UCI, consi<strong>de</strong>rando como <strong>la</strong> ilegitimidad más grave <strong>la</strong> vulneración <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho<br />
a <strong>la</strong> intimidad <strong>de</strong> los cor<strong>red</strong>ores, aplicando una razonamiento que es c<strong>la</strong>ramente aplicable<br />
al Código Mundial Antidopaje: “ejercer una vigi<strong>la</strong>ncia absoluta, total, casi obsesiva,<br />
sobre <strong>la</strong> práctica totalidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s vertientes <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> vida <strong>de</strong> los ciclistas, tanto en su aspecto<br />
espacial (dón<strong>de</strong> están), cuanto en el temporal (cuándo están), cómo en el <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> actividad<br />
(qué hacen y con quien)”. Si bien hay que reconocer que el actual Código <strong>de</strong>ja una franja<br />
horaria indisponible, aunque también es un cambio que se realizó en su momento <strong>para</strong><br />
mostrar un mínimo <strong>de</strong> compresión a <strong>la</strong>s quejas <strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>portistas..<br />
10 http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo<strong>de</strong>porte/2008/01/03/mas<strong>de</strong>porte/1199352171.html<br />
disponible el 20.05.2011.<br />
11 Sentencia mencionada en este documento http://jurispru<strong>de</strong>nce.tas-cas.org/sites/Case-<br />
Law/Sha<strong>red</strong>%20Documents/2014.pdf disponible el 20.05.2011.
<strong>la</strong> base ADAms <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Agencia mundial Antidopaje. Problemas <strong>de</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos<br />
369<br />
2. En cuanto a <strong>la</strong>s transferencias internacionales <strong>de</strong> datos, me parece evi<strong>de</strong>nte que <strong>la</strong> situación<br />
actual es insostenible. Se realizan esas transferencias a una base <strong>de</strong> datos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> que<br />
no se conoce el verda<strong>de</strong>ro nivel <strong>de</strong> a<strong>de</strong>cuación en cuanto a criterios <strong>de</strong> protección <strong>de</strong><br />
datos, el único fundamento <strong>para</strong> esas transferencias es un consentimiento insuficiente<br />
y otorgado bajo presión <strong>de</strong> no po<strong>de</strong>r ejercer <strong>la</strong> profesión habitual en caso <strong>de</strong> no aceptar<br />
<strong>la</strong>s condiciones. Sería imprescindible concretar el nivel <strong>de</strong> a<strong>de</strong>cuación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> base<br />
ADAMS, o mejor dicho <strong>de</strong> Canadá, y dotar <strong>de</strong> fundamento legal a <strong>la</strong>s transferencias<br />
internacionales <strong>de</strong> datos por medio <strong>de</strong> un acuerdo contractual, como ha recomendado<br />
el Grupo <strong>de</strong> Trabajo <strong>de</strong>l artículo 29.<br />
3. La base ADAMS p<strong>la</strong>ntea diferentes problemas, aparte <strong>de</strong> los ya mencionados, los principales<br />
son:<br />
• Pese a <strong>la</strong>s afirmaciones <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> WADA-AMA referentes a los períodos <strong>de</strong> conservación <strong>de</strong><br />
los datos, éstos se conservan por tiempo in<strong>de</strong>finido o, mejor dicho, mientras <strong>la</strong> mencionada<br />
entidad los consi<strong>de</strong>re útiles. Me parece necesario recordar que, en lo que afecta<br />
a <strong>la</strong>s localizaciones, esa práctica es ilegal en base a <strong>la</strong> normativa europea <strong>de</strong> protección<br />
<strong>de</strong> datos. Una localización nunca <strong>de</strong>bería ser almacenada, ya que con cada minuto<br />
que pasa va perdiendo vali<strong>de</strong>z. La explicación que aporta <strong>la</strong> WADA-AMA es que si se<br />
producen tres localizaciones erróneas en 18 meses, eso supone un positivo. No creo<br />
que sea necesario profundizar <strong>de</strong>masiado en el tema, en mi opinión es evi<strong>de</strong>nte que ese<br />
razonamiento sería una explicación válida <strong>para</strong> guardar los datos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s localizaciones<br />
erróneas, pero no <strong>para</strong> hacerlo con todas <strong>la</strong>s localizaciones aportadas en ese período<br />
• Se conservan todos los datos, controles positivos y negativos, localizaciones y todo tipo<br />
<strong>de</strong> análisis.<br />
• Las entida<strong>de</strong>s antidopaje que tienen un interés puntual en <strong>la</strong> actividad <strong>de</strong> un <strong>de</strong>portista,<br />
pue<strong>de</strong>n acce<strong>de</strong>r a todos los datos <strong>de</strong>l mismo y no sólo a los que les serían <strong>de</strong> utilidad,<br />
como <strong>de</strong>bería ser.<br />
• Cualquier persona con acceso a <strong>la</strong> base ADAMS tiene acceso a toda <strong>la</strong> información allí<br />
registrada.<br />
• No se mencionan, y en consecuencia tampoco se respetan, los <strong>de</strong>rechos <strong>de</strong> acceso, cance<strong>la</strong>ción,<br />
rectificación y oposición.<br />
• No existe constancia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s medidas <strong>de</strong> seguridad aplicadas a esta base <strong>de</strong> datos. Cabe<br />
recordar que <strong>de</strong>berían ser <strong>de</strong>l máximo nivel, por tratar datos <strong>de</strong> salud.<br />
5. bibliografÍa<br />
Cazor<strong>la</strong> Prieto, L. M., & Palomar olmeda, A. (. (2007). Comentarios a <strong>la</strong> Ley Antidopaje<br />
en el Deporte. Editorial Aranzadi, S.A.<br />
Esta<strong>de</strong>l<strong>la</strong> Yuste, o. (1995). La protección <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> intimidad frente a <strong>la</strong> transmisión<br />
internacional <strong>de</strong> datos personales. Madrid: Editorial Tecnos, S.A.
370 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
Martínez Martínez, R. (2004). Una aproximación crítica a <strong>la</strong> auto<strong>de</strong>terminación informativa.<br />
Madrid: Civitas Ediciones, S.L.<br />
Molina Navarrete, C. (2009). Nadal lleva razón, <strong>la</strong> “AMA” se extralimita en su control antidopaje:<br />
El <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> intimidad <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>porte profesional autónomo. Revista Aranzadi<br />
<strong>de</strong> Derecho <strong>de</strong>l Deporte y el Entretenimiento , 43-64.<br />
Murillo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Cueva, P. L., & Piñar Mañas, J. L. (2009). El <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> auto<strong>de</strong>terminación<br />
informativa. Madrid: Fundación Coloquio Jurídico Europeo.<br />
Palomar olmeda, A., & González-Espejo, P. (. (2008). Comentario al Reg<strong>la</strong>mento <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>sarrollo<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Ley Orgánica 15/1999, <strong>de</strong> 13 <strong>de</strong> diciembre, <strong>de</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos <strong>de</strong> carácter<br />
personal(aprobado por RD 1720/2007, <strong>de</strong> 21 <strong>de</strong> diciembre). Aranzadi, S.A.
20<br />
el DereCHO Al OlVIDO eN INterNet<br />
Ramón M. orza Linares<br />
Profesor Contratado Doctor <strong>de</strong> Derecho constitucional. Universidad <strong>de</strong> Granada<br />
Susana Ruiz Tarrías<br />
Profesora Contratada Doctora <strong>de</strong> Derecho constitucional. Universidad <strong>de</strong> Almería<br />
AbstrAct: El acelerado <strong>de</strong>sarrollo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información y <strong>la</strong> creciente complejidad técnica<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s tecnologías asociadas a su <strong>de</strong>sarrollo p<strong>la</strong>ntean nuevos <strong>retos</strong> en nuestras socieda<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong>mocráticas.<br />
Estos nuevos <strong>retos</strong> aparecen en dos líneas re<strong>la</strong>tivamente convergentes: por un <strong>la</strong>do, es necesario <strong>la</strong><br />
re<strong>de</strong>finición <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>rechos tradicionalmente construidos entre nos<strong>otros</strong>, sobre todo en lo que se refiere<br />
a los <strong>de</strong>rechos re<strong>la</strong>cionados con <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión o el <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> información y su posibles<br />
conflictos con el <strong>de</strong>recho al honor, a <strong>la</strong> intimidad personal o a <strong>la</strong> propia imagen; y, por otro, como<br />
respuesta a nuevos peligros que amenacen <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> los ciudadanos, es necesario <strong>la</strong> creación <strong>de</strong><br />
nuevos <strong>de</strong>rechos que <strong>la</strong> sigan garantizando, como el <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido.<br />
Este problema, ligado a <strong>la</strong> expansión <strong>de</strong> internet y, en especial <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s sociales, por lo tanto, afecta,<br />
como mínimo, a <strong>la</strong>s personas individuales citadas, a <strong>la</strong>s empresas (por ejemplos, editoras <strong>de</strong> periódicos),<br />
instituciones o personas individuales que han generado <strong>la</strong> información y a los buscadores <strong>de</strong><br />
internet que rastrean <strong>la</strong>s páginas web y almacenan su contenido in<strong>de</strong>xado, guardándolos en ocasiones<br />
durante un di<strong>la</strong>tado periodo <strong>de</strong> tiempo. Problema que existe incluso cuándo es el propio interesado el<br />
que suministra o publica información personal.<br />
Finalmente, se reseñan los intentos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Agencia Españo<strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> Protección <strong>de</strong> Datos <strong>para</strong> dar contenido<br />
a este <strong>de</strong>recho y <strong>la</strong>s respuestas que se p<strong>la</strong>ntean en re<strong>la</strong>ción con el <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión<br />
Europea.<br />
pAlAbrAs clAve: Internet, <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido, <strong>de</strong>rechos fundamentales, datos personales, <strong>de</strong>recho<br />
a <strong>la</strong> información, buscadores, Directiva 95/46/CE, Unión Europea, Constitución, nuevas tecnologías,<br />
privacidad, TIC’s.<br />
1. introducción<br />
Cuando hab<strong>la</strong>mos <strong>de</strong>l “<strong>de</strong>recho al olvido” es inevitable no recordar el siniestro Ministerio<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Verdad en el que trabajaba Winston Smith en <strong>la</strong> conocida nove<strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> George orwell1 .<br />
Ante <strong>la</strong> persistencia <strong>de</strong>l pasado, en el Departamento <strong>de</strong>l Registro en el que trabajaba<br />
el protagonista, se buscaba minuciosamente toda huel<strong>la</strong> documental anterior <strong>para</strong> que, al<br />
reescribir<strong>la</strong>, a través <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>licadas tareas <strong>de</strong> falsificación, quedara <strong>de</strong>bidamente alterado el<br />
presente.<br />
1 oRWELL, G. (1949) 1984. 1ª edición 1952, Barcelona: Ed. P<strong>la</strong>neta.
372 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
En <strong>la</strong> era <strong>de</strong> Internet también nos preocupa <strong>la</strong> persistencia <strong>de</strong>l pasado. Pero creemos<br />
que <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> una perspectiva radicalmente diferente. Así, si en <strong>la</strong> nove<strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> orwell toda esa<br />
ingente tarea se ponía al servicio <strong>de</strong>l Gran Hermano y <strong>de</strong> su po<strong>de</strong>r, nuestra intención es precisamente<br />
establecer y consolidar mecanismos jurídicos que permitan seguir garantizando <strong>la</strong><br />
libertad <strong>de</strong> los ciudadanos en una sociedad <strong>de</strong>mocrática.<br />
De hecho, cuando una <strong>de</strong>terminada información, que afecta a una persona concreta, es<br />
recogida en una página web, <strong>la</strong> información allí incluida pue<strong>de</strong> ser replicada en otras páginas<br />
webs, en los índices <strong>de</strong> los buscadores e, incluso, en páginas web <strong>de</strong> repositorios que tienen<br />
como finalidad guardar lo que alguna vez se ha publicado en internet, aunque haya <strong>de</strong>saparecido<br />
<strong>la</strong> página web original 2 .<br />
Este es un problema que no sólo afecta a <strong>la</strong>s personas individuales citadas, sino también<br />
a <strong>la</strong>s empresas (por ejemplo, editoras <strong>de</strong> periódicos), instituciones o personas individuales<br />
que han generado <strong>la</strong> información y a los buscadores que rastrean <strong>la</strong>s páginas web y almacenan<br />
su contenido in<strong>de</strong>xado, guardándolo –y poniéndolo a disposición <strong>de</strong> todos– en ocasiones<br />
durante un di<strong>la</strong>tado periodo <strong>de</strong> tiempo.<br />
Por poner un único ejemplo, muchos <strong>de</strong> los periódicos tradicionalmente editados en<br />
papel, y que ahora también están presentes en internet, han volcado sus hemerotecas históricas<br />
en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>, por lo que en este momento es perfectamente posible, con <strong>la</strong> ayuda <strong>de</strong> los<br />
buscadores, encontrar noticias que afectan a personas concretas, incluso <strong>de</strong> muchos años<br />
atrás. Con el inconveniente <strong>de</strong> que al ser estas noticias antiguas, no suelen estar actualizadas,<br />
por lo que pue<strong>de</strong>n contener <strong>de</strong>talles o aspectos que se han quedado obsoletos o que,<br />
simplemente, eran erróneos e inexactos ya cuando se publicaron 3 . Pero, sin embargo, al ser<br />
recuperados por los buscadores, aparecen registrados <strong>de</strong> manera inmediata, poniéndolos <strong>de</strong><br />
nuevo <strong>de</strong> actualidad.<br />
Como en tantas otras ocasiones, este no es un problema que no haya sido abordado<br />
por <strong>la</strong>s legis<strong>la</strong>ciones con anterioridad. De hecho, en todos los países existen normas sobre <strong>la</strong><br />
prescripción <strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>litos, sobre <strong>la</strong> cance<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> antece<strong>de</strong>ntes penales que constan en los<br />
Registros Públicos o sobre <strong>la</strong> cance<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> informaciones sobre aspectos económicos que<br />
pudieran afectar a <strong>la</strong>s personas (quiebras, insolvencias, etc.). De hecho, es posible encontrar<br />
resoluciones jurisdiccionales en diversos países sobre el «<strong>de</strong>recho al olvido», sobre todo en lo<br />
atinente a cuestiones penales 4 .<br />
2 Es el caso <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> página http://www.archive.org/in<strong>de</strong>x.php que ha llegado a archivar billones <strong>de</strong> páginas<br />
webs que ya han <strong>de</strong>jado <strong>de</strong> estar operativas o http://groups.google.com/ que almacena millones <strong>de</strong><br />
mensajes expuestos en los grupos <strong>de</strong> noticias/discusión <strong>de</strong> Usenet [Consulta: 10 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011].<br />
3 Piénsese por ejemplo, en <strong>la</strong> cantidad <strong>de</strong> informaciones que suelen recoger los diarios sobre <strong>de</strong>tenciones<br />
<strong>de</strong> presuntos <strong>de</strong>lincuentes que, años más tar<strong>de</strong>, tras los correspondientes procesos judiciales,<br />
pue<strong>de</strong>n quedar exentos <strong>de</strong> toda responsabilidad penal. La noticia suele recoger el momento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
<strong>de</strong>tención policial, pero es raro que se actualice años más tar<strong>de</strong> con el resultado <strong>de</strong> los procedimientos<br />
jurisdiccionales.<br />
4 Cfr. PACE, A. (1998) «El <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> propia imagen en <strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong> los mass media» Revista Españo<strong>la</strong><br />
<strong>de</strong> Derecho Constitucional, núm. 52, pags. 33-52. En especial, <strong>la</strong> pág. 48 y <strong>la</strong> nota núm. 50. No
el <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido en Internet<br />
373<br />
De hecho, en el contexto europeo ha sido creciente <strong>la</strong> preocupación por <strong>la</strong> protección<br />
<strong>de</strong> datos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s personas físicas en re<strong>la</strong>ción con los ficheros automatizados y <strong>la</strong> divulgación <strong>de</strong><br />
estos datos a través <strong>de</strong> Internet. Y, aunque no ha existido hasta ahora una regu<strong>la</strong>ción específica<br />
<strong>para</strong> garantizar que <strong>la</strong>s informaciones publicadas en internet puedan suponer perjuicios<br />
<strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> vida <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s personas, es cierto que, en parte, se pue<strong>de</strong>n aplicar a estas informaciones<br />
<strong>la</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción garantista presente en <strong>la</strong>s legis<strong>la</strong>ciones sobre protección <strong>de</strong> datos personales.<br />
La base actual <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> casi todas <strong>la</strong>s legis<strong>la</strong>ciones europeas <strong>la</strong> proporciona<br />
el contenido <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Directiva 95/46/CE, <strong>de</strong>l Par<strong>la</strong>mento Europeo y <strong>de</strong>l Consejo, <strong>de</strong> 24 <strong>de</strong><br />
octubre <strong>de</strong> 1995, re<strong>la</strong>tiva a <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s personas físicas en lo que respecta al<br />
tratamiento <strong>de</strong> datos personales y a <strong>la</strong> libre circu<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> estos datos 5 .<br />
No obstante, el marco jurídico europeo ha resultado profundamente transformado más<br />
recientemente en re<strong>la</strong>ción con <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>rechos fundamentales con <strong>la</strong> entrada<br />
en vigor <strong>de</strong>l Tratado <strong>de</strong> Lisboa 6 y <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Carta <strong>de</strong> los Derechos Fundamentales <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión<br />
Europea 7 . Esta última, en su artículo 8 reconoce como <strong>de</strong>recho autónomo el <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong><br />
protección <strong>de</strong> datos <strong>de</strong> carácter personal, afirmando que “toda persona tiene <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong><br />
protección <strong>de</strong> los datos <strong>de</strong> carácter personal que le conciernan” (apartado 1); que estos datos<br />
“se tratarán <strong>de</strong> modo leal, <strong>para</strong> fines conc<strong>retos</strong> y sobre <strong>la</strong> base <strong>de</strong>l consentimiento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> persona<br />
afectada o en virtud <strong>de</strong> otro fundamento legítimo previsto por <strong>la</strong> ley”, y que toda persona<br />
tiene <strong>de</strong>recho “a acce<strong>de</strong>r a los datos recogidos que le conciernan y a obtener su rectificación”<br />
(apartado 2).<br />
Pero este reconocimiento expreso en el or<strong>de</strong>namiento originario europeo <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho<br />
a <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos como <strong>de</strong>recho fundamental no toma en cuenta <strong>la</strong> rapi<strong>de</strong>z en <strong>la</strong><br />
obstante el autor se muestra bastante pesimista sobre <strong>la</strong> posibilidad <strong>de</strong> que un afectado pueda impedir que<br />
los medios <strong>de</strong> comunicación vuelvan a publicar noticias o informaciones <strong>de</strong> su vida pasada, si vuelve a ser<br />
relevante.<br />
5 Diario Oficial (en a<strong>de</strong><strong>la</strong>nte, DO L)n° L 281 <strong>de</strong> 23/11/1995 p. 0031 - 0050. El texto completo se pue<strong>de</strong> consultar<br />
en http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31995L0046:ES:HTML<br />
[Consulta: 10 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011]<br />
6 Diario Oficial <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión Europea (en a<strong>de</strong><strong>la</strong>nte, DOUE) C 306, <strong>de</strong> 17 <strong>de</strong> diciembre <strong>de</strong> 2007. El texto<br />
completo <strong>de</strong>l Tratado se pue<strong>de</strong> consultar en http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JoHtml.do?uri=oJ:C:2007:306<br />
:SoM:es:HTML [Consulta: 10 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011]. Concretamente, el artículo 16 <strong>de</strong>l Tratado <strong>de</strong><br />
Funcionamiento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión Europea dispone que<br />
“1. Toda persona tiene <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> los datos <strong>de</strong> carácter personal que le conciernan.<br />
2. El Par<strong>la</strong>mento Europeo y el Consejo establecerán, con arreglo al procedimiento legis<strong>la</strong>tivo ordinario,<br />
<strong>la</strong>s normas sobre protección <strong>de</strong> datos <strong>de</strong> carácter personal por <strong>la</strong>s instituciones, órganos y organismos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
Unión, así como por los Estados miembros en el ejercicio <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s activida<strong>de</strong>s comprendidas en el ámbito <strong>de</strong><br />
aplicación <strong>de</strong>l Derecho <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión, y sobre <strong>la</strong> libre circu<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> estos datos. El respeto <strong>de</strong> dichas normas<br />
estará sometido al control <strong>de</strong> autorida<strong>de</strong>s in<strong>de</strong>pendientes.<br />
Las normas que se adopten en virtud <strong>de</strong>l presente artículo se enten<strong>de</strong>rán sin perjuicio <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s normas específicas<br />
previstas en el artículo 39 <strong>de</strong>l Tratado <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión Europea”.<br />
7 DOUE C 303, <strong>de</strong> 14 <strong>de</strong> Diciembre <strong>de</strong> 2007. El texto completo se pue<strong>de</strong> consultar en http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=oJ:C:2007:303:0001:0016:Es:PDF<br />
[consulta: 10 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong><br />
2011]
374 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
evolución tecnológica y <strong>la</strong> globalización en <strong>la</strong> difusión y tratamiento <strong>de</strong> los datos <strong>de</strong> carácter<br />
personal, lo que ha llevado a <strong>la</strong> Comisión Europea a proponer <strong>la</strong> necesidad <strong>de</strong> hacer frente,<br />
en términos más específicos, a <strong>la</strong> resolución <strong>de</strong> <strong>retos</strong> no contemp<strong>la</strong>dos inicialmente en <strong>la</strong><br />
Directiva 95/46/CE, p<strong>la</strong>nteando <strong>la</strong> posibilidad <strong>de</strong> una reforma <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> misma.<br />
En este contexto, <strong>la</strong>s siguientes páginas se <strong>de</strong>dicarán a analizar el estado actual <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
protección <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido, <strong>de</strong>ntro <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción general <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos, y<br />
<strong>la</strong>s posibles líneas <strong>de</strong> evolución en esta materia.<br />
2. el <strong>de</strong>recHo al olVido en internet<br />
2.1. antece<strong>de</strong>ntes<br />
Como antece<strong>de</strong>nte más remoto, po<strong>de</strong>mos encontrar que, ya en 1931, en <strong>la</strong> Corte <strong>de</strong><br />
California se resolvió el caso <strong>de</strong>nominado Melvin v. Reid. Se trataba <strong>de</strong> un asunto en el que<br />
<strong>la</strong> víctima, tras un pasado como prostituta y haber sido acusada <strong>de</strong> homicidio, había conseguido<br />
rehacer su vida, hasta que una pelícu<strong>la</strong>, realizada y exhibida por el <strong>de</strong>mandado bajo el<br />
título «The Red Kimono» <strong>de</strong>sveló su pasado, con su nombre real y le arruinó <strong>la</strong> vida. La Corte<br />
consi<strong>de</strong>ró que se había producido una lesión en su privacidad al traer <strong>de</strong> nuevo a <strong>la</strong> actualidad<br />
aspectos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> vida <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>mandante que ya habían quedado olvidados 8 .<br />
Más recientemente, una primera respuesta legal a esta persistencia <strong>de</strong> los datos, con <strong>la</strong><br />
aparición <strong>de</strong> los primeros or<strong>de</strong>nadores, fue <strong>la</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>rechos <strong>de</strong> acceso, rectificación<br />
y cance<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> los datos personales que pudieran constar en <strong>la</strong>s bases <strong>de</strong> datos públicas<br />
o privadas 9 .<br />
De este modo el <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido podía hacerse coincidir simplemente con el <strong>de</strong>recho<br />
<strong>de</strong> cance<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> los datos 10 , no sin dificulta<strong>de</strong>s, especialmente en lo que se refería a<br />
<strong>de</strong>terminadas bases <strong>de</strong> datos que recogían datos <strong>de</strong> solvencia <strong>de</strong> los ciudadanos. Y siempre<br />
teniendo en cuenta que <strong>la</strong>s bases <strong>de</strong> datos oficiales (policía, hacienda, etc.) normalmente<br />
son excluidas <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción general y suelen presentar numerosas dificulta<strong>de</strong>s a <strong>la</strong> hora <strong>de</strong><br />
cance<strong>la</strong>r o, simplemente, <strong>de</strong> rectificar los datos recogidos 11 .<br />
8 Cfr. CoRRAL TALCIANI, H. (2000) «Configuración jurídica <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> privacidad II: Concepto<br />
y <strong>de</strong>limitación». Revista Chilena <strong>de</strong> Derecho, vol. 27 núm. 2, págs. 331-355, en especial, <strong>la</strong> pág.<br />
337.<br />
9 Especialmente en lo que se refiere a <strong>la</strong>s bases <strong>de</strong> datos <strong>de</strong> solvencia patrimonial, <strong>la</strong>s primeras que fueron<br />
objeto <strong>de</strong> una regu<strong>la</strong>ción específica. Cfr., entre <strong>otros</strong>, FERRANDo VILLALBA, Mª L. ( 2.000),<br />
La información <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s Entida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> Crédito. Estudio especial <strong>de</strong> los informes comerciales bancarios Valencia<br />
,Ed. Tirant lo B<strong>la</strong>nch; DUBIÉ, P. (2003) «Protección <strong>de</strong> datos y <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido», Derecho <strong>de</strong> los negocios,<br />
Año nº 14, Nº 154-155, págs. 1-16<br />
10 GARRIGA DoMÍNGUEZ, A. (2004) Tratamiento <strong>de</strong> datos personales y <strong>de</strong>rechos fundamentales. Madrid,<br />
Dykinson, pág. 40<br />
11 De hecho estas bases <strong>de</strong> datos están especialmente excluidas <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción general. Vid. el artículo<br />
2 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Ley Orgánica 15/1999, <strong>de</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos <strong>de</strong> carácter personal, que excluye <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> aplicación
el <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido en Internet<br />
375<br />
Pero, a<strong>de</strong>más, con el vertiginoso <strong>de</strong>sarrollo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s nuevas tecnologías <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información<br />
y <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> comunicación, estas garantías pue<strong>de</strong>n que ya no sean ya plenamente eficaces. Por un<br />
<strong>la</strong>do nos encontramos con el problema <strong>de</strong> que los datos difundidos o publicados pudieran<br />
ser correctos, aunque antiguos, lo que impediría, en ocasiones, el ejercicio <strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>rechos <strong>de</strong><br />
corrección o cance<strong>la</strong>ción: es el caso <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> mayoría <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s noticias publicadas por los diarios. Por<br />
otro, también nos po<strong>de</strong>mos encontrar con que <strong>la</strong>s empresas o servidores <strong>de</strong> internet en los que<br />
están alojados estos datos no se encuentren en el país <strong>de</strong>l afectado o cuyas leyes queramos aplicar,<br />
dificultando <strong>de</strong> manera extrema <strong>la</strong>s posibilida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> hacer efectivos esos <strong>de</strong>rechos.<br />
2.2. <strong>la</strong> actividad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> agencia españo<strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> Protección <strong>de</strong> datos en re<strong>la</strong>ción al <strong>de</strong>recho<br />
al olvido<br />
Así, en España, <strong>la</strong> Agencia Españo<strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> Protección <strong>de</strong> Datos, en sus primeras Resoluciones<br />
sobre estas materias, <strong>de</strong> fecha 9 <strong>de</strong> julio <strong>de</strong> 2007 –reafirmada tras el recurso <strong>de</strong> reposición<br />
<strong>de</strong>l recurrente, el día 10 <strong>de</strong> septiembre <strong>de</strong> 2007 12 – y <strong>de</strong> 26 <strong>de</strong> enero <strong>de</strong> 2009 13 , ha abordado<br />
<strong>de</strong> esta ley a los ficheros sometidos a <strong>la</strong> normativa sobre protección <strong>de</strong> materias c<strong>la</strong>sificadas, a los ficheros<br />
establecidos <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> investigación <strong>de</strong>l terrorismo y <strong>de</strong> formas graves <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>lincuencia organizada y, entre <strong>otros</strong>,<br />
a los proce<strong>de</strong>ntes <strong>de</strong> imágenes y sonidos obtenidos mediante <strong>la</strong> utilización <strong>de</strong> vi<strong>de</strong>ocámaras por <strong>la</strong>s Fuerzas<br />
y Cuerpos <strong>de</strong> Seguridad. Y aunque el artículo 22.2 <strong>de</strong>l mismo texto legal seña<strong>la</strong> que: “2. La recogida y<br />
tratamiento <strong>para</strong> fines policiales <strong>de</strong> datos <strong>de</strong> carácter personal por <strong>la</strong>s Fuerzas y Cuerpos <strong>de</strong> Seguridad sin<br />
consentimiento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s personas afectadas están limitados a aquellos supuestos y categorías <strong>de</strong> datos que<br />
resulten necesarios <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> prevención <strong>de</strong> un peligro real <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> seguridad pública o <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> represión <strong>de</strong><br />
infracciones penales, <strong>de</strong>biendo ser almacenados en ficheros específicos establecidos al efecto, que <strong>de</strong>berán c<strong>la</strong>sificarse<br />
por categorías en función <strong>de</strong> su grado <strong>de</strong> fiabilidad”, lo cierto es que <strong>para</strong> este tipo <strong>de</strong> ficheros, según<br />
el artículo 23: “Los responsables <strong>de</strong> los ficheros que contengan los datos a que se refieren los apartados 2, 3<br />
y 4 <strong>de</strong>l artículo anterior podrán <strong>de</strong>negar el acceso, <strong>la</strong> rectificación o cance<strong>la</strong>ción en función <strong>de</strong> los peligros<br />
que pudieran <strong>de</strong>rivarse <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>fensa <strong>de</strong>l Estado o <strong>la</strong> seguridad pública, <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>rechos y<br />
liberta<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> terceros o <strong>la</strong>s necesida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s investigaciones que se estén realizando”.<br />
Y por lo que se refiere a los datos recogidos en los ficheros <strong>de</strong> hacienda, el artículo 23.3 <strong>de</strong>termina que “Los<br />
responsables <strong>de</strong> los ficheros <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Hacienda Pública podrán, igualmente, <strong>de</strong>negar el ejercicio <strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>rechos<br />
a que se refiere el apartado anterior cuando el mismo obstaculice <strong>la</strong>s actuaciones administrativas ten<strong>de</strong>ntes<br />
a asegurar el cumplimiento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s obligaciones tributarias y, en todo caso, cuando el afectado esté siendo<br />
objeto <strong>de</strong> actuaciones inspectoras”.<br />
12 El texto <strong>de</strong> estas Resoluciones, se pue<strong>de</strong>n consulta en <strong>la</strong>s siguientes direcciones electrónicas: https://<br />
www.agpd.es/portalweb/resoluciones/tute<strong>la</strong>_<strong>de</strong>rechos/tute<strong>la</strong>_<strong>de</strong>rechos_2007/common/pdfs/TD-<br />
00299-2007_Resolucion-<strong>de</strong>-fecha-09-07-2007_Art-ii-culo-16-LoPD.pdf , y <strong>la</strong> reposición en:<br />
https://www.agpd.es/portalweb/resoluciones/recursos_reposicion/rr_sobre_tute<strong>la</strong>_<strong>de</strong>_<strong>de</strong>rechos/<br />
common/pdfs/REPoSICIoN-TD-00299-2007_Resolucion-<strong>de</strong>-fecha-10-09-2007_Art-ii-culo-16-<br />
LoPD.pdf [Consulta: 10 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011]<br />
13 Los hechos <strong>de</strong>nunciados en esta ocasión se referían a <strong>la</strong> publicación en <strong>la</strong> página web <strong>de</strong>l periódico<br />
El País, <strong>de</strong> una noticia ya publicada el 25 <strong>de</strong> junio <strong>de</strong> 1987. El texto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> resolución pue<strong>de</strong> verse en:<br />
https://www.agpd.es/portalweb/resoluciones/tute<strong>la</strong>_<strong>de</strong>rechos/tute<strong>la</strong>_<strong>de</strong>rechos_2009/common/pdfs/<br />
TD-01164-2008_Resolucion-<strong>de</strong>-fecha-26-01-2009_Art-ii-culo-17-LoPD_Recurrida.pdf [Consulta:<br />
10 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011]
376 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
<strong>la</strong> cuestión <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s noticias antiguas publicadas en <strong>la</strong>s páginas web <strong>de</strong> los diarios, con <strong>la</strong>s siguientes<br />
características:<br />
En el<strong>la</strong>s, con un razonamiento sustancialmente simi<strong>la</strong>r, por un <strong>la</strong>do, <strong>la</strong> Agencia consi<strong>de</strong>ra<br />
que <strong>la</strong> publicación <strong>de</strong> informaciones relevantes y veraces entra <strong>de</strong>ntro <strong>de</strong>l ejercicio<br />
legítimo <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> información y, por lo tanto, su publicación es correcta, quedando<br />
a<strong>de</strong>más el análisis <strong>de</strong> los posibles conflictos con <strong>otros</strong> <strong>de</strong>rechos constitucionales (honor, intimidad<br />
o protección <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> propia imagen), fuera <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s competencias <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Agencia, remitiendo<br />
<strong>para</strong> su enjuiciamiento a los Tribunales ordinarios.<br />
Y, por otro, por lo que se refiere a <strong>la</strong> publicación en internet <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s noticias, a través <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> puesta a disposición <strong>de</strong> los internautas el archivo o hemeroteca <strong>de</strong>l periódico, <strong>la</strong> Agencia<br />
también consi<strong>de</strong>ra que no constituye <strong>la</strong> publicación <strong>de</strong> dato personal alguno, ya que <strong>la</strong> hemeroteca<br />
no es una base <strong>de</strong> datos susceptible <strong>de</strong> tratamiento y, por lo tanto, su cance<strong>la</strong>ción<br />
o modificación queda fuera <strong>de</strong>l ámbito <strong>de</strong> aplicación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> legis<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos.<br />
A<strong>de</strong>más, por último, y en lo que respecta a <strong>la</strong> responsabilidad concreta <strong>de</strong>l buscador<br />
Google (directamente <strong>de</strong>nunciado también), como servicio <strong>de</strong> intermediación, <strong>la</strong> Agencia,<br />
en <strong>la</strong>s Resoluciones <strong>de</strong>l año 2007, consi<strong>de</strong>ra que tampoco tienen responsabilidad por <strong>la</strong><br />
publicación <strong>de</strong> esos datos ya que «los buscadores tipo «Google», «Yahoo», «MSN Search»,<br />
«AoL Search», etc., realizan <strong>la</strong> localización <strong>de</strong> información en Internet, con base en unos<br />
criterios que le son seña<strong>la</strong>dos por el usuario, buscando ocurrencias en textos o documentos<br />
publicados en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y ofreciendo en<strong>la</strong>ces a los mismos». Así, «<strong>la</strong> información no se encuentra<br />
ubicada en los servidores o máquinas <strong>de</strong> los prestadores <strong>de</strong> los servicios <strong>de</strong> búsqueda, sino en<br />
<strong>la</strong>s máquinas hacia <strong>la</strong>s cuales apuntan los en<strong>la</strong>ces que ofrecen los buscadores, por lo que, <strong>la</strong><br />
cance<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> los datos, si proce<strong>de</strong>, <strong>de</strong>berá ejercitarse ante los responsables <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s máquinas<br />
que contienen <strong>la</strong> información». De tal modo que los prestadores <strong>de</strong> estos servicios, en tanto<br />
facilitan los <strong>de</strong>nominados «servicios <strong>de</strong> intermediación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Información»,<br />
no son responsables por <strong>la</strong> información a <strong>la</strong> que dirijan a los <strong>de</strong>stinatarios <strong>de</strong> sus servicios 14 .<br />
Sin embargo, en lo que respecta a este último aspecto, el criterio <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Agencia en re<strong>la</strong>ción<br />
a <strong>la</strong> responsabilidad <strong>de</strong> los buscadores, cambia radicalmente. un par <strong>de</strong> años más tar<strong>de</strong>.<br />
Así, ahora consi<strong>de</strong>ra a éstos como responsables <strong>de</strong> los datos que tratan. Concretamente seña<strong>la</strong><br />
que «<strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> información no impone que los datos personales <strong>de</strong>l rec<strong>la</strong>mante figuren<br />
en los índices que utiliza Google <strong>para</strong> facilitar al usuario el acceso a <strong>de</strong>terminadas páginas,<br />
ni tampoco preceptúa que figuren en <strong>la</strong>s páginas que Google conserva temporalmente en<br />
memoria “caché”», al no ser <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> buscar contenidos en internet «una actividad am<strong>para</strong>da por<br />
<strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> información, sin que exista, una disposición legal o constitucional en contra<br />
<strong>de</strong>l ejercicio <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho <strong>de</strong> oposición frente a Google». Concluyendo por tanto que Google,<br />
es responsable y, por lo tanto <strong>de</strong>be evitar que los datos personales <strong>de</strong>l recurrente puedan<br />
recuperarse cuando se utilice el mencionado buscador 15 .<br />
14 Resolución <strong>de</strong> fecha 10 <strong>de</strong> septiembre <strong>de</strong> 2009, ya citada.<br />
15 Resolución <strong>de</strong> fecha 26 <strong>de</strong> enero <strong>de</strong> 2009, ya citada. No obstante, como <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>nuncia solo se p<strong>la</strong>ntea<br />
contra Google, se pue<strong>de</strong> dar el <strong>para</strong>dójico resultado <strong>de</strong> que, al no modificarse <strong>la</strong> página origen <strong>de</strong>
el <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido en Internet<br />
377<br />
En <strong>la</strong> Resolución <strong>de</strong> 26 <strong>de</strong> enero <strong>de</strong> 2009, <strong>la</strong> Agencia también realiza una serie <strong>de</strong> reflexiones<br />
sobre el hecho <strong>de</strong> que los periódicos vuelquen en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> su hemeroteca. Consi<strong>de</strong>ra<br />
que «los medios <strong>de</strong> comunicación <strong>de</strong>berían valorar <strong>la</strong> necesidad <strong>de</strong> que su actuación se dirija<br />
a conciliar en mayor medida, el <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> información con <strong>la</strong> aplicación <strong>de</strong><br />
los principios <strong>de</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos personales». De tal forma que <strong>de</strong>bieran pon<strong>de</strong>rar «escrupulosamente»<br />
<strong>la</strong> relevancia pública <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> i<strong>de</strong>ntidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s personas afectadas por el hecho<br />
noticiable, «<strong>para</strong>, en el caso <strong>de</strong> que no aporte información adicional, evitar <strong>la</strong> i<strong>de</strong>ntificación<br />
mediante <strong>la</strong> supresión <strong>de</strong>l nombre e incluso, si fuera necesario, <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s iniciales o cualquier<br />
referencia suplementaria <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> que pueda <strong>de</strong>ducirse <strong>la</strong> i<strong>de</strong>ntificación, en el caso <strong>de</strong> que el<br />
entorno sea limitado». Y, a<strong>de</strong>más, teniendo en cuenta que el <strong>de</strong>sarrollo <strong>de</strong> Internet y <strong>la</strong> imp<strong>la</strong>ntación<br />
generalizada <strong>de</strong> motores <strong>de</strong> búsqueda «suponen una actualización y divulgación<br />
exponencial y permanente <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información en prensa así como <strong>de</strong> los datos personales incluidos<br />
en <strong>la</strong> misma como <strong>la</strong> i<strong>de</strong>ntidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s personas», los medios <strong>de</strong> comunicación <strong>de</strong>bería<br />
reflexionar «sobre <strong>la</strong> trascen<strong>de</strong>ncia que tiene mantener <strong>de</strong> manera permanente una absoluta<br />
accesibilidad <strong>de</strong> los datos contenidos en noticias cuya relevancia informativa probablemente<br />
es inexistente en <strong>la</strong> actualidad», así como «tener en cuenta <strong>la</strong> trascen<strong>de</strong>ncia sobre <strong>la</strong> privacidad<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s personas que pue<strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>rivar <strong>de</strong> ello» 16 .<br />
Esta última línea <strong>de</strong> actuación, que pasa por obligar a los buscadores, o al menos a los<br />
buscadores que son <strong>de</strong>nunciados, a evitar <strong>la</strong> publicación <strong>de</strong> datos personales <strong>de</strong> los ciudadanos,<br />
ha sido confirmada en numerosas Resoluciones <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Agencia 17 , incluso cuando esos<br />
datos provienen <strong>de</strong> fuentes oficiales 18 .<br />
Esta línea <strong>de</strong> actuación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Agencia Españo<strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> Protección <strong>de</strong> Datos le ha llevado<br />
hasta el momento a abrir cerca <strong>de</strong> un centenar <strong>de</strong> procedimientos contra el buscador “Go-<br />
<strong>la</strong> información (<strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>l periódico), éste buscador no refleje ese resultado en sus búsquedas, pero sí lo<br />
continúen haciendo <strong>otros</strong> como Yahoo, Msn, Ask o cualquier otro que no haya sido afectado por <strong>la</strong><br />
<strong>de</strong>cisión <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Agencia.<br />
16 Y continúa seña<strong>la</strong>ndo que «En este sentido los medios <strong>de</strong> comunicación <strong>de</strong>bieran usar medidas informáticas<br />
<strong>para</strong> que, en el caso <strong>de</strong> que concurra interés legítimo <strong>de</strong> un particu<strong>la</strong>r y <strong>la</strong> relevancia <strong>de</strong>l hecho haya<br />
<strong>de</strong>jado <strong>de</strong> existir, se evite <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> su webmaster <strong>la</strong> in<strong>de</strong>xación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> noticia por los motores <strong>de</strong> búsqueda en<br />
Internet. De esta forma, aún manteniéndo<strong>la</strong> inalterable en su soporte –no se borraría <strong>de</strong> sus archivos ni <strong>de</strong><br />
sus históricos- se evitará su divulgación indiscriminada, permanente y, en su caso, lesiva» (Fundamento <strong>de</strong><br />
Derecho Décimo). Resolución <strong>de</strong> fecha 26 <strong>de</strong> enero <strong>de</strong> 2009, ya citada.<br />
17 Entre otras, <strong>la</strong>s Resoluciones <strong>de</strong> fecha 17 <strong>de</strong> julio <strong>de</strong> 2008, 31 <strong>de</strong> julio <strong>de</strong> 2008, 3 <strong>de</strong> septiembre<br />
<strong>de</strong> 2008, 4 <strong>de</strong> noviembre <strong>de</strong> 2008, 29 <strong>de</strong> diciembre <strong>de</strong> 2008. Asimismo también existen otras muchas<br />
resoluciones en <strong>la</strong>s que obliga a páginas webs privadas que eliminen datos personales obtenidos<br />
sin consentimiento. Todas <strong>la</strong>s resoluciones <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Agencia Españo<strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> Protección <strong>de</strong> Datos pue<strong>de</strong>n<br />
consultarse en https://www.agpd.es/portalweb/resoluciones/in<strong>de</strong>x-i<strong>de</strong>s-idphp.php [Consulta: 10 <strong>de</strong><br />
mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011]<br />
18 Resolución <strong>de</strong> 30 <strong>de</strong> noviembre <strong>de</strong> 2010, que se refería a datos que aparecían publicados en <strong>la</strong> página<br />
web <strong>de</strong>l Boletín oficial <strong>de</strong>l Estado: http://www.agpd.es/portalwebAGPD/resoluciones/tute<strong>la</strong>_<strong>de</strong>rechos/tute<strong>la</strong>_<strong>de</strong>rechos_2010/common/pdfs/TD-00754-2010_Resolucion-<strong>de</strong>-fecha-30-11-2010_<br />
Art-ii-culo-16-LoPD.pdf [Consulta: 10 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011].
378 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
ogle” en el que le insta a eliminar <strong>de</strong> sus resultados <strong>de</strong> búsquedas los datos correspondientes<br />
a los rec<strong>la</strong>mantes 19 .<br />
Sin embargo, “Google Spain S.L.” ha recurrido estas resoluciones ante <strong>la</strong> Audiencia<br />
Nacional por cuanto consi<strong>de</strong>ra que <strong>la</strong> responsabilidad <strong>de</strong> mantener esos datos accesibles al<br />
público es <strong>de</strong> terceros ajenos. Así, en el curso <strong>de</strong>l procedimiento ordinario 211/2009 que<br />
se sigue a su instancia contra <strong>la</strong> Agencia Españo<strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> Protección <strong>de</strong> Datos, se ha dictado<br />
una Provi<strong>de</strong>ncia <strong>de</strong> fecha 22 <strong>de</strong> febrero <strong>de</strong> 2011 en el que <strong>la</strong> Sa<strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> lo Contencioso Administrativo<br />
(Secc. 1) <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Audiencia Nacional acuerda el p<strong>la</strong>nteamiento <strong>de</strong> una cuestión<br />
prejudicial <strong>de</strong> interpretación ante el Tribunal <strong>de</strong> Justicia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión Europea <strong>para</strong> que este<br />
Tribunal <strong>de</strong>c<strong>la</strong>re, entre otras cuestiones “Si <strong>la</strong> actividad <strong>de</strong> GooGLE, como buscador <strong>de</strong><br />
contenidos <strong>de</strong> terceras personas, pue<strong>de</strong> consi<strong>de</strong>rarse un tratamiento <strong>de</strong> datos” y, por lo tanto,<br />
<strong>de</strong>be garantizar los <strong>de</strong>rechos <strong>de</strong> cance<strong>la</strong>ción y oposición, “Si <strong>la</strong> AEPD … pue<strong>de</strong> requerir a<br />
GooGLE <strong>para</strong> que cancele o bloquee <strong>la</strong> información, aun cuando su mantenimiento en<br />
<strong>la</strong> página <strong>de</strong> origen sea lícita, pero el solicitante consi<strong>de</strong>re que su aparición en los resultados<br />
<strong>de</strong> búsqueda atenta a su privacidad, dignidad o al <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido “ y, en <strong>de</strong>finitiva, “si <strong>la</strong><br />
AEPD … pue<strong>de</strong> requerir directamente al buscador, sin dirigirse previa o simultáneamente<br />
al webmaster <strong>para</strong> exigir <strong>la</strong> retirada <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información”. En <strong>la</strong> actualidad este procedimiento<br />
todavía no ha concluido.<br />
Pero también existen nuevas aplicaciones como «Street View», también <strong>de</strong> Google, que<br />
permite acce<strong>de</strong>r a imágenes <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s calles <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s principales ciuda<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong>l mundo o «Google<br />
Health» que preten<strong>de</strong> e<strong>la</strong>borar un banco <strong>de</strong> datos sanitarios, que han alertado a los responsables<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s Agencias <strong>de</strong> Protección <strong>de</strong> Datos 20 . De hecho, <strong>la</strong> Agencia Españo<strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> Protección<br />
<strong>de</strong> Datos ha publicado en su página web que «ha obtenido garantías por parte <strong>de</strong> Google<br />
<strong>de</strong> que “Street View”... contaría con un sistema que anonimizará los rostros y matrícu<strong>la</strong>s <strong>de</strong><br />
vehículos <strong>para</strong> evitar que los ciudadanos puedan ser i<strong>de</strong>ntificados» 21 .<br />
2.3. <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido y re<strong>de</strong>s sociales<br />
otra perspectiva <strong>de</strong>l problema <strong>de</strong>l anonimato en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> lo presenta <strong>la</strong> participación en<br />
<strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s sociales, tipo Facebook o Tuenti. En este último caso <strong>la</strong> diferencia más significativa<br />
consiste en que en estas re<strong>de</strong>s sociales los que ponen a disposición <strong>de</strong> <strong>otros</strong> sus datos<br />
personales son los propios internautas. De este modo nos encontramos con un principio <strong>de</strong><br />
19 La última Resolución es <strong>de</strong> fecha 7 <strong>de</strong> abril <strong>de</strong> 2011. Cfr. http://www.agpd.es/portalwebAGPD/<br />
resoluciones/tute<strong>la</strong>_<strong>de</strong>rechos/tute<strong>la</strong>_<strong>de</strong>rechos_2011/common/pdfs/TD-01239-2010_Resolucion<strong>de</strong>-fecha-07-04-2011_Art-ii-culo-16-LoPD.pdf<br />
[Consulta: 10 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011]<br />
20 En un grado más incipiente <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>sarrollo parece encontrarse <strong>otros</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong> geolocalización como<br />
los vincu<strong>la</strong>dos a <strong>de</strong>terminados dispositivos móviles (Iphone, entre <strong>otros</strong>.<br />
21 Agencia Españo<strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> Protección <strong>de</strong> Datos, Nota informativa. 21 <strong>de</strong> abril <strong>de</strong> 2008. Localización:<br />
https://www.agpd.es/portalweb/revista_prensa/revista_prensa/2008/notas_prensa/common/<br />
abril/210408_np_edpnp_google.pdf [Consulta: 10 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011]
el <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido en Internet<br />
379<br />
consentimiento otorgado expresa o tácitamente por <strong>la</strong> misma persona a <strong>la</strong> que se refieren sus<br />
datos personales.<br />
No obstante, se ha podido observar una utilización <strong>de</strong> esos datos mucho más intensa<br />
que <strong>la</strong> prevista inicialmente, que era <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> re<strong>la</strong>cionarse con otras personas en un ámbito más<br />
o menos cerrado. De tal modo que datos e información suministrada directa y personalmente<br />
por <strong>la</strong>s personas interesadas en sus propias cuentas personales <strong>de</strong>ntro <strong>de</strong> estas re<strong>de</strong>s sociales,<br />
con una finalidad <strong>de</strong> que sólo fueran accesibles a un círculo <strong>red</strong>ucido <strong>de</strong> sus conocidos, han<br />
sido finalmente accesibles a todo el mundo sin restricciones, con consecuencias diversas <strong>para</strong><br />
sus propietarios, bien por propia torpeza <strong>de</strong>l usuario a <strong>la</strong> hora <strong>de</strong> configurar <strong>la</strong> privacidad <strong>de</strong><br />
sus datos, o bien por dificulta<strong>de</strong>s inherente a <strong>la</strong> dinámica <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> propia página <strong>de</strong> internet utilizada.<br />
Así, se han referido casos <strong>de</strong> utilización <strong>de</strong> estos datos <strong>para</strong> seleccionar <strong>de</strong>mandantes<br />
<strong>de</strong> empleo, <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> divulgación <strong>de</strong> fotografías personales <strong>de</strong> personajes conocidos 22 , o incluso,<br />
<strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> comisión <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>terminados <strong>de</strong>litos.<br />
Ello ha llevado a que los responsables <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s agencias <strong>de</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos hayan hecho<br />
diversas recomendaciones a los propietarios <strong>de</strong> esas re<strong>de</strong>s sociales <strong>para</strong> limitar el daño que pudiera<br />
causarse a los ciudadanos por <strong>la</strong> proliferación <strong>de</strong> sus datos personales en este tipo <strong>de</strong> re<strong>de</strong>s.<br />
Así, por ejemplo, se ha recomendado que los responsables <strong>de</strong> estas páginas extremen el cuidado<br />
sobre el diseño <strong>de</strong> esas páginas, <strong>para</strong> garantizar al máximo <strong>la</strong> confi<strong>de</strong>ncialidad <strong>de</strong> los datos publicados,<br />
facilitar y divulgar entre los usuarios cuáles son los permisos <strong>de</strong> acceso a los mismos<br />
y su capacidad <strong>para</strong> modificarlos, sobre <strong>la</strong> posibilidad <strong>de</strong> que los usuarios puedan borrar con<br />
facilidad los datos o imágenes publicadas o, incluso, cance<strong>la</strong>r todo su perfil o su cuenta, que los<br />
motores <strong>de</strong> búsquedas no puedan acce<strong>de</strong>r a los datos personales publicados, etc.<br />
L<strong>la</strong>ma <strong>la</strong> atención, a<strong>de</strong>más, algunas recomendaciones, como <strong>la</strong> efectuada por <strong>la</strong> Agencia<br />
Españo<strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> Protección <strong>de</strong> Datos en or<strong>de</strong>n a «limitar <strong>la</strong> posibilidad <strong>de</strong> etiquetado <strong>de</strong> los<br />
usuarios <strong>de</strong>ntro <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>, <strong>de</strong> tal forma que cualquier persona etiquetada con su nombre,<br />
reciba automáticamente una solicitud <strong>de</strong> aceptación o rechazo, impidiendo en este caso <strong>la</strong><br />
publicación y tratamiento <strong>de</strong> datos no autorizados» 23 . Tal etiquetado se realiza con gran asiduidad<br />
en re<strong>la</strong>ción a <strong>la</strong>s fotografías subidas a <strong>la</strong>s cuentas <strong>de</strong> los usuarios <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s distintas re<strong>de</strong>s<br />
sociales, <strong>de</strong> tal modo que, con gran facilidad, no sólo se pue<strong>de</strong> acce<strong>de</strong>r a los datos <strong>de</strong> personas<br />
concretas, sino también a su imagen, incluso sin su conocimiento o consentimiento 24 .<br />
22 Incluso con relevancia política, como fue el caso <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> publicación <strong>de</strong> los datos y fotografías <strong>de</strong>l<br />
futuro responsable <strong>de</strong>l servicio secreto inglés. Más información en <strong>la</strong> página <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> BBC (en línea):<br />
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mundo/ciencia_tecnologia/2009/07/090706_1328_mi6_facebook_sao.shtml<br />
[Consulta: 10 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011]<br />
23 AGENCIA ESPAñoLA DE PRoTECCIÓN DE DAToS (2009) Estudio sobre <strong>la</strong> privacidad <strong>de</strong> los<br />
datos personales y <strong>la</strong> seguridad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información en <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s sociales on line. Madrid, Instituto Nacional <strong>de</strong><br />
Tecnologías <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comunicación y <strong>la</strong> AEPD, pág. 149. Pue<strong>de</strong> consultarse en <strong>la</strong> siguiente dirección: https://<br />
www.agpd.es/portalweb/canaldocumentacion/publicaciones/common/Estudios/est_inteco_re<strong>de</strong>sso_022009.<br />
pdf [Consulta: 10 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011]<br />
24 Hay que seña<strong>la</strong>r que, aunque hay algunos intentos en este ámbito, los buscadores <strong>de</strong> internet todavía<br />
no pue<strong>de</strong>n buscar directamente en <strong>la</strong>s imágenes, sino que lo hacen en el texto asociado a <strong>la</strong>s mismas.
380 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
Estas nuevas exigencias <strong>de</strong>rivadas <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> evolución <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s tecnologías asociadas a <strong>la</strong> sociedad<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información, ha llevado necesariamente a <strong>la</strong> necesidad <strong>de</strong> reformar <strong>la</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción<br />
básica <strong>de</strong> estas materias que se contemp<strong>la</strong>ba en <strong>la</strong> Directiva <strong>de</strong>l año 1995.<br />
3. <strong>la</strong> Posible reforma <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> directiVa 95/46/ce <strong>de</strong> 24 <strong>de</strong> octubre<br />
<strong>de</strong> 1995 y su rePercusión en re<strong>la</strong>ción con el “<strong>de</strong>recHo al<br />
olVido”<br />
Como hemos seña<strong>la</strong>do, <strong>la</strong> adopción <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Directiva 95/46/CE <strong>de</strong>l Par<strong>la</strong>mento Europeo<br />
y <strong>de</strong>l Consejo, re<strong>la</strong>tiva a <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos, supuso un importante paso a<strong>de</strong><strong>la</strong>nte en<br />
cuanto a <strong>la</strong> normalización <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> legis<strong>la</strong>ción europea en re<strong>la</strong>ción a <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos 25 ,<br />
aun cuando mantuvo sustanciales diferencias respecto <strong>de</strong>l Convenio 108 <strong>de</strong>l Consejo <strong>de</strong><br />
Europa 26 . El objeto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> misma, según disponía su artículo 1 consistía en reconocer <strong>la</strong><br />
obligación <strong>de</strong> los Estados miembros <strong>de</strong> “garantizar”, en primer término, <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s<br />
liberta<strong>de</strong>s y <strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>rechos fundamentales <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s personas físicas y, en particu<strong>la</strong>r, el <strong>de</strong>recho a<br />
<strong>la</strong> intimidad en lo que respecta a los datos personales y, en segundo lugar, <strong>la</strong> libre circu<strong>la</strong>ción<br />
<strong>de</strong> los datos personales entre los Estados miembros.<br />
El contenido <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Directiva 95/46/CE se ha complementado con <strong>la</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción establecida<br />
en el Reg<strong>la</strong>mento (CE) nº 45/2001 <strong>de</strong>l Par<strong>la</strong>mento Europeo y <strong>de</strong>l Consejo, <strong>de</strong> 18<br />
<strong>de</strong> diciembre <strong>de</strong> 2000, re<strong>la</strong>tivo a <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s personas físicas en lo que respecta al<br />
tratamiento <strong>de</strong> datos personales por <strong>la</strong>s instituciones y los organismos comunitarios y a <strong>la</strong><br />
Así el etiquetado, que pue<strong>de</strong> incluso estar hecho por terceros, es un elemento imprescindible <strong>para</strong><br />
localizar imágenes re<strong>la</strong>cionadas o en <strong>la</strong>s que aparecen personas concretas.<br />
25 Entre los estudios re<strong>la</strong>tivos a esta Directiva, pue<strong>de</strong>n citarse, sin pretensión <strong>de</strong> exhaustividad: ALoN-<br />
So BLAS, D. (1996): “El futuro <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos a nivel europeo”, en DAVARA RoDRI-<br />
GUEZ, M.A. (Coord.) “Encuentros sobre Informática y Derecho (1995-1996). Pamplona: Aranzadi;<br />
BELLO JANEIRO, D. (2001): “La protección <strong>de</strong> datos <strong>de</strong> carácter personal en el Derecho comunitario”,<br />
Anuario <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Facultad <strong>de</strong> Derecho <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Universidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Coruña, nº 5; BRU CUADRADA, E. (2007):<br />
“La protección <strong>de</strong> datos en España y en <strong>la</strong> Unión Europea. Especial referencia a los mecanismos jurídicos <strong>de</strong><br />
reacción frente a <strong>la</strong> vulneración <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> intimidad”, Revista <strong>de</strong> Internet, Derecho y Política, nº 5;<br />
GUERRERO PICÓ, Mª C. (2006): “El impacto <strong>de</strong> internet en el <strong>de</strong>recho fundamental a <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong><br />
datos <strong>de</strong> carácter personal”. Thomson-Civitas; HEREDERO HIGUERAS, M. (1997): “La Directiva comunitaria<br />
<strong>de</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> los datos <strong>de</strong> carácter personal (Comentario a <strong>la</strong> Directiva <strong>de</strong>l Par<strong>la</strong>mento Europeo<br />
y <strong>de</strong>l Consejo 95/46/CE, re<strong>la</strong>tiva a <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s personas físicas en lo que respecta al tratamiento<br />
<strong>de</strong> datos personales y a <strong>la</strong> libre circu<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> estos datos)”. Pamplona: Aranzadi; HERRÁN ORTIZ, A.I.<br />
(2001): “La protección <strong>de</strong> datos <strong>de</strong> carácter personal en el marco <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión Europea”, en REDI, nº 39,<br />
PRIETO GUTIÉRREZ, J.Mª. (1997): “La Directiva 95/46/CE como criterio unificador”, Po<strong>de</strong>r Judicial,<br />
nº 48; SÁNCHEZ BRAVO, A. (1998): “La protección <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> libertad informática en <strong>la</strong> Unión<br />
Europea”. Sevil<strong>la</strong>: Universidad <strong>de</strong> Sevil<strong>la</strong>; VIGURI PEREA, A. (1999): “Intimidad versus informática<br />
(La protección <strong>de</strong> datos <strong>de</strong> carácter personal: perspectiva <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> el <strong>de</strong>recho com<strong>para</strong>do)”, La Ley, Tomo <strong>de</strong><br />
Jurispru<strong>de</strong>ncia 2/<br />
26 Vid., al respecto <strong>la</strong> Memoria <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Agencia Españo<strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> Protección <strong>de</strong> Datos <strong>de</strong> 1995.
el <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido en Internet<br />
381<br />
libre circu<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> estos datos27 , con lo dispuesto en <strong>la</strong> Directiva 2002/58/CE <strong>de</strong>l Par<strong>la</strong>mento<br />
Europeo y <strong>de</strong>l Consejo, <strong>de</strong> 12 <strong>de</strong> julio, re<strong>la</strong>tiva al tratamiento <strong>de</strong> los datos personales<br />
y a <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> intimidad en el sector <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones electrónicas28 , y con<br />
<strong>la</strong> Decisión <strong>de</strong>l Consejo Europeo nº 2008/977/JHA <strong>de</strong> 27 <strong>de</strong> noviembre <strong>de</strong> 2008, sobre<br />
<strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> los datos personales en el ámbito <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> cooperación policial y judicial en<br />
materias penales29 .<br />
Quince años <strong>de</strong>spués <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> aprobación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Directiva 95/46/CE, <strong>la</strong> Comisión Europea,<br />
a través <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comunicación al Par<strong>la</strong>mento Europeo, al Consejo, al Comité Económico y<br />
Social y al Comité <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s Regiones, titu<strong>la</strong>da “Un enfoque global <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> los datos<br />
personales en <strong>la</strong> Unión Europea” 30 , reconoce que si bien el objetivo al que respondía “sigue<br />
teniendo vigencia”, y los principios que consagra “siguen siendo válidos”, lo cierto es que<br />
<strong>la</strong> rápida evolución tecnológica y <strong>la</strong> globalización “han modificado profundamente nuestro<br />
medio y han <strong>la</strong>nzado nuevos <strong>retos</strong>” en materia <strong>de</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos personales.<br />
Al mismo tiempo, “los métodos <strong>de</strong> recogida” <strong>de</strong> los datos personales son cada vez más<br />
complejos y se <strong>de</strong>tectan con mayor dificultad, siendo utilizados tanto por organizaciones y/o<br />
empresas privadas como públicas.<br />
Tales consi<strong>de</strong>raciones p<strong>la</strong>ntean, a juicio <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comisión, <strong>la</strong> cuestión acerca <strong>de</strong> si <strong>la</strong> legis<strong>la</strong>ción<br />
actual <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión Europea en materia <strong>de</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos personales permite<br />
hacer frente “plena y eficazmente” a estos nuevos <strong>retos</strong>.<br />
Con objeto <strong>de</strong> respon<strong>de</strong>r a esta cuestión, <strong>la</strong> Comisión inició un estudio <strong>de</strong>l marco<br />
jurídico actual a través <strong>de</strong> una Conferencia <strong>de</strong> alto nivel en mayo <strong>de</strong> 2009, seguida <strong>de</strong> una<br />
consulta pública hasta finales <strong>de</strong> ese mismo año. Por otro <strong>la</strong>do, a lo <strong>la</strong>rgo <strong>de</strong> 2010 tuvieron<br />
lugar consultas más específicas y <strong>la</strong> Vicepresi<strong>de</strong>nta Viviane Reding presidió una reunión <strong>de</strong><br />
alto nivel con <strong>la</strong>s partes interesadas, celebrada en Bruse<strong>la</strong>s el 5 <strong>de</strong> octubre <strong>de</strong> 2010, a<strong>de</strong>más<br />
<strong>de</strong> consultar al Grupo <strong>de</strong> Trabajo <strong>de</strong>l Artículo 2931 , tomando en consi<strong>de</strong>ración, así mismo,<br />
27 Do L 8/1 <strong>de</strong> 12.1.2001.<br />
28 Do L 201 <strong>de</strong> 31.7.2002, p. 37. Modificada por <strong>la</strong> Directiva 2009/136/CE (Do L 201 <strong>de</strong> 18.12.2009,<br />
p.11).<br />
29 Do L 350/60 <strong>de</strong> 30.12.2008.<br />
30 CoM (2010) 609 final.<br />
31 Dicha consulta concluyó con <strong>la</strong> e<strong>la</strong>boración <strong>de</strong>l Documento sobre “El futuro <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> privacidad” (WP<br />
168) y el Dictamen 3/2010, sobre el principio <strong>de</strong> responsabilidad, <strong>de</strong> 13 <strong>de</strong> julio (00062/10/ES) GT<br />
173.<br />
En dicho Dictamen se p<strong>la</strong>ntea <strong>la</strong> necesidad <strong>de</strong> “progresar <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> teoría a <strong>la</strong> práctica” en el ámbito <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
protección <strong>de</strong> datos personales, sugiriendo a <strong>la</strong> Comisión <strong>la</strong> introducción <strong>de</strong>l “principio <strong>de</strong> responsabilidad”<br />
en <strong>la</strong> posible revisión <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Directiva <strong>de</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos, lo que, a juicio <strong>de</strong>l Grupo <strong>de</strong><br />
Trabajo <strong>de</strong>l Artículo 29, contribuiría a reforzar “el papel <strong>de</strong>l responsable <strong>de</strong>l tratamiento <strong>de</strong> datos”,<br />
aumentando sus competencias (vid., pg. 3). El texto pue<strong>de</strong> consultarse en:<br />
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2010/wp173_es.pdf [Consulta: 10 <strong>de</strong><br />
mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011].
382 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
el Study on the economic benefits of privacy enhancing technologies 32 y el Com<strong>para</strong>tive study on<br />
different approaches to new privacy challenges, in particu<strong>la</strong>r in the light of technological <strong>de</strong>velopments<br />
33 .<br />
Entre <strong>otros</strong> aspectos, <strong>la</strong> Comunicación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comisión “Un enfoque global <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> protección<br />
<strong>de</strong> los datos personales en <strong>la</strong> Unión Europea”, p<strong>la</strong>ntea <strong>la</strong> necesidad <strong>de</strong> c<strong>la</strong>rificar el<br />
<strong>de</strong>nominado “<strong>de</strong>recho a ser olvidado”, que <strong>de</strong>fine como “el <strong>de</strong>recho <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s personas a que<br />
sus datos no se traten y se supriman cuando <strong>de</strong>jan <strong>de</strong> ser necesarios con fines legítimos”, es<br />
<strong>de</strong>cir, en el caso en que <strong>la</strong> persona “retira su consentimiento al tratamiento <strong>de</strong> datos” o <strong>de</strong><br />
que “haya expirado el p<strong>la</strong>zo” <strong>de</strong> conservación <strong>de</strong> los mismos34 .<br />
De entre los numerosos documentos dirigidos a <strong>la</strong> Comisión por parte <strong>de</strong> particu<strong>la</strong>res,<br />
entida<strong>de</strong>s y organizaciones privadas e instituciones públicas <strong>de</strong> los Estados <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión Europea35<br />
, <strong>la</strong> mayoría <strong>de</strong> aquellos que entran a valorar este aspecto coinci<strong>de</strong>n en reconocer <strong>la</strong> necesidad<br />
<strong>de</strong> c<strong>la</strong>rificar jurídicamente el <strong>de</strong>nominado “<strong>de</strong>recho al olvido”, aunque con algunas<br />
matizaciones respecto a <strong>la</strong> necesidad <strong>de</strong> que dicho esc<strong>la</strong>recimiento requiera, necesariamente,<br />
<strong>la</strong> reforma <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Directiva 95/46/CE.<br />
A este respecto, y sin pretensión <strong>de</strong> exhaustividad, pue<strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>stacarse <strong>la</strong> Contribución <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> Agencia Españo<strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> Protección <strong>de</strong> Datos (AEPD), encargada <strong>de</strong> ejercer <strong>la</strong>s funciones que<br />
le encomienda el artículo 37.1 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Ley orgánica 15/1999, <strong>de</strong> 13 <strong>de</strong> diciembre, <strong>de</strong> protección<br />
<strong>de</strong> datos <strong>de</strong> carácter personal. En su opinión, <strong>la</strong> aplicación conjunta <strong>de</strong>l principio según<br />
el cual todo consentimiento “pue<strong>de</strong> ser revocado” y el contenido <strong>de</strong> los artículos 6.1.c) 36 ,<br />
12.b) 37 y 1438 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Directiva 95/46/CE, constituyen mecanismos que, “a<strong>de</strong>cuadamente<br />
32 London Economics, julio <strong>de</strong> 2010. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/privacy/docs/studies/final_report_pets_16_07_10_en.pdf<br />
[Consulta: 10 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011].<br />
33 Enero <strong>de</strong> 2010. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/privacy/docs/studies/new_privacy_challenges/<br />
final_report_en.pdf [Consulta: 10 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011].<br />
34 Comunicación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comisión al Par<strong>la</strong>mento Europeo, al Consejo, al Comité Económico y Social<br />
Europeo y al Comité <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s Regiones “Un enfoque global <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> los datos personales en<br />
<strong>la</strong> Unión Europea”. op. cit., pg. 8.<br />
35 El texto <strong>de</strong> todas <strong>la</strong>s contribuciones remitidas a <strong>la</strong> Comisión en re<strong>la</strong>ción a <strong>la</strong> consulta, incluidas <strong>la</strong>s<br />
citadas en <strong>la</strong>s páginas que siguen, pue<strong>de</strong>n encontrarse en http://ec.europa.eu/justice/news/consulting_public/news_consulting_0006_en.htm<br />
[Consulta: 10 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011].<br />
36 El artículo 6.1. c) dispone que los Estados miembros “dispondrán” que los datos personales sean: “c)<br />
A<strong>de</strong>cuados, pertinentes y no excesivos con re<strong>la</strong>ción a los fines <strong>para</strong> los que se recaben y <strong>para</strong> los que se traten<br />
posteriormente”.<br />
37 Por su parte, el artículo 12. b) <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Directiva citada establece que los Estados miembros “garantizarán”<br />
a todos los interesados el <strong>de</strong>recho <strong>de</strong> obtener <strong>de</strong>l responsable <strong>de</strong>l tratamiento: “b) En su caso, <strong>la</strong> rectificación,<br />
<strong>la</strong> supresión o el bloqueo efectuado <strong>de</strong> conformidad con <strong>la</strong> letra b), si no resulta imposible o supone un<br />
esfuerzo <strong>de</strong>sproporcionado”.<br />
38 Según el artículo 14 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Directiva, los Estados miembros “reconocerán al interesado el <strong>de</strong>recho” a:<br />
a) “oponerse”, al menos en los casos contemp<strong>la</strong>dos en <strong>la</strong>s letras e) y f) <strong>de</strong>l artículo 7, en cualquier momento<br />
y por razones legítimas propias <strong>de</strong> su situación particu<strong>la</strong>r, “a que los datos que le conciernan sean
el <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido en Internet<br />
383<br />
combinados”, <strong>de</strong>berían “permitir un ejercicio efectivo” <strong>de</strong>l l<strong>la</strong>mado “<strong>de</strong>recho al olvido”. No<br />
obstante, entien<strong>de</strong> que el marco jurídico comunitario “<strong>de</strong>be c<strong>la</strong>rificar <strong>la</strong>s posibilida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong>l<br />
ejercicio <strong>de</strong> dicho <strong>de</strong>recho a través <strong>de</strong> medidas <strong>de</strong> obligado cumplimiento <strong>para</strong> los responsables<br />
<strong>de</strong>l tratamiento” que ofrezcan garantías sobre <strong>la</strong> sencillez en su ejercicio, <strong>la</strong> adopción<br />
<strong>de</strong> tecnologías “que impidan <strong>la</strong> in<strong>de</strong>xación” <strong>de</strong> datos <strong>de</strong> carácter personal por motores <strong>de</strong><br />
búsqueda y “su aplicación efectiva” en p<strong>la</strong>zos perentorios39 .<br />
Un criterio que contrasta con el expresado por el Consejo <strong>de</strong> Inspección <strong>de</strong> Datos <strong>de</strong><br />
Suecia40 que, sin hacer referencia en concreto al “<strong>de</strong>recho al olvido”, subraya <strong>la</strong> necesidad <strong>de</strong><br />
que el or<strong>de</strong>namiento comunitario proceda a una adaptación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong>l tratamiento<br />
<strong>de</strong> datos personales <strong>de</strong> los ciudadanos particu<strong>la</strong>res que tome en consi<strong>de</strong>ración lo dispuesto<br />
en el artículo 3.2 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Directiva 95/46/CE que, como es conocido, establece una excepción<br />
a <strong>la</strong> aplicación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> misma respecto <strong>de</strong>l tratamiento <strong>de</strong> datos personales “efectuado por una<br />
persona física en el ejercicio <strong>de</strong> activida<strong>de</strong>s exclusivamente personales o domésticas” 41 , dado<br />
que esta excepción ha sido interpretada por el Tribunal <strong>de</strong> Justicia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión Europea en<br />
el sentido <strong>de</strong> que “contemp<strong>la</strong> únicamente <strong>la</strong>s activida<strong>de</strong>s que se inscriben en el marco <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
vida privada o familiar <strong>de</strong> los particu<strong>la</strong>res” y, por lo tanto, no alcanza al “tratamiento <strong>de</strong> datos<br />
personales consistente en <strong>la</strong> difusión <strong>de</strong> dichos datos por Internet <strong>de</strong> modo que resulten<br />
accesibles a un grupo in<strong>de</strong>terminado <strong>de</strong> personas” 42 .<br />
objeto <strong>de</strong> tratamiento”, salvo cuando <strong>la</strong> legis<strong>la</strong>ción nacional disponga otra cosa. En caso <strong>de</strong> oposición<br />
justificada, el tratamiento que efectúe el responsable no podrá referirse ya a esos datos;<br />
b) “oponerse”, previa petición y sin gastos, “al tratamiento <strong>de</strong> los datos <strong>de</strong> carácter personal que le conciernan<br />
respecto <strong>de</strong> los cuales el responsable prevea un tratamiento <strong>de</strong>stinado a <strong>la</strong> prospección”; o “ser informado”<br />
antes <strong>de</strong> que los datos se comuniquen por primera vez a terceros o se usen en nombre <strong>de</strong> éstos a<br />
efectos <strong>de</strong> prospección, y a que se le ofrezca expresamente, el <strong>de</strong>recho <strong>de</strong> oponerse, sin gastos, a dicha<br />
comunicación o utilización.<br />
A<strong>de</strong>más, los Estados miembros “adoptarán todas <strong>la</strong>s medidas necesarias <strong>para</strong> garantizar que los interesados<br />
conozcan <strong>la</strong> existencia <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho a que se refiere el párrafo primero <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> letra b)”.<br />
39 Vid. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/news/consulting_public/0006/contributions/public_authorities/<br />
aepd_dpa_es.pdf [Consulta: 10 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011].<br />
40 Vid. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/news/consulting_public/0006/contributions/public_authorities/<br />
41<br />
data_inspection_board_en.pdf [Consulta: 10 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011].<br />
El artículo 3.2 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Directiva 95/46/CE establece: “Las disposiciones <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> presente Directiva no se<br />
aplicarán al tratamiento <strong>de</strong> datos personales:<br />
- efectuado en el ejercicio <strong>de</strong> activida<strong>de</strong>s no comprendidas en el ámbito <strong>de</strong> aplicación <strong>de</strong>l Derecho comunitario,<br />
como <strong>la</strong>s previstas por <strong>la</strong>s disposiciones <strong>de</strong> los títulos V y VI <strong>de</strong>l Tratado <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión Europea y, en<br />
cualquier caso, al tratamiento <strong>de</strong> datos que tenga por objeto <strong>la</strong> seguridad pública, <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>fensa, <strong>la</strong> seguridad<br />
<strong>de</strong>l Estado (incluido el bienestar económico <strong>de</strong>l Estado cuando dicho tratamiento esté re<strong>la</strong>cionado con <strong>la</strong><br />
seguridad <strong>de</strong>l Estado) y <strong>la</strong>s activida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong>l Estado en materia penal;<br />
- efectuado por una persona física en el ejercicio <strong>de</strong> activida<strong>de</strong>s exclusivamente personales o domésticas”.<br />
42 Sentencia <strong>de</strong> 6 <strong>de</strong> noviembre <strong>de</strong> 2003. Asunto C-101/01, Lindqvist, apartado 47. Vid. http://curia.<br />
europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?<strong>la</strong>ng=es [Consulta: 10 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011.
384 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
Por su parte, el Comisionado Informativo <strong>de</strong> Gran Bretaña (ICUK), responsable <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
promoción y aplicación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Ley <strong>de</strong> Protección <strong>de</strong> Datos <strong>de</strong> 1998 y <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Ley <strong>de</strong> Libertad<br />
<strong>de</strong> Información <strong>de</strong> 2000, consi<strong>de</strong>ra <strong>de</strong> “especial relevancia” el “<strong>de</strong>recho al olvido” en re<strong>la</strong>ción<br />
a los conceptos <strong>de</strong> consentimiento y transparencia respecto a los datos personales. En opinión<br />
<strong>de</strong> dicho Comisionado, resulta importante que <strong>la</strong> Comisión c<strong>la</strong>rifique <strong>la</strong> extensión <strong>de</strong>l<br />
“<strong>de</strong>recho al olvido” en <strong>la</strong> práctica, en tanto que, según afirma, existen situaciones en <strong>la</strong>s que<br />
éste pue<strong>de</strong> estar sujeto a limitaciones, como es el caso <strong>de</strong> los datos personales utilizados por<br />
los po<strong>de</strong>res públicos. Unas circunstancias limitadoras que, en su opinión, no concurren en<br />
re<strong>la</strong>ción con el tratamiento <strong>de</strong> datos con fines <strong>de</strong> marketing. A su juicio, es conveniente que<br />
<strong>la</strong> futura reforma no imponga <strong>la</strong> “cance<strong>la</strong>ción” en aquellos ámbitos en los que <strong>la</strong> “ocultación”<br />
actualmente ya permite garantizar <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> privacidad <strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>rechos individuales.<br />
En efecto, el ICUK estima que en ciertas situaciones el “<strong>de</strong>recho al olvido” podría<br />
aplicarse correctamente en <strong>la</strong> práctica, como aquel<strong>la</strong>s en <strong>la</strong> que un individuo <strong>de</strong>sea borrar<br />
sus registros <strong>de</strong> una <strong>red</strong> social en internet, pero estas situaciones, estima, “son limitadas”. Lo<br />
esencial, afirma, es que los individuos “conozcan <strong>la</strong> naturaleza y <strong>la</strong> extensión <strong>de</strong> sus <strong>de</strong>rechos”<br />
y que esos <strong>de</strong>rechos sean “recopi<strong>la</strong>dos <strong>de</strong> un modo no engañoso” <strong>para</strong> el individuo. En este<br />
sentido, el “<strong>de</strong>recho al olvido” admite posibilida<strong>de</strong>s que quizás no son fácilmente accesibles<br />
<strong>para</strong> el individuo, o que, en <strong>de</strong>terminados casos, “pue<strong>de</strong>n ir contra sus <strong>de</strong>rechos y liberta<strong>de</strong>s<br />
fundamentales”. No obstante, reconoce que podrían existir, en <strong>la</strong> práctica, “dificulta<strong>de</strong>s tecnológicas”<br />
<strong>para</strong> ejercer este <strong>de</strong>recho en ciertas circunstancias, como cuando <strong>la</strong> información<br />
es accesible públicamente a través <strong>de</strong> internet 43 .<br />
Más concretamente, el representante <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comisión <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> Protección <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Privacidad<br />
<strong>de</strong> Bélgica pone <strong>de</strong> manifiesto <strong>la</strong> necesidad <strong>de</strong> realizar una “pon<strong>de</strong>ración” entre el “<strong>de</strong>recho<br />
al olvido” y <strong>la</strong> necesidad <strong>de</strong> almacenar información <strong>de</strong> carácter esencialmente histórico<br />
y cultural. En este sentido, afirma que <strong>la</strong> recopi<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> datos en archivos <strong>de</strong>dicados a <strong>la</strong> investigación<br />
histórica <strong>de</strong>be ser fomentada y tratada como instrumento válido <strong>de</strong> conservación<br />
<strong>de</strong> los datos dada <strong>la</strong> utilidad operativa <strong>de</strong> los mismos, <strong>de</strong> ahí que no se encuentre “justificada”,<br />
en su opinión, <strong>la</strong> divergencia a <strong>la</strong> hora <strong>de</strong> aplicar “cance<strong>la</strong>ciones” entre <strong>la</strong>s operaciones<br />
<strong>de</strong> tratamiento <strong>de</strong> datos realizadas con fines periodísticos y con fines históricos, dado que<br />
ambos objetivos protegen el mismo valor jurídico: “<strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> información” 44 .<br />
En opinión <strong>de</strong>l Gobierno Fe<strong>de</strong>ral alemán se <strong>de</strong>be proce<strong>de</strong>r a una c<strong>la</strong>ra distinción entre<br />
los términos “<strong>de</strong>recho al olvido” y “<strong>de</strong>recho <strong>de</strong> cance<strong>la</strong>ción”. En re<strong>la</strong>ción con el primero,<br />
los requisitos relevantes <strong>de</strong>berían ser c<strong>la</strong>ramente <strong>de</strong>finidos, <strong>de</strong>l mismo modo que <strong>de</strong>bería<br />
especificarse “contra quién” pue<strong>de</strong> alegarse este <strong>de</strong>recho. Del mismo modo, afirma, también<br />
<strong>de</strong>berían ser especificadas <strong>la</strong>s excepciones al mismo, al tiempo que <strong>de</strong>bería examinarse <strong>la</strong><br />
proce<strong>de</strong>ncia <strong>de</strong> consagrar este <strong>de</strong>recho en una norma jurídica que –como <strong>la</strong> Directiva <strong>de</strong><br />
43 Vid. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/news/consulting_public/0006/contributions/public_authorities/<br />
ico_infocommoffice_en.pdf [Consulta: 10 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011]<br />
44 Vid. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/news/consulting_public/0006/contributions/public_authorities/<br />
cpvp_en.pdf [Consulta: 10 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011]
el <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido en Internet<br />
385<br />
Protección <strong>de</strong> Datos- podría excluir <strong>la</strong>s activida<strong>de</strong>s personales y familiares <strong>de</strong> los ciudadanos.<br />
En última instancia, estima que <strong>de</strong>be ser tomada en consi<strong>de</strong>ración <strong>la</strong> aplicación técnica <strong>de</strong><br />
tales medidas. En <strong>de</strong>finitiva, el Gobierno Fe<strong>de</strong>ral alemán manifiesta un gran interés en <strong>la</strong><br />
i<strong>de</strong>a <strong>de</strong> una “fecha <strong>de</strong> expiración <strong>de</strong> los datos” (“expiry date for data”), aunque consi<strong>de</strong>ra que<br />
<strong>la</strong> aplicación técnica <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> misma constituye un gran cambio 45 .<br />
En última instancia, en opinión <strong>de</strong>l Supervisor Europeo <strong>de</strong> Protección <strong>de</strong> Datos<br />
(EDPS), el concepto <strong>de</strong>l “<strong>de</strong>recho al olvido” está conectado con el “<strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> portabilidad”<br />
<strong>de</strong> los datos, según se <strong>de</strong>spren<strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comunicación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comisión -“Un enfoque<br />
global <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> los datos personales en <strong>la</strong> Unión Europea”-, dirigida a reforzar los<br />
<strong>de</strong>rechos sobre <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos. En su opinión, resultan conceptos “complementarios”<br />
a los principios ya mencionados por <strong>la</strong> Directiva 95/46/CE, que protegen el <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong><br />
protección <strong>de</strong> datos en re<strong>la</strong>ción con el tratamiento <strong>de</strong> datos personales y establecen <strong>la</strong> obligación<br />
<strong>de</strong>l responsable <strong>de</strong> los datos <strong>de</strong> “cance<strong>la</strong>r información” tan pronto como y no más allá<br />
<strong>de</strong>l tiempo necesario en re<strong>la</strong>ción con el propósito <strong>de</strong>l tratamiento <strong>de</strong> los datos personales 46 .<br />
Estas dos “nuevos conceptos”, estima, tienen un “valor añadido” en el contexto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información, don<strong>de</strong> cada vez se recopi<strong>la</strong> una mayor cantidad <strong>de</strong> datos y se<br />
retienen por periodos in<strong>de</strong>finidos <strong>de</strong> tiempo. La práctica muestra que, aunque los datos sean<br />
proporcionados por el propio titu<strong>la</strong>r, el “grado <strong>de</strong> control” efectivo <strong>de</strong> éste sobre sus datos<br />
personales es “muy limitado”. Esta es <strong>la</strong> realidad en lo que respecta, actualmente, a Internet.<br />
A<strong>de</strong>más, “<strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> una perspectiva económica”, resulta más costoso <strong>para</strong> el responsable <strong>de</strong> los<br />
datos su cance<strong>la</strong>ción que su almacenaje, <strong>de</strong> tal modo que los <strong>de</strong>rechos <strong>de</strong> los individuos a<br />
este respecto chocan contra <strong>la</strong> ten<strong>de</strong>ncia natural <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> economía 47 .<br />
En cualquier caso, ambos <strong>de</strong>rechos (el “<strong>de</strong>recho al olvido” y el “<strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> portabilidad”)<br />
podrían contribuir a “<strong>de</strong>cantar <strong>la</strong> ba<strong>la</strong>nza” a favor <strong>de</strong>l titu<strong>la</strong>r <strong>de</strong> los datos. El objetivo<br />
<strong>de</strong>l “<strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> portabilidad” <strong>de</strong> los datos podría ser el <strong>de</strong> proporcionar un mayor control<br />
a los individuos acerca <strong>de</strong> su información, mientras que el “<strong>de</strong>recho al olvido” podría garantizar<br />
que <strong>la</strong> información <strong>de</strong>saparezca automáticamente transcurrido un periodo <strong>de</strong> tiempo,<br />
aun cuando el titu<strong>la</strong>r <strong>de</strong> los datos no haya actuado o no sea todavía consciente <strong>de</strong> que los<br />
datos han sido almacenados 48 .<br />
Des<strong>de</strong> esta perspectiva, una “nueva codificación” <strong>de</strong>l “<strong>de</strong>recho al olvido” podría asegurar<br />
<strong>la</strong> “cance<strong>la</strong>ción” <strong>de</strong> los datos personales o <strong>la</strong> “prohibición <strong>de</strong> utilizarlos”, sin necesidad<br />
<strong>de</strong> una actuación <strong>de</strong>l titu<strong>la</strong>r <strong>de</strong> los datos, pero con <strong>la</strong> condición <strong>de</strong> que los datos hayan sido<br />
45 Vid. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/news/consulting_public/0006/contributions/public_authorities/<br />
46<br />
bun<strong>de</strong>sregierung_en.pdf [Consulta: 10 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011].<br />
Vid. Apartado 83, en http://ec.europa.eu/justice/news/consulting_public/0006/contributions/public_authorities/edps_en.pdf<br />
47 Vid. Apartado 84, en http://ec.europa.eu/justice/news/consulting_public/0006/contributions/public_authorities/edps_en.pdf<br />
[Consulta: 10 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011].<br />
48 Vid. Apartado 85, en http://ec.europa.eu/justice/news/consulting_public/0006/contributions/public_authorities/edps_en.pdf<br />
[Consulta: 10 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011].
386 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
objeto <strong>de</strong> almacenamiento durante un cierto periodo <strong>de</strong> tiempo. En otras pa<strong>la</strong>bras, podría<br />
atribuirse a los datos una especie <strong>de</strong> “fecha <strong>de</strong> expiración”.<br />
Este “principio”, afirma el Supervisor Europeo, se encuentra ya reconocido en sentencias<br />
judiciales nacionales o aplicado a sectores específicos, como por ejemplo, expedientes<br />
policiales, antece<strong>de</strong>ntes criminales o expedientes disciplinarios 49 .<br />
Es en este sentido en el que un “nuevo <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido” podría conectarse con <strong>la</strong><br />
“portabilidad <strong>de</strong> los datos”. El “valor añadido” que ello proporcionaría consiste en que no<br />
requeriría solicitud o requerimiento por parte <strong>de</strong>l titu<strong>la</strong>r <strong>de</strong> los datos <strong>para</strong> que éstos fueran<br />
“cance<strong>la</strong>dos”, en tanto que <strong>la</strong> cance<strong>la</strong>ción se produciría <strong>de</strong> un modo “automático”. Sólo en<br />
circunstancias específicas en <strong>la</strong>s que estuviera establecida <strong>la</strong> necesidad <strong>de</strong> prolongar <strong>la</strong> conservación<br />
<strong>de</strong> los datos, el responsable <strong>de</strong> los datos podría tener <strong>de</strong>recho a retenerlos. El “<strong>de</strong>recho<br />
al olvido” podría entonces “invertir <strong>la</strong> carga <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> prueba” <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> el individuo al responsable<br />
<strong>de</strong> los datos, y construir una “privacidad por <strong>de</strong>fecto” en el ámbito <strong>de</strong>l tratamiento <strong>de</strong> los<br />
datos personales50 .<br />
En <strong>de</strong>finitiva, el Supervisor Europeo <strong>de</strong> Protección <strong>de</strong> Datos consi<strong>de</strong>ra que el “<strong>de</strong>recho<br />
al olvido” podría resultar especialmente útil en el contexto <strong>de</strong> los servicios <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> información. La existencia o no <strong>de</strong> una “obligación <strong>de</strong> cance<strong>la</strong>r” <strong>la</strong> información tras un<br />
periodo <strong>de</strong> tiempo <strong>de</strong>terminado tiene sentido especialmente en re<strong>la</strong>ción con los medios <strong>de</strong><br />
comunicación y con Internet, y notablemente en <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s sociales.<br />
Del mismo modo, afirma, podría ser útil en <strong>la</strong> medida en que sean accesibles los<br />
terminales <strong>de</strong> los equipos, <strong>de</strong> manera que los datos almacenados en dispositivos u or<strong>de</strong>nadores<br />
móviles podrían ser “automáticamente cance<strong>la</strong>dos” o “bloqueados” tras un<br />
periodo <strong>de</strong>terminado <strong>de</strong> tiempo cuando ya no estén en posesión <strong>de</strong>l individuo. En este<br />
sentido, el “<strong>de</strong>recho al olvido” pue<strong>de</strong> traducirse en una “privacidad <strong>de</strong>liberadamente”<br />
obligada 51 .<br />
Por su parte, el Consejo Europeo, en <strong>la</strong> reunión 3071st Justicia y Política Interior (24 y<br />
25 <strong>de</strong> febrero <strong>de</strong> 2011), ha adoptado un conjunto <strong>de</strong> conclusiones acerca <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> mencionada<br />
Comunicación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comisión, don<strong>de</strong> reconoce que, dada <strong>la</strong> diferente transposición <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
Directiva <strong>de</strong> 1995 re<strong>la</strong>tiva a <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos personales por los Estados miembros,<br />
una armonización <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos al más alto nivel “sería beneficiosa tanto <strong>para</strong> los<br />
titu<strong>la</strong>res <strong>de</strong> los datos como <strong>para</strong> los responsables <strong>de</strong> los mismos” 52 .<br />
49 Vid. Apartado 88, en http://ec.europa.eu/justice/news/consulting_public/0006/contributions/public_authorities/edps_en.pdf<br />
[Consulta: 10 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011].<br />
50 Vid. Apartado 89, en http://ec.europa.eu/justice/news/consulting_public/0006/contributions/public_authorities/edps_en.pdf<br />
[Consulta: 10 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011].<br />
51 Vid. Apartado 90, en http://ec.europa.eu/justice/news/consulting_public/0006/contributions/public_authorities/edps_en.pdf<br />
[Consulta: 10 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011].<br />
52 Vid. Punto 11 http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/jha/119461.<br />
pdf [Consulta: 10 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011].
el <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido en Internet<br />
387<br />
En este sentido, afirma, <strong>la</strong> revisión <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> normativa sobre protección <strong>de</strong> datos, tomando<br />
como base lo establecido en el artículo 16 <strong>de</strong>l Tratado <strong>de</strong> Funcionamiento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión<br />
Europea ofrece, entre <strong>otros</strong> aspectos, “una oportunidad <strong>para</strong> mejorar los procedimientos <strong>de</strong><br />
protección <strong>de</strong> los datos” 53 , por lo que, “anima” a <strong>la</strong> Comisión a “explorar <strong>la</strong> introducción<br />
<strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido, como un instrumento legal innovador, en <strong>la</strong> medida en que <strong>la</strong>s nuevas<br />
tecnologías posibiliten el ejercicio <strong>de</strong> dicho <strong>de</strong>recho” 54 .<br />
4. conclusiones<br />
En <strong>de</strong>finitiva, po<strong>de</strong>mos concluir que el acelerado <strong>de</strong>sarrollo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información<br />
y <strong>la</strong> creciente complejidad técnica <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s tecnologías asociadas a su <strong>de</strong>sarrollo<br />
p<strong>la</strong>ntean nuevos <strong>retos</strong> en nuestras socieda<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong>mocráticas. Estos nuevos <strong>retos</strong> aparecen<br />
en dos líneas re<strong>la</strong>tivamente convergentes: por un <strong>la</strong>do, es necesario <strong>la</strong> re<strong>de</strong>finición <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>de</strong>rechos tradicionalmente construidos entre nos<strong>otros</strong>, sobre todo en lo que se refiere<br />
a los <strong>de</strong>rechos re<strong>la</strong>cionados con <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> expresión o el <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> información<br />
y su posibles conflictos con el <strong>de</strong>recho al honor, a <strong>la</strong> intimidad personal o a <strong>la</strong> propia<br />
imagen; y, por otro, como respuesta a nuevos peligros que amenacen <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> los<br />
ciudadanos, es necesario <strong>la</strong> creación <strong>de</strong> nuevos <strong>de</strong>rechos que <strong>la</strong> sigan garantizando, entre<br />
ellos po<strong>de</strong>mos citar el <strong>de</strong>recho al anonimato en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> o, en el caso que aquí nos ocupa,<br />
el <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido.<br />
Concretamente, en re<strong>la</strong>ción a este último <strong>de</strong>recho, hemos reflejado en <strong>la</strong>s páginas<br />
anteriores <strong>la</strong>s repuestas que se han ofrecido <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Agencia Españo<strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> Protección <strong>de</strong><br />
Datos que, aunque suponen un primer intento <strong>de</strong> am<strong>para</strong>r a los ciudadano en este <strong>de</strong>recho,<br />
no <strong>de</strong>jan <strong>de</strong> ser re<strong>la</strong>tivamente insatisfactorias, ya que se han centrado en hacer<br />
responsable especialmente al buscador “Google”, <strong>de</strong>jando un poco al margen <strong>de</strong> sus resoluciones<br />
a los responsables originarios <strong>de</strong> volcar esa información en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> (probablemente<br />
porque en numerosas ocasiones el responsable es una institución pública). Esta respuesta<br />
aparece, como poco, parcial, ya que no afronta el principal problema –que es como hemos<br />
seña<strong>la</strong>do- el <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> responsabilidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s fuentes originales <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información y, por otra<br />
parte, porque al centrar en un único buscador <strong>la</strong> responsabilidad <strong>de</strong> ocultar los resultados<br />
<strong>de</strong> sus búsquedas, <strong>de</strong>ja <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>do a <strong>otros</strong> buscadores que, en este mismo momento, también<br />
pue<strong>de</strong>n in<strong>de</strong>xar y exponer en sus resultados <strong>la</strong> información conflictiva o buscadores que<br />
puedan surgir en el futuro.<br />
La insatisfacción que conlleva esta solución ha obligado a <strong>la</strong> Unión Europea a afrontar<br />
iniciativas <strong>para</strong> lograr un nuevo avance en esta materia. Aunque hemos recogido <strong>la</strong>s posibles<br />
líneas <strong>de</strong> evolución <strong>de</strong> estas nuevas regu<strong>la</strong>ciones, no po<strong>de</strong>mos <strong>de</strong>jar <strong>de</strong> poner <strong>de</strong> manifiesto<br />
53 Vid. Punto 3 http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/jha/119461.pdf<br />
[Consulta: 10 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011].<br />
54 Vid. Punto 22 http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/jha/119461.<br />
pdf [Consulta: 10 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011].
388 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
<strong>la</strong> multiplicidad <strong>de</strong> soluciones aportadas y <strong>la</strong>s dificulta<strong>de</strong>s técnicas indudables que presentan<br />
algunas <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s aportadas.<br />
5. bibliografÍa<br />
Agencia Españo<strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> Protección <strong>de</strong> Datos (2009) Estudio sobre <strong>la</strong> privacidad <strong>de</strong> los datos<br />
personales y <strong>la</strong> seguridad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información en <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s sociales on line. Madrid, Instituto<br />
Nacional <strong>de</strong> Tecnologías <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comunicación y <strong>la</strong> AEPD.<br />
Agencia Españo<strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> Protección <strong>de</strong> Datos, Memoria, diversos años. Accesibles en: https://<br />
www.agpd.es/portalwebAGPD/canaldocumentacion/memorias/in<strong>de</strong>x-i<strong>de</strong>s-idphp.php<br />
[Consulta: 10 <strong>de</strong> mayo, 2011]<br />
Alonso B<strong>la</strong>s, D. (1996): “El futuro <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos a nivel europeo”, en DAVARA<br />
RoDRIGUEZ, M.A. (Coord.) “Encuentros sobre Informática y Derecho (1995-1996).<br />
Pamplona: Aranzadi.<br />
Bello Janeiro, D. (2001): “La protección <strong>de</strong> datos <strong>de</strong> carácter personal en el Derecho<br />
comunitario”, Anuario <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Facultad <strong>de</strong> Derecho <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Universidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Coruña, nº 5.<br />
Bru Cuadrada, E. (2007): “La protección <strong>de</strong> datos en España y en <strong>la</strong> Unión Europea.<br />
Especial referencia a los mecanismos jurídicos <strong>de</strong> reacción frente a <strong>la</strong> vulneración <strong>de</strong>l<br />
<strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> intimidad”, Revista <strong>de</strong> Internet, Derecho y Política, nº 5.<br />
Corral Talciani, H. (2000) «Configuración jurídica <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> privacidad II: Concepto<br />
y <strong>de</strong>limitación». Revista Chilena <strong>de</strong> Derecho, vol. 27 núm. 2, págs. 331-355<br />
Dubié, P. (2003) «Protección <strong>de</strong> datos y <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido», Derecho <strong>de</strong> los negocios, Año nº<br />
14, Nº 154-155, págs. 1-16<br />
Ferrando Vil<strong>la</strong>lba, Mª L. ( 2.000), La información <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s Entida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> Crédito. Estudio<br />
especial <strong>de</strong> los informes comerciales bancarios Valencia ,Ed. Tirant lo B<strong>la</strong>nch.<br />
Garriga Domínguez, A. (2004) Tratamiento <strong>de</strong> datos personales y <strong>de</strong>rechos fundamentales.<br />
Madrid, Dykinson<br />
Guerrero Picó, Mª C. (2006): “El impacto <strong>de</strong> internet en el <strong>de</strong>recho fundamental a <strong>la</strong> protección<br />
<strong>de</strong> datos <strong>de</strong> carácter personal”. Thomson-Civitas.<br />
Here<strong>de</strong>ro Higueras, M. (1997): “La Directiva comunitaria <strong>de</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> los datos <strong>de</strong><br />
carácter personal (Comentario a <strong>la</strong> Directiva <strong>de</strong>l Par<strong>la</strong>mento Europeo y <strong>de</strong>l Consejo 95/46/<br />
CE, re<strong>la</strong>tiva a <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s personas físicas en lo que respecta al tratamiento <strong>de</strong> datos<br />
personales y a <strong>la</strong> libre circu<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> estos datos)”. Pamplona: Aranzadi.<br />
Herrán ortiz, A.I. (2001): “La protección <strong>de</strong> datos <strong>de</strong> carácter personal en el marco <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
Unión Europea”, en REDI, nº 39.<br />
Mayer-Schönberger, V. (2010): Delete. Il diritto all’oblio nell’era digitale. Mi<strong>la</strong>n: Egea.<br />
orwell, G. (1949) 1984. 1ª edición 1952, Barcelona: Ed. P<strong>la</strong>neta<br />
orza Linares, R. M. (2009) “¿Es posible <strong>la</strong> creación <strong>de</strong> nuevos <strong>de</strong>rechos fundamentales<br />
asociados a <strong>la</strong>s nuevas tecnologías <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información y <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> comunicación?”. Ponencia
el <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido en Internet<br />
389<br />
presentada al IV Congreso <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Cibersociedad: Crisis analógica, futuro digital. Accesible<br />
en: http://www.cibersociedad.net/congres2009/es/coms/es-posible-<strong>la</strong>-creacion-<strong>de</strong>nuevos-<strong>de</strong>rechos-fundamentales-asociados-a-<strong>la</strong>s-nuevas-tecnologias-<strong>de</strong>-<strong>la</strong>-informacion-y-<strong>de</strong>-<strong>la</strong>-comunicacion/991/.<br />
[Consulta: 10 <strong>de</strong> mayo, 2011].<br />
Pace, A. (1998) «El <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> propia imagen en <strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong> los mass media» Revista<br />
Españo<strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> Derecho Constitucional, núm. 52, pags. 33-52<br />
Prieto Gutiérrez, J.Mª. (1997): “La Directiva 95/46/CE como criterio unificador”, Po<strong>de</strong>r<br />
Judicial, nº 48.<br />
Sánchez Bravo, A. (1998): “La protección <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> libertad informática en <strong>la</strong> Unión<br />
Europea”. Sevil<strong>la</strong>: Universidad <strong>de</strong> Sevil<strong>la</strong>.<br />
Viguri Perea, A. (1999): “Intimidad versus informática (La protección <strong>de</strong> datos <strong>de</strong> carácter<br />
personal: perspectiva <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> el <strong>de</strong>recho com<strong>para</strong>do)”, La Ley, Tomo <strong>de</strong> Jurispru<strong>de</strong>ncia 2.
21<br />
el régImeN CONstItUCIONAl Del DereCHO<br />
Al OlVIDO eN INterNet<br />
Pere Simón Castel<strong>la</strong>no<br />
Becario <strong>de</strong> investigación (BR) <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Universitat <strong>de</strong> Girona<br />
AbstrAct: El avance tecnológico acaecido durante <strong>la</strong>s últimas décadas ha transformado a los seres<br />
humanos en seres <strong>de</strong> cristal, transparentes, cada vez más expuestos a ojos extraños en su vida cotidiana.<br />
Internet y <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s sociales son el <strong>para</strong>digma <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> exposición pública <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s vidas privadas. A<strong>de</strong>más,<br />
<strong>la</strong>s nuevas tecnologías han alterado por completo el proceso <strong>de</strong> comunicación pública; hoy, cualquier<br />
persona pue<strong>de</strong> difundir información <strong>de</strong> manera ilimitada, con un alcance potencial superior al <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
prensa, <strong>la</strong> radio o <strong>la</strong> televisión, y con <strong>la</strong> c<strong>red</strong>ibilidad que pue<strong>de</strong> suponerse, ingenuamente, a <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones<br />
interpersonales. En ese marco <strong>de</strong> difusión e intercambio <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información, los riesgos <strong>para</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> intimidad y <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> los datos <strong>de</strong> carácter personal se han visto multiplicados. Uno <strong>de</strong> los<br />
gran<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong>safíos que nos p<strong>la</strong>ntea <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> está directamente re<strong>la</strong>cionado con <strong>la</strong>s dificulta<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> borrar<br />
<strong>la</strong> información que allí se publica y comparte, en concreto, aquel<strong>la</strong> que pue<strong>de</strong> afectar a <strong>la</strong> reputación<br />
e hipotecar el futuro <strong>de</strong> los ciberusuarios. Especialmente peligrosos son los motores <strong>de</strong> búsqueda<br />
que operan en Internet, que acumu<strong>la</strong>n gran<strong>de</strong>s cantida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> información y <strong>la</strong> combinan con una<br />
tecnología que permite, con una búsqueda re<strong>la</strong>tivamente sencil<strong>la</strong>, observar todo aquello que <strong>la</strong> web<br />
contiene sobre <strong>de</strong>terminadas personas. En este trabajo p<strong>la</strong>ntearemos los términos <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>bate sobre el<br />
encaje constitucional <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido en Internet, observando en que medida este se inspira en<br />
los principios y <strong>de</strong>rechos que emanan <strong>de</strong> nuestra carta magna.<br />
pAlAbrAs clAve: Internet, nuevas tecnologías, web 2.0, protección <strong>de</strong> datos, <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido digital.<br />
1. introducción y terminologÍa<br />
En <strong>la</strong>s últimas décadas, <strong>la</strong>s potencialida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s Tecnologías <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Información y <strong>la</strong><br />
Comunicación (en a<strong>de</strong><strong>la</strong>nte, TIC) han supuesto un notorio cambio <strong>de</strong> <strong>para</strong>digma en el<br />
proceso <strong>de</strong> comunicación pública. Hoy en día, Internet permite una comunicación global,<br />
multidireccional y horizontal; ha eliminado en gran medida <strong>la</strong>s barreras espacio temporales<br />
en <strong>la</strong> divulgación <strong>de</strong> información y <strong>la</strong>s trabas <strong>para</strong> po<strong>de</strong>r compartir y publicar información.<br />
Las nuevas tecnologías conllevan así profundas transformaciones sociales que significan, <strong>de</strong><br />
un <strong>la</strong>do, nuevas oportunida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>para</strong> dotar <strong>de</strong> mayor efectividad a <strong>la</strong>s liberta<strong>de</strong>s informativas<br />
y al i<strong>de</strong>al <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>mocracia <strong>de</strong>liberativa; <strong>de</strong>l otro, ingentes <strong>de</strong>safíos <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> intimidad personal,<br />
más aún si tenemos en cuenta <strong>la</strong> ten<strong>de</strong>ncia sociológica <strong>de</strong> procesar públicamente <strong>la</strong> vida<br />
privada <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s personas 1 .<br />
1 “Los <strong>de</strong>bates en <strong>la</strong> televisión son más importantes que los <strong>de</strong>bates en el par<strong>la</strong>mento. El mundo político,<br />
los partidos, par<strong>la</strong>mentos, sindicatos, siguen siendo los agentes centrales <strong>de</strong>l procesamiento público<br />
<strong>de</strong> los problemas públicos. Los medios <strong>de</strong> comunicación <strong>de</strong> masa se <strong>de</strong>dican al proceso público <strong>de</strong> los
392 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
Precisamente, uno <strong>de</strong> los riesgos más peligrosos tanto <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> intimidad como <strong>para</strong> el<br />
honor y <strong>la</strong> reputación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s personas es <strong>la</strong> perpetuidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información que se comparte<br />
y publica en Internet. La <strong>red</strong> es capaz <strong>de</strong> almacenar toda <strong>la</strong> información –texto, imagen,<br />
sonido, etc.– que en el<strong>la</strong> se comparte y procesar<strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> tal manera que sea realmente sencillo<br />
acce<strong>de</strong>r universalmente a <strong>la</strong> misma. Pensamos, por ejemplo, en el efecto multiplicador <strong>de</strong><br />
los buscadores web o en <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s sociales, don<strong>de</strong> los ciudadanos exponen libremente datos<br />
re<strong>la</strong>tivos a su vida privada y opiniones que en un futuro pue<strong>de</strong>n ser realmente embarazosas.<br />
En <strong>otros</strong> términos, Internet podría suponer el fin <strong>de</strong>l olvido y el recuerdo constante <strong>de</strong><br />
hechos y informaciones <strong>de</strong>l pasado, que eventualmente pue<strong>de</strong>n llegar a afectar <strong>la</strong> intimidad<br />
y <strong>la</strong> reputación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s personas.<br />
Con todo, a lo <strong>la</strong>rgo <strong>de</strong> este trabajo trataremos <strong>de</strong> establecer los términos <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>bate<br />
acerca <strong>de</strong>l encaje constitucional <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido en Internet. Esto es, primeramente,<br />
presentar el problema <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> perennidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información en Internet y <strong>de</strong>scribir <strong>la</strong> complejidad<br />
<strong>de</strong>l l<strong>la</strong>mado “universo 2.0”; en segundo lugar, observar si <strong>de</strong> nuestro or<strong>de</strong>namiento<br />
jurídico vigente, en concreto, <strong>de</strong> los principios y <strong>de</strong>rechos constitucionales, podría <strong>de</strong>rivarse<br />
<strong>la</strong> existencia <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido digital.<br />
Antes <strong>de</strong> empezar, pero, resulta fundamental c<strong>la</strong>rificar una serie <strong>de</strong> cuestiones acerca <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
terminología que se utilizará a lo <strong>la</strong>rgo <strong>de</strong> este trabajo. En primer lugar, cuando utilizamos <strong>la</strong>s<br />
sig<strong>la</strong>s TIC hacemos referencia a un concepto que engloba todos aquellos elementos y técnicas<br />
utilizadas en el tratamiento y transmisión <strong>de</strong> información re<strong>la</strong>cionadas con <strong>la</strong> informática, <strong>la</strong>s<br />
telecomunicaciones e Internet. En segundo lugar, por “<strong>red</strong> social” enten<strong>de</strong>remos aquellos servicios<br />
web que permiten a los individuos construir un perfil público, articu<strong>la</strong>r una lista <strong>de</strong> <strong>otros</strong><br />
usuarios <strong>de</strong>l sistema con los que compartir información y visualizar <strong>la</strong>s listas <strong>de</strong> <strong>otros</strong> usuarios<br />
<strong>de</strong>l sistema 2 . Finalmente, utilizaremos el neologismo web 2.0 <strong>para</strong> hacer referencia a una serie<br />
<strong>de</strong> aplicaciones <strong>de</strong> Internet que, a través <strong>de</strong> sistemas <strong>de</strong> inteligencia colectiva, proporcionan<br />
servicios interactivos en <strong>red</strong>. Así, cuando hab<strong>la</strong>mos <strong>de</strong> web 2.0 estamos haciendo referencia a<br />
bitácoras o Weblogs; espacios web <strong>para</strong> compartir imágenes o ví<strong>de</strong>os como Flickr y YouTube;<br />
p<strong>la</strong>taformas educativas como Moodle; re<strong>de</strong>s sociales como Twitter, Facebook y Tuenti; etc.<br />
2. web 2.0 y transformaciones sociales<br />
Una vez concretadas <strong>la</strong>s cuestiones terminológicas, nos disponemos a analizar <strong>la</strong>s características<br />
<strong>de</strong>l universo 2.0 a fin <strong>de</strong> po<strong>de</strong>r enten<strong>de</strong>r correctamente <strong>la</strong> magnitud <strong>de</strong>l cambio<br />
problemas privados, y por eso lo que nos impresiona más en <strong>la</strong> televisión es siempre <strong>la</strong> visión <strong>de</strong> un<br />
individuo, <strong>de</strong> un <strong>de</strong>stino. Es <strong>la</strong> nove<strong>la</strong> mo<strong>de</strong>rna”. ToURAINE, A. (1996). Los mass media: ¿Nuevo foro<br />
político o <strong>de</strong>strucción <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> opinión pública?. Barcelona: Centre d’Investigació <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comunicació, pp. 23.<br />
2 Seguimos, a gran<strong>de</strong>s rasgos, <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>finición propuesta por <strong>otros</strong> autores. Véase BoYD, D. y ELLISoN,<br />
N. (2007). «Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scho<strong>la</strong>rship». Journal of computer-Mediated<br />
Communication. Vol. 1, nº 13. Disponible en Internet: http://bit.ly/e5MlA [Fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta: 28<br />
<strong>de</strong> marzo <strong>de</strong> 2011].
el régimen constitucional <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido en Internet<br />
393<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>para</strong>digma ocasionado por <strong>la</strong>s nuevas tecnologías en el proceso <strong>de</strong> comunicación publica.<br />
A gran<strong>de</strong>s rasgos, <strong>la</strong> perennidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> está interconectada con <strong>otros</strong><br />
elementos que aquí apuntaremos fugazmente, puesto que el estudio <strong>de</strong> los mismos exce<strong>de</strong>ría<br />
<strong>de</strong>l objeto <strong>de</strong> este trabajo. Así, en primer lugar, observarmos <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>saparición <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s dificulta<strong>de</strong>s<br />
prácticas –espacio-temporales– <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> divulgación <strong>de</strong> información; en gran medida, porque<br />
el acceso universal a Internet facilita que <strong>la</strong> ciudadanía comparta y publique opiniones<br />
a tiempo real. Tal publicidad automática que <strong>la</strong>s TIC permiten no tiene <strong>para</strong>ngón en <strong>la</strong> historia<br />
<strong>de</strong>l proceso <strong>de</strong> comunicación pública. En segundo lugar, y conectado con lo primero,<br />
los ciudadanos han empezado a ocupar progresivamente un papel activo en <strong>la</strong> difusión <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
información. Muchas veces, incluso, el ciudadano se ha avanzado temporalmente a los mass<br />
media en <strong>la</strong> divulgación <strong>de</strong> información <strong>de</strong> interés general 3 . Todo ello ha puesto en jaque <strong>la</strong>s<br />
posibilida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> censura previa y control <strong>de</strong>l acceso <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> ciudadanía a <strong>la</strong> información que, si<br />
bien continúa existiendo, se ha visto notablemente <strong>red</strong>ucida.<br />
Por otro <strong>la</strong>do, aparece el riesgo <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>scontextualización <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información compartida<br />
en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>. El hecho <strong>de</strong> tener “amista<strong>de</strong>s” virtuales pue<strong>de</strong> crear confusión a <strong>la</strong> ciudadanía hasta<br />
el punto <strong>de</strong> dar <strong>la</strong> sensación que, cuando uno publica información en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>, está hab<strong>la</strong>ndo<br />
con los amigos. Y no <strong>de</strong>bería ser así, especialmente cuando esa información también se<br />
comparte con <strong>otros</strong> usuarios no “amigos” <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> social e incluso, a veces, es accesible <strong>para</strong><br />
todos los ciberusuarios. Los problemas <strong>de</strong>rivados <strong>de</strong> no saber <strong>la</strong> voluntad real <strong>de</strong>l ciudadano<br />
que publica, <strong>de</strong> compartir información privada con <strong>la</strong> sensación <strong>de</strong> estar entre “amigos”, y <strong>de</strong><br />
los riesgos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>scontextualización en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>, en<strong>la</strong>zan con el olvido en el sentido que forzar<br />
éste último será más necesario en una sociedad don<strong>de</strong> lo dicho e informado –comentarios,<br />
fotos, ví<strong>de</strong>os, etc.– en el pasado no sólo envenena el presente, sino que pue<strong>de</strong> hipotecar el<br />
futuro.<br />
2.1. <strong>la</strong> perennidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información en internet<br />
La preservación <strong>de</strong>l pasado y <strong>la</strong> perennidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información introducida en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong><br />
p<strong>la</strong>ntea importantes <strong>retos</strong>. El procesamiento informático y <strong>la</strong> digitalización <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información<br />
contrasta con <strong>la</strong> fragilidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> memoria humana. En concreto, Internet registra<br />
gran<strong>de</strong>s cantida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> información –fotos en línea, actualizaciones <strong>de</strong> estados, entradas <strong>de</strong><br />
bitácoras, participaciones en foros, reve<strong>la</strong>ciones personales, comentarios, ví<strong>de</strong>os, etc.–, esto<br />
es, información re<strong>la</strong>tiva a <strong>la</strong> vida privada <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s personas, a veces vergonzosa; y no olvida<br />
nada. Es más, <strong>la</strong> web no sólo conserva, sino que contiene mecanismos, como los motores<br />
<strong>de</strong> búsqueda, que ayudan, con gran facilidad –introducción <strong>de</strong>l nombre y apellidos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
persona–, a encontrar toda <strong>la</strong> información re<strong>la</strong>cionada con <strong>la</strong> i<strong>de</strong>ntidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s personas<br />
que <strong>la</strong> web alberga y que incluye, por en<strong>de</strong>, datos personales. Por ello hab<strong>la</strong>mos <strong>de</strong>l efecto<br />
3 Por ejemplo, en <strong>la</strong> difusión <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> reciente operación que acabó con <strong>la</strong> vida <strong>de</strong>l terrorista Bin La<strong>de</strong>n.<br />
Vid. noticia titu<strong>la</strong>da «Bin La<strong>de</strong>n raid was revealed on Twitter», publicada en <strong>la</strong> BBC, con fecha <strong>de</strong> 2<br />
<strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011, disponible en Internet: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13257940 [Fecha<br />
<strong>de</strong> consulta: 3 <strong>de</strong> mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011].
394 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
multiplicador <strong>de</strong> los buscadores en re<strong>la</strong>ción a <strong>la</strong> constancia y visibilidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información<br />
publicada antaño, que observada actualmente, pue<strong>de</strong> ser embarazosa o afectar nuestra reputación<br />
y intimidad.<br />
Hoy en día, <strong>la</strong> preocupación ciudadana en re<strong>la</strong>ción a <strong>la</strong> conservación <strong>de</strong> datos personales<br />
e información en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y a <strong>la</strong>s dificulta<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> borrar <strong>la</strong> misma, es creciente. Así se muestra<br />
en <strong>la</strong> memoria <strong>de</strong>l año 2009 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Agencia Españo<strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> Protección <strong>de</strong> Datos (en a<strong>de</strong><strong>la</strong>nte,<br />
AEPD):<br />
“(...) en 2009 ha emergido una nueva preocupación <strong>para</strong> los ciudadanos, que se traduce<br />
en más solicitu<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> tute<strong>la</strong>s <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>rechos ante <strong>la</strong> AEPD, en re<strong>la</strong>ción al <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido en<br />
Internet. En concreto, <strong>la</strong>s solicitu<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> ciudadanos pidiendo que se cancelen sus datos en páginas<br />
<strong>de</strong> Internet <strong>de</strong> diversa índole, u oponiéndose a que éstos sean recopi<strong>la</strong>dos y difundidos<br />
por buscadores <strong>de</strong> Internet se han incrementado un 200% en 2009, pasando <strong>de</strong> 18 en 2008<br />
a 57 en 2009 (en 2007 se registraron tan sólo 3). Este dato reve<strong>la</strong> que crece el interés <strong>de</strong> los<br />
ciudadanos por evitar que sus datos aparezcan en los resultados <strong>de</strong> buscadores <strong>de</strong> Internet a<br />
partir <strong>de</strong> los datos i<strong>de</strong>ntificativos <strong>de</strong> una persona” 4 .<br />
Esta nueva preocupación se centra esencialmente en borrar aquel<strong>la</strong> información irrelevante<br />
sobre uno mismo que <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> contiene, y así preservar <strong>la</strong> privacidad. Muchas veces, fue<br />
el propio afectado quién publicó <strong>la</strong> información en Internet, pero pasado un tiempo, prefiere<br />
que esta se elimine y así, que nadie pueda saber qué opinaba –comentarios, entradas, etc.–,<br />
cómo bai<strong>la</strong>ba (por poner un ejemplo) o en qué estado lo hacía –ví<strong>de</strong>os y fotos– cuando era<br />
joven. La prensa ya se ha hecho eco <strong>de</strong> tal problemática, contemp<strong>la</strong>ndo <strong>la</strong> tarea titánica, y<br />
a veces frustrante, <strong>de</strong> exigir el completo borrado <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información personal que, aunque<br />
no respon<strong>de</strong> a un interés público actual y pue<strong>de</strong> afectar a <strong>la</strong> reputación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s personas, está<br />
disponible abiertamente en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> 5 . La persecución <strong>de</strong>l pasado, el recuerdo constante y <strong>la</strong><br />
permanencia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información pue<strong>de</strong>, más allá <strong>de</strong> suponer el fin <strong>de</strong>l olvido, envenenar el<br />
presente y bloquear el futuro 6 . Es fácil que en el pasado se hayan dicho o pensado cosas y<br />
más tar<strong>de</strong> uno se arrepienta <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s mismas. Las personas cambian, evolucionan, maduran e<br />
incluso se contradicen a lo <strong>la</strong>rgo <strong>de</strong> su trayectoria vital. Por eso, frente a <strong>la</strong>s ingentes posibi-<br />
4 Memoria <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> AEPD correspondiente al año 2009, disponible en Internet: https://www.agpd.es/portalwebAGPD/.../100602_NP_MEMoRIA_2009.pdf<br />
[Fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta: 17 <strong>de</strong> novembre <strong>de</strong> 2010].<br />
5 Véase el Reportaje titu<strong>la</strong>do «Quiero que Internet se olvi<strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong> mí», publicado en el diario El País con<br />
fecha <strong>de</strong> 7 <strong>de</strong> enero <strong>de</strong> 2011, disponible en Internet: http://bit.ly/eXgJit [Fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta: 8 <strong>de</strong><br />
mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011].<br />
6 “Examples are proliferating daily: there was the 16-year-old British girl who was fi<strong>red</strong> from her office job<br />
for comp<strong>la</strong>ining on Facebook, “I’m so totally bo<strong>red</strong>!!”; there was the 66-year-old Canadian psychotherapist<br />
who tried to enter the United States but was turned away at the bor<strong>de</strong>r –and bar<strong>red</strong> permanently from visiting<br />
the country– after a bor<strong>de</strong>r guard’s Internet search found that the therapist had written an article in<br />
a philosophy journal <strong>de</strong>scribing his experiments 30 years ago with L.S.D.”. RoSEN, J. (2010). «The web<br />
means the end of forgetting». Articulo publicado en el diario The New York Times, con fecha <strong>de</strong> 21 <strong>de</strong><br />
julio <strong>de</strong> 2010, disponible en Internet: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/magazine/25privacy-t2.<br />
html [Fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta: 29 <strong>de</strong> enero <strong>de</strong> 2011]. J. RoSEN es profesor <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>recho en George Washington<br />
University.
el régimen constitucional <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido en Internet<br />
395<br />
lida<strong>de</strong>s que ofrece <strong>la</strong> informática, el <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido preten<strong>de</strong> garantizar <strong>la</strong> privacidad, el<br />
libre <strong>de</strong>sarrollo y <strong>la</strong> evolución <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s personas, evitando <strong>la</strong> persecución constante <strong>de</strong>l pasado.<br />
Así, cuando hab<strong>la</strong>mos <strong>de</strong> “<strong>de</strong>recho al olvido” hacemos referencia a posibilitar que los datos<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s personas <strong>de</strong>jen <strong>de</strong> ser accesibles en <strong>la</strong> web, por petición <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s mismas y cuando estas<br />
lo <strong>de</strong>cidan; el <strong>de</strong>recho a retirarse <strong>de</strong>l sistema y eliminar <strong>la</strong> información personal que <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong><br />
contiene.<br />
Sin duda, tal situación se verá agravada en un futuro próximo, cuando <strong>la</strong> generación<br />
que hoy procesa públicamente en Internet su vidas privadas quiera rectificar, cambiar u olvidar<br />
algunos <strong>de</strong> los comportamientos <strong>de</strong>l pasado. A<strong>de</strong>más <strong>de</strong> ésta, otra hipótesis es <strong>la</strong> conservación<br />
en <strong>la</strong> web <strong>de</strong> información que afecta a <strong>la</strong> vida privada <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s personas y que, difundida<br />
en su día, gozaba <strong>de</strong> interés público y era noticiable, pero que con el paso <strong>de</strong>l tiempo se ha<br />
convertido en irrelevante.<br />
Con todo, <strong>la</strong>s propias características <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> web 2.0 dificultan hacer efectivo el olvido<br />
en un espacio, <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>, don<strong>de</strong> el protagonista es el ciudadano, quién se expone a una tribuna<br />
pública y narra aquello que observa sin un control previo a <strong>la</strong> publicación. En <strong>otros</strong> términos,<br />
asistimos a una nueva realidad que permite una comunicación horizontal, sin jerarquía y<br />
con menos posibilida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> censura; que contiene, a <strong>la</strong> vez, oportunida<strong>de</strong>s y riesgos a los que<br />
el <strong>de</strong>recho tiene que dar respuesta 7 . En ese ámbito aparece el <strong>de</strong>safío <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> permanencia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
información en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>, que p<strong>la</strong>ntea numerosos problemas <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> intimidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s personas<br />
dadas <strong>la</strong>s enormes facilida<strong>de</strong>s -por ejemplo, los buscadores- <strong>para</strong> acce<strong>de</strong>r a <strong>la</strong> información.<br />
3. el encaje constitucional <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recHo al olVido digital<br />
Hasta el momento hemos analizado nuevos <strong>retos</strong> que nos p<strong>la</strong>ntean <strong>la</strong>s nuevas tecnologías,<br />
que han hecho permanentes y universalmente accesibles informaciones perjudiciales<br />
<strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> reputación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s personas. Como reacción se ha empezado a p<strong>la</strong>ntear en el<br />
<strong>de</strong>bate público <strong>la</strong> conveniencia <strong>de</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>r el <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido. El or<strong>de</strong>namiento jurídico intervendría<br />
<strong>para</strong> forzar lo que antes se producía <strong>de</strong> manera natural gracias al paso <strong>de</strong>l tiempo<br />
y a <strong>la</strong>s dificulta<strong>de</strong>s prácticas <strong>para</strong> acce<strong>de</strong>r y dar difusión a <strong>la</strong> información. En esta línea se<br />
manifestaba A. RALLo 8 , director <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> AEPD, al asegurar que uno <strong>de</strong> los principales <strong>retos</strong><br />
actuales es el <strong>de</strong> dotar a los ciudadanos <strong>de</strong> mecanismos reales y efectivos <strong>para</strong> garantizar el<br />
7 En esta línea A. RALLo afirma que: “Pue<strong>de</strong> afirmarse sin temor al error que ha nacido una sociedad<br />
que se <strong>de</strong>sarrol<strong>la</strong> íntegramente en el mundo virtual. En el<strong>la</strong>, los individuos interactúan siguiendo en<br />
muchas ocasiones normas y pautas <strong>de</strong> conducta perfectamente homologables con <strong>la</strong>s que se producen<br />
en el mundo físico. Sin embargo, en muchas otras se perfi<strong>la</strong>n nuevos escenarios sociales. Ello obliga a<br />
reflexionar profundamente sobre hasta qué punto el Derecho que or<strong>de</strong>na nuestras socieda<strong>de</strong>s va a ser<br />
eficaz en el universo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s sociales”. RALLo LoMBARTE, A. y MARTÍNEZ MARTÍNEZ, R.<br />
(coords.). (2010). Derecho y re<strong>de</strong>s sociales. Colección: Estudios y Comentarios. Navarra: Civitas, pp. 19.<br />
8 RALLo LoMBARTE, A. (2010). «El <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido y su protección. A partir <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong><br />
datos». Telos: Cua<strong>de</strong>rnos <strong>de</strong> comunicación e innovación. Nº 85, pp. 104-108.
396 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
olvido, entendiendo que ningún ciudadano que no sea objeto <strong>de</strong> un hecho noticiable <strong>de</strong><br />
relevancia pública tiene que resignarse a que sus datos se difundan en Internet sin po<strong>de</strong>r<br />
reaccionar ni corregir su inclusión. La configuración <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido conlleva entonces<br />
<strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>terminación <strong>de</strong> los preceptos constitucionales a los que pueda vincu<strong>la</strong>rse, pero también<br />
una dimensión negativa, <strong>de</strong> restricción <strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>rechos que facilitan el acceso y <strong>la</strong> circu<strong>la</strong>ción<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información <strong>para</strong> dar garantía al <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido. Así, <strong>la</strong> ciudadanía tendría <strong>la</strong><br />
posibilidad <strong>de</strong> exigir <strong>la</strong> supresión, ocultación y cance<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información personal que<br />
contiene <strong>la</strong> web, con indiferencia si ha sido publicada por el propio afectado o por terceros,<br />
siempre y cuando <strong>la</strong> misma no responda a un interés público vigente. En <strong>otros</strong> términos, el<br />
<strong>de</strong>recho al olvido también incluiría aquel<strong>la</strong>s noticias publicadas antiguamente –en prensa,<br />
boletines y diarios oficiales, resoluciones judiciales, etc.–, que contienen datos personales y<br />
información que pue<strong>de</strong> dañar <strong>la</strong> dignidad personal y <strong>la</strong> reputación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s personas, y que no<br />
respon<strong>de</strong>n a <strong>la</strong> finalidad por <strong>la</strong> que fueron publicadas, el interés público.<br />
3.1. el <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido <strong>de</strong>ntro <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos personales<br />
El encaje constitucional <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido digital se produciría en el marco <strong>de</strong>l<br />
<strong>de</strong>recho fundamental a <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos personales que se establece en el artículo 18.4<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> norma normarum. En realidad, tal articulo sólo establece un mandato legis<strong>la</strong>tivo que<br />
<strong>la</strong> doctrina jurispru<strong>de</strong>ncial se ha encargado <strong>de</strong> convertir en <strong>de</strong>recho fundamental, con el<br />
siguiente objeto:<br />
“(...) <strong>la</strong> singu<strong>la</strong>ridad <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos, pues, por un <strong>la</strong>do, su objeto es más<br />
amplio que el <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> intimidad, ya que el <strong>de</strong>recho fundamental a <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong><br />
datos extien<strong>de</strong> su garantía no sólo a <strong>la</strong> intimidad en su dimensión constitucionalmente protegida<br />
por el art. 18.1 CE, sino a lo que en ocasiones este Tribunal ha <strong>de</strong>finido en términos<br />
más amplios como esfera <strong>de</strong> los bienes <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> personalidad que pertenecen al ámbito <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
vida privada, inextricablemente unidos al respeto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> dignidad personal (...) El <strong>de</strong>recho<br />
fundamental a <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos amplía <strong>la</strong> garantía constitucional a aquellos <strong>de</strong> esos<br />
datos que sean relevantes <strong>para</strong> o tengan inci<strong>de</strong>ncia en el ejercicio <strong>de</strong> cualesquiera <strong>de</strong>rechos<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> persona, sean o no <strong>de</strong>rechos constitucionales y sean o no re<strong>la</strong>tivos al honor, <strong>la</strong> i<strong>de</strong>ología,<br />
<strong>la</strong> intimidad personal y familiar a cualquier otro bien constitucionalmente am<strong>para</strong>do” 9 .<br />
Así, el <strong>de</strong>recho fundamental a <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos se configura como un <strong>de</strong>recho que<br />
garantiza a <strong>la</strong>s personas un po<strong>de</strong>r <strong>de</strong> control respecto el uso y el <strong>de</strong>stino <strong>de</strong> sus datos personales,<br />
utilizando un concepto amplio <strong>de</strong> “dato personal”, que va más allá <strong>de</strong> datos re<strong>la</strong>tivos<br />
a <strong>la</strong> intimidad y que se extien<strong>de</strong> a cualquier dato que permita i<strong>de</strong>ntificar a <strong>la</strong>s personas. En<br />
concreto, por “dato personal” se entien<strong>de</strong> cualquier información referente a personas físicas<br />
i<strong>de</strong>ntificadas o i<strong>de</strong>ntificables (art. 3.a) <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> LoPD). Esta <strong>de</strong>finición tan amplia <strong>de</strong> dato<br />
personal engloba toda aquel<strong>la</strong> información que permite i<strong>de</strong>ntificar a una persona: nombres<br />
y apellidos, número <strong>de</strong>l Documento Nacional <strong>de</strong> I<strong>de</strong>ntidad, <strong>la</strong> dirección física, <strong>la</strong> dirección<br />
9 STC 292/2000, <strong>de</strong> 30 <strong>de</strong> novembre, FJ 6.
el régimen constitucional <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido en Internet<br />
397<br />
<strong>de</strong> correo electrónico, <strong>la</strong> dirección IP, fotografías, ví<strong>de</strong>os, etc. o dicho en <strong>otros</strong> términos,<br />
toda información numérica, alfabética, gráfica, fotográfica, acústica o <strong>de</strong> cualquier otro tipo<br />
susceptible <strong>de</strong> ser recogida, registrada, tratada o transmitida, y que permita <strong>la</strong> i<strong>de</strong>ntificación<br />
<strong>de</strong> una persona física (art. 5.1.f) RLoPD). Precisamente, por este motivo, <strong>la</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción en<br />
materia <strong>de</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos será <strong>de</strong> aplicación a toda <strong>la</strong> información que permite i<strong>de</strong>ntificar<br />
a <strong>la</strong>s personas y que está disponible en Internet.<br />
En una línea muy simi<strong>la</strong>r a <strong>la</strong> apuntada fugazmente hasta aquí, <strong>la</strong> AEPD ha recordado<br />
que los individuos no <strong>de</strong>ben resignarse ni <strong>de</strong>ben verse expuestos eternamente al tratamiento<br />
<strong>de</strong> sus datos personales, muchas veces contenidos en noticias <strong>de</strong>l pasado que se perpetúan<br />
en <strong>la</strong> web, cuando <strong>la</strong>s noticias o los hechos no tengan relevancia pública o no versen sobre<br />
un personaje público. En este marco, <strong>la</strong> AEPD ha entendido, por ejemplo, que los ciudadanos<br />
pue<strong>de</strong>n ejercer un <strong>de</strong>recho <strong>de</strong> oposición frente al tratamiento que los buscadores webs<br />
realizan <strong>de</strong> los datos personales, esto es, aparte <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> cance<strong>la</strong>ción -<strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>sin<strong>de</strong>xación por parte<br />
<strong>de</strong> los buscadores <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información pasada-, se exige que el buscador encuentre medios<br />
<strong>para</strong> que esta información no vuelva a aparecer en el futuro10 . La protección <strong>de</strong>l olvido en<br />
Internet ha sido enmarcada por <strong>la</strong> AEPD <strong>de</strong>ntro <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho fundamental a <strong>la</strong> protección<br />
<strong>de</strong> datos.<br />
En<strong>la</strong>zar el <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido con el <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos personales no <strong>de</strong>bería<br />
extrañar ya que en perspectiva com<strong>para</strong>da, se ha empezado a reconocer el primero con<br />
fundamento en el segundo. En los Estados Unidos <strong>de</strong> América, aunque sólo <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> el punto<br />
<strong>de</strong> vista doctrinal, ya se ha p<strong>la</strong>nteado <strong>la</strong> necesidad <strong>de</strong> po<strong>de</strong>r cance<strong>la</strong>r los datos personales que<br />
los ciudadanos han introducido voluntariamente en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y que pasado un tiempo pue<strong>de</strong>n<br />
afectar esencialmente <strong>la</strong> privacidad11 y <strong>la</strong> reputación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s personas. Por su parte, en Francia,<br />
un proyecto <strong>de</strong> Ley, que ya ha sido aprobado por el Senado pero que (todavía) no ha recibido<br />
<strong>la</strong> aprobación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Asamblea, reconoce explícitamente <strong>la</strong> existencia <strong>de</strong> un <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido<br />
digital. Más concretamente, establece que:<br />
“Au total, il convient <strong>de</strong> noter que plusieurs mesures <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> présente proposition <strong>de</strong> loi permettent<br />
<strong>de</strong> donner une plus gran<strong>de</strong> effectivité au droit à l’oubli numérique [...]: l’information<br />
spécifique, c<strong>la</strong>ire et accessible donnée aux personnes, avant tout traitement, mais également<br />
<strong>de</strong> manière permanente, sur le site Internet du responsable du traitement, <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> durée <strong>de</strong><br />
conservation <strong>de</strong>s données; <strong>la</strong> possibilité <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>man<strong>de</strong>r à <strong>la</strong> CNIL [hace referencia a <strong>la</strong> Commission<br />
Nationale <strong>de</strong> l’Informatique et <strong>de</strong>s Libertés], pour les traitements déc<strong>la</strong>rés auprès<br />
d’elle [...]; l’exercice plus facile du droit d’opposition, renommé, pour plus <strong>de</strong> c<strong>la</strong>rté, droit<br />
à <strong>la</strong> suppression <strong>de</strong>s données [...]; <strong>la</strong> possibilité <strong>de</strong> saisir plus facilement et plus efficacement<br />
10 Vid. Resolución TD/00463/2007 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> AEPD.<br />
11 Vid. MAYER-SCHÖNBERGER, V. (2009). Delete. The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age. New<br />
Jersey: Princeton University Press, pp. 135-144. Versus <strong>la</strong> memoria digital, V. MAYER-SCHÖNBER-<br />
GER propone <strong>la</strong> utilización <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> tecnología <strong>para</strong> dotar <strong>de</strong> temporalidad <strong>la</strong>s informaciones publicadas<br />
y compartidas en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>.
398 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
qu’aujourd’hui les juridictions civiles en cas d’impossibilité pour les personnes d’exercer leur<br />
droit à <strong>la</strong> suppression <strong>de</strong>s données” 12 .<br />
Lo que se preten<strong>de</strong>, en Francia, teniendo en cuenta que <strong>la</strong> doctrina13 , <strong>la</strong> CNIL14 y <strong>la</strong><br />
jurispru<strong>de</strong>ncia15 francesa ya han reconocido <strong>la</strong> existencia <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido, es dotar <strong>de</strong><br />
una mayor efectividad a este <strong>de</strong>recho, sobre todo ante <strong>la</strong>s ingentes faculta<strong>de</strong>s que Internet<br />
otorga a los individuos. Tal protección se enmarcaría <strong>de</strong>ntro <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong><br />
datos personales, que exige que los datos no puedan ser tratadas sin consentimiento previo<br />
<strong>de</strong> su titu<strong>la</strong>r.<br />
Dejando <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>do el análisis en perspectiva com<strong>para</strong>da, lo cierto es que el reconocimiento<br />
<strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido <strong>de</strong>ntro <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho fundamental a <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos personales<br />
es una hipótesis factible si aten<strong>de</strong>mos a los principios que lo rigen y inspiran, en cuyo<br />
caso el olvido alcanzaría <strong>la</strong> máxima protección constitucional -<strong>de</strong>recho fundamental-. Más<br />
concretamente, dos son los principios en los que se funda tal premisa: el principio <strong>de</strong> consentimiento<br />
y el principio <strong>de</strong> finalidad.<br />
12 Proposition <strong>de</strong> Loi visant à mieux garantir le droit à <strong>la</strong> vie privée à l’heure du numérique, presentada<br />
por Y. DÉTRAIGNE y A. M. ESCoFFIER, en <strong>la</strong> sesión ordinaria <strong>de</strong> 2009-2010 número 93, pp. 8,<br />
<strong>de</strong> 6 <strong>de</strong> noviembre <strong>de</strong> 2009, disponible a Internet: http://www.senat.fr/leg/ppl09-093.pdf [Fecha <strong>de</strong><br />
consulta: 4 <strong>de</strong> marzo <strong>de</strong> 2011].<br />
13 Vid. LETTERoN, R. (1996). «Le droit à l’oubli». Revue du Droit Public et <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Science Politique en<br />
France et à L’Étranger. Nº 2, pp. 385-424.<br />
14 El posicionamiento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> CNIL es especialmente interesante porque fue pionero en <strong>de</strong>ducir <strong>la</strong> consagración<br />
<strong>de</strong> un verda<strong>de</strong>ro <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido atendiendo al principio <strong>de</strong> finalidad en <strong>la</strong> protección<br />
<strong>de</strong> datos personales: “Jamais sans doute les principes établis par <strong>la</strong> loi du 6 janvier 1978 n’ont eu<br />
une telle actualité. A l’heure <strong>de</strong>s réseaux et du «tout numérique», ces principes sont autant <strong>de</strong> sauvegar<strong>de</strong>s:<br />
principe <strong>de</strong> finalité, contrôle <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> pertinence <strong>de</strong>s données collectées, confi<strong>de</strong>ntialité <strong>de</strong>s<br />
informations nominatives, droit d’accès et <strong>de</strong> rectification, droit d’opposition, droit à l’oubli enfin”.<br />
CNIL. (1999). 20ème rapport d’activité. Paris: La Documentation Française, pp. 6. Más a<strong>de</strong><strong>la</strong>nte,<br />
<strong>la</strong> CNIL tras<strong>la</strong>dó sin problemas esta doctrina en el ámbito <strong>de</strong> Internet: “Il est inacceptable et dangereux<br />
que l’information mise en ligne sur une personne ait vocation à <strong>de</strong>meurer fixe et intangible,<br />
alors que <strong>la</strong> nature humaine implique, précisément, que les individus changent, se cont<strong>red</strong>isent,<br />
bref, évoluent tout naturellement. Il en va, pour tous, <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> protection <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> liberté d’expression<br />
et <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> liberté <strong>de</strong> pensée, mais aussi du droit <strong>de</strong> changer d’avis, <strong>de</strong> religion, d’opinions politiques,<br />
<strong>la</strong> possibilité <strong>de</strong> commettre <strong>de</strong>s erreurs <strong>de</strong> jeunesse, puis <strong>de</strong> changer <strong>de</strong> vie. C’est pourquoi notre<br />
Commission se félicite du débat qui s’ouvre actuellement en France sur ce sujet, qui souligne avec<br />
force le caractère fondamental du «droit à l’oubli»”. CNIL (2009). 30ème rapport d’activité. Paris:<br />
La Documentation Française, pp. 29.<br />
15 Véase Auto <strong>de</strong> medidas provisionales <strong>de</strong>l Tribunal <strong>de</strong> Instancia Superior <strong>de</strong> Montpellier, <strong>de</strong> 20 <strong>de</strong><br />
octubre <strong>de</strong> 2010, caso Marie C. c. Francia y Google Inc. El caso versa sobre una profesora francesa, que<br />
cuando tenia 18 años participó en un ví<strong>de</strong>o pornográfico que estaba disponible en Internet y que<br />
Google in<strong>de</strong>xaba en sus resultados <strong>de</strong> búsqueda con el nombre <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> profesora o école <strong>de</strong> Lætitia. El<br />
Tribunal consi<strong>de</strong>ra que “en tant que personne morale qui détermine les finalités et les moyens du traitement<br />
<strong>de</strong>s données à caractère personnel en in<strong>de</strong>xant les pages web et en les mettant à <strong>la</strong> disposition<br />
<strong>de</strong>s internautes, [Google] est responsable <strong>de</strong> ce traitement”.
el régimen constitucional <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido en Internet<br />
3.1.1. El principio <strong>de</strong> consentimiento <strong>de</strong> los datos<br />
399<br />
El principio <strong>de</strong>l consentimiento <strong>de</strong>l afectado, como el propio nombre indica, exige que,<br />
salvo <strong>la</strong>s excepciones previstas legalmente, todo tratamiento <strong>de</strong> datos personales sea realizado<br />
previo consentimiento inequívoco <strong>de</strong>l afectado. En concreto, <strong>la</strong> LoPD, en los apartados primero<br />
y tercero respectivamente <strong>de</strong>l artículo 6, establece que “el tratamiento <strong>de</strong> los datos <strong>de</strong> carácter<br />
personal requerirá el consentimiento inequívoco <strong>de</strong>l afectado, salvo que <strong>la</strong> ley disponga otra cosa” y<br />
que “el consentimiento a que se refiere el artículo podrá ser revocado cuando exista causa justificada<br />
<strong>para</strong> ello y no se le atribuyan efectos retroactivos”. Por consentimiento <strong>de</strong>be enten<strong>de</strong>rse aquel<strong>la</strong><br />
manifestación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> voluntad libre, inequívoca, específica e informada <strong>de</strong>l titu<strong>la</strong>r <strong>de</strong> los datos<br />
personales, conforme consiente un <strong>de</strong>terminado tratamiento <strong>de</strong> los mismos.<br />
El principio <strong>de</strong>l consentimiento <strong>de</strong>l afectado, a efectos <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido, es aplicable<br />
en un supuesto doble. En primer lugar, cuando alguien presta el consentimiento o es el mismo<br />
quién publica información que contiene datos personales en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>. En esa hipótesis, el ciudadano<br />
pue<strong>de</strong> revocar su consentimiento y exigir que aquello que antes permitió -<strong>la</strong> divulgación <strong>de</strong> fotos,<br />
ví<strong>de</strong>os, comentarios, etc. en Internet- <strong>de</strong>saparezca. Esta observación es especialmente útil en el<br />
ámbito <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s sociales, don<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> simple revocación <strong>de</strong>l consentimiento <strong>de</strong>bería ocasionar el<br />
borrado automático <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información personal. En segundo lugar, el ciudadano pue<strong>de</strong> oponerse<br />
a <strong>la</strong> información -comentarios, imágenes, ví<strong>de</strong>os, etc.- que contenga datos personales que hayan<br />
sido publicados por terceros sin su consentimiento, eso sí, con <strong>la</strong> excepción que tal divulgación<br />
<strong>de</strong> información se incardine <strong>de</strong>ntro <strong>de</strong>l ejercicio <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s liberta<strong>de</strong>s informativas. El <strong>de</strong>bate que se<br />
p<strong>la</strong>ntea es simi<strong>la</strong>r al clásico conflicto entre <strong>la</strong>s liberta<strong>de</strong>s informativas y los <strong>de</strong>rechos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> personalidad,<br />
y <strong>de</strong>be resolverse utilizando <strong>la</strong>s normas que permiten realizar una correcta pon<strong>de</strong>ración 16 .<br />
Así, si <strong>la</strong> difusión <strong>de</strong> datos personales se enmarca <strong>de</strong>ntro <strong>de</strong> un hecho noticiable que goza <strong>de</strong><br />
interés público, <strong>de</strong> manera general, se haría prevalecer <strong>la</strong> libertad informativa sobre el <strong>de</strong>recho a<br />
<strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos, si bien cabria estar atento a <strong>la</strong>s circunstancias especiales <strong>de</strong>l caso concreto.<br />
Existe también una tercera hipótesis don<strong>de</strong> lo cierto es que el consentimiento es irrelevante<br />
o innecesario: cuando se trata <strong>de</strong> datos personales contenidos en fuentes <strong>de</strong> carácter<br />
público, como son los diarios y boletines oficiales (art.11.2.b) LoPD). El principio <strong>de</strong> consentimiento,<br />
por sí solo, no fundamenta un <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido digital en sentido amplio, es<br />
<strong>de</strong>cir, no a<strong>la</strong>rgaría el ámbito <strong>de</strong>l olvido hasta impedir a los buscadores in<strong>de</strong>xar información<br />
re<strong>la</strong>tiva a <strong>la</strong> vida <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s personas; <strong>para</strong> llegar a tal premisa, antes, <strong>de</strong>bemos analizar como el<br />
principio <strong>de</strong>l consentimiento se complementa con el principio <strong>de</strong> finalidad.<br />
3.1.2. El principio <strong>de</strong> finalidad<br />
Precisamente, el principio <strong>de</strong> finalidad podría constituir una base sólida <strong>para</strong> el <strong>de</strong>recho<br />
al olvido digital, al establecer que los datos personales serán eliminados o borrados una vez<br />
16 De hecho, <strong>la</strong> Audiencia Nacional ya ha aplicado estas reg<strong>la</strong>s en un caso en el que acabó dando prevalencia<br />
a <strong>la</strong> libertad <strong>de</strong> informar sobre <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos. SAN (Sa<strong>la</strong> Contenciosa) nº 62/2001, <strong>de</strong><br />
12 <strong>de</strong> enero <strong>de</strong> 2001, FJ 4.
400 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
estos hayan <strong>de</strong>jado <strong>de</strong> ser útiles a <strong>la</strong> finalidad con <strong>la</strong> que se registraron. Más concretamente,<br />
el artículo 4.5 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> LoPD establece que:<br />
“Los datos <strong>de</strong> carácter personal serán cance<strong>la</strong>dos cuando hayan <strong>de</strong>jado <strong>de</strong> ser necesarios o<br />
pertinentes <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> finalidad <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> cual hubieran sido recabados o registrados. No serán<br />
conservados en forma que permita <strong>la</strong> i<strong>de</strong>ntificación <strong>de</strong>l interesado durante un período superior<br />
al necesario <strong>para</strong> los fines en base a los cuales hubieran sido recabados o registrados”.<br />
Este principio se recogió por primera vez en el Convenio nº 108 <strong>de</strong>l Consejo <strong>de</strong> Europa,<br />
que España ratificó el 27 <strong>de</strong> enero <strong>de</strong> 1984 17 ; según el cual los datos <strong>de</strong> carácter personal<br />
que sean objeto <strong>de</strong> tratamiento “se conservan bajo una forma que permita <strong>la</strong> i<strong>de</strong>ntificación<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s personas concernidas durante un período <strong>de</strong> tiempo que no exceda <strong>de</strong>l necesario <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong>s<br />
finalida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong>s cuales se hayan registrado” (artículo 5.e).<br />
El <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido digital actuaría como un instrumento que persigue el efectivo<br />
cumplimiento <strong>de</strong>l principio <strong>de</strong> finalidad, que exige que los datos personales sólo puedan<br />
utilizarse <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> finalidad concreta <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> que fueron registrados, y una vez ya no son<br />
necesarios a tal efecto se produciría su cance<strong>la</strong>ción. Pero no en todos los casos, por ejemplo<br />
cuando los datos son contenidos en fuentes accesibles al público, <strong>la</strong> cance<strong>la</strong>ción es posible.<br />
La AEPD ha interpretado, en tal contexto, que el principio <strong>de</strong> finalidad permite que ante<br />
<strong>la</strong> divulgación <strong>de</strong> informaciones pasadas que contienen datos personales y están sometidas<br />
a tratamiento -por ejemplo, en un buscador web-, los ciudadanos pue<strong>de</strong>n oponerse <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong><br />
el momento en que los datos han <strong>de</strong>jado <strong>de</strong> ser necesarios a <strong>la</strong> finalidad <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> que fueron<br />
publicados. De este modo, <strong>la</strong> AEPD ha consi<strong>de</strong>rado que los afectados tienen razones legítimas<br />
<strong>para</strong> oponerse al tratamiento -in<strong>de</strong>xación- <strong>de</strong> los motores <strong>de</strong> búsqueda, siempre que<br />
sean noticias que no tengan una relevancia pública actual, si bien ha consi<strong>de</strong>rado que el<br />
tratamiento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s hemerotecas digitales, a diferencia <strong>de</strong>l tratamiento <strong>de</strong> los buscadores, está<br />
enmarcado <strong>de</strong>ntro <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s liberta<strong>de</strong>s informativas 18 .<br />
4. diferentes Ámbitos <strong>de</strong> aPlicación <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recHo al olVido<br />
frente a <strong>la</strong> memoria digital<br />
4.1. el olvido en <strong>la</strong> re<strong>de</strong>s sociales<br />
El fenómeno más peligroso en re<strong>la</strong>ción al <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido está directamente re<strong>la</strong>cionado<br />
con <strong>la</strong> ten<strong>de</strong>ncia sociológica <strong>de</strong> procesar ante <strong>la</strong> tribuna pública informaciones que<br />
pertenecen a <strong>la</strong> vida privada. Ten<strong>de</strong>ncia que, en gran medida, se ve agravada en el marco <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s sociales como Facebook, Twitter o Tuenti, don<strong>de</strong> miles <strong>de</strong> ciberusuarios comparten<br />
información libremente, sin dar importancia al hecho que, a veces, lo compartido forma parte<br />
o está directamente re<strong>la</strong>cionado con <strong>la</strong> vida privada <strong>de</strong> los ciudadanos. Imágenes, ví<strong>de</strong>os<br />
y comentarios corren el riesgo <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>scontextualizarse en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>, y lo que es más grave, gozan<br />
17 BoE núm. 274, <strong>de</strong> 15 <strong>de</strong> novembre <strong>de</strong> 1985.<br />
18 Véanse <strong>la</strong>s Resoluciones TD/01164/2008 y TD/01540/2008 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> AEPD.
el régimen constitucional <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido en Internet<br />
401<br />
<strong>de</strong> una perennidad que hace que, observados con posterioridad a <strong>la</strong> fecha <strong>de</strong> su publicación,<br />
estos puedan comprometer o condicionar el futuro <strong>de</strong> los ciudadanos.<br />
En el ámbito <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho fundamental a <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos hay que recordar que<br />
los ciudadanos gozan <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho a exigir <strong>la</strong> cance<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> aquel<strong>la</strong> información que contenga<br />
datos personales cuando el tratamiento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s mismas se realice sin el consentimiento<br />
inequívoco <strong>de</strong>l afectado (art. 6.1 LoPD). Por lo tanto, po<strong>de</strong>mos afirmar que el afectado<br />
<strong>de</strong>be po<strong>de</strong>r rec<strong>la</strong>mar <strong>la</strong> cance<strong>la</strong>ción y rectificación <strong>de</strong> aquel<strong>la</strong> información que pueda afectar<br />
el bien jurídico protegido por el <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido en <strong>la</strong> hipótesis que terceros ciberusuarios<br />
hayan compartido información en una <strong>red</strong> social sin su consentimiento. En <strong>otros</strong> términos,<br />
ante <strong>la</strong> publicación <strong>de</strong> imágenes, ví<strong>de</strong>os y textos que contengan datos personales y puedan<br />
lesionar <strong>la</strong> privacidad y reputación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s personas, los afectados que no hayan prestado su<br />
consentimiento podrían, amparándose en <strong>la</strong> normativa españo<strong>la</strong> sobre protección <strong>de</strong> datos,<br />
ejercer el <strong>de</strong>recho <strong>de</strong> cance<strong>la</strong>ción y rectificación.<br />
Una hipótesis diferente, si bien nos lleva al mismo coro<strong>la</strong>rio que <strong>la</strong> primera, se daría<br />
cuando el afectado fuera quien hubiera publicado <strong>la</strong> información en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> o hubiera dado<br />
su consentimiento inequívoco <strong>para</strong> que lo hiciera un tercero. Esto ocurre <strong>de</strong> manera muy habitual<br />
en <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s sociales, don<strong>de</strong> son los propios ciudadanos los que se exponen al público,<br />
compartiendo información que en un futuro les pue<strong>de</strong> perjudicar. En estos casos, aunque<br />
el consentimiento inicialmente existe, el art. 6.3 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> LoPD prevé su revocación cuando<br />
existan causas justificadas, sin que se le atribuyan efectos retroactivos. Es por ello que en el<br />
marco <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s sociales, los ciudadanos <strong>de</strong>berían po<strong>de</strong>r ejercitar el <strong>de</strong>recho <strong>de</strong> cance<strong>la</strong>ción<br />
y rectificación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información publicada aunque quien <strong>la</strong> publicó fuera el afectado o un<br />
tercero con su consentimiento.<br />
Ahora bien, hay que matizar que los <strong>de</strong>rechos <strong>de</strong> oposición, rectificación y cance<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> información publicada en el ámbito <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s sociales no aportan una solución efectiva o<br />
real al problema que p<strong>la</strong>ntea <strong>la</strong> perennidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>. Esto es así porque en<br />
el p<strong>la</strong>zo que <strong>la</strong> información -que pue<strong>de</strong> condicionar el futuro <strong>de</strong>l afectado- fue pública, ésta<br />
no sólo fue expuesta en <strong>la</strong> tribuna pública, sino que también fue susceptible <strong>de</strong> ser copiada o<br />
<strong>de</strong>scargada por diferentes usuarios a nivel global, lo que pue<strong>de</strong> impedir una eliminación total<br />
y efectiva <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información. No obstante, con <strong>la</strong> cance<strong>la</strong>ción, oposición y rectificación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
información que <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s sociales contienen, como mínimo, se podría garantizar el <strong>de</strong>recho <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> ciudadanía a contro<strong>la</strong>r <strong>la</strong> difusión y el acceso a sus datos personales, y en un sentido negativo,<br />
expulsar a terceros <strong>de</strong>l conocimiento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s mismas asegurando su olvido futuro.<br />
Estas preocupaciones son compartidas por <strong>la</strong> Comisión Europea, que ya se ha manifestado<br />
favorablemente <strong>para</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>r el <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido en <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s sociales: “Un<strong>de</strong>rlines, furthermore,<br />
the importance of improving means of exercising the rights of access, rectification, erasure<br />
and blocking of data, and of c<strong>la</strong>rifying the «right to be forgotten»” 19 . La iniciativa preten<strong>de</strong><br />
19 Draft report on a comprehensive approach on personal data protection in the European Union<br />
(2011/2025(INI)), Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, pp. 5, disponible en<br />
Internet: http://bit.ly/eNPRhn [Fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta: 9 <strong>de</strong> abril <strong>de</strong> 2011].
402 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
limitar <strong>la</strong>s potencialida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> web, regu<strong>la</strong>ndo un olvido que permita a los ciudadanos<br />
exigir el borrado <strong>de</strong> sus datos personales cuando estos <strong>de</strong>jen <strong>de</strong> ser necesarios a <strong>la</strong> finalidad<br />
con <strong>la</strong> que se publicaron 20 .<br />
Sin embargo, en <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s sociales lo más útil parece ser <strong>la</strong> prevención. En este sentido,<br />
hay que valorar positivamente todas <strong>la</strong>s iniciativas y políticas encaminadas a alertar a los usuarios<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s sociales sobre los riesgos, peligros e inconvenientes <strong>de</strong> compartir imágenes,<br />
ví<strong>de</strong>os o textos comprometidos que pue<strong>de</strong>n condicionar su reputación futura. Destacan<br />
iniciativas como el “P<strong>la</strong>n Contigo”, a través <strong>de</strong>l cual <strong>la</strong> Policía Nacional y <strong>la</strong> Guardia Civil<br />
dan consejos y recomendaciones a jóvenes que utilizan Tuenti sobre cómo hacer una gestión<br />
correcta <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> privacidad y <strong>la</strong> reputación en <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s sociales 21 . También <strong>de</strong>stacan otras herramientas<br />
específicas que alertan al cibernauta sobre su reputación en el universo 2.0, como<br />
por ejemplo Reppler, que mi<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> reputación online <strong>de</strong> empresas y particu<strong>la</strong>res en base a <strong>la</strong><br />
información publicada en Facebook –comentarios, imágenes, hora <strong>de</strong> publicación, etc.– y<br />
<strong>la</strong> re<strong>la</strong>ciona con el ámbito <strong>de</strong> actuación y <strong>la</strong>s expectativas empresariales o <strong>la</strong>borales <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
empresa o <strong>de</strong>l particu<strong>la</strong>r.<br />
4.2. el olvido en los resultados <strong>de</strong> los motores <strong>de</strong> búsqueda<br />
Como hemos analizado anteriormente, especialmente peligrosa es <strong>la</strong> actividad <strong>de</strong> los<br />
motores <strong>de</strong> búsqueda que combinan una tecnología <strong>de</strong> búsqueda fácil con ingentes cantida<strong>de</strong>s<br />
<strong>de</strong> información. Antes que nada, cabe matizar que respeto aquel<strong>la</strong> información privada o<br />
ilegítima que albergue datos personales y que circule en <strong>la</strong> web, los ciudadanos ya gozan <strong>de</strong>l<br />
<strong>de</strong>recho a cance<strong>la</strong>r<strong>la</strong>, <strong>de</strong> acuerdo con aquello observado en el apartado que hemos <strong>de</strong>dicado<br />
al olvido en <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s sociales. En tal hipótesis lo correcto seria dirigirse al responsable <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> web que contiene los datos personales ilícitamente, ya sea porque se tratan sin consentimiento<br />
o porque éste fuera revocado, y pedir <strong>la</strong> cance<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> los datos. En cambio, el ciudadano<br />
no tiene <strong>de</strong>recho a cance<strong>la</strong>r <strong>la</strong> información que contiene los datos personales cuando<br />
proviene <strong>de</strong> una fuente <strong>de</strong> acceso público. Y tienen tal consi<strong>de</strong>ración “aquellos ficheros cuya<br />
consulta pue<strong>de</strong> ser realizada, por cualquier persona, no impedida por una norma limitativa o sin<br />
más exigencia que, en su caso, el abono <strong>de</strong> una contraprestación [...] Asimismo, tienen el carácter<br />
<strong>de</strong> fuentes <strong>de</strong> acceso público los diarios y boletines oficiales y los medios <strong>de</strong> comunicación” (artículo<br />
3.j) <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> LoPD).<br />
20 “C<strong>la</strong>rifying the so-called ‘right to be forgotten’, i.e. the right of individuals to have their data no<br />
longer processed and <strong>de</strong>leted when they are no longer nee<strong>de</strong>d for legitimate purposes. This is the case,<br />
for example, when processing is based on the person’s consent and when he or she withdraws consent<br />
or when the storage period has expi<strong>red</strong>”. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament,<br />
the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A comprehensive<br />
approach on personal data protection in the European Union, European Commission CoM(2010)<br />
609 final, Bruse<strong>la</strong>s, con fecha 4 <strong>de</strong> noviembre <strong>de</strong> 2010, pp. 8, disponible en Internet: http://bit.ly/<br />
bXUXvi [Fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta: 6 <strong>de</strong> marzo <strong>de</strong> 2011].<br />
21 Vid. panfleto <strong>de</strong>l “P<strong>la</strong>n Contigo”, disponible en Internet: http://www.mir.es/EDSE/p<strong>la</strong>n_director/<br />
TUENTI.pdf [Fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta: 18 <strong>de</strong> abril <strong>de</strong> 2011].
el régimen constitucional <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido en Internet<br />
403<br />
La problemática nace exclusivamente con <strong>la</strong> información pública 22 o legítima, no<br />
porque los datos personales no sean consultables, que lo son, por ejemplo, en <strong>la</strong> versión<br />
electrónica <strong>de</strong>l BoE, sino porque el buscador web hace un tratamiento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información<br />
pública que facilita enormemente encontrar<strong>la</strong>, hasta el punto <strong>de</strong> crear una situación nueva<br />
que pue<strong>de</strong> afectar <strong>de</strong>sproporcionalmente <strong>la</strong> reputación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s personas. Imagínense, por<br />
poner un ejemplo, cómo pue<strong>de</strong> afectarse <strong>la</strong> dignidad personal cuando en un buscador se<br />
introduce un nombre y apellidos, y el primer resultado <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> búsqueda en<strong>la</strong>za a un indulto<br />
publicado en el BoE o a una sentencia 23 en <strong>la</strong> que se con<strong>de</strong>na al afectado por un <strong>de</strong>lito. Se<br />
trata <strong>de</strong>l efecto multiplicador <strong>de</strong> los buscadores 24 , <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s posibilida<strong>de</strong>s que los buscadores<br />
conce<strong>de</strong>n a los ciberusuarios <strong>para</strong> conocer <strong>la</strong> información y los datos personales que en los<br />
boletines se contienen y que pue<strong>de</strong>n llegar a resultar una auténtica hipoteca <strong>para</strong> el honor o<br />
<strong>la</strong> intimidad. Frente a eso, <strong>la</strong> AEPD ha entendido que el <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido digital también<br />
incluye el <strong>de</strong>recho a oponerse al tratamiento 25 <strong>de</strong> los datos personales que los buscadores<br />
realizan al in<strong>de</strong>xar fuentes <strong>de</strong> información pública. En concreto, <strong>la</strong> AEPD <strong>de</strong>fien<strong>de</strong> que <strong>la</strong><br />
actividad <strong>de</strong> in<strong>de</strong>xar pone al alcance <strong>de</strong> los ciudadanos un sistema <strong>para</strong> acce<strong>de</strong>r, recoger, conservar<br />
y modificar información que eventualmente contiene datos personales, siendo esto<br />
equi<strong>para</strong>ble a un tratamiento no autorizado <strong>de</strong> datos personales 26 . En todo caso, sobre este<br />
tema, nada pacífico, <strong>la</strong> Audiencia Nacional ha <strong>de</strong>cidido tras<strong>la</strong>dar al Tribunal <strong>de</strong> Justicia <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> Unión Europea una cuestión prejudicial <strong>de</strong> interpretación, <strong>para</strong> ac<strong>la</strong>rar, a<strong>de</strong>más <strong>de</strong> otras<br />
22 Entiéndase que por “información pública” se hace referencia a fuentes <strong>de</strong> acceso público.<br />
23 Cabe recordar que en el caso <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> publicación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s resoluciones judiciales en Internet, <strong>la</strong> doctrina<br />
jurispru<strong>de</strong>ncial (STS, Sa<strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> lo contencioso-administrativo, nº 3164/2008, <strong>de</strong> 26 <strong>de</strong> junio <strong>de</strong> 2008,<br />
FJ 9) exige <strong>la</strong> anonimización <strong>de</strong> los datos <strong>de</strong> carácter personal antes <strong>de</strong> su difusión, entendiendo que<br />
<strong>la</strong>s <strong>de</strong>cisiones judiciales no son fuentes <strong>de</strong> carácter público <strong>de</strong> acuerdo con <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>finición que se realiza<br />
en el artículo 3.j) <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> LoPD.<br />
24 La Ley 34/2002, <strong>de</strong> 11 <strong>de</strong> julio, <strong>de</strong> Servicios <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Información y Comercio Electrónico<br />
(en a<strong>de</strong><strong>la</strong>nte, LSSCIE) también es aplicable a los buscadores, a los que incluye como “servicios <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información”, en concreto, como “prestadores <strong>de</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong> intermediación”. La<br />
LSSCIE establece el régimen <strong>de</strong> responsabilidad <strong>de</strong> los buscadores, entendiendo que <strong>de</strong>berán respon<strong>de</strong>r<br />
si tienen un conocimiento efectivo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> ilicitud <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> actividad o <strong>la</strong> información que recomiendan<br />
y en<strong>la</strong>zan, o que <strong>la</strong> misma lesiona bienes o <strong>de</strong>rechos <strong>de</strong> un tercero (art. 17.1 LSSICE). A<strong>de</strong>más, el<br />
art. 8.1 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> citada LSSICE dispone: “En caso <strong>de</strong> que un <strong>de</strong>terminado servicio <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
información atente o pueda atentar contra los principios que se expresan a continuación, los órganos<br />
competentes [...] podrán adoptar <strong>la</strong>s medidas necesarias <strong>para</strong> que se interrumpa su prestación o <strong>para</strong><br />
retirar los datos que los vulneran. Los principios a que alu<strong>de</strong> este apartado son [...] c) El respeto a <strong>la</strong><br />
dignidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> persona [...]”. La LSSICE permite así, siempre que al in<strong>de</strong>xar el buscador haya lesionado<br />
<strong>la</strong> dignidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> persona, que los órganos competentes puedan adoptar medidas encaminadas<br />
a retirar los datos que permiten tal lesión.<br />
25 La AEPD interpreta ámpliamente <strong>la</strong> voz “tratamiento <strong>de</strong> datos personales”, por <strong>la</strong> que se entien<strong>de</strong><br />
cualquier operación o procedimiento técnico <strong>de</strong> carácter automatizado o no, que permita <strong>la</strong> recogida,<br />
grabación, conservación, e<strong>la</strong>boración, modificación, bloqueo y cance<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> datos (art. 3. c) <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
LoPD).<br />
26 Vid. <strong>la</strong> resolución TD/01589/2008 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> AEPD.
404 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
cuestiones, si <strong>la</strong> actividad que llevan a cabo los buscadores pue<strong>de</strong> ser consi<strong>de</strong>rada como un<br />
“tratamiento <strong>de</strong> datos personales” 27 .<br />
En cuanto a <strong>la</strong> cuestión re<strong>la</strong>tiva al ejercicio <strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>rechos <strong>de</strong> acceso, rectificación,<br />
oposición y cance<strong>la</strong>ción frente <strong>la</strong> actividad <strong>de</strong> los buscadores, habría que distinguir supuestos.<br />
En esta dirección, L. CoTINo 28 diferencia el ejercicio <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho <strong>de</strong> cance<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong>l<br />
<strong>de</strong>recho <strong>de</strong> oposición. Más concretamente, argumenta que el primero se ejercería cuando<br />
<strong>la</strong> información divulgada sea consi<strong>de</strong>rada ilegítima, esto es, cuando no se enmarca <strong>de</strong>ntro<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s liberta<strong>de</strong>s informativas ni tiene <strong>la</strong> consi<strong>de</strong>ración <strong>de</strong> fuente <strong>de</strong> carácter público. En<br />
cambio, el <strong>de</strong>recho <strong>de</strong> oposición sería ejercitable cuando se consi<strong>de</strong>ra que <strong>la</strong> información<br />
divulgada es legítima (lo que en este trabajo hemos l<strong>la</strong>mado información pública), pero aún<br />
así existan causas <strong>para</strong> evitar este tratamiento. En <strong>otros</strong> términos, el ciudadano <strong>de</strong>bería po<strong>de</strong>r<br />
oponerse al tratamiento que realiza un <strong>de</strong>terminado buscador respecto aquel<strong>la</strong> información<br />
que proviene <strong>de</strong> una fuente <strong>de</strong> carácter público -medios <strong>de</strong> comunicación, boletines y diarios<br />
oficiales, etc.- (art. 3.j) LoPD ), pero no pue<strong>de</strong> exigir <strong>la</strong> cance<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> los datos contenidos<br />
en <strong>la</strong>s propias fuentes <strong>de</strong> carácter público. El ejercicio <strong>de</strong> oposición <strong>de</strong>l afectado, en estos<br />
casos, se realiza contra el buscador, pues es quien realiza el “tratamiento” que facilita el acceso<br />
a una información que daña <strong>la</strong> dignidad personal, en general. En cambio, si <strong>la</strong> información<br />
es ilegítima y no se enmarca <strong>de</strong>ntro <strong>de</strong> los límites <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s liberta<strong>de</strong>s informativas, entonces<br />
el afectado también pue<strong>de</strong> ejercer los <strong>de</strong>rechos <strong>de</strong> acceso, cance<strong>la</strong>ción y rectificación, eso sí,<br />
frente al responsable <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> web que publicó los datos; <strong>de</strong> manera simi<strong>la</strong>r a lo que pasa con <strong>la</strong><br />
información difundida en <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s sociales.<br />
4.3. el olvido en <strong>la</strong>s hemerotecas digitales<br />
Como hemos visto, <strong>la</strong> AEPD ha consi<strong>de</strong>rado que los afectados tienen razones legítimas<br />
<strong>para</strong> oponerse al tratamiento <strong>de</strong> datos que realizan los motores <strong>de</strong> búsqueda, aunque sea<br />
información pública y legítima, y siempre que no tenga una relevancia pública actual. En<br />
cambio, ha <strong>de</strong>fendido que el tratamiento que se da en <strong>la</strong>s hemerotecas digitales está enmarcado<br />
<strong>de</strong>ntro <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s liberta<strong>de</strong>s informativas 29 . Esta interpretación ha sido criticada en sentidos<br />
diferentes por <strong>la</strong> doctrina. Algunos autores han entendido que <strong>la</strong>s hemerotecas digitales no<br />
27 “B) Si <strong>la</strong> actividad <strong>de</strong> GooGLE, como buscador <strong>de</strong> contenidos <strong>de</strong> terceras personas, pue<strong>de</strong> consi<strong>de</strong>rarse<br />
un tratamiento <strong>de</strong> datos tal como lo <strong>de</strong>fine el artículo 2.b) <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Directiva 95/46. En caso<br />
afirmativo, si GooGLE <strong>de</strong>be garantizar los <strong>de</strong>rechos <strong>de</strong> cance<strong>la</strong>ción y oposición mencionados en los<br />
artículos 12.b y 14.a <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> citada Directiva. Asimismo, si <strong>la</strong> solicitud <strong>de</strong>l interesado pue<strong>de</strong> am<strong>para</strong>rse<br />
en el <strong>de</strong>recho <strong>de</strong> oposición <strong>de</strong>l citado artículo 14.a en re<strong>la</strong>ción con el artículo 7 letras e) y f) <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
citada Directiva”. Provi<strong>de</strong>ncia AN (Sa<strong>la</strong> Contencioso-Administrativo), sección 1a, nº procedimiento<br />
211/2009.<br />
28 CoTINo HUESo, L. (2010). «Datos personales y liberta<strong>de</strong>s informativas. Medios <strong>de</strong> comunicación<br />
social como fuentes accesibles al público (Art. 3 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> LoPD)». En A. TRoNCoSo REIGADA<br />
(dir.). Comentario a <strong>la</strong> Ley Orgánica <strong>de</strong> Protección <strong>de</strong> Datos Personales, Cizur Menor: Civitas, pp. 289-<br />
315.<br />
29 Vid. Resolución TD/01887/2009 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> AEPD.
el régimen constitucional <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido en Internet<br />
405<br />
son un medio <strong>de</strong> comunicación en sentido estricto, esto es, no <strong>de</strong>berían tener <strong>la</strong> consi<strong>de</strong>ración<br />
<strong>de</strong> fuentes <strong>de</strong> acceso público <strong>de</strong> acuerdo con el art. 3.j) LoPD, sino que son archivos<br />
que dan un tratamiento a fuentes accesibles al público que proce<strong>de</strong>n <strong>de</strong> los medios <strong>de</strong> comunicación<br />
30 . En esta línea, los afectados tendrían <strong>de</strong>recho a oponerse al tratamiento <strong>de</strong> datos<br />
personales que realizan los servicios <strong>de</strong> búsqueda <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s hemerotecas digitales. <strong>otros</strong> autores,<br />
por el contrario, creen que sería <strong>para</strong>dójico que “una información <strong>de</strong> interés público y obtenida<br />
con escrupuloso respeto al canon <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> diligencia profesional se pueda consultar en <strong>la</strong> hemeroteca<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> edición escrita <strong>de</strong> un diario y, por el contrario, haya <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>saparecer <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> edición digital” 31 .<br />
A mi juicio, <strong>la</strong> primera interpretación es más p<strong>la</strong>usible en el sentido que distingue entre <strong>la</strong><br />
información que tenia interés público cuando se publicó y el tratamiento que el buscador<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> hemeroteca digital da a esa información. Como pasa con los motores <strong>de</strong> búsqueda, <strong>la</strong><br />
información no <strong>de</strong>bería <strong>de</strong>saparecer <strong>de</strong> Internet, al igual que <strong>de</strong>be po<strong>de</strong>r consultarse en <strong>la</strong><br />
hemeroteca <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> edición escrita, pero eso no impi<strong>de</strong> que se limiten –<strong>de</strong>recho <strong>de</strong> oposición–<br />
<strong>la</strong>s facilida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>para</strong> encontrar<strong>la</strong> –búsqueda <strong>de</strong> nombre y apellido– en el buscador <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> hemeroteca<br />
digital.<br />
5. conclusiones<br />
El <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido digital se erige como respuesta a un nuevo reto social -<strong>la</strong> perennidad<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información- que p<strong>la</strong>ntea Internet. Tal <strong>de</strong>recho se concreta en <strong>la</strong> pretensión<br />
legítima <strong>de</strong> oponerse, borrar o cance<strong>la</strong>r aquellos datos personales que circu<strong>la</strong>n en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>, ya<br />
sean difundidos sin consentimiento previo o con el mismo revocado, o cuando los datos han<br />
<strong>de</strong>jado <strong>de</strong> ser útiles <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> finalidad con <strong>la</strong> que se recabaron y hicieron públicos en <strong>la</strong> web. La<br />
AEPD, tal y como también ha realizado <strong>la</strong> CNIL en Francia, ha vincu<strong>la</strong>do el nacimiento <strong>de</strong>l<br />
<strong>de</strong>recho al olvido en el marco <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho fundamental a <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos <strong>de</strong> carácter<br />
personal, basándose esencialmente en los principios <strong>de</strong> consentimiento y finalidad <strong>de</strong> los<br />
datos, que recoge <strong>la</strong> LoPD en los artículos 6 y 4.5 respectivamente. Hemos distinguido<br />
diferentes supuestos en los que se podría forzar el olvido en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>: en el marco <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s<br />
sociales, <strong>la</strong> ciudadanía tiene <strong>de</strong>recho a revocar su consentimiento, si existió, y a cance<strong>la</strong>r los<br />
datos personales; en el ámbito <strong>de</strong> los buscadores, <strong>la</strong> cuestión es más compleja. En concreto,<br />
<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong> esencialmente <strong>de</strong> si <strong>la</strong> información divulgada es ilegítima -afecta a los <strong>de</strong>rechos <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> personalidad o contiene datos personales sin consentimiento, etc.- o si tiene <strong>la</strong> consi<strong>de</strong>ración<br />
<strong>de</strong> legítima -se enmarca <strong>de</strong>ntro <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s liberta<strong>de</strong>s informativas o tiene <strong>la</strong> consi<strong>de</strong>ración<br />
<strong>de</strong> fuente <strong>de</strong> acceso público-. Si es ilegítima, el afectado gozaría <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho <strong>de</strong> cance<strong>la</strong>ción, a<br />
ejercer frente al titu<strong>la</strong>r o responsable <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> web que lo publicó; si es legítima, según <strong>la</strong> AEPD,<br />
el afectado goza <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho <strong>de</strong> oposición frente al buscador. La incipiente doctrina tampoco<br />
30 CoTINo HUESo, L., ya citado, pp. 298-299.<br />
31 CARRILLo, M. (2010). «El <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido en Internet». Artículo publicado en el diario El País,<br />
con fecha <strong>de</strong> 23 <strong>de</strong> octubre <strong>de</strong> 2009, disponible en Internet: http://bit.ly/2srRjo [Fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta:<br />
6 <strong>de</strong> noviembre <strong>de</strong> 2010].
406 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
es pacífica en re<strong>la</strong>ción a <strong>la</strong>s hemerotecas digitales, si bien, a diferencia <strong>de</strong> lo que <strong>de</strong>fien<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
AEPD, parece más coherente una interpretación que entienda que <strong>la</strong>s hemerotecas digitales<br />
son ficheros, y no medios <strong>de</strong> comunicación social, que dan un tratamiento a fuentes <strong>de</strong><br />
acceso público ergo <strong>de</strong>be enten<strong>de</strong>rse que tal tratamiento es equi<strong>para</strong>ble a <strong>la</strong> practica que<br />
realizan los buscadores.<br />
6. bibliografÍa<br />
Boyd, D. y Ellison, N. (2007). «Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scho<strong>la</strong>rship».<br />
Journal of computer-Mediated Communication. Vol. 1, nº 13.<br />
Carrillo, M. (2009). «El <strong>de</strong>recho al olvido en Internet». El País. 23 <strong>de</strong> octubre <strong>de</strong> 2009.<br />
CNIL. (1999). 20ème rapport d’activité. Paris: La Documentation Française, pp. 6.<br />
CNIL (2009). 30ème rapport d’activité. Paris: La Documentation Française, pp. 29.<br />
Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. (2011). Draft report on a comprehensive<br />
approach on personal data protection in the European Union (2011/2025(INI)).<br />
Cotino Hueso, L. (2010). «Datos personales y liberta<strong>de</strong>s informativas. Medios <strong>de</strong> comunicación<br />
social como fuentes accesibles al público (Art. 3 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> LoPD)». En A. TRoN-<br />
CoSo REIGADA (dir.). Comentario a <strong>la</strong> Ley Orgánica <strong>de</strong> Protección <strong>de</strong> Datos Personales,<br />
Cizur Menor: Civitas, pp. 289-315.<br />
Letteron, R. (1996). «Le droit à l’oubli». Revue du Droit Public et <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Science Politique en<br />
France et à L’Étranger. Nº 2, pp. 385-424.<br />
Mayer-Schönberger, V. (2009). Delete. The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age. New<br />
Jersey: Princeton University Press.<br />
Rosen, J. (2010). «The web means the end of forgetting». The New York Times. 21 <strong>de</strong> julio<br />
<strong>de</strong> 2010.
22<br />
PrIVACIDAD y TRACkING COOkIES.<br />
UNA APrOxImACIóN CONstItUCIONAl<br />
María Concepción Torres Díaz<br />
Abogada y Profesora asociada <strong>de</strong> Derecho Constitucional<br />
en <strong>la</strong> Universidad <strong>de</strong> Alicante<br />
resumen: El 24 <strong>de</strong> junio <strong>de</strong> 2010 <strong>la</strong> Agencia Españo<strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> Protección <strong>de</strong> Datos hizo pública una<br />
nota informativa en don<strong>de</strong> informaba sobre los acuerdos adoptados por <strong>la</strong>s Autorida<strong>de</strong>s Europeas <strong>de</strong><br />
Protección <strong>de</strong> Datos que integran el Grupo <strong>de</strong> Trabajo <strong>de</strong>l Artículo 29 (GT 29) sobre <strong>la</strong> privacidad en<br />
<strong>la</strong> publicidad on-line basada en el comportamiento (behavioural advertising). En dicha nota se alerta<br />
sobre los riesgos que <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> privacidad suscitan <strong>la</strong>s l<strong>la</strong>madas ‘tracking cookies’, esto es, <strong>la</strong>s cookies <strong>de</strong><br />
rastreo que se utilizan <strong>para</strong> recopi<strong>la</strong>r información sobre el comportamiento <strong>de</strong> navegación <strong>de</strong> los individuos<br />
y, <strong>de</strong> esta forma, ofrecer a los/as usuarios/as anuncios dirigidos y personalizados. Partiendo <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong>s anteriores consi<strong>de</strong>raciones <strong>la</strong> presente comunicación preten<strong>de</strong> analizar el contenido <strong>de</strong>l Dictamen<br />
2/2010 sobre publicidad comportamental on-line en re<strong>la</strong>ción con <strong>la</strong> nueva Directiva sobre privacidad<br />
en telecomunicaciones 136/2009/CE aprobada en diciembre <strong>de</strong> 2009 y que modifica <strong>la</strong> Directiva<br />
2002/58/CE re<strong>la</strong>tiva al tratamiento <strong>de</strong> datos personales y a <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> intimidad en el sector<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones electrónicas y en don<strong>de</strong> se introduce <strong>la</strong> obligación <strong>de</strong> obtener el consentimiento<br />
informado <strong>de</strong> los/as usuarios/as antes <strong>de</strong> insta<strong>la</strong>r dispositivos como cookies en los or<strong>de</strong>nadores. Y es<br />
que el análisis propuesto no resulta ba<strong>la</strong>dí <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> una óptica constitucional sobre todo si tenemos en<br />
cuenta los riesgos a <strong>la</strong> privacidad que suponen <strong>la</strong> evolución <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> publicidad en internet. Evolución<br />
que pone en cuestión ese <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> confi<strong>de</strong>ncialidad e integridad <strong>de</strong> los sistemas tecnológicos y <strong>de</strong><br />
información que reconoció, por primera vez, <strong>la</strong> Sentencia <strong>de</strong>l Tribunal Constitucional Alemán <strong>de</strong> 27<br />
<strong>de</strong> febrero <strong>de</strong> 2008.<br />
pAlAbrAs clAve: privacidad, <strong>de</strong>rechos fundamentales, publicidad comportamental, tracking cookies<br />
y <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> confi<strong>de</strong>ncialidad e integridad <strong>de</strong> los sistemas tecnológicos y <strong>de</strong> información.<br />
1. P<strong>la</strong>nteamiento general<br />
El 24 <strong>de</strong> junio <strong>de</strong> 2010 <strong>la</strong> Agencia Españo<strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> Protección <strong>de</strong> Datos hizo pública una<br />
nota informativa en don<strong>de</strong> seña<strong>la</strong>ba los acuerdos adoptados por <strong>la</strong>s Autorida<strong>de</strong>s Europeas<br />
<strong>de</strong> Protección <strong>de</strong> Datos que integran el Grupo <strong>de</strong> Trabajo <strong>de</strong>l Artículo 29 (GT 29) 1 sobre <strong>la</strong><br />
privacidad en <strong>la</strong> publicidad on-line basada en el comportamiento (behavioural advertising).<br />
En dicha nota se alerta sobre los riesgos que <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> privacidad suscitan <strong>la</strong>s l<strong>la</strong>madas tracking<br />
1 Este grupo <strong>de</strong> trabajo se creó en virtud <strong>de</strong>l artículo 29 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Directiva 95/46/CE. Es un órgano consultivo<br />
europeo in<strong>de</strong>pendiente en materia <strong>de</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos y <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> intimidad. Sus tareas<br />
se <strong>de</strong>scriben en el artículo 30 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Directiva 95/46/CE y en el artículo 15 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Directiva 2002/58/<br />
CE.
408 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
cookies, esto es, <strong>la</strong>s cookies <strong>de</strong> rastreo que se utilizan <strong>para</strong> recopi<strong>la</strong>r información sobre el<br />
comportamiento <strong>de</strong> navegación <strong>de</strong> los individuos y, <strong>de</strong> esta forma, ofrecer a los/as usuarios/<br />
as anuncios dirigidos y personalizados. Partiendo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s anteriores consi<strong>de</strong>raciones <strong>la</strong> presente<br />
comunicación preten<strong>de</strong> analizar el contenido <strong>de</strong>l Dictamen 2/2010 sobre publicidad<br />
comportamental en re<strong>la</strong>ción con <strong>la</strong> nueva Directiva sobre privacidad en telecomunicaciones<br />
136/2009/CE aprobada en diciembre <strong>de</strong> 2009 y que modifica <strong>la</strong> Directiva 2002/58/CE re<strong>la</strong>tiva<br />
al tratamiento <strong>de</strong> datos personales y a <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> intimidad en el sector <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones<br />
electrónicas y en don<strong>de</strong> se introduce <strong>la</strong> obligación <strong>de</strong> obtener el consentimiento<br />
informado (y fundamentado) <strong>de</strong> los/as usuarios/as antes <strong>de</strong> insta<strong>la</strong>r dispositivos como <strong>la</strong>s<br />
cookies en los or<strong>de</strong>nadores. Y es que el análisis propuesto no resulta ba<strong>la</strong>dí <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> una óptica<br />
constitucional sobre todo si tenemos en cuenta <strong>la</strong> posibilidad <strong>de</strong> aludir a un “nuevo” <strong>de</strong>recho,<br />
esto es, el <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> confi<strong>de</strong>ncialidad e integridad <strong>de</strong> los sistemas tecnológicos y <strong>de</strong> información<br />
que consagra <strong>la</strong> Sentencia <strong>de</strong>l Tribunal Constitucional Alemán <strong>de</strong> 27 <strong>de</strong> febrero <strong>de</strong><br />
2008 fruto <strong>de</strong>l recurso interpuesto contra <strong>la</strong> reforma <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Ley <strong>de</strong> Servicios <strong>de</strong> Inteligencia<br />
<strong>de</strong>l Estado <strong>de</strong> Renania <strong>de</strong>l Norte <strong>de</strong> Westfalia, en virtud <strong>de</strong>l cual se permitía expresamente<br />
que tales servicios pudiesen utilizar <strong>de</strong> forma secreta spywares o troyanos <strong>para</strong> espiar los or<strong>de</strong>nadores<br />
<strong>de</strong> cualquier sospechoso. El Tribunal <strong>de</strong>c<strong>la</strong>ró inconstitucional <strong>la</strong> reforma y configuró<br />
lo que se ha consi<strong>de</strong>rado como un nuevo <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> confi<strong>de</strong>ncialidad e<br />
integridad <strong>de</strong> los sistemas tecnológicos <strong>de</strong> información en aras <strong>de</strong> proteger <strong>la</strong> personalidad<br />
on-line, digital o en <strong>red</strong> frente a los peligros que representa el uso <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s nuevas tecnologías.<br />
Extrapo<strong>la</strong>ndo estas i<strong>de</strong>as al ámbito <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s tracking cookies no resulta aventurado alertar<br />
sobre sus peligros teniendo en cuenta <strong>la</strong> capacidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s mismas <strong>para</strong> generar perfiles <strong>de</strong><br />
navegación <strong>de</strong> los/as usuarios/as susceptibles <strong>de</strong> vulnerar ciertos <strong>de</strong>rechos fundamentales encuadrables<br />
<strong>de</strong>ntro <strong>de</strong> ese concepto amplio <strong>de</strong> privacidad. Sentadas <strong>la</strong>s anteriores premisas <strong>la</strong><br />
presente comunicación preten<strong>de</strong> reflexionar sobre los <strong>retos</strong> que <strong>la</strong>s tracking cookies p<strong>la</strong>ntean<br />
al <strong>de</strong>recho constitucional en cuanto nos permite aludir, en su caso, a un “nuevo” <strong>de</strong>recho<br />
fundamental con los inconvenientes y <strong>la</strong>s posturas encontradas que siempre genera esta cuestión.<br />
En cualquier caso, lo que sí es cierto es que el catálogo <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>rechos y liberta<strong>de</strong>s no es un<br />
catálogo cerrado, sino que <strong>la</strong> propia dinámica social <strong>de</strong>be mostrarse abierta al surgimiento <strong>de</strong><br />
nuevas necesida<strong>de</strong>s que fundamenten nuevos <strong>de</strong>rechos. De ahí, <strong>la</strong> importancia <strong>de</strong> reflexionar<br />
sobre esta cuestión en aras <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>terminar si <strong>la</strong>s potencialida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> los avances tecnológicos<br />
suponen una necesidad suficiente <strong>para</strong> apostar por “nuevos” <strong>de</strong>rechos que, en suma, <strong>de</strong>spliegan<br />
su ámbito <strong>de</strong> actuación en esa esfera personal e informacional (<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> privacidad) <strong>de</strong> los<br />
individuos y/o usuarios/as.<br />
2. objetiVos<br />
Al hilo <strong>de</strong> lo expuesto, consi<strong>de</strong>ro necesario p<strong>la</strong>smar y/o i<strong>de</strong>ntificar cuáles son los objetivos<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> presente comunicación. Unos objetivos que parten <strong>de</strong> un p<strong>la</strong>nteamiento constitucional,<br />
lo que implica tener que <strong>de</strong>limitar cuáles son sus bases constitucionales. Bases<br />
constitucionales que, por un <strong>la</strong>do, resultan <strong>de</strong>terminantes a <strong>la</strong> hora <strong>de</strong> aludir a los <strong>de</strong>rechos<br />
encuadrables en ese concepto amplio <strong>de</strong> privacidad. Y que, por otra parte, nos obliga a
Privacidad y tracking cookies. Una aproximación constitucional<br />
409<br />
reflexionar sobre <strong>la</strong> necesidad o no <strong>de</strong> hab<strong>la</strong>r <strong>de</strong> nuevos <strong>de</strong>rechos que surgen al hilo <strong>de</strong> los<br />
nuevos avances tecnológicos en el ámbito <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s TICs (<strong>de</strong>rechos encuadrables en <strong>la</strong> tercera o<br />
cuarta generación <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>rechos, según el caso, tomando como referencia esa sistematización<br />
generacional <strong>de</strong> los mismos). El tema no es pacífico, sobre todo, porque <strong>la</strong> doctrina no se<br />
pone <strong>de</strong> acuerdo a <strong>la</strong> hora <strong>de</strong> aludir a nuevos <strong>de</strong>rechos y, en este sentido, se observan posturas<br />
encontradas. No obstante, con in<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>ncia <strong>de</strong> que se opte o no por aludir a un nuevo<br />
<strong>de</strong>recho fundamental, lo relevante <strong>de</strong> esta comunicación es sentar <strong>la</strong>s bases constitucionales<br />
sobre los riesgos <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> privacidad que los <strong>de</strong>sarrollos como <strong>la</strong>s tracking cookies son susceptibles<br />
<strong>de</strong> originar.<br />
3. concePtualizaciones y bases constitucionales <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> PriVacidad<br />
El presente apartado lleva por título conceptualizaciones y bases constitucionales <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> privacidad. Antes <strong>de</strong> a<strong>de</strong>ntrame en el análisis <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s bases constitucionales <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> privacidad<br />
consi<strong>de</strong>ro importante <strong>de</strong>limitar conceptualmente algunos términos. Términos como el<br />
<strong>de</strong> privacidad, intimidad (personal y/o familiar), protección <strong>de</strong> datos, web 2.0, publicidad<br />
comportamental o tracking cookies. Y es que <strong>la</strong> conceptualización <strong>de</strong> estos términos resulta<br />
necesaria sobre todo si lo que se preten<strong>de</strong> es <strong>de</strong>terminar cuáles son esas bases constitucionales<br />
y los riegos que <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> misma genera <strong>la</strong> publicidad comportamental y <strong>la</strong>s tracking cookies.<br />
Comenzando por el primer término, esto es, por privacidad cabe seña<strong>la</strong>r que este término<br />
proviene <strong>de</strong>l inglés (privacy 2 ) y que en <strong>de</strong>terminados foros ha sido rechazado calificándolo<br />
<strong>de</strong> anglicismo y seña<strong>la</strong>ndo que <strong>la</strong> utilización correcta en nuestra lengua sería intimidad.<br />
No obstante, el <strong>de</strong>sarrollo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información 3 junto a <strong>la</strong> expansión <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> infor-<br />
2 Como seña<strong>la</strong> SERRANo PÉREZ, M.M. (2003), El <strong>de</strong>recho fundamental a <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos. Derecho<br />
español y com<strong>para</strong>do, Navarra: Thomson-Civitas, pp. 20 y ss. “La primera referencia al <strong>de</strong>recho a<br />
protegerse contra <strong>la</strong> informática surge en Estados Unidos al amparo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> i<strong>de</strong>a <strong>de</strong> “pricacy”, terminología<br />
exportada que ha tenido eco incluso en nuestro país (…) El concepto <strong>de</strong> “privacy” aparece por primera vez<br />
en un artículo <strong>de</strong> Warren y Bran<strong>de</strong>rs, enunciándolo estos dos autores como el <strong>de</strong>recho a ser <strong>de</strong>jado solo, “the<br />
right to be alone”, y que se ha convertido en el referente obligado <strong>de</strong> cualquier estudio posterior sobre el<br />
tema”.<br />
3 Sobre el concepto <strong>de</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información véase CAMPUZANo ToMÉ, H. (2000), Vida privada<br />
y datos personales, Madrid: Tecnos, Derecho y realidad, citado por MARTÍNEZ MARTÍNEZ, R.<br />
(2004), Una aproximación crítica a <strong>la</strong> auto<strong>de</strong>terminación informativa, Navarra: Thomson-Civitas, pp.<br />
46. Campuzano Tomé <strong>de</strong>fine <strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información como “un nuevo mo<strong>de</strong>lo <strong>de</strong> organización<br />
industrial, cultural y social caracterizado por el acercamiento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s personas a <strong>la</strong> información a través <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong>s nuevas tecnologías <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> comunicación. Supone una informatización <strong>de</strong> los diversos sectores dirigida<br />
a abrir una vía <strong>de</strong> participación <strong>de</strong> los ciudadanos en todas <strong>la</strong>s facetas <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> vida económica y social, así<br />
como a obtener en último término, una mejora <strong>de</strong> su calidad <strong>de</strong> vida. Se trata <strong>de</strong> conseguir que <strong>la</strong>s nuevas<br />
tecnologías <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> comunicación se conviertan en herramientas <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> creación <strong>de</strong> una sociedad <strong>de</strong> integración<br />
en <strong>la</strong> que todos los ciudadanos tengan cabida”. otra <strong>de</strong>finición interesante se contiene en el Real<br />
Decreto 1289/1999, <strong>de</strong> 23 <strong>de</strong> julio, por el que se crea <strong>la</strong> Comisión Interministerial <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Sociedad <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> Información y <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s Nuevas Tecnologías. Seña<strong>la</strong> que “<strong>la</strong> i<strong>de</strong>a <strong>de</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información engloba
410 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
mática y <strong>la</strong>s nuevas tecnologías en comunicación han facilitado su utilización hasta el punto<br />
<strong>de</strong> que el Diccionario <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> lengua españo<strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Real Aca<strong>de</strong>mia (DRAE 4 ) lo ha incluido<br />
<strong>de</strong>finiéndolo como ese “ámbito <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> vida privada que se tiene <strong>de</strong>recho a proteger <strong>de</strong> cualquier<br />
intromisión”. Una primera aproximación a este término (teniendo en cuenta <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>finición<br />
anterior) nos induce a pensar en <strong>la</strong> estrecha conexión entre privacidad e intimidad. No obstante,<br />
resulta importante precisar que por privacidad cabría enten<strong>de</strong>r un concepto bastante<br />
más amplio que el <strong>de</strong> intimidad 5 , puesto que se ha visto amenazado por el progresivo <strong>de</strong>sarrollo<br />
<strong>de</strong> técnicas <strong>de</strong> recolección y almacenamiento <strong>de</strong> datos y <strong>de</strong> acceso a los mismos, lo que<br />
constituye una amenaza potencial antes <strong>de</strong>sconocida. Como seña<strong>la</strong> NAVALPoTRo 6 “(...)<br />
<strong>la</strong> privacidad constituye un conjunto más amplio, más global, <strong>de</strong> facetas <strong>de</strong> su personalidad [<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
personalidad <strong>de</strong> los individuos] que, ais<strong>la</strong>damente consi<strong>de</strong>radas, pue<strong>de</strong>n carecer <strong>de</strong> significación<br />
intrínsica pero que, coherentemente en<strong>la</strong>zadas entre sí, arrojan como precipitado un retrato <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
personalidad <strong>de</strong>l individuo que este tiene <strong>de</strong>recho a mantener reservado”.<br />
Siguiendo con <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>limitación conceptual <strong>de</strong> los términos seña<strong>la</strong>dos conviene precisar<br />
qué se entien<strong>de</strong> por intimidad 7 . El Diccionario <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> lengua españo<strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Real Aca<strong>de</strong>mia<br />
(DRAE) 8 lo <strong>de</strong>fine como esa “zona espiritual íntima y reservada <strong>de</strong> una persona o <strong>de</strong> un grupo,<br />
especialmente <strong>de</strong> una familia”. Por su parte, el Tribunal Constitucional ha precisado que el<br />
<strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> intimidad 9 reconoce el <strong>de</strong>recho a resguardar <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> acción y el conocimiento<br />
un conjunto <strong>de</strong> activida<strong>de</strong>s industriales y económicas, comportamientos sociales, actitu<strong>de</strong>s individuales y<br />
formas <strong>de</strong> organización política y administrativa, <strong>de</strong> importancia creciente en <strong>la</strong>s naciones situadas en <strong>la</strong><br />
vanguardia económica y cultural, a lo que no pue<strong>de</strong>n sustraerse los po<strong>de</strong>res públicos”. Véase también FER-<br />
NÁNDEZ ESTEBAN, M.L. (1998), Nuevas Tecnologías, Internet y Derechos Fundamentales, Madrid:<br />
McGraw-Hill Interamericana <strong>de</strong> España, p. 139. Esta autora aduce que “los medios <strong>de</strong> comunicación<br />
interactivos modifican también <strong>la</strong> capacidad <strong>de</strong> recogida <strong>de</strong> datos, instituyendo una comunicación electrónica<br />
continua y directa entre los gestores <strong>de</strong> los servicios y los usuarios. Por tanto, no sólo es posible un<br />
control más directo <strong>de</strong> los comportamientos <strong>de</strong> los usuarios, sino también un conocimiento más estrecho <strong>de</strong><br />
sus costumbres, inclinaciones, intereses o gustos”.<br />
4 Véase <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>finición <strong>de</strong> privacidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> DRAE, pue<strong>de</strong> consultarse [fecha<br />
<strong>de</strong> consulta 20/03/2011].<br />
5 Sobre esta cuestión véase MARTÍNEZ MARTÍNEZ, R., Una aproximación crítica a <strong>la</strong> auto<strong>de</strong>terminación<br />
… op.cit., pp. 37 y ss. Seña<strong>la</strong> este autor que “existe una noción, <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> vida privada o privacidad,<br />
que supera <strong>la</strong>s limitaciones <strong>de</strong>l término intimidad y que, a<strong>de</strong>más, encuentra perfecto encaje constitucional<br />
en el art. 18 CE. En este sentido, remontarse a un concepto estricto <strong>de</strong> intimidad supone limitar <strong>la</strong> virtualidad<br />
<strong>de</strong>l artículo 18 y el bien jurídico protegido por el mismo”.<br />
6 Véase NAVALPoTRo, Y., “Antece<strong>de</strong>ntes <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Ley orgánica 15/1999 (LoPD)”, en ALMUZARA<br />
ALMAIDA, C. (2005), Estudio práctico sobre <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos <strong>de</strong> carácter personal, Val<strong>la</strong>dolid: Lex<br />
Nova, p. 40.<br />
7 Con respecto al concepto <strong>de</strong> intimidad véase también MARTÍNEZ MARTÍNEZ, R., Una aproximación<br />
crítica a <strong>la</strong> auto<strong>de</strong>terminación … op.cit., pp. 33 y ss. Este autor analiza el término intimidad <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong><br />
un punto <strong>de</strong> vista etimológico e histórico.<br />
8 Pue<strong>de</strong> consultarse en (fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta 11/02/2011).<br />
9 Sobre este particu<strong>la</strong>r resultan especialmente <strong>de</strong> interés <strong>la</strong> STC 115/2000 así como <strong>la</strong> STC 231/1988.
Privacidad y tracking cookies. Una aproximación constitucional<br />
411<br />
ajenos un ámbito propio y reservado <strong>de</strong> cada sujeto, ámbito que se consi<strong>de</strong>ra necesario<br />
<strong>para</strong> mantener una calidad mínima <strong>de</strong> vida humana, según <strong>la</strong>s pautas <strong>de</strong> nuestra conducta.<br />
Poniendo en re<strong>la</strong>ción ambos conceptos, privacidad/intimidad, podríamos seña<strong>la</strong>r que<br />
el término intimidad tiene un alcance menor pero es más gravoso. Es <strong>de</strong>cir, el <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong><br />
intimidad protege <strong>la</strong> parte más íntima <strong>de</strong> una persona, esto es, esa esfera personal que <strong>de</strong>fine<br />
qué es y qué no es privado. En cambio, privacidad es un término más amplio y se refiere a<br />
aquel<strong>la</strong> parte <strong>de</strong>l individuo que va más allá <strong>de</strong> lo íntimo, esto es, alu<strong>de</strong> a <strong>la</strong> información que<br />
tomada por sí misma pue<strong>de</strong> no ser relevante, pero que analizada en un momento o contexto<br />
concreto pue<strong>de</strong> llevarnos a <strong>la</strong> construcción <strong>de</strong> un perfil muy fiable <strong>de</strong>l individuo. En aras<br />
<strong>de</strong> lo anterior, se podría colegir que todos los asuntos íntimos son privados pero no todos<br />
los asuntos privados son íntimos. Sea como fuere y extrapo<strong>la</strong>ndo estas <strong>de</strong>limitaciones conceptuales<br />
al objeto <strong>de</strong> nuestro estudio ¿qué ámbitos son susceptibles <strong>de</strong> resultar afectados a<br />
través <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> utilización <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> publicidad comportamental o <strong>de</strong> cookies <strong>de</strong> rastreo? ¿qué riesgos<br />
generan <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> el punto <strong>de</strong> vista <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> privacidad?<br />
Antes <strong>de</strong> dar respuesta o reflexionar sobre estas cuestiones conviene no <strong>de</strong>jar <strong>de</strong> precisar<br />
otro término como es el dato <strong>de</strong> carácter personal 10 . Concepto que nos obliga a hab<strong>la</strong>r <strong>de</strong>l<br />
<strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos o <strong>la</strong> autotute<strong>la</strong> informativa. Cabe enten<strong>de</strong>r por el mismo<br />
(sintéticamente hab<strong>la</strong>ndo) como ese po<strong>de</strong>r <strong>de</strong> disposición 11 y/o control sobre los propios<br />
datos por parte <strong>de</strong> los individuos. Ese po<strong>de</strong>r <strong>de</strong> disposición y <strong>de</strong> control otorga a los individuos<br />
un <strong>de</strong>recho a saber y a ser informados sobre el <strong>de</strong>stino y uso <strong>de</strong> los datos personales, el<br />
<strong>de</strong>recho a que se requiera el previo consentimiento <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> recogida y uso <strong>de</strong> los datos personales,<br />
el <strong>de</strong>recho a acce<strong>de</strong>r, rectificar y cance<strong>la</strong>r los datos personales, el <strong>de</strong>recho <strong>de</strong> oposición,<br />
el <strong>de</strong>recho a no verse sometido a una <strong>de</strong>cisión con efectos jurídicos que se base únicamente<br />
en un tratamiento <strong>de</strong> datos <strong>de</strong>stinado a evaluar <strong>de</strong>terminados aspectos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> personalidad,<br />
entre <strong>otros</strong>. Por tanto, hab<strong>la</strong>mos <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos como un <strong>de</strong>recho<br />
autónomo 12 y con sustantividad propia con in<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>ncia <strong>de</strong> que se ubique en ese ámbito<br />
más extenso <strong>de</strong> privacidad.<br />
En líneas anteriores se hacía referencia a <strong>la</strong> necesidad <strong>de</strong> precisar <strong>otros</strong> conceptos tales<br />
como web 2.0. Sobre el concepto <strong>de</strong> web 2.0 se podría <strong>de</strong>cir que es un concepto asociado<br />
a un fenómeno social que está basado en <strong>la</strong> interacción que se logra a través <strong>de</strong> diferentes<br />
aplicaciones web. Aplicaciones que permiten o facilitan el compartir información, <strong>la</strong> intero-<br />
10 El art. 3.a) <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Lo 15/1999, <strong>de</strong> 13 <strong>de</strong> diciembre, <strong>de</strong> Protección <strong>de</strong> datos <strong>de</strong> carácter personal <strong>de</strong>termina<br />
qué se entien<strong>de</strong> por dato <strong>de</strong> carácter personal. Seña<strong>la</strong> que compren<strong>de</strong> “cualquier información<br />
concerniente a personas físicas i<strong>de</strong>ntificadas o in<strong>de</strong>ntificables”. Por su parte <strong>la</strong> Directiva europea 95/46/<br />
CE <strong>de</strong>l Par<strong>la</strong>mento europeo y <strong>de</strong>l Consejo seña<strong>la</strong> en su art. 2.b) algunas notas sobre lo que es una<br />
persona i<strong>de</strong>ntificable, “toda persona cuya i<strong>de</strong>ntidad pueda <strong>de</strong>terminarse, directa o indirectamente, en<br />
particu<strong>la</strong>r mediante un número <strong>de</strong> in<strong>de</strong>ntificación o uno o varios elementos específicos, característicos <strong>de</strong> su<br />
i<strong>de</strong>ntidad física, fisiológica, psíquica, económica, cultural o social”.<br />
11 Sobre el po<strong>de</strong>r <strong>de</strong> disposición y control sobre los propios datos resulta <strong>de</strong> interés <strong>la</strong> STC 254/1993.<br />
12 Sobre <strong>la</strong> configuración <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos como <strong>de</strong>recho autónomo véase <strong>la</strong> STC<br />
290/2000, <strong>de</strong> 30 <strong>de</strong> noviembre.
412 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
perabilidad, el diseño centrado en usuarios/as y <strong>la</strong> co<strong>la</strong>boración en <strong>la</strong> World Wi<strong>de</strong> Web. Por<br />
tanto, se podría <strong>de</strong>cir que <strong>la</strong> web 2.0 es <strong>la</strong> “transición que se ha dado <strong>de</strong> aplicaciones tradicionales<br />
hacia aplicaciones que funcionan a través <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> web enfocadas al usuario/a final” 13 . Des<strong>de</strong><br />
el punto <strong>de</strong> vista <strong>de</strong> esta comunicación y <strong>de</strong> los objetivos p<strong>la</strong>nteados en <strong>la</strong> misma resulta<br />
importante tener en cuenta conceptos como el ahora <strong>de</strong>finido sobre todo cuando hab<strong>la</strong>mos<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> utilización <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> publicidad comportamental en espacios propios <strong>de</strong> web 2.0 o webs<br />
co<strong>la</strong>borativas como pue<strong>de</strong>n ser <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s sociales 14 . Espacios en el que los/as usuarios/as interactúan<br />
bajo una aparente “gratuidad”, ahora bien ¿es eso así? ¿cuál es <strong>la</strong> contraprestación<br />
por <strong>la</strong> utilización <strong>de</strong> estos servicios?<br />
otro concepto sobre el que bascu<strong>la</strong> esta comunicación es el concepto <strong>de</strong> publicidad<br />
comportamental. Un concepto re<strong>la</strong>tivamente nuevo y que como se seña<strong>la</strong> en el Dictamen<br />
2/2010, sobre publicidad comportamental on line <strong>de</strong>l Grupo <strong>de</strong> Trabajo <strong>de</strong>l Art. 29 (GT29),<br />
se trata <strong>de</strong> una publicidad basada en <strong>la</strong> observación continuada <strong>de</strong>l comportamiento <strong>de</strong> los<br />
individuos. En este sentido, se pue<strong>de</strong> seña<strong>la</strong>r que <strong>la</strong> publicidad comportamental busca estudiar<br />
<strong>la</strong>s características <strong>de</strong> dicho comportamiento a través <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s acciones <strong>de</strong> los individuos,<br />
esto es, a través <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s visitas repetidas a un <strong>de</strong>terminado sitio, a través <strong>de</strong> interacciones, <strong>de</strong><br />
pa<strong>la</strong>bras c<strong>la</strong>ves, <strong>de</strong> producción <strong>de</strong> contenidos en línea, etc. De esta forma se pue<strong>de</strong> e<strong>la</strong>borar<br />
un perfil específico <strong>de</strong>stinado a proporcionar a los/as usuarios/as anuncios a medida partiendo<br />
<strong>de</strong> los intereses inferidos <strong>de</strong> su comportamiento en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>. El Dictamen precisa que<br />
“mientras <strong>la</strong> publicidad contextual y <strong>la</strong> publicidad segmentada utilizan ‘instantáneas’ <strong>de</strong> lo que<br />
ven o hacen los [as] usuarios [as] en un sitio concreto (…) <strong>la</strong> publicidad comportamental pue<strong>de</strong><br />
dar a los anunciantes un cuadro <strong>de</strong>tal<strong>la</strong>do <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> vida en línea <strong>de</strong>l usuario[a]”.<br />
Con respecto al concepto <strong>de</strong> tracking cookies o cookies <strong>de</strong> rastreo cabe seña<strong>la</strong>r que es<br />
<strong>la</strong> principal tecnología <strong>de</strong> rastreo que utiliza <strong>la</strong> publicidad comportamental, ya que permite<br />
rastrear <strong>la</strong>s búsquedas <strong>de</strong>l usuario/a a lo <strong>la</strong>rgo <strong>de</strong> un <strong>la</strong>pso extenso <strong>de</strong> tiempo. Como recoge el<br />
Dictamen 2/2010 (antes citado) el funcionamiento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s cookies <strong>de</strong> rastreo es el siguiente:<br />
“el proveedor <strong>de</strong> re<strong>de</strong>s y publicidad coloca una cookie <strong>de</strong> rastreo en el terminal <strong>de</strong>l usuario [a] <strong>la</strong><br />
13 Sobre <strong>la</strong> web 2.0 véase , [fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta<br />
12/09/2010]. Véase también RoDRÍGUEZ DE SEPÚLVEDA MAILLo, D., y RoDRÍGUEZ DE<br />
SEPÚLVEDA MAILLo, S. (2009), Cómo sobrevivir en <strong>la</strong> Red, Madrid: Ra-Ma, pp. 20-21. Seña<strong>la</strong>n<br />
estos autores que <strong>la</strong> web 2.0 está formada por “páginas cuyo contenido se actualiza con una gran frecuencia<br />
y en <strong>la</strong> que el diseño y los estilos pasan a un segundo p<strong>la</strong>no, se da una mayor importancia a los<br />
contenidos y por supuesto automatizando ell proceso <strong>de</strong> inserción <strong>de</strong> dichos contenidos, <strong>para</strong> que cualquier<br />
persona pueda tener su propio espacio en Internet sin necesidad <strong>de</strong> tener conocimientos en el campo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
programación Web o Html”.<br />
14 Sobre <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s sociales véase oRTIZ LÓPEZ, P., “Re<strong>de</strong>s sociales: funcionamiento y tratamiento<br />
<strong>de</strong> información personal”, en RALLo LoMBARTE, A., y MARTÍNEZ MARTÍNEZ, R. (coord.)<br />
(2010), Derecho y re<strong>de</strong>s sociales, Pamplona: Civitas, pp. 24. Seña<strong>la</strong> esta autora que <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s sociales<br />
online se podrían <strong>de</strong>finir como “aquellos servicios <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información que ofrecen a los<br />
usuarios[as] una p<strong>la</strong>taforma <strong>de</strong> comunicación a través <strong>de</strong> Internet <strong>para</strong> que estos generen un perfil con sus<br />
datos personales, facilitando <strong>la</strong> creación <strong>de</strong> re<strong>de</strong>s en base a criterios comunes y permitiendo <strong>la</strong> conexión con<br />
<strong>otros</strong> usuarios[as] y su interconexión”.
Privacidad y tracking cookies. Una aproximación constitucional<br />
413<br />
primera vez que este visita un sitio <strong>de</strong> internet que exhibe un anuncio <strong>de</strong> su <strong>red</strong>. La cookie es un<br />
texto breve alfanumérico almacenado (y recuperado posteriormente) en el terminal <strong>de</strong>l usuario [a]<br />
por el proveedor <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>. En <strong>la</strong> publicidad comportamental, <strong>la</strong> cookie permitirá al proveedor <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> <strong>de</strong> publicidad reconocer a un antiguo visitante que vuelve a dicho sitio o visita cualquier<br />
otro sitio asociado <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> publicitaria. La repetición <strong>de</strong> visitas permitirá al proveedor <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong><br />
publicitaria construir un perfil <strong>de</strong>l visitante que se utilizará <strong>para</strong> producir publicidad personalizada”.<br />
Sin duda <strong>de</strong>l funcionamiento (brevemente expuesto) <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s tracking cookies son muchas<br />
<strong>la</strong>s cuestiones que se suscitan sobre todo teniendo en cuenta ese concepto amplio <strong>de</strong> privacidad<br />
que expan<strong>de</strong> su ámbito <strong>de</strong> protección no sólo al ámbito íntimo <strong>de</strong> los/as usuarios/as<br />
(como se ha comentado) sino también a otras parce<strong>la</strong>s como pue<strong>de</strong>n ser el secreto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones<br />
y <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos <strong>de</strong> carácter personal. Y es que <strong>la</strong>s tracking cookies podrían<br />
catalogarse como dispositivos espías 15 (o chivatos) que junto a los spyware, web bugs<br />
o simi<strong>la</strong>res recaban información <strong>de</strong> los/as usuarios/as (datos <strong>de</strong> tráfico, IP, tipo <strong>de</strong> conexión,<br />
tiempo <strong>de</strong> navegación, preferencias <strong>de</strong> contenidos, etc.). Ante esta realidad conviene precisar<br />
cuáles son <strong>la</strong>s bases constitucionales <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> privacidad <strong>para</strong>, a partir <strong>de</strong> ahí, po<strong>de</strong>r significar<br />
los aspectos más relevantes tanto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Directiva 136/2009/CE como <strong>de</strong>l Dictamen 2/2010<br />
sobre publicidad comportamental.<br />
Con respecto a <strong>la</strong>s bases constitucionales <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> privacidad conviene seña<strong>la</strong>r cuál es su<br />
ubicación sistemática. Una ubicación que nos sitúa en el art. 18 CE. Precepto que constitucionaliza<br />
varios <strong>de</strong>rechos como pue<strong>de</strong>n ser el <strong>de</strong>recho al honor, intimidad personal y<br />
familiar y propia imagen (apartado 1 <strong>de</strong>l art. 18 CE), el <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> invio<strong>la</strong>bilidad <strong>de</strong>l domicilio<br />
(apartado 2), el <strong>de</strong>recho al secreto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones (apartado 3) y, por último,<br />
el <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos <strong>de</strong> carácter personal (apartado 4 <strong>de</strong>l mismo precepto).<br />
Teniendo en cuenta <strong>la</strong> ubicación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> privacidad en nuestro texto constitucional es importante<br />
precisar que se encuentra en <strong>la</strong> parte dogmática 16 , más concretamente, en <strong>la</strong> sección I<br />
<strong>de</strong>l Capítulo II <strong>de</strong>l Título I <strong>de</strong> nuestra Carta Magna. Una ubicación que no es ba<strong>la</strong>dí puesto<br />
que resulta <strong>de</strong>terminante <strong>para</strong> gozar tanto <strong>de</strong> una serie <strong>de</strong> garantías genéricas o normativas 17<br />
15 Sobre los dispositivos espías véase GUERRERo PICÓ, M.C. (2006), El impacto <strong>de</strong> Internet en el Derecho<br />
Fundamental a <strong>la</strong> Protección <strong>de</strong> Datos <strong>de</strong> Carácter Personal, Navarra: Thomson-Civitas, pp. 473 y<br />
ss.<br />
16 Sobre <strong>la</strong> distinción entre parte orgánica y parte dogmática, conviene seña<strong>la</strong>r que es una distinción<br />
puramente doctrinal <strong>de</strong> los textos constitucionales. La parte dogmática suele contener los valores<br />
propios <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> sociedad en que se promulga <strong>la</strong> Constitución, <strong>la</strong> configuración esencial <strong>de</strong>l Estado, sus<br />
señas <strong>de</strong> i<strong>de</strong>ntidad y los <strong>de</strong>rechos y liberta<strong>de</strong>s fundamentales <strong>de</strong> los individuos que integran <strong>la</strong> sociedad<br />
en que se promulga <strong>la</strong> Constitución. Por su parte, <strong>la</strong> parte orgánica suele <strong>de</strong>finir <strong>la</strong> composición,<br />
organización y funciones <strong>de</strong> los órganos <strong>de</strong>l po<strong>de</strong>r público que articu<strong>la</strong>n los po<strong>de</strong>res <strong>de</strong>l Estado.<br />
17 Como garanías genéricas o normativas cabe citar el art. 53.1 CE y el art. 54 CE. El artículo 53.1 CE<br />
dispone textualmente “Los <strong>de</strong>rechos y liberta<strong>de</strong>s reconocidos en el Capítulo II <strong>de</strong>l presente Título vincu<strong>la</strong>n<br />
a todos los po<strong>de</strong>res públicos. Sólo por Ley, que en todo caso <strong>de</strong>berá respetar su contenido esencial, podrá<br />
regu<strong>la</strong>rse el ejercicio <strong>de</strong> tales <strong>de</strong>rechos y liberta<strong>de</strong>s (...)”. De <strong>la</strong> lectura <strong>de</strong> este precepto po<strong>de</strong>mos extrapo<strong>la</strong>r<br />
tres garantías genéricas o normativas como son <strong>la</strong> aplicación directa o vincu<strong>la</strong>ción directa <strong>de</strong> los
414 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
como otra serie <strong>de</strong> garantías jurisdiccionales 18 , sin olvidar (por supuesto) <strong>la</strong>s garantías específicas<br />
<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>ndiendo <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho en concreto susceptible <strong>de</strong> ser afectado. Así cuando<br />
el <strong>de</strong>recho susceptible <strong>de</strong> verse afectado sea el <strong>de</strong>recho al honor <strong>la</strong>s garantías específicas se<br />
concretarán en el <strong>de</strong>recho <strong>de</strong> rectificación (Ley orgánica <strong>de</strong>l Derecho <strong>de</strong> Rectificación 19 ), <strong>la</strong><br />
protección civil (Ley orgánica <strong>de</strong>l Derecho al Honor, Intimidad Personal y Propia imagen 20 )<br />
y <strong>la</strong> protección penal cuando los hechos sean constitutivos <strong>de</strong> infracción penal. Las mismas<br />
garantías específicas se darán cuando el <strong>de</strong>recho susceptible <strong>de</strong> verse afectado sea el <strong>de</strong>recho<br />
a <strong>la</strong> intimidad personal y familiar y a <strong>la</strong> propia imagen, añadiendo en este caso <strong>la</strong> protección<br />
específica prevista en el or<strong>de</strong>n <strong>la</strong>boral. En el caso <strong>de</strong> que el <strong>de</strong>recho vulnerado sea el <strong>de</strong>recho<br />
al secreto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones <strong>la</strong> protección específica vendrá <strong>de</strong>terminada por el Capítulo<br />
I <strong>de</strong>l Título X <strong>de</strong>l Código Penal en don<strong>de</strong> se tipifican los <strong>de</strong>litos <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>scubrimiento y reve<strong>la</strong>ción<br />
<strong>de</strong> sec<strong>retos</strong> y <strong>la</strong> Sección II <strong>de</strong>l Capítulo V <strong>de</strong>l Título XXI <strong>de</strong>l Código Penal que tipifica<br />
los <strong>de</strong>litos cometidos por personal funcionario contra <strong>la</strong> invio<strong>la</strong>bilidad domiciliaria y <strong>de</strong>más<br />
garantías <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> intimidad. Por su parte, <strong>de</strong>ntro <strong>de</strong> este concepto amplio <strong>de</strong> privacidad otro<br />
<strong>de</strong>recho susceptible <strong>de</strong> ser vulnerado es el <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos. En este caso su<br />
protección específica se concreta en una serie <strong>de</strong> procedimientos ante <strong>la</strong> Agencia Españo<strong>la</strong><br />
<strong>de</strong> Protección <strong>de</strong> Datos en el marco <strong>de</strong> lo previsto en <strong>la</strong> Ley orgánica 15/1999, <strong>de</strong> 13 <strong>de</strong><br />
diciembre, <strong>de</strong> Protección <strong>de</strong> Datos <strong>de</strong> Carácter Personal, sin perjuicio <strong>de</strong> que como <strong>de</strong>recho<br />
fundamental también goce <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s garantías genéricas o normativas y jurisdiccionales apuntadas<br />
en líneas anteriores (art. 53 CE).<br />
po<strong>de</strong>res públicos a los <strong>de</strong>rechos recogidos en el Capítulo II <strong>de</strong>l Título I <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> CE, así como <strong>la</strong> reserva<br />
<strong>de</strong> ley que será ley orgánica en el caso <strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>rechos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Sección I <strong>de</strong>l Capítulo II y el contenido<br />
esencial. Junto a <strong>la</strong>s garantías <strong>de</strong>l párrafo 1 <strong>de</strong>l art. 53 CE po<strong>de</strong>mos citar otra garantía, en este caso<br />
<strong>institucional</strong>, que es <strong>la</strong> recogida en el art. 54 CE. Dicho precepto dispone “Una Ley orgánica regu<strong>la</strong>rá<br />
<strong>la</strong> institución <strong>de</strong>l Defensor <strong>de</strong>l Pueblo, como alto comisionado <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s Cortes Generales, <strong>de</strong>signado por éstas<br />
<strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>fensa <strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>rechos comprendidos en este Título, a cuyo efecto podrá supervisar <strong>la</strong> actividad <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> Administración, dando cuenta a <strong>la</strong>s Cortes Generales”.<br />
18 En cuanto a <strong>la</strong>s garantías jurisdiccionales cabe aludir al párrafo 2 <strong>de</strong>l artículo 53 CE. Dicho precepto<br />
dispone que “Cualquier ciudadano podrá recabar <strong>la</strong> tute<strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s liberta<strong>de</strong>s y <strong>de</strong>rechos reconocidos en<br />
el artículo 14 y <strong>la</strong> Sección primera <strong>de</strong>l Capítulo II ante los Tribunales ordinarios por un procedimiento<br />
basado en los principios <strong>de</strong> preferencia y sumariedad y, en su caso, a través <strong>de</strong>l recurso <strong>de</strong> amparo ante el<br />
Tribunal Constitucional. Este último recurso será aplicable a <strong>la</strong> objeción <strong>de</strong> conciencia reconocida en el artículo<br />
30”. De <strong>la</strong> lectura <strong>de</strong> este precepto cabe extrapo<strong>la</strong>r una primera protección jurisdiccional a través<br />
<strong>de</strong>l amparo ordinario (ante los tribunales ordinarios) caracterizado por los principios <strong>de</strong> preferencia<br />
y sumariedad y una segunda protección jurisdiccional ante el Tribunal Constitucional (amparo constitucional).<br />
Con respecto al amparo constitucional resulta interesante citar el art. 161.1.a) CE que<br />
dispone que “El Tribunal Constitucional tiene jurisdicción en todo el territorio español y es competente<br />
<strong>para</strong> conocer (…) b) Del recurso <strong>de</strong> amparo por vio<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>rechos y liberta<strong>de</strong>s referidos en el artículo<br />
53.2 <strong>de</strong> esta Constitución, en los casos y formas que <strong>la</strong> Ley establezca”.<br />
19 Véase <strong>la</strong> Ley orgánica 2/1984, <strong>de</strong> 26 <strong>de</strong> marzo, regu<strong>la</strong>dora <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho <strong>de</strong> rectificación.<br />
20 Véase <strong>la</strong> Ley orgánica 1/1982, <strong>de</strong> 5 <strong>de</strong> mayo, <strong>de</strong> protección civil <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho al honor, a <strong>la</strong> intimidad<br />
personal y familiar y a <strong>la</strong> propia imagen.
Privacidad y tracking cookies. Una aproximación constitucional<br />
415<br />
A tenor <strong>de</strong> lo expuesto, <strong>la</strong> presente comunicación sienta <strong>la</strong>s bases constitucionales <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> privacidad en el ámbito <strong>de</strong> los distintos <strong>de</strong>rechos reconocidos en el art. 18 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> CE.<br />
Derechos que se enmarcan en <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> personalidad y cuyo reconocimiento internacional<br />
se encuentra en el art. 12 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Dec<strong>la</strong>ración universal <strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>rechos humanos<br />
cuando dispone que “nadie será objeto <strong>de</strong> injerencias arbitrarias en su vida privada, su familia,<br />
su domicilio o su correspon<strong>de</strong>ncia, ni <strong>de</strong> ataques a su honra o a su reputación”. Ámbito internacional<br />
que también nos permite citar el art. 17 <strong>de</strong>l Pacto internacional <strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>rechos civiles<br />
y políticos y, en el ámbito europeo, el art. 8 <strong>de</strong>l Convenio europeo <strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>rechos humanos.<br />
Sentadas <strong>la</strong>s anteriores consi<strong>de</strong>raciones resulta pertinente abordar <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> privacidad<br />
en los ámbitos tecnológicos y como <strong>la</strong> misma pue<strong>de</strong> incluso requerir <strong>la</strong> conceptualización<br />
<strong>de</strong> nuevos <strong>de</strong>rechos que podrían encuadrarse <strong>de</strong>ntro <strong>de</strong>l elenco <strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>rechos <strong>de</strong>l<br />
art. 18 CE. En este supuesto nos encontraríamos cuando tratamos <strong>de</strong> abordar los riesgos <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> publicidad comportamental (con <strong>la</strong> utilización <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s tracking cookies) <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> privacidad,<br />
<strong>de</strong> ahí <strong>la</strong> insistencia por <strong>de</strong>terminados sectores <strong>de</strong> hab<strong>la</strong>r <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> confi<strong>de</strong>ncialidad e<br />
integridad <strong>de</strong> los sistemas tecnológicos y <strong>de</strong> información.<br />
4. PriVacidad en <strong>la</strong> directiVa 136/2009/ce<br />
El estudio <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Directiva 136/2009/CE <strong>de</strong>l Par<strong>la</strong>mento Europeo y <strong>de</strong>l Consejo <strong>de</strong> 25<br />
<strong>de</strong> noviembre <strong>de</strong> 2009 por <strong>la</strong> que se modifican <strong>la</strong> Directiva 2002/22/CE re<strong>la</strong>tiva al servicio<br />
universal y los <strong>de</strong>rechos <strong>de</strong> los usuarios en re<strong>la</strong>ción con <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s y los servicios <strong>de</strong> comunicaciones<br />
electrónicas, <strong>la</strong> Directiva 2002/58/CE re<strong>la</strong>tiva al tratamiento <strong>de</strong> los datos personales<br />
y a <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> intimidad en el sector <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones electrónicas y el Reg<strong>la</strong>mento<br />
(CE) nº 2006/2004 sobre <strong>la</strong> cooperación en materia <strong>de</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> los consumidores,<br />
resulta interesante por cuanto modifica <strong>de</strong>terminados aspectos re<strong>la</strong>cionados con <strong>la</strong><br />
privacidad, en general, y con los riesgos a <strong>la</strong> privacidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> publicidad comportamental,<br />
esto es, <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> publicidad que se vale <strong>de</strong> tecnologías <strong>de</strong> rastreo como <strong>la</strong>s tracking cookies.<br />
A los objetos <strong>de</strong> esta comunicación es <strong>de</strong> especial interés centrar el objeto <strong>de</strong> nuestro<br />
análisis a partir <strong>de</strong>l consi<strong>de</strong>rando 51 en don<strong>de</strong> se alu<strong>de</strong> a <strong>la</strong> Directiva 2002/58/CE (Directiva<br />
sobre <strong>la</strong> privacidad y <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones electrónicas) que armoniza <strong>la</strong>s disposiciones<br />
<strong>de</strong> los Estados miembros necesarias <strong>para</strong> garantizar un nivel equivalente <strong>de</strong> protección <strong>de</strong><br />
los <strong>de</strong>rechos y <strong>la</strong>s liberta<strong>de</strong>s fundamentales y, en particu<strong>la</strong>r, <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> intimidad y a <strong>la</strong><br />
confi<strong>de</strong>ncialidad, en lo que respecta al tratamiento <strong>de</strong> los datos personales en el sector <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s<br />
comunicaciones electrónicas, así como a <strong>la</strong> libre circu<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> tales datos y <strong>de</strong> los equipos y<br />
servicios <strong>de</strong> comunicaciones electrónicas en <strong>la</strong> Comunidad. La Directiva en el consi<strong>de</strong>rando<br />
52 presta especial atención a <strong>la</strong> evolución <strong>de</strong>l uso <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s direcciones IP en el marco <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> protección<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s personas físicas en lo que respecta al tratamiento <strong>de</strong> datos personales y a <strong>la</strong> libre<br />
circu<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> estos datos. Alu<strong>de</strong> también al tratamiento <strong>de</strong> los datos <strong>de</strong> tráfico en <strong>la</strong> medida<br />
estrictamente necesaria <strong>para</strong> asegurar <strong>la</strong> seguridad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s y <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información, esto es, <strong>la</strong><br />
capacidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s o <strong>de</strong> los sistemas <strong>de</strong> información <strong>de</strong> resistir, con un <strong>de</strong>terminado nivel<br />
<strong>de</strong> confianza, los acci<strong>de</strong>ntes o acciones ilícitas o malintencionadas que comprometan <strong>la</strong> disponibilidad,<br />
autenticidad, integridad y confi<strong>de</strong>ncialidad <strong>de</strong> los datos almacenados o transmi-
416 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
tidos y <strong>la</strong> seguridad <strong>de</strong> los servicios conexos que dichas re<strong>de</strong>s y sistemas ofrecen o hacen accesibles,<br />
por parte <strong>de</strong> los proveedores <strong>de</strong> tecnologías y servicios <strong>de</strong> seguridad cuando actúen<br />
como responsables <strong>de</strong>l tratamiento <strong>de</strong> los datos. La Directiva en su consi<strong>de</strong>rando 56 se hace<br />
eco <strong>de</strong> los riesgos <strong>de</strong> nuevos dispositivos <strong>de</strong> recopi<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> datos e i<strong>de</strong>ntificación como son<br />
los dispositivos <strong>de</strong> i<strong>de</strong>ntificación por radiofrecuencia (RFID) que emplean radiofrecuencias<br />
<strong>para</strong> capturar datos proce<strong>de</strong>ntes <strong>de</strong> etiquetas dotadas <strong>de</strong> una i<strong>de</strong>ntificación única, pudiendo<br />
luego transferir estos datos a través <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> comunicaciones existentes. También hace<br />
alusión a los programas informáticos que contro<strong>la</strong>n subrepticiamente <strong>la</strong>s acciones <strong>de</strong> los<br />
usuarios/as o que subvierten el funcionamiento <strong>de</strong> sus equipos terminales en beneficio <strong>de</strong> un<br />
tercero (spyware o “programas espías”) que suponen una grave amenaza <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> privacidad<br />
<strong>de</strong> los/as usuarios/as, como pue<strong>de</strong>n ser los virus. Sobre este particu<strong>la</strong>r <strong>la</strong> Directiva insta a los<br />
Estados miembros a que <strong>de</strong>ben fomentar el suministro <strong>de</strong> información a los/as usuarios/as<br />
finales sobre <strong>la</strong>s precauciones disponibles y alentarlos a adoptar <strong>la</strong>s medidas necesarias <strong>para</strong><br />
proteger sus equipos terminales contra virus y programas espías.<br />
Junto a todo lo anterior, <strong>la</strong> Directiva alu<strong>de</strong> en el consi<strong>de</strong>rando 66 a otro tipo <strong>de</strong> amenazas<br />
a <strong>la</strong> privacidad. Seña<strong>la</strong> que pue<strong>de</strong> que haya terceros que <strong>de</strong>seen almacenar información<br />
sobre el equipo <strong>de</strong> un usuario o acce<strong>de</strong>r a información ya almacenada, con distintos<br />
fines, que van <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> los fines legítimos (como algunos tipos <strong>de</strong> cookies) hasta aquellos que<br />
suponen una intrusión injustificada en <strong>la</strong> esfera privada. En este sentido, <strong>la</strong> Directiva pone<br />
<strong>de</strong> manifiesto <strong>la</strong> necesidad <strong>de</strong> que los/as usuarios/as reciban información c<strong>la</strong>ra y completa<br />
cuando realicen una acción que pueda dar lugar a dicho almacenamiento u obtención <strong>de</strong><br />
acceso. A<strong>de</strong>más, se aña<strong>de</strong> que cuando sea técnicamente posible y eficaz será necesario contar<br />
con el consentimiento <strong>de</strong>l usuario/a <strong>para</strong> aceptar el tratamiento <strong>de</strong> datos. Partiendo <strong>de</strong> estos<br />
consi<strong>de</strong>randos re<strong>la</strong>tivos a <strong>la</strong> privacidad <strong>la</strong> Directiva 136/2009/CE en su artículo 2 modifica<br />
diversos apartados <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Directiva 2002/58/CE. A los objetos <strong>de</strong> esta comunicación conviene<br />
centrar el objeto <strong>de</strong> nuestro análisis en <strong>la</strong>s modificaciones que <strong>la</strong> Directiva <strong>de</strong>l año<br />
2009 introduce sobre el tratamiento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s cookies con respecto a <strong>la</strong> Directiva <strong>de</strong>l 2002.<br />
En concreto, se modifica el apartado 3 <strong>de</strong>l artículo 5 estableciendo expresamente que “Los<br />
Estados miembros ve<strong>la</strong>rán por que únicamente se permita el almacenamiento <strong>de</strong> información, o<br />
<strong>la</strong> obtención <strong>de</strong> acceso a <strong>la</strong> información ya almacenada, en el equipo terminal <strong>de</strong> un abonado [a]<br />
o usuario [a], a condición <strong>de</strong> que dicho abonado [a] o usuario [a] haya dado su consentimiento<br />
<strong>de</strong>spués <strong>de</strong> que se le haya facilitado información c<strong>la</strong>ra y completa, en particu<strong>la</strong>r sobre los fines <strong>de</strong>l<br />
tratamiento <strong>de</strong> los datos, con arreglo a lo dispuesto en <strong>la</strong> Directiva 95/46/CE”.<br />
Continúa seña<strong>la</strong>ndo el precepto que lo anterior no impedirá el posible almacenamiento<br />
o acceso <strong>de</strong> índole técnica al solo fin <strong>de</strong> efectuar <strong>la</strong> transmisión <strong>de</strong> una comunicación a través<br />
<strong>de</strong> una <strong>red</strong> <strong>de</strong> comunicaciones electrónicas, o en <strong>la</strong> medida <strong>de</strong> lo estrictamente necesario<br />
a fin <strong>de</strong> que el proveedor <strong>de</strong> un servicio <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información preste un servicio<br />
expresamente solicitado por el abonado/a o el usuario/a.<br />
Si com<strong>para</strong>mos el <strong>red</strong>actado actual <strong>de</strong>l apartado 3 <strong>de</strong>l artículo 5 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Directiva 2002/58/<br />
CE observamos noveda<strong>de</strong>s significativas puesto que con <strong>la</strong>s modificaciones introducidas el<br />
almacenamiento <strong>de</strong> información o <strong>la</strong> obtención <strong>de</strong> acceso a <strong>la</strong> información ya almacenada<br />
en el equipo terminal <strong>de</strong> un abonado/a o usurio/a sólo se pue<strong>de</strong> realizar si se ha prestado el
Privacidad y tracking cookies. Una aproximación constitucional<br />
417<br />
consentimiento una vez que se haya facilitado información c<strong>la</strong>ra y completa sobre los fines<br />
<strong>de</strong>l tratamiento. En el <strong>red</strong>actado anterior (Directiva <strong>de</strong>l 2002) se instaba a los Estados <strong>para</strong><br />
que ve<strong>la</strong>ran porque los/as usuarios/as o abonados/as recibieran información c<strong>la</strong>ra y completa<br />
sobre los fines <strong>de</strong>l tratamiento <strong>de</strong> datos en el uso <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> comunicaciones electrónicas<br />
con fines <strong>de</strong> almacenamiento <strong>de</strong> información o <strong>de</strong> obtención <strong>de</strong> acceso a <strong>la</strong> información almacenada<br />
en el equipo terminal <strong>de</strong>l abonado/a o usuario/a, pero no se exigía esa prestación<br />
expresa <strong>de</strong>l consentimiento. Como seña<strong>la</strong> BERMELL 21 “pasamos <strong>de</strong>l conocido sistema opt-out<br />
(información y procedimiento posterior <strong>de</strong> baja u oposición) al sistema opt-in (información previa<br />
y consentimiento)”.<br />
observamos, por tanto, una modificación importante en cuanto al tratamiento jurídico<br />
<strong>de</strong> los servicios que empleen dispositivos <strong>de</strong> almacenamiento y recuperación <strong>de</strong> datos en<br />
equipos terminales, como ocurre con <strong>la</strong> publicidad comportamental a través <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> utilización<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s cookies <strong>de</strong> rastreo. A<strong>de</strong>más, conviene precisar que <strong>la</strong> Directiva fija un p<strong>la</strong>zo <strong>de</strong> adaptación<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s legis<strong>la</strong>ciones <strong>de</strong> los Estados miembros estableciéndose como fecha límite el 25 <strong>de</strong><br />
mayo <strong>de</strong> 2011, circunstancia que no es ba<strong>la</strong>dí sobre todo porque en nuestro or<strong>de</strong>namiento<br />
jurídico, a día <strong>de</strong> hoy, no se ha procedido a modificar el art. 22.2 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Ley 34/2002 22 , <strong>de</strong> 11<br />
<strong>de</strong> julio, <strong>de</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información y <strong>de</strong>l comercio electrónico.<br />
5. aPuntes sobre el dictamen 2/2010, sobre Publicidad<br />
comPortamental on-line<br />
Como se ha comentando en puntos anteriores el Dictamen 2/2010, sobre publicidad<br />
comportamental advierte <strong>de</strong> los riesgos que dicha publicidad genera en el ámbito <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> protección<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> privacidad. No obstante, se reconoce <strong>la</strong> importancia económica que este tipo<br />
<strong>de</strong> publicidad genera y, en este sentido, trata <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>limitar cuál es el marco jurídico aplicable.<br />
Marco jurídico que nos obliga a observar <strong>la</strong> Directiva 2002/58/CE, <strong>la</strong> Directiva 95/46/CE y<br />
<strong>la</strong> Directiva 136/2009/CE. Con respecto a <strong>la</strong> Directiva sobre privacidad en puntos anteriores<br />
se hacía referencia al art. 5 apartado 3 en don<strong>de</strong> se introduce como novedad <strong>la</strong> exigencia<br />
<strong>de</strong>l consentimiento autorizado <strong>de</strong>l usuario/a <strong>para</strong> almacenar información legalmente o <strong>para</strong><br />
obtener acceso a información almacenada en su equipo terminal. Extrapo<strong>la</strong>ndo estas consi<strong>de</strong>raciones<br />
a <strong>la</strong> publicidad comportamental y a <strong>la</strong> utilización por parte <strong>de</strong> esta publicidad <strong>de</strong><br />
cookies <strong>de</strong> rastreo es importante recordar como este tipo <strong>de</strong> dispositivos son “información”<br />
almacenada en el equipo terminal <strong>de</strong>l usuario/a y que los proveedores <strong>de</strong> re<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> publicidad<br />
21 Véase BERMELL, S., “La directiva <strong>de</strong> CooKIES”, artículo en línea en ,<br />
[fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta 20/04/2011].<br />
22 Art. 22.2 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Ley 34/2002, <strong>de</strong> 11 <strong>de</strong> julio, <strong>de</strong> servicios <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información y <strong>de</strong>l comercio<br />
electrónico dispone “Cuando los prestadores <strong>de</strong> servicios empleen dispositivos <strong>de</strong> almacenamiento<br />
y recuperación <strong>de</strong> datos en equipos terminales, informarán a los <strong>de</strong>stinatarios <strong>de</strong> manera c<strong>la</strong>ra y completa<br />
sobre su utilización y finalidad, ofreciéndoles <strong>la</strong> posibilidad <strong>de</strong> rechazar el tratamiento <strong>de</strong> los datos mediante<br />
un procedimiento sencillo y gratuito”.
418 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
(editores o anunciantes) acce<strong>de</strong>n a ellos cuando los/as usuarios/as visitan un sitio <strong>de</strong> internet.<br />
Por tanto, no resulta aventurado seña<strong>la</strong>r que en estos casos los proveedores <strong>de</strong> re<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> publicidad<br />
están obligados a observar lo dispuesto en el párrafo 3 <strong>de</strong>l art. 5, ya que el ámbito <strong>de</strong><br />
aplicación <strong>de</strong> este precepto abarca a toda “información” que se almacena o a <strong>la</strong> que se acce<strong>de</strong><br />
sin <strong>de</strong>terminar si esta “información” afecta al ámbito íntimo o privado <strong>de</strong> una persona (en<br />
este caso <strong>de</strong> un usuario/a). En este sentido, resulta importante traer a co<strong>la</strong>ción lo dispuesto<br />
en el consi<strong>de</strong>rando 24 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Directiva 2002/58/CE cuando seña<strong>la</strong> que “los equipos terminales<br />
<strong>de</strong> los usuarios [as] (…) así como toda información almacenada en dichos equipos, forman parte<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> esfera privada <strong>de</strong> los usuarios [as], que <strong>de</strong>be ser protegida <strong>de</strong> conformidad con el Convenio<br />
Europeo <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> Protección <strong>de</strong> los Derechos Humanos y <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s Liberta<strong>de</strong>s Fundamentales”. A<strong>de</strong>más,<br />
continúa seña<strong>la</strong>ndo este consi<strong>de</strong>rando como “los <strong>de</strong>nominados programas espías (spyware),<br />
web bugs, i<strong>de</strong>ntificadores ocultos y <strong>otros</strong> dispositivos simi<strong>la</strong>res pue<strong>de</strong>n introducirse en el terminal<br />
<strong>de</strong>l usuario [a] sin su consentimiento <strong>para</strong> acce<strong>de</strong>r a información, archivar información oculta o<br />
rastrear <strong>la</strong>s activida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong>l usuario [a], lo que pue<strong>de</strong> suponer una grave intrusión en <strong>la</strong> intimidad<br />
<strong>de</strong> dichos usuarios [as](...)”. Partiendo <strong>de</strong> lo anterior se podría colegir que el <strong>de</strong>senca<strong>de</strong>nante<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s obligaciones introducidas en el párrafo 3 <strong>de</strong>l art. 5 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Directiva 136/2009/CE no<br />
es otro que <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> un campo (podría <strong>de</strong>cirse que tecnológico) que se consi<strong>de</strong>ra<br />
esfera privada (privacidad) <strong>de</strong>l usuario/a y no el hecho <strong>de</strong> que <strong>la</strong> información sean o no datos<br />
personales. No obstante, esto no implica que no se tenga que observar <strong>la</strong> Directiva 95/46/<br />
CE cuando esa información afecta a datos <strong>de</strong> carácter personal como pue<strong>de</strong> ocurrir cuando<br />
<strong>la</strong> publicidad comportamental implica <strong>la</strong> recogida <strong>de</strong> direcciones IP.<br />
Sin perjuicio <strong>de</strong> lo anterior, lo relevante <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> el punto <strong>de</strong> vista <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Directiva<br />
136/2009/CE es <strong>la</strong> obligación <strong>de</strong> obtener el consentimiento previo <strong>de</strong>l usuario/a antes <strong>de</strong><br />
practicar <strong>la</strong> publicidad comportamental. Esto exige que los proveedores <strong>de</strong> re<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> publicidad<br />
que <strong>de</strong>seen almacenar información o tener acceso a <strong>la</strong> información almacenada en el<br />
equipo terminal <strong>de</strong>l usuario/a <strong>de</strong>ben contar con autorización <strong>para</strong> ello. Autorización que se<br />
consi<strong>de</strong>rará que tienen si se ha proporcionado al usuario/a una información c<strong>la</strong>ra y completa<br />
con arreglo a lo dispuesto en <strong>la</strong> Directiva 95/46/CE y si, a<strong>de</strong>más, el consentimiento <strong>de</strong>l<br />
usuario/a se ha obtenido tras haberle proporcionado <strong>la</strong> información exigida, siempre antes<br />
<strong>de</strong> practicar <strong>la</strong> publicidad comportamental.<br />
Al hilo <strong>de</strong> lo comentado conviene prestar especial atención a dos cuestiones que a buen<br />
seguro generarán problemas en cuanto a su aplicación. Por un <strong>la</strong>do, <strong>la</strong> exigencia <strong>de</strong> recabar<br />
el consentimiento fundamentado por parte <strong>de</strong> los proveedores <strong>de</strong> re<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> publicidad y, por<br />
otro, el contenido <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información que <strong>de</strong>ben recibir los/as usuarios/as antes <strong>de</strong> prestar ese<br />
consentimiento fundamentado. En cuanto al consentimiento, el Dictamen 2/2010 distingue<br />
varios supuestos según sean los sujetos obligados. Así alu<strong>de</strong> a los requisitos que <strong>de</strong>ben<br />
observarse en el consentimiento mediante <strong>la</strong> configuración <strong>de</strong>l buscador señalándose que<br />
éste será válido y eficaz si el usuario/a realiza una acción expresa <strong>para</strong> aceptar <strong>la</strong> configuración<br />
<strong>de</strong> una transmisión continuada <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información contenida en <strong>la</strong>s cookies por sitios web<br />
específicos. A<strong>de</strong>más, se aña<strong>de</strong> que <strong>la</strong> información que <strong>de</strong>ben ofrecer al usuario/a <strong>de</strong>be ser c<strong>la</strong>ra,<br />
completa y perfectamente visible <strong>para</strong> garantizar que el consentimiento esté plenamente<br />
fundado. La información <strong>de</strong>be abarcar el nombre <strong>de</strong>l proveedor <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> <strong>de</strong> publicidad, el
Privacidad y tracking cookies. Una aproximación constitucional<br />
419<br />
objeto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s cookies y el tratamiento <strong>de</strong> datos ulterior. En este sentido, el Grupo <strong>de</strong> Trabajo<br />
<strong>de</strong>l Art. 29 en el Dictamen objeto <strong>de</strong> comentario seña<strong>la</strong> que los mecanismos <strong>de</strong> aceptación<br />
previa <strong>de</strong> cookies son más a<strong>de</strong>cuados <strong>para</strong> explicitar el consentimiento previo fundamentado.<br />
No obstante, son conscientes <strong>de</strong> los inconvenientes <strong>de</strong> tener que aceptar el consentimiento<br />
previo cada vez que se acce<strong>de</strong> a un <strong>de</strong>terminado espacio web, en este sentido se propone<br />
limitar el alcance <strong>de</strong>l consentimiento en el tiempo, pasado el cual los proveedores <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong><br />
<strong>de</strong> publicidad necesitarán obtener un nuevo consentimiento. A<strong>de</strong>más, se especifica que <strong>de</strong>be<br />
existir <strong>la</strong> posibilidad <strong>de</strong> revocar ese consentimiento dado libremente por el usuario/a en<br />
cualquier momento.<br />
En cuanto a <strong>la</strong> información que <strong>de</strong>be recibir el usuario/a (art. 10 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Directiva 95/46)<br />
es importante resaltar que esta información <strong>de</strong>be contener <strong>la</strong> i<strong>de</strong>ntidad <strong>de</strong>l proveedor <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
<strong>red</strong> <strong>de</strong> publicidad y el objetivo <strong>de</strong>l tratamiento <strong>de</strong> sus datos. En este sentido, resulta importante<br />
que el usuario/a conozca que mediante su consentimiento el proveedor <strong>de</strong> publicidad<br />
recogerá información sobre sus visitas a <strong>otros</strong> sitios web, los anuncios que estos muestran, los<br />
anuncios en los que ha clicado, el tiempo <strong>de</strong> duración <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s visitas, etc., <strong>de</strong>biendo explicitar<br />
que <strong>la</strong> utilización <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s cookies permitirá crear perfiles <strong>de</strong> navegación cuya finalidad será<br />
enviar publicidad a medida.<br />
6. <strong>la</strong>s tracking cookies y el <strong>de</strong>recHo a <strong>la</strong> integridad y<br />
confi<strong>de</strong>ncialidad <strong>de</strong> los sistemas tecnológicos y <strong>de</strong><br />
información<br />
En puntos anteriores se han abordado <strong>de</strong>terminadas cuestiones como <strong>la</strong>s bases constitucionales<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> privacidad extrapo<strong>la</strong>ndo estas consi<strong>de</strong>raciones al ámbito informático/tecnológico,<br />
esto es, al ámbito <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información, en general y, por en<strong>de</strong>, al ámbito<br />
específico <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> utilización <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>terminados instrumentos (programas) que monitorizan el<br />
comportamiento <strong>de</strong> los/as usuarios/as en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>, <strong>de</strong>jando al <strong>de</strong>scubierto miles <strong>de</strong> perfiles digitales<br />
que utilizarán ciertas aplicaciones camuf<strong>la</strong>das en los equipos terminales <strong>para</strong> fines, en<br />
principio lícitos (como el <strong>de</strong> ofrecer publicidad personalizada) pero no exentos <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>terminados<br />
riesgos <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> el punto <strong>de</strong> vista <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> tute<strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>rechos fundamentales. Riesgos que<br />
se circunscriben en ese ámbito constitucional <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> privacidad y que como se ha precisado<br />
compren<strong>de</strong> varios <strong>de</strong>rechos, tales como el honor, <strong>la</strong> intimidad personal y familiar, el secreto<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones y <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos.<br />
Al hilo <strong>de</strong> lo comentado sobre <strong>la</strong> publicidad comportamental y sobre <strong>la</strong> utilización <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong>s tracking cookies <strong>la</strong> presente comunicación se p<strong>la</strong>ntea <strong>la</strong> posibilidad <strong>de</strong> aludir a un nuevo<br />
<strong>de</strong>recho. Se trata <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> integridad y confi<strong>de</strong>ncialidad <strong>de</strong> los sistemas tecnológicos y<br />
<strong>de</strong> información. Un <strong>de</strong>recho que reconoce <strong>la</strong> Sentencia <strong>de</strong>l Tribunal Constitucional alemán <strong>de</strong><br />
27 <strong>de</strong> febrero <strong>de</strong> 2008 y que trae su causa <strong>de</strong>l recurso interpuesto contra <strong>la</strong> reforma <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Ley<br />
<strong>de</strong> los Servicios <strong>de</strong> Inteligencia <strong>de</strong>l Estado <strong>de</strong> Renania <strong>de</strong>l Norte <strong>de</strong> Westfalia, en virtud <strong>de</strong>l<br />
cual se permitía expresamente que tales servicios pudiesen utilizar <strong>de</strong> forma secreta spywares o<br />
troyanos <strong>para</strong> espiar los or<strong>de</strong>nadores <strong>de</strong> cualquier sospechoso. Para ello los spywares o troyanos<br />
se introducían en los or<strong>de</strong>nadores sin que <strong>la</strong>s personas afectadas fueran conscientes <strong>de</strong> ello con
420 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
el fin <strong>de</strong> captar todo tipo <strong>de</strong> información susceptible <strong>de</strong> ser analizada en un momento posterior.<br />
El Tribunal <strong>de</strong>c<strong>la</strong>ró inconstitucional <strong>la</strong> reforma y configuró este nuevo <strong>de</strong>recho. Como seña<strong>la</strong><br />
PIñAR 23 se observa como el Tribunal <strong>de</strong> Karlsruhe da un paso más en el reconocimiento <strong>de</strong>l<br />
<strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> auto<strong>de</strong>terminación informativa (véase <strong>la</strong> Sentencia <strong>de</strong>l Tribunal Fe<strong>de</strong>ral sobre <strong>la</strong><br />
Ley <strong>de</strong>l censo 24 ) cuyo ámbito <strong>de</strong> actuación se amplia a partir <strong>de</strong> esta sentencia a <strong>la</strong> protección<br />
absoluta <strong>de</strong> una zona nuclear <strong>de</strong>l comportamiento privado que, en este caso, se extien<strong>de</strong> a los<br />
dispositivos informáticos terminales. Resulta interesante aludir al epígrafe 181 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> citada<br />
sentencia en don<strong>de</strong> el Tribunal seña<strong>la</strong> que “(...) De <strong>la</strong> lectura <strong>de</strong>l uso <strong>de</strong> los sistemas tecnológicos<br />
<strong>de</strong> información <strong>para</strong> expresar <strong>la</strong> personalidad y <strong>de</strong> los peligros que <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> personalidad representa<br />
tal uso, <strong>de</strong>riva una necesidad <strong>de</strong> protección que es significativa <strong>para</strong> los <strong>de</strong>rechos fundamentales. El<br />
individuo <strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong> que el Estado respete <strong>la</strong>s expectativas justificables <strong>de</strong> confi<strong>de</strong>ncialidad e integridad<br />
<strong>de</strong> tales sistemas <strong>de</strong> cara a <strong>la</strong> irrestricta expresión <strong>de</strong> su personalidad” 25 .<br />
A tenor <strong>de</strong> lo anterior, se pue<strong>de</strong> colegir que existen una serie <strong>de</strong> sistemas <strong>de</strong> información<br />
que están (o <strong>de</strong>berían estar) protegidos por este nuevo <strong>de</strong>recho, tales como los or<strong>de</strong>nadores<br />
personales, <strong>la</strong>s agendas electrónicas, los teléfonos móviles, <strong>la</strong>s tabletas, etc. y, en <strong>de</strong>finitiva,<br />
todos aquellos dispositivos que sólos o interconectados puedan contener datos personales <strong>de</strong><br />
modo que el acceso al sistema permita perfi<strong>la</strong>r <strong>de</strong>terminados comportamientos vitales <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
persona o incluso obtener una imagen representativa <strong>de</strong> su personalidad.<br />
En cualquier caso, aludir a nuevos <strong>de</strong>rechos no es una cuestión pacífica <strong>para</strong> parte <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> doctrina que a buen seguro aboga por incardinar los riesgos tecnológicos <strong>de</strong>ntro <strong>de</strong> los<br />
<strong>de</strong>rechos ya existentes. No obstante, lo cierto y verdad es que siguiendo a PÉREZ LUño 26<br />
“el catálogo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s liberta<strong>de</strong>s nunca será una obra cerrada y acabada”. Esto implica que “una<br />
sociedad libre y <strong>de</strong>mocrática <strong>de</strong>berá mostrarse siempre sensible y abierta a <strong>la</strong> aparición <strong>de</strong> nuevas<br />
necesida<strong>de</strong>s, que fundamenten nuevos <strong>de</strong>rechos”. En este sentido ¿no surgen nuevas necesida<strong>de</strong>s<br />
cuando se constatan <strong>la</strong>s amenazas <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s tracking cookies en <strong>la</strong> utilización <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> publicidad<br />
comportamental? ¿No resultaría legítimo en estos casos reivindicar el <strong>de</strong>recho <strong>de</strong> protección<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> confi<strong>de</strong>ncialidad e integridad <strong>de</strong> los sistemas tecnológicos <strong>de</strong> información como <strong>de</strong>recho<br />
autónomo aunque incardinado <strong>de</strong>ntro <strong>de</strong> ese concepto amplio <strong>de</strong> privacidad?<br />
23 Véase PIñAR MAñAS, J.L., “Seguridad, transparencia y protección <strong>de</strong> datos: el futuro <strong>de</strong> un necesario<br />
e incierto equilibrio”, en Documento <strong>de</strong> trabajo 147/2009, Fundación Alternativas, pp. 11 y ss.<br />
24 Véase SERRANo PÉREZ, M., El <strong>de</strong>recho fundamental a <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos … op.cit., pp. 60 y ss.<br />
Seña<strong>la</strong> esta autora que el Tribunal Constitucional alemán e<strong>la</strong>bora, a partir <strong>de</strong> esta sentencia, el concepto<br />
<strong>de</strong> auto<strong>de</strong>terminación informativa.<br />
25 Sobre <strong>la</strong> Sentencia <strong>de</strong>l Tribunal Constitucional alemán <strong>de</strong> 27 <strong>de</strong> febrero <strong>de</strong> 2008 véase LoRENZ,<br />
D., “El registro oculto <strong>de</strong> or<strong>de</strong>nadores como <strong>de</strong>safío en <strong>la</strong> dogmática <strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>rechos fundamentales<br />
y <strong>la</strong> reciente respuesta por <strong>la</strong> Constitución alemana”, en Revista españo<strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos, nº 5,<br />
2008, pp. 9-24. Véase también LÓPEZ LoMA, L., “El registro oculto “on line” y su conflicto con<br />
los <strong>de</strong>rechos fundamentales según <strong>la</strong> doctrina alemana tras <strong>la</strong> sentencia <strong>de</strong>l Tribunal Constitucional<br />
Fe<strong>de</strong>ral <strong>de</strong> 27 <strong>de</strong> febrero <strong>de</strong> 2008”, en Revista españo<strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos, nº 5, 2008, pp. 223-230.<br />
26 PÉREZ LUño, A. (2006), La Tercera Generación <strong>de</strong> Derechos Humanos, Navarra: The Global Law<br />
Collection, Aranzadi, pp. 75 y ss.
Privacidad y tracking cookies. Una aproximación constitucional<br />
7. consi<strong>de</strong>raciones finales<br />
421<br />
Comenzaba <strong>la</strong> presente comunicación aludiendo a <strong>la</strong> nota informativa hecha pública<br />
por <strong>la</strong> Agencia Españo<strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> Protección <strong>de</strong> Datos sobre los acuerdos adoptados por <strong>la</strong>s Autorida<strong>de</strong>s<br />
Europeas <strong>de</strong> Protección <strong>de</strong> Datos que integran el Grupo <strong>de</strong> Trabajo <strong>de</strong>l Artículo 29<br />
(GT 29) re<strong>la</strong>tiva a <strong>la</strong> privacidad en <strong>la</strong> publicidad on-line basada en el comportamiento. En<br />
dicha nota se alertaba sobre los riesgos que <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> privacidad suscitan <strong>la</strong>s l<strong>la</strong>madas tracking<br />
cookies que se utilizan <strong>para</strong> recopi<strong>la</strong>r información sobre el comportamiento <strong>de</strong> navegación<br />
<strong>de</strong> los individuos y, <strong>de</strong> esta forma, ofrecer a los/as usuarios/as anuncios dirigidos y personalizados.<br />
Del análisis realizado se constata, efectivamente, <strong>la</strong> existencia <strong>de</strong> esos riesgos y <strong>la</strong> necesidad<br />
<strong>de</strong> que los Estados miembros adapten sus legis<strong>la</strong>ciones a <strong>la</strong> Directiva 136/2009/CE<br />
sobre privacidad tomando como punto <strong>de</strong> referencia el Dictamen 2/2010 <strong>de</strong>l Grupo <strong>de</strong><br />
Trabajo <strong>de</strong>l Artículo 29.<br />
La presente comunicación también aborda <strong>la</strong> necesidad <strong>de</strong> sentar <strong>la</strong>s bases constitucionales<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> privacidad ubicándose <strong>la</strong> misma en el art. 18 CE. Precepto que, como ya se ha<br />
comentado, compren<strong>de</strong> varios <strong>de</strong>rechos y sobre el que se p<strong>la</strong>ntea <strong>la</strong> necesidad <strong>de</strong> aludir a<br />
una cuestión que no es pacífica por cuanto supone hab<strong>la</strong>r <strong>de</strong> un nuevo <strong>de</strong>recho como es el<br />
<strong>de</strong>recho a <strong>la</strong> confi<strong>de</strong>ncialidad e integridad <strong>de</strong> los sistemas tecnológicos y <strong>de</strong> información.<br />
8. bibliografÍa<br />
Bermell, S., “La directiva <strong>de</strong> CooKIES”, artículo en línea en ,<br />
[fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta 20/04/2011]<br />
Campuzano Tomé, H. (2000), Vida privada y datos personales, Madrid: Tecnos, Derecho y<br />
realidad, citado por MARTÍNEZ MARTÍNEZ, R. (2004), Una aproximación crítica a<br />
<strong>la</strong> auto<strong>de</strong>terminación informativa, Navarra: Thomson-Civitas.<br />
Guerrero Picó, M.C. (2006), El impacto <strong>de</strong> Internet en el Derecho Fundamental a <strong>la</strong> Protección<br />
<strong>de</strong> Datos <strong>de</strong> Carácter Personal, Navarra: Thomson-Civitas.<br />
Fernán<strong>de</strong>z Esteban, M.L. (1998), Nuevas Tecnologías, Internet y Derechos Fundamentales,<br />
Madrid: McGraw-Hill Interamericana <strong>de</strong> España.<br />
López Loma, L., “El registro oculto “on line” y su conflicto con los <strong>de</strong>rechos fundamentales<br />
según <strong>la</strong> doctrina alemana tras <strong>la</strong> sentencia <strong>de</strong>l Tribunal Constitucional Fe<strong>de</strong>ral <strong>de</strong> 27<br />
<strong>de</strong> febrero <strong>de</strong> 2008”, en Revista españo<strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos, nº 5, 2008.<br />
Lorenz, D., “El registro oculto <strong>de</strong> or<strong>de</strong>nadores como <strong>de</strong>safío en <strong>la</strong> dogmática <strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>rechos<br />
fundamentales y <strong>la</strong> reciente respuesta por <strong>la</strong> Constitución alemana”, en Revista<br />
españo<strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos, nº 5, 2008.<br />
Martínez Martínez, R. (2004), Una aproximación crítica a <strong>la</strong> auto<strong>de</strong>terminación informativa,<br />
Navarra: Thomson-Civitas.
422 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
Navalpotro, Y., “Antece<strong>de</strong>ntes <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Ley orgánica 15/1999 (LoPD)”, en Almuzara Almaida,<br />
C. (2005), Estudio práctico sobre <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos <strong>de</strong> carácter personal, Val<strong>la</strong>dolid:<br />
Lex Nova.<br />
ortiz López, P., “Re<strong>de</strong>s sociales: funcionamiento y tractamento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información personal”,<br />
en Rallo Lombarte, A. y Martínez Martínez, E. (coord.) (2010), Derecho y<br />
re<strong>de</strong>s sociales, Pamplona: Civitas.<br />
Pérez Luño, A.(2006), La Tercera Generación <strong>de</strong> Derechos Humanos, Navarra: The Global<br />
Law Collection, Aranzadi.<br />
Piñar Mañas, J.L., “Seguridad, transparencia y protección <strong>de</strong> datos: el futuro <strong>de</strong> un necesario<br />
e incierto equilibrio”, en Documento <strong>de</strong> trabajo 147/2009, Fundación Alternativas.<br />
Rallo Lombarte, A., y Martínez Martínez, R. (coord.) (2010), Derecho y re<strong>de</strong>s sociales,<br />
Pamplona: Civitas.<br />
Rodríguez <strong>de</strong> Sepúlveda Maillo, D., y Rodríguez <strong>de</strong> Sepúlveda Maillo, S. (2009),<br />
Cómo sobrevivir en <strong>la</strong> Red, Madrid: Ra-Ma.<br />
Serrano Pérez, M.M. (2003), El <strong>de</strong>recho fundamental a <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos. Derecho español<br />
y com<strong>para</strong>do, Navarra: Thomson-Civitas.
legAl feAsIBIlIty fOr stAtIstICAl metHODs ON INterNet<br />
As A sOUrCe Of DAtA gAtHerINg IN tHe eU<br />
23<br />
Dr. Faye Fangfei Wang<br />
Senior Lecturer in Law; Bournemouth University, UK<br />
AbstrAct: Internet-based measurement is using Internet as source of data gathering and it is a<br />
method of automated data collection. The three most common Internet-based measurement approaches<br />
are user-centric, network-centric and site-centric measurements. User-centric relies on in<strong>de</strong>pth<br />
analysis of behaviour of users by installing software and application; network-centric measures<br />
traffic flows between users and content throughout the network; and site-centric collects data from<br />
one to more websites. Internet as a source of data gathering could lower the costs and increase the<br />
speed of data collection for statistical purposes compa<strong>red</strong> with traditional manual methods. Statistics<br />
analysis is important as it may contribute to value ad<strong>de</strong>d service. on the other hand, data privacy<br />
rights may be at risk un<strong>de</strong>r such measurement approaches if technical measures for data security are<br />
not appropriate or users did not give prior consent to the use of such data. This paper discusses the<br />
current EU data privacy protection legis<strong>la</strong>tion and analyses the overall legal feasibility of the <strong>de</strong>velopment<br />
of Internet-based measurements with regard to automated data collection for statistical purposes<br />
by looking into the <strong>de</strong>tail of the reform of the new EC e-Privacy Directive and the current review of<br />
the EC Data Protection Directive.<br />
Keywords: Data Privacy Protection, Automated Data Collection, Statistical Research.<br />
1. introduction: current eu legal framework for data<br />
PriVacy Protection<br />
“Internet-based measurement is a set of methods that have been applied to quantitatively<br />
<strong>de</strong>scribe the structure, workload and use of the Internet. They provi<strong>de</strong> a practical means of<br />
doing a kind of virtual ‘fieldwork’ on the Internet using online tools and network monitoring<br />
techniques to gather fine scale primary data, as opposed to relying on aggregate secondary data<br />
sources (such as government statistics). 1 ” In other words, Internet-based measurement is using<br />
Internet as source of data gathering and it is a method of automated data collection. The three<br />
most common Internet-based measurement approaches are user-centric, network-centric and<br />
site-centric measurements. User-centric relies on in-<strong>de</strong>pth analysis of behaviour of users by<br />
installing software and application; network-centric measures traffic flows between users and<br />
content throughout the network; and site-centric collects data from one to more websites 2 .<br />
1 International Encyclopaedia of Human Geography, MS number: 457.<br />
2 Go with the Dataflow, avai<strong>la</strong>ble at http://www.umic.pt/images/stories/publicacoes1/annexes.pdf (<strong>la</strong>st<br />
visited on 18 May 2011).
424 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
Internet as a source of data gathering could lower the costs and increase the speed of data collection<br />
for statistical purposes compa<strong>red</strong> with traditional manual methods. Statistics analysis<br />
is important as it may contribute to value ad<strong>de</strong>d service, which may, for example, “consist of<br />
advice on least expensive tariff packages, route guidance, traffic information, weather forecasts<br />
and tourist information” 3<br />
. on the other hand, data privacy rights may be infringed un<strong>de</strong>r such<br />
measurement approaches if technical measures for data security are not appropriate or users<br />
did not give prior consent to the use of such data.<br />
Due to the ever fast-growing technology, legis<strong>la</strong>tion is always one step behind the <strong>la</strong>test<br />
invention of computing network services. This leads to a situation where computer scientists<br />
and entrepreneurs try to adjust or improve the application of products in or<strong>de</strong>r to comply with<br />
the existing <strong>la</strong>w, or legis<strong>la</strong>tors try to amend the existing <strong>la</strong>w in response to the new technology<br />
in or<strong>de</strong>r to protect the users’ rights and enhance the public safety without jeopardising technological<br />
innovation and market <strong>de</strong>velopment. Currently, there are two main pieces of legis<strong>la</strong>tion<br />
concerning data and privacy protection in the European Union (EU): one is the EC Data<br />
Protection Directive and the other is the EC e-Privacy Directive. The EC e-Privacy Directive<br />
was newly updated in 2009, which shall be enforced by 26 May 2011. The European Commission<br />
also started to review the EC Data Protection Directive in 2009 and a new general<br />
legal framework for the protection of personal data in the EU is expected to come out this year.<br />
It is <strong>de</strong>batable whether automated data collection for statistical purposes is allowed<br />
un<strong>de</strong>r the current EU data privacy legis<strong>la</strong>tive framework. “For statistical purposes” refers<br />
to “any operation of collection and processing of personal data necessary for statistical surveys<br />
or for the production of statistical results” 4 . The possibility of the implementation of<br />
automated data collection for statistical purposes in business organisations and statistical<br />
institutions <strong>de</strong>pends on the feasibility of legal compliance. This paper intends to provi<strong>de</strong> an<br />
overview of the EU data privacy protection legis<strong>la</strong>tion and discuss the overall legal feasibility<br />
of the <strong>de</strong>velopment of Internet-based measurements with regard to automated data collection<br />
for statistical purposes by looking into the <strong>de</strong>tail of the reform of the new EC e-Privacy<br />
Directive and the review of the EC Data Protection Directive.<br />
2. legis<strong>la</strong>tiVe measures for automated data collection<br />
2.1. un<strong>de</strong>rlying general steps on data Privacy Protection<br />
According the current EU data privacy protection legal framework, there are four un<strong>de</strong>rlying<br />
steps in the EC directives that intend to ensure that privacy rights are put into<br />
action:<br />
3 Recital 18 of the EC e-Privacy Directive.<br />
4 Recommendation No. R(97)18 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States Concerning the<br />
Protection of Personal Data Collected and Processed for Statistical Purposes, Council of Europe, 30<br />
September 1997.
legal feasibility for statistical methods on Internet as a source of Data gathering in the eU<br />
1) Member states should take appropriate technological and legis<strong>la</strong>tive measures to safeguard<br />
security and ensure the protection of personal data and privacy.<br />
2) Service provi<strong>de</strong>rs have a legal duty to inform users prior to obtaining their consent.<br />
3) Service provi<strong>de</strong>rs shall allow users to give and withdraw their consent freely as users<br />
have “the right to be forgotten”. It is <strong>de</strong>batable what constitutes a meaningful consent<br />
and whether “privacy by <strong>de</strong>fault” is sufficient.<br />
4) Member States shall enhance enforcement of data privacy protection because any legis<strong>la</strong>tive<br />
and technological measures to protect users’ privacy can only be effective if<br />
they are properly implemented and enforced. EU citizens’ data privacy rights should<br />
be protected equally no matter where the service provi<strong>de</strong>r and data are situated. The<br />
service provi<strong>de</strong>r shall duly notify data breach and take appropriate measures to avoid<br />
esca<strong>la</strong>tion of the problem.<br />
Among the above steps, the rightful implementation of consent <strong>de</strong>termines the <strong>la</strong>wful<br />
processing of data. Un<strong>de</strong>r the new EC e-Privacy Directive, the use of cookies must requires<br />
users’ prior consent which changes the previous rule of allowing the use of privacy policies to<br />
tell the use of cookies and provi<strong>de</strong> the possibility of “opting out” by altering <strong>de</strong>fault settings.<br />
Article 29 Working Group on Data Protection addressed that “currently three out of the<br />
four most wi<strong>de</strong>ly used browsers have a <strong>de</strong>fault setting to accept all cookies. Not changing a<br />
<strong>de</strong>fault setting cannot be consi<strong>de</strong><strong>red</strong> as a meaningful consent. 5<br />
” It is expected that there are<br />
various interpretations by member states when the new EC e-Privacy comes into force in<br />
May 2011. That is, Member states may un<strong>de</strong>rstand the valid form of consent differently, for<br />
example, the UK <strong>la</strong>w interprets consent as ‘reasonable grounds for believing’ that consent<br />
to do, which do not comply with EU rules <strong>de</strong>fining consent as “freely given specific and<br />
informed indication of a person’s wishes” 6 . The UK Information Commissioner’s office<br />
published the first version of the Advice on the New Cookies Regu<strong>la</strong>tions - Changes to the<br />
rules on using cookies and simi<strong>la</strong>r technologies for storing information (hereafter “the UK<br />
ICo Advice”) on 9 May 20117 . The UK ICo Advice indicates that users’ consent could be<br />
given via browser settings if browser settings are sophisticated enough to adopt such measures.<br />
Websites may also need to consi<strong>de</strong>r other technical solutions to obtain users’ consent<br />
for example, via “pop ups and simi<strong>la</strong>r techniques”, “terms and conditions”, “settings-led<br />
consent” and “feature-led consent” 8 . It is suggested that getting consent to the use of “third<br />
party cookies” is one of the most challenging tasks.<br />
425<br />
5 “opt-out is not sufficient”, European Commission Press Release, 24 June 2010, avai<strong>la</strong>ble at http://<br />
ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/privacy/news/docs/pr_26_06_10_en.pdf (<strong>la</strong>st visited on 15 April 2011).<br />
6 Recital 17 of the EC e-Privacy Directive.<br />
7 “Changes to the rules on using cookies and simi<strong>la</strong>r technologies for storing information”, Information<br />
Commissioner’s office, Version 1, 09/05/11, avai<strong>la</strong>ble at http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/privacy_and_electronic_communications/~/media/documents/library/Privacy_and_electronic/Practical_application/advice_on_the_new_cookies_regu<strong>la</strong>tions.pdf<br />
(<strong>la</strong>st visited on 19 May 2011)<br />
8 Ibid.
426 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
As to the <strong>la</strong>st but not least important issue – enforcement of data privacy protection,<br />
service provi<strong>de</strong>rs shall duly notify data breach to the competent national authorities and<br />
take appropriate measures to protect data privacy. In the author’s opinion, the interpretation<br />
of “without undue <strong>de</strong><strong>la</strong>y” for data breach notification un<strong>de</strong>r Article 4 of the EC<br />
e-Privacy Directive is vital as the timing affects the certainty of data-privacy protection.<br />
The <strong>de</strong>termination of the appropriation of time limit on notification and remedial action<br />
shall be taken into account of the speed, scope and capabilities of spreading personal<br />
data un<strong>de</strong>r the current and future <strong>de</strong>velopment of technologies in particu<strong>la</strong>r automated<br />
information systems. In addition, the consi<strong>de</strong>ration of the time-limit issue for notification<br />
and remedial action can be learned from the interpretation of the time-limit requirement<br />
on the exercise of the right to access in Article 12(a) of the EC Data Protection Directive<br />
regarding information storage and disclosure in the case of College van burgemeester en<br />
wethou<strong>de</strong>rs van Rotterdam v M.E.E. Rijkeboer Nether<strong>la</strong>nds (judgement of 7 May 2009).<br />
The judgement provi<strong>de</strong>s that:<br />
“Article 12(a) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council<br />
of 24 october 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal<br />
data and on the free movement of such data requires Member States to ensure a right<br />
of access to information on the recipients or categories of recipient of personal data and on<br />
the content of the data disclosed not only in respect of the present but also in respect of the<br />
past. It is for Member States to fix a time-limit for storage of that information and to provi<strong>de</strong><br />
for access to that information which constitutes a fair ba<strong>la</strong>nce between, on the one hand,<br />
the interest of the data subject in protecting his privacy, in particu<strong>la</strong>r by way of his rights to<br />
object and to bring legal proceedings and, on the other, the bur<strong>de</strong>n which the obligation to<br />
store that information represents for the controller.<br />
Rules limiting the storage of information on the recipients or categories of recipient<br />
of personal data and on the content of the data disclosed to a period of one year and correspondingly<br />
limiting access to that information, while basic data is sto<strong>red</strong> for a much longer<br />
period, do not constitute a fair ba<strong>la</strong>nce of the interest and obligation at issue, unless it can be<br />
shown that longer storage of that information would constitute an excessive bur<strong>de</strong>n on the<br />
controller. It is, however, for national courts to make the <strong>de</strong>terminations necessary.”<br />
Accordingly, it shall be for Member States to fix a time-limit for notification of the<br />
personal data breach and remedial action. Where the length of time for which a personal<br />
data breach is to be informed to the competent national authority or remedial action is to<br />
be taken is very long, the adverse effects of the breach of the personal data or privacy of a<br />
subscriber or individual may be higher as the implementation of appropriate technological<br />
protection measures may be <strong>de</strong><strong>la</strong>yed. The issue of a fixed time limit for notification and<br />
remedial action shall be further assessed when the Commission examines the modalities<br />
for the introduction in the general legal framework of a general personal data breach notification,<br />
including the addressees of such notifications and the criteria for triggering the<br />
obligation to notify according to the EU Comprehensive Approach 2010. The obligation of<br />
a time-limit for notification of data breach shall also be contained in the future EU standard<br />
forms of “privacy information notices”.
legal feasibility for statistical methods on Internet as a source of Data gathering in the eU<br />
2.2. exemption c<strong>la</strong>uses for automated data collection for statistical Purposes<br />
427<br />
In principle, service provi<strong>de</strong>rs should comply with the un<strong>de</strong>rlying general steps on data<br />
privacy protection for automated data collection un<strong>de</strong>r the EU framework. Strict compliance<br />
with the regu<strong>la</strong>tions of data security, users’ prior consent, data breach notification duties<br />
are requi<strong>red</strong> in particu<strong>la</strong>r when service provi<strong>de</strong>rs collect primary personal data directly from<br />
users for commercial purposes. Service provi<strong>de</strong>rs shall also comply with those rules to data<br />
collection that is for statistical purposes, although there is an exemption rule of “prior consent”<br />
for statistical purposes either by domestic <strong>la</strong>w or provi<strong>de</strong>d that informing collection<br />
and getting consent is manifestly unreasonable or impracticable 9 .<br />
There are four different <strong>la</strong>yers of data collected that could possibly be used for statistical<br />
purposes: firstly, general personal data directly collected from the end users; secondly,<br />
further processing of personal data previously collected; thirdly, data that are not obtained<br />
from the end users directly; and fourthly, sensitive personal data. The first and fourth <strong>la</strong>yers<br />
of personal data collected and processed for statistical purposes must be allowed only when<br />
the users’ have given their prior consent. With regard to the second and third <strong>la</strong>yers of personal<br />
data that are so called secondary collection, users shall be ma<strong>de</strong> aware that data may<br />
be used by the service provi<strong>de</strong>r to conduct statistical market research and such data may also<br />
be transfer<strong>red</strong> as aggregated data to authorised third parties for statistical purposes without<br />
disclosing personal <strong>de</strong>tails or taking <strong>de</strong>cisions/measures concerning a particu<strong>la</strong>r individual.<br />
The exemption c<strong>la</strong>use of prior consent for data collection for statistical purposes remains<br />
unchanged in the new EC e-Privacy Directive although the general rule of users’ prior<br />
consent that has changed would directly affect the process of automated data collection for<br />
statistical purposes. In general, data can be processed solely for the purpose of scientific research<br />
or kept in personal form for a period which does not exceed the period necessary for<br />
the sole purpose of creating statistics 10 subject to the implementation of conditions:<br />
1) a<strong>de</strong>quate legal safeguards – the data are not used for taking measures or <strong>de</strong>cisions regarding<br />
any particu<strong>la</strong>r individual;<br />
2) clearly no risk of breaching the privacy of the data subject;<br />
3) data kept only for necessary period and employ other appropriate safeguards provi<strong>de</strong>d<br />
by member states.<br />
That is, automated data collection from the Internet for statistical purposes could be<br />
legitimately processed, provi<strong>de</strong>d that they fulfil the above three basic conditions except for<br />
the category of processing sensitive personal data that needs to meet the additional condition<br />
of public interest 11 . Service provi<strong>de</strong>rs must ensure that “personal data collected and<br />
processed for statistical purposes shall be ma<strong>de</strong> anonymous as soon as they are no longer<br />
9 Article 5.2 of Recommendation No. R(97)18.<br />
10 Recital 29, 39 & 40 and Article 11(2) & Article 13 of the EC Data Protection Directive.<br />
11 Recital 34 and Article 8 of the EC Data Protection Directive.
428 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
necessary in an i<strong>de</strong>ntifiable form 12 ” and comply with the un<strong>de</strong>rlying general rules on data<br />
privacy protection un<strong>de</strong>r the EU legal framework.<br />
3. recommendation and conclusion<br />
It is important to strike the ba<strong>la</strong>nce between data privacy rights protection and the free<br />
movement of data within member states in or<strong>de</strong>r to build users’ trust on the Internet without<br />
jeopardizing technological innovation and market <strong>de</strong>velopment. The recent European<br />
Commission review on the EC Data Protection Directive has paid attention to that 13 . Statistical<br />
methods on Internet as a source of data gathering could provi<strong>de</strong> statistical outcomes<br />
faster than the traditional paper-based questionnaire methods. Using Internet as a source<br />
of data gathering could also collect data that is difficult or even impossible to be gathe<strong>red</strong><br />
in the offline world. The implementation of Internet-based measurements could bring us<br />
great ad<strong>de</strong>d value to improve products and services and allow us to promptly respond to the<br />
market <strong>de</strong>velopment. From a legal perspective, the successful implementation of statistical<br />
methods on Internet as a source of data gathering <strong>de</strong>pends on the appropriate use of the<br />
exemption c<strong>la</strong>use, the correct operation of informing users and requesting consent where<br />
necessary and the strict compliance of <strong>la</strong>wful data storage and data breach notification system.<br />
The building of automated data collection systems for statistical purposes is requi<strong>red</strong><br />
to comply with appropriate legis<strong>la</strong>tive and technological measures. Nonetheless, consumers’<br />
awareness of and education about data privacy protection are necessities for the <strong>de</strong>velopment<br />
of a well-ba<strong>la</strong>nced information society.<br />
4. references<br />
A comprehensive approach on personal data protection in the European Union – Communication<br />
from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic<br />
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, European Commission, Brussels,<br />
04.11.2010 CoM(2010) 609/3 (known as “the EU Comprehensive Approach 2010).<br />
Case C-444/02, Fixtures Marketing Ltd v. Organismos prognostikon agonon podosfairou<br />
AE - “OPAP”, n. 20, 25.<br />
Case C-553/07, College van burgemeester en wethou<strong>de</strong>rs van Rotterdam v M.E.E. Rijkeboer,<br />
European Court of Justice (Judgment of 7 May 2009).<br />
12 Article 3.3 of the Recommendation No. R(97)18.<br />
13 “A comprehensive approach on personal data protection in the European Union” (known as “the<br />
EU Comprehensive Approach 2010”) – Communication from the Commission to the European<br />
Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions,<br />
European Commission, Brussels, 04.11.2010 CoM(2010) 609/3.
legal feasibility for statistical methods on Internet as a source of Data gathering in the eU<br />
429<br />
“Changes to the rules on using cookies and simi<strong>la</strong>r technologies for storing information”,<br />
Information Commissioner’s office, Version 1, 09/05/11, avai<strong>la</strong>ble at http://www.ico.<br />
gov.uk/for_organisations/privacy_and_electronic_communications/~/media/documents/<br />
library/Privacy_and_electronic/Practical_application/advice_on_the_new_cookies_regu<strong>la</strong>tions.pdf<br />
(<strong>la</strong>st visited on 19 May 2011).<br />
Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 october<br />
1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on<br />
the free movement of such data, official Journal of the European Union, L 281, 23 November<br />
1995, P. 0031–0050 (known as “EC Data Protection Directive”).<br />
Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996<br />
on the legal protection of databases, official Journal L 077, 27/03/1996 P. 0020 – 0028<br />
(known as “EC Database Directive”).<br />
Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002<br />
concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic<br />
communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications), official<br />
Journal of the European Union, L 201, 31 July 2002, P. 0037–0047 (known as “EC e-<br />
Privacy Directive”).<br />
Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November<br />
2009 amending Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users’ rights re<strong>la</strong>ting to<br />
electronic communications networks and services, Directive 2002/58/EC concerning the<br />
processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications<br />
sector and Regu<strong>la</strong>tion (EC) No 2006/2004 on cooperation between national authorities responsible<br />
for the enforcement of consumer protection <strong>la</strong>ws, official Journal of the European<br />
Union, L 337/11, 18 December 2009, P.0011 – 0036.<br />
Go with the Dataflow, avai<strong>la</strong>ble at http://www.umic.pt/images/stories/publicacoes1/<br />
annexes.pdf (<strong>la</strong>st visited on 18 April 2011).<br />
International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, MS number: 457.<br />
“opt-out is not sufficient”, European Commission Press Release, 24 June 2010, avai<strong>la</strong>ble<br />
at http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/privacy/news/docs/pr_26_06_10_en.pdf (<strong>la</strong>st<br />
visited on 15 April 2011).<br />
Recommendation No. R(97) 18 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States<br />
Concerning the Protection of Personal Data Collected and Processed for Statistical Purposes,<br />
Council of Europe, 30 September 1997.<br />
Wang, F. & Griffiths, N. (July 2010), Protecting Privacy in Automated Transaction<br />
Systems: A Legal and Technological Perspective in the EU, Vol. 24, No. 2 International<br />
Review of Law, Computers and Technology, p.153-162.
COMUNICACIONES SOBRE GOBIERNO<br />
Y DEMOCRACIA ELECTRÓNICA
24<br />
yOU HAVe NO sOVereIgNty wHere we gAtHer.<br />
wIkIleAks AND freeDOm, AUtONOmy<br />
AND sOVereIgNty IN tHe ClOUD<br />
Bodó Balázs<br />
Economist, assistant professor, researcher at the Budapest<br />
University of Technology and Economics, Department of Sociology and Communications,<br />
Center for Media Research and Education<br />
AbstrAct: Wikileaks represents a new type of (h)activism, which shifts the source of potential<br />
threat from a few, dangerous hackers and a <strong>la</strong>rger group of mostly harmless activists –both outsi<strong>de</strong>rs<br />
to an organization– to those who are on the insi<strong>de</strong>. For insi<strong>de</strong>rs trying to smuggle information out,<br />
anonymity is a necessary condition for participation. Wikileaks has <strong>de</strong>monstrated that the access to<br />
anonymity can be <strong>de</strong>mocratized, ma<strong>de</strong> simple and user friendly.<br />
Being Anonymous in the context of Wikileaks has a double promise: it promises to liberate the subject<br />
from the existing power structures, and in the same time it allows the exposure of these structures by<br />
opening up a space to confront them. The Wikileaks coerced transparency, however, is nothing more<br />
than the extension of the Foucauldian disciplinary power to the very body of state and government.<br />
While anonymity removes the individual from existing power re<strong>la</strong>tions, the act of surveil<strong>la</strong>nce puts<br />
her right back to the middle.<br />
The ability to p<strong>la</strong>ce the state un<strong>de</strong>r surveil<strong>la</strong>nce limits and ultimately ren<strong>de</strong>rs present day sovereignty<br />
obsolete. It can also be argued that it fosters the emergence of a new sovereign in itself. I<br />
believe that Wikileaks (or rather, the logic of it) is a new sovereign in the global political / economic<br />
sphere. But as it stands now, Wikileakistan shares too much with the powers it wishes to counter.<br />
The hid<strong>de</strong>n power structures and the inner workings of these states within the state are exposed by<br />
another imperium in imperio, a secretive organization, whose agenda is far from transparent, whose<br />
members, resources are unknown, holding back an in<strong>de</strong>finite amount of information both on itself<br />
and on its opponents.<br />
I argue that it is not more secretive, one si<strong>de</strong>d transparency which will subvert and negate the control<br />
and discipline of secretive, one si<strong>de</strong>d transparency, it is anonymity. The subject’s position of being “a<br />
multiplicity that can be numbe<strong>red</strong> and supervised”, its state of living in a “sequeste<strong>red</strong> and observed solitu<strong>de</strong>”<br />
(Foucault 1979) can only be subverted if there is a p<strong>la</strong>ce to hi<strong>de</strong> from surveil<strong>la</strong>nce. I argue that<br />
maybe less, and not more transparency is the path that leads to the aims of Wikileaks.<br />
Keywords: Wikileaks, Sovereignty, Activism, Foucault, Panopticon, Anonymity.<br />
“We have to be very attentive and united at a state level to fight against what is<br />
a threat to <strong>de</strong>mocratic authority and sovereignty,” - French government spokesman<br />
Francois Baroin speaking out against wikileaks releasing US diplomatic cables.<br />
„Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come<br />
from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. on behalf of the future, I ask you of the past<br />
to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we<br />
gather.”- A Dec<strong>la</strong>ration of the In<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nce of Cyberspace, John Perry Barlow
434 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
1. introduction<br />
In 2010, an organization called Wikileaks started to publish hund<strong>red</strong>s of thousands<br />
of secret US diplomatic cables and military documents, acqui<strong>red</strong> from anonymous whistleblowers.<br />
The publication of these documents marks the beginning of a new era. While all<br />
the critical information within these organizations is already digital, never has the firewall<br />
between a secret and a public knowledge been thinner. Sharing secrets and in the same time<br />
preserving anonymity seems to be easier than ever. And as the continuous accessibility of<br />
Wikileaks so far has proved, even the most powerful sovereign in the world can do little to<br />
contain a leak after it has happened. State sovereignty and corporate autonomy needs to be<br />
rethought.<br />
But not only their self-<strong>de</strong>termination is in question. Wikileaks itself has also come<br />
un<strong>de</strong>r attack: their access to the global payment system was cut, their hosting provi<strong>de</strong>r stopped<br />
serving them and their access to the global Domain Name System was also curtailed,<br />
<strong>de</strong>spite the fact that no official charges were ma<strong>de</strong> against the organization. These steps have<br />
so far been ina<strong>de</strong>quate to make Wikileaks disappear or to stop the dissemination of the<br />
confi<strong>de</strong>ntial materials. But the questions still linger: what are the critical infrastructures that<br />
are absolutely necessary for any digital, networked organization to survive? Are there any<br />
real gatekeepers on the web, and if there are, who are they, and how powerful they are? How<br />
effective is their control over the critical infostructures? To what extent can any organization<br />
expect to be sovereign in the cloud?<br />
„You have no sovereignty where we gather.” John Perry Barlow’s words (Barlow 1996)<br />
that <strong>de</strong>c<strong>la</strong><strong>red</strong> the in<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nce of cyberspace now mark a full-blown cyber-war between<br />
states, corporations and ad-hoc, informal, hacktivist networks over the issues of sovereignty,<br />
autonomy, self-<strong>de</strong>termination on both si<strong>de</strong>s of what has been the cyber/real divi<strong>de</strong>. But that<br />
distinction does not have any meaning anymore. Cyberspace is not another, distant, seclu<strong>de</strong>d<br />
space which Barlow envisioned. The <strong>de</strong>c<strong>la</strong>ration of the cyberspace is not the foundation<br />
of a sovereign in a far away <strong>la</strong>nd. Cyberspace is in the very heart of traditional institutions:<br />
the state, economic enterprises, society. And the question now is whether cyberspace can be<br />
inserted into the societal or<strong>de</strong>r, which - at least in principle - rests on mutual checks and<br />
ba<strong>la</strong>nces, on an equilibrium that ensures that no power is left unchecked. Is it true that states<br />
have no sovereignty in cyberspace? And what happens when the citizens of the cyberspace<br />
start to gather insi<strong>de</strong> the state, insi<strong>de</strong> the corporations, easily crossing that never-existent<br />
bor<strong>de</strong>r between cyberspace and the “real world”? What is left of the sovereignty of the state,<br />
the autonomy of our traditional institutions when they start to gather and put these institutions<br />
un<strong>de</strong>r constant surveil<strong>la</strong>nce?<br />
The outcome of this conflict greatly <strong>de</strong>pends on the role everyday citizens will p<strong>la</strong>y<br />
in this power universe. The digital traces of our online being serve as the most important<br />
raw material in the digital economy. Also, (digital) transparency is the key concept in the<br />
Foucauldian un<strong>de</strong>rstanding of power, as it serves to maintain and reproduce power-re<strong>la</strong>tions<br />
within society. on the other hand, these individually impotent and powerless users can<br />
quickly team up into informal, anonymous, ad-hoc action networks that from time-to-time
you have no sovereignty where we gather. wikileaks and freedom, Autonomy and sovereignty in the cloud 435<br />
make a powerful impact. Wikileaks is the most recent and most potent tool in the hands<br />
of these crowds as it enables resistance to power both by the anonymity it offers and by the<br />
leaks which force transparency upon the state. The real question is whether Wikileaks can be<br />
a true emancipatory force, which will lead anonymous crowds to a self-aware use of these powers<br />
and to fulfill their actual potential?<br />
Does Wikileaks mark the rise of a new sovereign in our world? A new world power<br />
which <strong>la</strong>cks standing armies, natural resources, the strategic geopolitical location, and the<br />
financial might that characterized world powers before? A new sovereign, which draws its<br />
power from both the ability to disrupt the information flows, and the ability to provi<strong>de</strong><br />
anonymity to its users? A new power which is sovereign because in the fragmented infrastructure<br />
<strong>la</strong>ndscape of the internet, it can always find refuge from where it can safely operate?<br />
A power which is organized unlike any other power so far, because it exists beyond the formal<br />
structures of <strong>la</strong>w, economy and society?<br />
Soon we will find out.<br />
2. a new era of HacktiVism<br />
Wikileaks-enabled activism is quite different from the types of cyber activism and hacktivism<br />
that were prominent in the <strong>la</strong>st <strong>de</strong>ca<strong>de</strong>. The <strong>la</strong>tter, let’s call it hacktivism 1.0, “breaks<br />
down into two broad streams of actions: 1. Mass virtual direct actions, which use cyberspatial<br />
technologies of limited potential in or<strong>de</strong>r to re-embody virtual actions, [and 2.] digitally correct<br />
actions, which <strong>de</strong>fend and extend the peculiar powers cyberspace creates. […]Whereas mass action<br />
hacktivists look to networks to do things for them, to be a p<strong>la</strong>ce in which protest can occur just as<br />
roads are p<strong>la</strong>ces in which <strong>de</strong>monstrations can occur, digitally correct hacktivists attempt to form<br />
the nature of the roads and passages of cyberspace. In doing this they generate actions directly<br />
focused on the co<strong>de</strong>s that make cyberspace the p<strong>la</strong>ce it is” (Jordan and Taylor 2004). Hacktivism<br />
1.0 offers few opportunities for political action. They can be complex technological stunts,<br />
committed by highly skilled computer programmers. The results of this type of activism<br />
are either the disruption of the infostructure of the target organization or some specialized<br />
software tool to aid activists. Such actions are costly and time consuming, therefore re<strong>la</strong>tively<br />
rare. on the other hand, hacktivism offers individuals the chance to participate in electronic<br />
civil disobedience, like virtual sit-ins, where, along with thousands of others one can try to<br />
overload the public web services of the target organizations. In this sense electronic disobedience<br />
is closely re<strong>la</strong>ted to the earlier, non-electronic civil disobedience movements. These<br />
attacks – Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks as they are called now – require no<br />
technical skills, and beyond making a website inaccessible for the time of the attack, they<br />
yield little more than the attention generated by the news of the attack. Hacktivism 1.0 is<br />
torn between highly effective but rare instances of hacking, and re<strong>la</strong>tively frequent cyberprotests<br />
with little more than symbolical value.
436 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
Wikileaks marks the beginning of hacktivism 2.0 1 . Wikileaks is first and foremost an<br />
infostructure provi<strong>de</strong>r, with the immense potential to empower mass-scale cyber-activism.<br />
Wikileaks offers three crucial factors through which the effectiveness of hacker attack can<br />
be merged with the ease and openness of mass actions. First, it offers a highly resistant,<br />
autonomous content distribution network, which so far has been able to survive even<br />
the most aggressive attacks against its infrastructure 2 . Second, it has all the attention of<br />
the world, including key media organizations which participate in the verification 3 and<br />
publication of the disclosed information 4 . And what is the most important: it promises<br />
anonymity.<br />
Hacktivism 1.0 was the activism of outsi<strong>de</strong>rs. Its organizing principle was to get outsi<strong>de</strong>rs<br />
into the territory of the other. Wikileaks, on the other hand, is an infostructure <strong>de</strong>veloped<br />
to be used by insi<strong>de</strong>rs. Its sole purpose is to help people get information out from an<br />
organization. Wikileaks shifts the source of potential threat from a few, dangerous hackers<br />
and a <strong>la</strong>rger group of mostly harmless activists -- both outsi<strong>de</strong>rs to an organization -- to<br />
those who are on the insi<strong>de</strong>. For mass protesters and cyber activists anonymity is a nice, but<br />
certainly not an essential feature. For insi<strong>de</strong>rs trying to smuggle information out, anonymity<br />
is a necessary condition for participation. Wikileaks has <strong>de</strong>monstrated that the access<br />
to such features can be <strong>de</strong>mocratized, ma<strong>de</strong> simple and user friendly. Easy anonymity also<br />
radically transforms who the activist may be. It turns a monolithic, crystal clear i<strong>de</strong>ntity <strong>de</strong>fined<br />
solely through opposition, into something more complex, multi<strong>la</strong>ye<strong>red</strong>, and hybrid by<br />
allowing the cultivation of multiple i<strong>de</strong>ntities, multiple loyalties. It allows those to enter the<br />
activist scene who do not want to <strong>de</strong>fine themselves –at least not publicly– as activist, radical<br />
or oppositional. The promise –or rather, the condition– of Wikileaks is that one can be on<br />
the insi<strong>de</strong> and on the outsi<strong>de</strong> at the same time. Through anonymity the mutually exclusive<br />
categories of insi<strong>de</strong>/outsi<strong>de</strong>, cooption/resistance, activism/passivity, power/subjection can<br />
be overrid<strong>de</strong>n and col<strong>la</strong>psed.<br />
1 I share Malcolm Galdwell’s opinion on Facebook and Twitter as an ineffective tool for resistance and<br />
achieving social change. (G<strong>la</strong>dwell 2010) These tools are still for outsi<strong>de</strong>rs, and unlike Wikileaks they<br />
se<strong>para</strong>te the p<strong>la</strong>ce of impact from the p<strong>la</strong>ce of resistance. „[I]t is simply a form of organizing which<br />
favors the weak-tie connections that give us access to information over the strong-tie connections that<br />
help us persevere in the face of danger. It shifts our energies from organizations that promote strategic<br />
and disciplined activity and toward those which promote resilience and adaptability. It makes it easier<br />
for activists to express themselves, and har<strong>de</strong>r for that expression to have any impact. The instruments<br />
of social media are well suited to making the existing social or<strong>de</strong>r more efficient. They are not a natural<br />
enemy of the status quo.”<br />
2 It would be interesting to learn how the internal organization and governance of Wikileaks helps<br />
them to survive the attacks from the outsi<strong>de</strong>. However, at the time of writing this, little is known<br />
about how Wikileaks manages its <strong>de</strong>fense and ensures its survival.<br />
3 The verification of leaked information is crucial in the success of Wikileaks. No won<strong>de</strong>r that one of<br />
the tactics proposed by intelligence agencies to counter Wikileaks was to flood them with false information.<br />
4 See a critique of the re<strong>la</strong>tionship of Wikileaks on the mainstream media at (Chossudovsky 2010).
you have no sovereignty where we gather. wikileaks and freedom, Autonomy and sovereignty in the cloud 437<br />
3. anonymous<br />
Anonymous is a name frequently appearing in articles about Wikileaks. It refers to a<br />
group of hacktivists (from the 1.0 type), who organized mass cyber-attacks against companies<br />
that seve<strong>red</strong> their ties with Wikileaks in the tumultuous <strong>la</strong>st weeks of 2010. According<br />
to their self-<strong>de</strong>scription: “Anonymous is not a person, nor is it a group, movement or cause:<br />
Anonymous is a collective of people with too much time on their hands, a commune of human<br />
thought and useless imagery. A gathering of sheep and fools, assholes and trolls, and normal<br />
everyday netizens. An anonymous collective, left to its own <strong>de</strong>vices, quickly builds its own society<br />
out of rage and hate. […]They have no lea<strong>de</strong>r, no pretentious douchebag presi<strong>de</strong>nt or group thereof<br />
to set in stone what Anonymous is and is not about. This makes them impossible to control<br />
or organize. Not really a collective at all - more like a stampe<strong>de</strong> of coked-up lemmings. […]<br />
Anonymous is not a single person, but rather, represents the collective whole of the internet. As<br />
individuals, they can be intelligent, rational, emotional and empathetic. As a mass, a group, they<br />
are <strong>de</strong>void of humanity and mercy.” (Encyclopedia Dramatica 2011).<br />
This type of Anonymous (let’s call it Anonymous 1.0) is the fuel of (h)acktivism 1.0.<br />
They are a group of outsi<strong>de</strong>rs who are rallied against something. They are on the outsi<strong>de</strong>,<br />
trying to get in, but if they get in, they have little more in their minds than to wreak havoc.<br />
In the <strong>la</strong>st months of 2010 Anonymous was c<strong>red</strong>ited for <strong>la</strong>unching DDoS attacks against<br />
those companies that seve<strong>red</strong> their business re<strong>la</strong>tionship with Wikileaks, including Paypal,<br />
Mastercard, Visa, as well as openDns and Amazon. These attacks gained little more than<br />
some press attention. Their effectiveness in terms of disrupting the everyday operations of<br />
these companies, or inducing a shift in their policies was nil.<br />
There is, however, another, much more important Anonymous (Anonymous 2.0) in<br />
the Wikileaks story that needs to be discussed: those powerful individuals in privileged<br />
positions within the existing power structures, who now can safely subvert the very power<br />
structures that they <strong>de</strong>fine (and that <strong>de</strong>fine them). If Anonymous is to be fea<strong>red</strong>, it is not<br />
because some rascals with short attention span download a cru<strong>de</strong>ly written software tool to<br />
attack websites, but because of those, for whom such anonymity lowers the costs of exposing<br />
and confronting power from within. Lowering the cost of safe opposition is exactly what<br />
Wikileaks is for.<br />
Being Anonymous in the context of Wikileaks has a double function: it liberates the<br />
subject from the existing power structures, and in the same time it allows the exposure of<br />
these structures by opening up a space to confront them.<br />
Anonymity offers the chance for the individual to –at least partially– remove herself<br />
from the pre-existing discursive <strong>de</strong>terminations and power re<strong>la</strong>tions and consi<strong>de</strong>r alternatives.<br />
“If governmental rationalities operate through the nomination and specification of a positive<br />
i<strong>de</strong>ntity through a series of constitutive exclusions, rarefactions and restrictions, then the practices<br />
of freedom are enabled by withholding the knowledge of oneself, resisting the injunction to a ‘confessional’<br />
self-expression, <strong>de</strong>clining the incitement to active participation in the governmentally<br />
sanctioned discourse. Anonymity may then serve ‘to encourage freedom by increasing the scope of
438 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
actions not susceptible to official observation, records and interpretation’” (Prozorov 2007, citations<br />
ommitted). Anonymity is important because it liberates insi<strong>de</strong>rs.<br />
Being Anonymous is an i<strong>de</strong>ntity p<strong>la</strong>y, and as an i<strong>de</strong>ntity p<strong>la</strong>y, it is a loyalty p<strong>la</strong>y. As<br />
an i<strong>de</strong>ntifiable member of the society, the individual is bound by formal and informal attachments<br />
and hierarchies, the breaches of which are severely and instantly punished. Being<br />
Anonymous means that one’s i<strong>de</strong>ntity and loyalty is up for grabs, it is fluid, it is in<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nt,<br />
it is freed from it social base. Wikileaks, being the key anonymity-providing infostructure,<br />
supports new loyalties that are <strong>de</strong>tached from the corrupted and failing national i<strong>de</strong>ntities,<br />
the <strong>de</strong>bilitating chorus of corporate anthems, historical <strong>de</strong>termination and the normalizing<br />
judgment of Facebook peers. “People are asked to i<strong>de</strong>ntify personally with organisations who<br />
can either no longer carry historical projects worthy of major sacrifices or expressly regard their<br />
employees as nothing but expendable, short−term resources. This […] creates the cognitive dissonance<br />
that justifies, perhaps even <strong>de</strong>mands, the leaker to vio<strong>la</strong>te procedure and actively damage<br />
the organisation of which he, or she, has been at some point a well−acculturated member (this is<br />
the difference to the spy). This dissonance creates the motivational energy to move from the potential<br />
to the actual.” (Stal<strong>de</strong>r 2010) When this happens, one’s ‘proper’ i<strong>de</strong>ntity, one’s real name<br />
turns into a mere pseudonym that serves to hi<strong>de</strong> one’s ‘real’ i<strong>de</strong>ntity, one’s true loyalties.<br />
Wikileaks, the same space which allows the individual to liberate himself promises him<br />
the chance to liberate others. It is in fact <strong>de</strong>signed in a way that it only liberates those who are<br />
willing to ‘liberate’ others. The big Wikileaks promise is that the exposure of how power is<br />
structu<strong>red</strong>, organized, the exposure of how “the great systems of exclusion which forge discourse<br />
- forbid<strong>de</strong>n speech, the division of madness and the will to truth” (Foucault 1981) operate will<br />
break these systems down and force them to change for the better.<br />
This c<strong>la</strong>im is, however, unfoun<strong>de</strong>d. The Wikileaks coerced transparency is nothing<br />
more than the extension of the Foucauldian disciplinary power to the very body of state and<br />
government. While anonymity removes the individual from existing power re<strong>la</strong>tions, the act<br />
of surveil<strong>la</strong>nce puts her right back to the middle.<br />
4. transParency<br />
Eben Moglen, in his „Freedom in the cloud” talk (Moglen 2010) outlined a grim vision<br />
of individual freedoms in the cloud age. He argued that individual freedoms are severely<br />
limited when Facebook-, and Google-like central entities hold all the information about<br />
us and users have no access to, or chance to control that information and limit the access<br />
of others to it. He argued that by trusting commercial third parties to provi<strong>de</strong> us with free<br />
services in exchange for our personal data, we surren<strong>de</strong>r all the information about who we<br />
are and how we behave in the digital universe. We are disempowe<strong>red</strong> by being spied upon,<br />
we are disempowe<strong>red</strong> by our <strong>la</strong>ck of information-autonomy, we are disempowe<strong>red</strong> by voluntarily<br />
surren<strong>de</strong>ring ourselves to the invisible observer in this digital Panopticon.<br />
By putting Moglen’s arguments <strong>para</strong>llel to the Wikileaks story we need to ask ourselves:<br />
in what way are the two transparencies different? Are we expecting the Wikileaks-induced
you have no sovereignty where we gather. wikileaks and freedom, Autonomy and sovereignty in the cloud 439<br />
transparency to do to corporations and governments what we are afraid of being done to us?<br />
Does transparency on the state, corporate and on the individual level serve the same goal:<br />
pure, internalized control?<br />
Assange’s quest for a better government suggests that in some sense the answer is yes. A<br />
well manne<strong>red</strong> and well-behaving, ethical, productive and accountable government created<br />
by the Wikileaks transparency 5 is very simi<strong>la</strong>r to the benefits Bentham assigned to his Panopticon<br />
<strong>de</strong>sign, as cited by Foucault: “Morals reformed –health preserved– industry invigorated<br />
–instruction diffused– public burthens lightened –Economy seated, as it were, upon a rock– the<br />
gordian knot of the Poor-Laws not cut, but untied –all by a simple i<strong>de</strong>a in architecture!”<br />
But it would be a misun<strong>de</strong>rstanding to equate the state with power, the secrets with<br />
how control operates. Also, it is a misun<strong>de</strong>rstanding to expect better governance from transparency.<br />
Nowhere is it said, that the discipline of the Panopticon would in any way result<br />
in any of those i<strong>de</strong>als that Assange is longing for. It is true that the Panopticon produces<br />
more efficient, more productive, more obedient, and more controlled subjects, but this has<br />
nothing to do with the state, the society, or power turning more just, enlightened, ethical<br />
or truthful. Even if the chain of events would stop at Wikileaks, there would be little reason<br />
to believe that “[t]he public scrutiny of otherwise unaccountable and secretive institutions forces<br />
them to consi<strong>de</strong>r the ethical implications of their actions” (wikileaks.org 2008). The only apparent<br />
and possible outcome of panopticism is more panopticism. The consi<strong>de</strong>ration of the<br />
ethical implications of one’s actions is nowhere guaranteed.<br />
The way the US state ap<strong>para</strong>tus has reacted to Wikileaks clearly illustrates this point.<br />
In a memorandum on January 3 rd , 2011, the National Counterintelligence Executive and<br />
the Director of the Information Security oversight office <strong>de</strong>tailed the procedures by which<br />
they hope to prevent any further leaks. The document is a 14-page long checklist covering<br />
all aspects of keeping secrets: “the measures in p<strong>la</strong>ce to <strong>de</strong>termine appropriate access for<br />
employees to c<strong>la</strong>ssified information”; the existence of counterintelligence programs; the use<br />
of back-up media; “a trend analysis of indicators and activities of the employee popu<strong>la</strong>tion<br />
which may indicate risky habits or cultural and societal differences other than those expected<br />
for current employees for security clearances” and the “use [of] psychiatrist and sociologist<br />
to measure [the r]e<strong>la</strong>tive happiness as a means to gauge trustworthiness [, and the d]espon<strong>de</strong>nce<br />
and grumpiness as a means to gauge waning trustworthiness” (Lew 2011).<br />
This document is the blueprint of an internal total transparency program that is <strong>de</strong>signed<br />
to maximize the control over the state ap<strong>para</strong>tus in or<strong>de</strong>r to <strong>de</strong>tect potential leakers<br />
and prevent information breaches. The state reacted to the transparency of Wikileaks by<br />
creating a transparency of its own. This is the c<strong>la</strong>ssic example of internalization: the state,<br />
5 The Wikileaks mission statement clearly <strong>de</strong>fines its aims: “Publishing improves transparency, and<br />
this transparency creates a better society for all people. Better scrutiny leads to <strong>red</strong>uced corruption<br />
and stronger <strong>de</strong>mocracies in all society’s institutions, including government, corporations and other<br />
organisations. A healthy, vibrant and inquisitive journalistic media p<strong>la</strong>ys a vital role in achieving these<br />
goals. We are part of that media” (wikileaks.ch 2010).
440 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
un<strong>de</strong>r surveil<strong>la</strong>nce has internalized the expectations and now is busy learning how to<br />
make sure that what is not to be shown stays truly hid<strong>de</strong>n. Secrets to outsi<strong>de</strong>rs can only be<br />
protected through total transparency on the insi<strong>de</strong>. This is the problem with total control:<br />
it does not annihi<strong>la</strong>te un<strong>de</strong>si<strong>red</strong> behavior, it does not mute and reform inappropriate and<br />
prohibited <strong>de</strong>sires, it only suppresses them, and fosters secrecy and <strong>de</strong>ceit. Transparency<br />
will not break the logic of power based on panopticism: “The panoptic schema, without<br />
disappearing as such or losing any of its properties, was <strong>de</strong>stined to spread throughout the<br />
social body; its vocation was to become a generalized function. […] While, on the one hand,<br />
the disciplinary establishments increase, their mechanisms have a certain ten<strong>de</strong>ncy to become<br />
‘<strong>de</strong>-institutionalized’, to emerge from the closed fortresses in which they once functioned and to<br />
circu<strong>la</strong>te in a ‘free’ state; the massive, compact disciplines are broken down into flexible methods<br />
of control, which may be transfer<strong>red</strong> and adapted. […]‘Discipline’ may be i<strong>de</strong>ntified neither<br />
with an institution nor with an ap<strong>para</strong>tus; it is a type of power, a modality for its exercise,<br />
comprising a whole set of instruments, techniques, procedures, levels of application, targets; it<br />
is a ‘physics’ or an ‘anatomy’ of power, a technology.[…] On the whole, therefore, one can speak<br />
of the formation of a disciplinary society in this movement that stretches from the enclosed<br />
disciplines, a sort of social ‘quarantine’, to an in<strong>de</strong>finitely generalizable mechanism of ‘panopticism’”<br />
(Foucault 1979). The transparency of Wikileaks does not counter this process, it<br />
reinforces it. By putting the locus of sovereign power un<strong>de</strong>r surveil<strong>la</strong>nce it simply draws<br />
the state un<strong>de</strong>r this form of control, putting the <strong>la</strong>st missing piece of the puzzle to its p<strong>la</strong>ce.<br />
Wikileaks in same sense only propagates the control it wishes to subvert. It only helps the<br />
logic of panopticism to fold and close upon itself.<br />
5. soVereignty<br />
Sovereignty, in its strictest <strong>de</strong>finition is the supreme authority within a territory. The<br />
three components of sovereignty: being supreme, having authority and territoriality have<br />
all been transformed by the rapid rise of supranational, supra-governmental political, economic,<br />
legal institutions, the formation and the consolidation of global networks of information,<br />
telecommunications, finance, logistics, extraterritorial corporations, and (private)<br />
justice systems. Since such external authorities limit or <strong>de</strong>termine state actions in the fields<br />
of finance, economics, social policy, foreign and internal politics, military, or human rights,<br />
globalization was seen as a threat to the traditional concept of post-Westphalian sovereignty.<br />
Such external authorities ma<strong>de</strong> state sovereignty to be less and less absolute. But as Saskia<br />
Sassen argues, the interp<strong>la</strong>y between sovereignty and globalization is more complex than<br />
that. “The strategic spaces where many global processes take p<strong>la</strong>ce are often national; the mechanisms<br />
through which the new legal forms necessary for globalization are implemented are often<br />
part of state institutions; the infrastructure that makes possible the hyper-mobility of financial<br />
capital at the global scale is situated in various national territories. Sovereignty remains a feature<br />
of the system, but it is now located in a multiplicity of institutional arenas: the new emergent<br />
transnational private legal regimes, new supranational organizations (such as the WTO and the<br />
institutions of the European Union), and the various international human rights co<strong>de</strong>s”(Sassen
you have no sovereignty where we gather. wikileaks and freedom, Autonomy and sovereignty in the cloud 441<br />
1996). The institutions that overri<strong>de</strong> sovereignty build upon the <strong>la</strong>nd and the institutions<br />
of nation-states. But Sassen’s observations about the transformation, rather than the diminishment<br />
of national sovereignty only hold true because the supranational frameworks are<br />
always legitimized and authorized in one way or another by the sovereign states 6 , and some<br />
key elements of sovereignty are kept intact.<br />
Wikileaks poses a new, so far unprece<strong>de</strong>nted threat to sovereignty. Its power rests on<br />
three pil<strong>la</strong>rs: on the immunity to intervention, on the authority its supporters vest in it, and<br />
on its ability to interfere with the internal affairs of others.<br />
As the ineffective actions against its infrastructures have shown, Wikileaks is immune<br />
from technological, financial, infrastructural, and legal interventions. There have been<br />
several attempts to cut Wikileaks of the financial network, weaken its physical infrastructure<br />
or curtail its accessibility. None of these efforts could ren<strong>de</strong>r Wikileaks inaccessible,<br />
and there is no sign of a more effective method to erase a service from the web other than<br />
those already used. States and governments, just like corporations, are as <strong>de</strong>fenseless and<br />
exposed to Wikileakistan as much the entertainment industry is exposed to Kazaastan and<br />
Torrentia 7 . I do not wish to un<strong>de</strong>restimate the intellectual power behind the Wikileaks<br />
infrastructure, but from a government perspective one of the most frightening aspects of<br />
the whole Wikileaks affair is that it is so easy to set up a network that is so difficult to take<br />
down or to engage with. At the moment it seems Wikileaks cannot be woven into the complex<br />
web of institutional inter-<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>ncies. „In light of this <strong>red</strong>istribution of power, what<br />
would the solution for conventional/”atomic” power’s reassertion of hegemony? This would be to<br />
contain the rise of informatic power by containing its means of distribution. This would be by<br />
the means of national firewalling, and trunk-line disconnection or limited Internet disabling,<br />
disrupting infopower, but also crippling the flow of digitized material capital as well. This is<br />
problematic at best, as conventional power and informatic power are in symbiotic, the <strong>la</strong>tter<br />
being more nimble and a step ahead of the former, and to attack a symbiote always means to<br />
cripple its partner as well. The logical result of such actions would be the elimination of net<br />
6 This is of course an oversimplified, naive interpretation: the Wikileaks cables reveal some of the coercive<br />
tactics used in international diplomacy. But even if such tactics could amount to b<strong>la</strong>ckmail and<br />
p<strong>la</strong>in coercion, the actual supranational institutional framework is always there to mask these actions<br />
and legitimize the outcome.<br />
7 The <strong>para</strong>llels with the p2p technology and the music industry are more than apparent. Despite the<br />
tens of thousands of legal actions against individual downloa<strong>de</strong>rs, technology <strong>de</strong>velopers, service<br />
operators, <strong>de</strong>spite co-opting some ISPs, <strong>de</strong>spite the immense lobbying efforts and the continuous<br />
push for more stringent regu<strong>la</strong>tion, the music industry could not suppress unauthorized file sharing,<br />
and eventually had to come to terms with the loss of tight market control. only now, more than<br />
ten years after the first conflict, the industry starts to realize that file-sharing can be regar<strong>de</strong>d as an<br />
asset. It can be used for market research, it is an effective distribution channel, it can be used to serve<br />
certain target groups, it can be marketed and its users can be converted to paying customers. The<br />
industry will probably never control file-sharing, but if it changes its practices, it can harness some of<br />
its resources. (Bodó 2011) I see no reason to think that the re<strong>la</strong>tionship of Wikileaks to states would<br />
be any different.
442 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
neutrality (the free and open flow of data across the Internet) or even the severance of typologies<br />
and flows of information across the networks. The symbiotic effect is that conventional power/<br />
capital is also hobbled, as the physical is <strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nt on the same flows of information across the<br />
distributed nets, disabling itself in the process. It is for this reason that it cannot engage in this<br />
means of retaliation, as it would be the digital suici<strong>de</strong> of the First World nation-state.” (Lichty<br />
2010) As long as Wikileaks exists on thousands of mirrors and in thousands of copies circu<strong>la</strong>ting<br />
on p2p networks, the <strong>de</strong>bate on whether Wikileaks is a terrorist organization 8 or<br />
a group of freedom fighters, and whether such a quest for total transparency is misgui<strong>de</strong>d 9<br />
or a necessary step in the <strong>de</strong>velopment of information society remains aca<strong>de</strong>mic. Until<br />
the point where it can be proved that Wikileaks can be controlled –and if that happens, it<br />
ceases to exist altogether– Wikileaks is free to follow its own agenda and as a consequence<br />
is the utmost authority of the information era.<br />
The second source of Wikileaks’ power is the authority its supporters vest in it. States<br />
do not enjoy the supreme and ultimate authority over their territory anymore, because their<br />
citizens as the source of that authority now enjoy multiple citizenships –one being that of<br />
Wikileakistan–, and have the potential to act upon multiple loyalties 10 . If citizens and corporate<br />
employees <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong> to break the <strong>la</strong>ws of the <strong>la</strong>nd and follow the <strong>la</strong>ws of their conscience<br />
and leak the secrets entrusted upon them to Wikileaks, it means that in the given situation<br />
they <strong>de</strong>ny the supreme authority from the state and subscribe to the abstract i<strong>de</strong>als of Wikileakistan<br />
in or<strong>de</strong>r to preserve what loyalty they feel towards the ‘nation’, the ‘country’, the<br />
‘constitution’, the ‘<strong>de</strong>mocratic i<strong>de</strong>als’ or any other notion which they think Wikileaks represents<br />
and which they hope to regain by turning to it. If Wikileaks would be Wikileakistan,<br />
another territory-bound sovereign, there would not be any problems: it could be bombar-<br />
8 The US Department of Defense <strong>de</strong>fines terrorism as “The calcu<strong>la</strong>ted use of un<strong>la</strong>wful violence or<br />
threat of un<strong>la</strong>wful violence to inculcate fear; inten<strong>de</strong>d to coerce or to intimidate governments or<br />
societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or i<strong>de</strong>ological” (http://www.dtic.<br />
mil/doctrine/dod_dictionary/data/t/7591.html)<br />
9 We heard arguments that secrecy is a necessary component in conducting state affairs as well as<br />
international diplomacy. The state cannot and should not bear the bur<strong>de</strong>n of total transparency,<br />
because without some level of privacy, the state cannot fulfill its functions. Lawrence Lessig argued<br />
in the pages of The New Republic that some facts <strong>de</strong>serve privacy, because the public has a short<br />
attention span and is, in some sense ignorant, and therefore is doomed to oversimplify, misun<strong>de</strong>rstand,<br />
and/or misinterpret complex phenomena, if they are simply <strong>la</strong>id bare in front of it. (Lessig<br />
2010)<br />
10 It is believed that a low level US military analyst, Private Bradley Manning leaked c<strong>la</strong>ssified information<br />
to Wikileaks. The source of this information is the log of unknown authenticity, of an online<br />
discussion, recor<strong>de</strong>d and released by another whistleblower Adrian Lamo. Manning summed up his<br />
motivations in the discussion: “Manning: its sad […]i mean what if i were someone more malicious<br />
i could’ve sold to russia or china, and ma<strong>de</strong> bank?/Q: why didn’t you?/Manning: because it’s public<br />
data. […] it belongs in the public domain. information should be free. it belongs in the public domain.<br />
because another state would just take advantage of the information… try and get some edge.<br />
[…]im not sure whether i’d be consi<strong>de</strong><strong>red</strong> a type of “hacker”, “cracker”, “hacktivist”, “leaker” or what<br />
… im just me… really.” (The Guardian 2010).
you have no sovereignty where we gather. wikileaks and freedom, Autonomy and sovereignty in the cloud 443<br />
<strong>de</strong>d or sanctioned into submission. But that <strong>la</strong>wless fringe, that barbaric kingdom, that pirate<br />
utopia is not somewhere else. It is exactly where we are. Confrontational, non-conciliatory<br />
action against such i<strong>de</strong>alists hardly yields anything else but more disenchantment, alienation<br />
and ultimately disloyalty. By turning against such double citizens the state turns against, and<br />
ultimately eliminates itself.<br />
Third, immunity and authority is now coupled with an un<strong>para</strong>lleled might to interfere<br />
with the internal affairs of states and corporations alike. External sovereignty is<br />
exercised “with respect to outsi<strong>de</strong>rs, who may not interfere with the sovereign’s governance.”<br />
(Philpott 2010) Wikileaks poses a different kind of threat to the external sovereignty<br />
than the internet, in general. (Boyle 1997) It seems possible to exercise authority with<br />
an aterritorial entity like the internet in p<strong>la</strong>ce, but it does not seem possible to exercise<br />
any authority if the sovereign cannot control its internal processes, data and communication.<br />
Within the core of any sovereignty there is the ultimate capability to control<br />
the internal communications, information collection and interpretation processes. Assange<br />
<strong>de</strong>scribes the effects of exposing internal communications in his essay dating<br />
back to 2006: “The more secretive or unjust an organization is, the more leaks induce fear<br />
and <strong>para</strong>noia in its lea<strong>de</strong>rship and p<strong>la</strong>nning coterie. This must result in minimization of<br />
efficient internal communications mechanisms (an increase in cognitive “secrecy tax”) and<br />
consequent system-wi<strong>de</strong> cognitive <strong>de</strong>cline resulting in <strong>de</strong>creased ability to hold onto power<br />
as the environment <strong>de</strong>mands adaption. Hence in a world where leaking is easy, secretive<br />
or unjust systems are nonlinearly hit re<strong>la</strong>tive to open, just systems. Since unjust systems, by<br />
their nature induce opponents, and in many p<strong>la</strong>ces barely have the upper hand, mass leaking<br />
leaves them exquisitely vulnerable to those who seek to rep<strong>la</strong>ce them with more open forms of<br />
governance.”(Assange 2006).<br />
The ability to p<strong>la</strong>ce the state un<strong>de</strong>r surveil<strong>la</strong>nce limits and ultimately ren<strong>de</strong>rs present<br />
day sovereignty obsolete.<br />
It can also be argued that it fosters the emergence of a new sovereign in itself. I believe<br />
that Wikileaks (or rather, the logic of it) is a new sovereign in the global political / economic<br />
sphere. If everyday citizens have an autonomous zone (Bey 1991), a safe haven, hiding in the<br />
discontinuities of cyberspace, from where they can oversee and control the state ap<strong>para</strong>tus;<br />
if such an organization is safe from interventions and can continuously enjoy the ethical<br />
and i<strong>de</strong>ological support if its “citizens”; if the information it distributes cannot be filte<strong>red</strong> by<br />
any country, then such an organization is a new sovereign, not in cyberspace but in the real<br />
world, even though it <strong>la</strong>cks the territorial dimension.<br />
But as it stands now, Wikileakistan shares too much with the powers it wishes to<br />
counter. As The Economist’s commentator put it: „To get at the value of WikiLeaks, I think<br />
it’s important to distinguish between the government—the temporary, elected authors of national<br />
policy—and the state—the permanent bureaucratic and military ap<strong>para</strong>tus superficially<br />
but not fully controlled by the reigning government. The careerists scatte<strong>red</strong> about the world<br />
in America’s intelligence agencies, military, and consu<strong>la</strong>r offices <strong>la</strong>rgely operate behind a veil<br />
of secrecy executing policy which is itself <strong>la</strong>rgely secret. American citizens mostly have no i<strong>de</strong>a<br />
what they are doing, or whether what they are doing is working out well. The actually-existing
444 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
structure and strategy of the American empire remains a near-total mystery to those who foot<br />
the bill and whose children fight its wars. And that is the way the elite of America’s unelected<br />
permanent state, perhaps the most powerful c<strong>la</strong>ss of people on Earth, like it.”(W. 2010) This is<br />
against what Wikileaks has risen. But the hid<strong>de</strong>n power structures and the inner workings<br />
of these states within the state are exposed by another imperium in imperio, a secretive organization,<br />
whose agenda is far from transparent, whose members, resources are unknown,<br />
holding back an in<strong>de</strong>finite amount of information both on itself and on its opponents.<br />
The mantra of Wikileaks supporters and the mantra of state and corporate executives are<br />
shockingly i<strong>de</strong>ntical: “We share no information on ourselves; we gather information on<br />
everyone else. only our secrets are valid secrets.” The Eye of Provi<strong>de</strong>nce on the reverse<br />
si<strong>de</strong> of the Great Seal of the United States, surroun<strong>de</strong>d by the words Annuit Cœptis (He<br />
approves our un<strong>de</strong>rtakings), and Novus ordo Seclorum, (New or<strong>de</strong>r of the Ages) could<br />
very well be the seal of Wikileaks as well.<br />
This leads to the question of who the parties in this conflict are. Is it the state against<br />
Wikileaks? or maybe what we are seeing now is a battle between different secretive organizations<br />
for the control of the state and through it, the body politic? With Wikileaks the<br />
state has finally ente<strong>red</strong> the Panopticon. But within, the freedom of those who are un<strong>de</strong>r<br />
surveil<strong>la</strong>nce is lost, whether they be individuals or states.<br />
It is not more secretive, one si<strong>de</strong>d transparency which will subvert and negate the<br />
control and discipline of secretive, one si<strong>de</strong>d transparency, it is anonymity. The subject’s<br />
position of being “a multiplicity that can be numbe<strong>red</strong> and supervised”, its state of living in a<br />
“sequeste<strong>red</strong> and observed solitu<strong>de</strong>” (Foucault 1979) can only be subverted if there is a p<strong>la</strong>ce to<br />
hi<strong>de</strong> from surveil<strong>la</strong>nce. There are two types of Anonymity, that of the observer, and that of<br />
the subject, both immensely empowering. The true potential of the cyberspace is not that it<br />
enables anonymous observation of the state power, but that it offers its citizens the chance to<br />
hi<strong>de</strong> from observation. In other words the i<strong>de</strong>ntity-protecting si<strong>de</strong> of technology has more<br />
emancipatory power than its capability to obtain and expose secrets. Maybe less, and not<br />
more transparency is the path that leads to the aims of Wikileaks.<br />
We have also seen how Anonymous can turn into a “stampe<strong>de</strong> of coked-up lemmings”.<br />
But how to be truly free in the age of ubiquitous surveil<strong>la</strong>nce? Is it enough if we<br />
put the observers un<strong>de</strong>r surveil<strong>la</strong>nce? Maybe we need to leave the oppositional power re<strong>la</strong>tionships<br />
behind, and be what Anonymous really means: invisible. Invisible in its strictest<br />
sense: being beyond the <strong>de</strong>terminations that <strong>de</strong>fine the i<strong>de</strong>ntity and the discourse. Because,<br />
as Pozorov (2007) so aptly said: “freedom is not a guarantee for the fulfilment of any <strong>de</strong>sire<br />
but rather the condition of possibility of its pursuit.” Wikileaks, the <strong>la</strong>test manifestation of<br />
cyberspace offers this freedom for individuals, but its proposition on how to act upon it<br />
is disturbingly simi<strong>la</strong>r to what it <strong>de</strong>fined itself against in its Dec<strong>la</strong>ration of In<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nce.<br />
I salute Wikileaks as the first – and potentially only - truly in<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nt sovereign of the<br />
information age. “May it be more humane and fair than the world […] governments have<br />
ma<strong>de</strong> before.” (Barlow 1996).
you have no sovereignty where we gather. wikileaks and freedom, Autonomy and sovereignty in the cloud 445<br />
6. references<br />
Assange, J. (2006). “The non linear effects of leaks on unjust systems of governance.” iq.org.<br />
Retrieved January 11, 2011, from http://web.archive.org/web/20071020051936/<br />
http://iq.org/#Thenonlineareffectsofleaksonunjustsystemsofgovernance.<br />
Barlow, J. P. (1996). “A Dec<strong>la</strong>ration of the In<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nce of Cyberspace.” eff.org. Retrieved<br />
January 18, 2011, from https://projects.eff.org/~barlow/Dec<strong>la</strong>ration-Final.html.<br />
Bey, H. (1991). T.A.Z. : the temporary autonomous zone, ontological anarchy, poetic terrorism.<br />
Brooklyn, NY, Autonomedia.<br />
Bodó, B. (2011). A szerzői jog kalózai. Budapest, Typotex.<br />
Boyle, J. (1997). “Foucault in Cyberspace: Surveil<strong>la</strong>nce, Sovereignty, and Hardwi<strong>red</strong> Censors.”<br />
University of Cincinnati Law Review 66: 177-1411.<br />
Chossudovsky, M. (2010). “Who is Behind Wikileaks?” Global Research. Retrieved January18,<br />
2011, from http://www.globalresearch.ca/in<strong>de</strong>x.php?context=va&aid=22389.<br />
Collins, N. (2010). “WikiLeaks: guilty parties ‘should face <strong>de</strong>ath penalty’.” The Telegraph.<br />
Retrieved January11, 2011, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8172916/WikiLeaks-guilty-parties-should-face-<strong>de</strong>ath-penalty.html.<br />
Curran, J. (1991). “Mass media and <strong>de</strong>mocracy: A reappraisal.” Mass media and society:<br />
82-117.<br />
Der Derian, J. (2009). Virtuous war: mapping the military-industrial-media-entertainment<br />
network, Routledge.<br />
Encyclopedia Dramatica (2011). “Anonymous.” Encyclopedia Dramatica. Retrieved<br />
January 11, 2011, from http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Anonymous.<br />
Fil<strong>de</strong>s, J. (2010). “What is Wikileaks?” BBC News. Retrieved January 11, 2011, from<br />
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10757263.<br />
Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison. New York, Vintage<br />
Books.<br />
Foucault, M. (1981). The or<strong>de</strong>r of discourse. Untying the text: A post-structuralist rea<strong>de</strong>r.<br />
R. Young, Routledge.<br />
G<strong>la</strong>dwell, M. (2010). Small Change. The New Yorker. New York, NY, Condé Nast. october<br />
4, 2010.<br />
Harding, L. (2010). “Julian Assange should be awar<strong>de</strong>d Nobel peace prize, suggests Russia.”<br />
The Guardian. Retrieved January 11, 2011, from http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/<strong>de</strong>c/09/julian-assange-nobel-peace-prize.<br />
Jordan, T. and P. Taylor (2004). Hactivism and Cyberwars - Rebels with a Cause? London,<br />
Routledge.<br />
Lessig, L. (2010). “Against Transparency.” The New Republic. Retrieved January 10, 2011,<br />
from http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/against-transparency.<br />
Lew, J. J. (2011). Initial Assessments of Safeguarding and Counterintelligence Postures for<br />
C<strong>la</strong>ssified National Security Information in Automated Systems EXECUTIVE oFFI-
446 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
CE oF THE PRESIDENT oFFICE oF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET. Washington,<br />
DC.<br />
Lichty, P. (2010). “Digital Anarchy and Wikileaks. (or, Skynet doesn’t look anything like<br />
we thought it did.).” Retrieved January 10, 2011, from http://patricklichty.wordpress.<br />
com/2010/12/11/digital-anarchy-and-wikileaks-or-skynet-doesn%E2%80%99tlook-anything-like-w<br />
Moglen, E. (2010). Freedom in the Cloud: Software Freedom, Privacy and Security for<br />
Web 2.0 and Cloud Computing. New York, NY, New York Greater Metropolitan Area<br />
chapter of the Internet Society.<br />
Philpott, D. (2010). Sovereignty. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. E. N. Zalta.<br />
Prozorov, S. (2007). Foucault, freedom and sovereignty. Hampshire, Ashgate.<br />
Rosen, J. (2010). “The Afghanistan War Logs Released by Wikileaks, the World’s First<br />
Stateless News organization.” pressthink. Retrieved January 11, 2011, from http://<br />
archive.pressthink.org/2010/07/26/wikileaks_afghan.html.<br />
Sassen, S. (1996). Losing control? : sovereignty in an age of globalization. New York, Columbia<br />
University Press.<br />
Stal<strong>de</strong>r, F. (2010). “Contain this! Leaks, whistle-blowers and the networked news ecology.”<br />
eurozine.com. Retrieved January 18, 2011, from http://www.eurozine.com/<br />
articles/2010-11-29-stal<strong>de</strong>r-en.html.<br />
The Guardian (2010). “Bradley Manning, in his own words: ‘This belongs in the public<br />
domain’.” The Guardian. Retrieved January 11, 2011, from http://www.guardian.<br />
co.uk/world/2010/<strong>de</strong>c/01/us-leaks-bradley-manning-logs.<br />
Virilio, P. (1995). The art of the motor, Univ of Minnesota Press.<br />
W., W. (2010). “In <strong>de</strong>fence of WikiLeaks.” The Economist. Retrieved January 11, 2011,<br />
from http://www.economist.com/blogs/<strong>de</strong>mocracyinamerica/2010/11/overseeing_<br />
state_secrecy.<br />
wikileaks.ch (2010). “About - 1.3 Why the media (and particu<strong>la</strong>rly Wiki leaks) is important.”<br />
Retrieved January 14, 2011, from http://wikileaks.ch/About.html.<br />
wikileaks.org (2008). “Wikileaks:About.” Retrieved January 10, 2011, from http://web.archive.org/web/20080504122032/wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikileaks:About.
25<br />
lA INICIAtIVA CIUDADANA eUrOPeA eleCtróNICA<br />
Lorenzo Cotino Hueso 1<br />
Profesor titu<strong>la</strong>r <strong>de</strong> Derecho constitucional Universidad <strong>de</strong> Valencia.<br />
Coordinador <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Red <strong>de</strong> especialistas en Derecho <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s Tecnologías<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Información Comunicación www.<strong>de</strong>rechotics.com<br />
AbstrAct: El muy novedoso Reg<strong>la</strong>mento (UE) nº 211/2011, sobre <strong>la</strong> iniciativa ciudadana europea<br />
(ICE) proyecta esta institución por primera vez al ámbito supranacional y también es revolucionaria por<br />
estar pensada esencialmente <strong>para</strong> internet. Se analiza especialmente el sistema <strong>de</strong> recogida <strong>de</strong> apoyos<br />
ciudadanos a través <strong>de</strong> páginas web, que serán posibles gracias al software <strong>de</strong> código abierto que pondrá<br />
a disposición<strong>la</strong> Comisión. El autor seña<strong>la</strong> que los apoyos ciudadanos por vía electrónica podrán ser por<br />
sistemas más sencillos <strong>de</strong> firma elecrónica, asímismo se indica que podría haberse apostado por apoyos<br />
electrónicos <strong>de</strong> forma anónima o seudónima. Se a<strong>de</strong><strong>la</strong>nta <strong>la</strong> futura práctica <strong>de</strong> que se busque ac<strong>red</strong>itar <strong>la</strong>s<br />
p<strong>la</strong>taformas <strong>de</strong> recogida <strong>de</strong> firmas en los Estados miembros que menos exigencias impongan. Una inercia<br />
simi<strong>la</strong>r también a <strong>la</strong> hora <strong>de</strong> elegir el territorio <strong>de</strong> almacenamiento <strong>de</strong> los apoyos electrónicos, pues se<br />
buscará el Estado más flexible en materia <strong>de</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos. También se examina quién y cómo<br />
habrá <strong>de</strong> verificar y ac<strong>red</strong>itar los apoyos recibidos por una concreta ICE. La protección <strong>de</strong> datos ocupa<br />
<strong>la</strong> segunda parte <strong>de</strong>l estudio, es objeto fundamental <strong>de</strong>l Reg<strong>la</strong>mento. Se consi<strong>de</strong>ran <strong>de</strong>sproporcionados<br />
los datos que tienen que dar los ciudadanos <strong>para</strong> apoyar una ICE. Se estudia tanto <strong>la</strong> finalidad posible <strong>de</strong><br />
los datos así como <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>terminación <strong>de</strong> responsables <strong>de</strong>l tratamiento <strong>de</strong> datos a los organizadores y a <strong>la</strong>s<br />
autorida<strong>de</strong>s, así como el alcance <strong>de</strong> su responsabilidad. También se fija el régimen <strong>de</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos<br />
aplicable y <strong>la</strong>s medidas <strong>de</strong> seguridad y <strong>de</strong>strucción <strong>de</strong> ficheros aplicables.<br />
pAlAbrAs clAve: Iniciativa legis<strong>la</strong>tiva popu<strong>la</strong>r, Iniciativa Ciudadana Europea, Democracia electrónica,<br />
internet, protección <strong>de</strong> datos personales, Unión Europea. 1<br />
1. aProximación a una normatiVa muy innoVadora<br />
1.1. origen e interés <strong>de</strong> una normativa innovadora mundialmente<br />
El 11 <strong>de</strong> junio <strong>de</strong> 2003 nació <strong>la</strong> iniciativa ciudadana europea (en a<strong>de</strong><strong>la</strong>nte ICE) al ser<br />
aceptada por <strong>la</strong> Presi<strong>de</strong>ncia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Convención constitucional 2 . La ICE no se reconoció como<br />
1 www.cotino.es Coordinador <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Red www.<strong>de</strong>rechotics.com. El presente escrito se realiza en el marco<br />
<strong>de</strong>l Proyecto I+D+I <strong>de</strong>l MICNIN, “Las liberta<strong>de</strong>s informativas en el contexto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> web 2.0 y <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s<br />
sociales: re<strong>de</strong>finición, garantías y límites”, (DER2009-14519-C05-01/JURI) <strong>de</strong>l que es investigador<br />
principal. El presente estudio es una síntesis <strong>de</strong>l más amplio estudio Cotino Hueso, L. (2011), “El Reg<strong>la</strong>mento<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Iniciativa Ciudadana Europea <strong>de</strong> 2011. Su especial regu<strong>la</strong>ción <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> recogida <strong>de</strong> apoyos<br />
vía internet y <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos <strong>de</strong> los ciudadanos”, en Revista <strong>de</strong> Derecho Político, nº 81, 2011.<br />
2 Se aceptó <strong>la</strong> enmienda <strong>de</strong> adición al –entonces- artículo 46 propuesta por Jürgen Meyer y <strong>otros</strong> setenta<br />
y siete miembros <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Convención constitucional Así lo recuerda Auer, A. (2005), “European
448 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
un <strong>de</strong>recho subjetivo en el texto <strong>de</strong>l artículo 47. 4º <strong>de</strong>l malogrado texto <strong>de</strong>l Tratado <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Constitucion<br />
europea. El artículo 47. 4º pasó a los nuevos tratados. Su contenido material quedó<br />
en el artículo 11. 4º <strong>de</strong>l Tratado <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión Europea (TUE) 3 . Y el artículo 24 <strong>de</strong>l Tratado<br />
<strong>de</strong> Funcionamiento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión Europea (antiguo artículo 21 TCE) seña<strong>la</strong> que el <strong>de</strong>sarrollo<br />
normativo había <strong>de</strong> ser vía Reg<strong>la</strong>mento aprobado por el Par<strong>la</strong>mento Europeo y el Consejo.<br />
Estas disposiciones entraron en vigor <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> 2009 con el Tratado <strong>de</strong> Lisboa <strong>de</strong> 3 <strong>de</strong> diciembre<br />
<strong>de</strong> 2007. Tras <strong>la</strong> solicitud <strong>de</strong>l Par<strong>la</strong>mento <strong>de</strong> que se llevara a cabo <strong>la</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción, <strong>la</strong> Comisión<br />
Europea adoptó el Libro Ver<strong>de</strong> sobre una Iniciativa Ciudadana Europea, CoM(2009) 622, <strong>de</strong><br />
11 <strong>de</strong> noviembre <strong>de</strong> 2009 4 . A partir <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s opiniones recabadas en <strong>la</strong> consulta, <strong>la</strong> Comisión<br />
adoptó el 31 <strong>de</strong> marzo <strong>de</strong> 2010 <strong>la</strong> Propuesta <strong>de</strong> Reg<strong>la</strong>mento en su Comunicación CoM(2010)<br />
119 final 5 . Tras diversos dictámenes 6 y un ágil proceso par<strong>la</strong>mentario 7 se aprobó el finalmente<br />
el Reg<strong>la</strong>mento (UE) nº 211/2011 <strong>de</strong>l Par<strong>la</strong>mento Europeo y <strong>de</strong>l Consejo, <strong>de</strong> 16 <strong>de</strong> febrero <strong>de</strong><br />
2011, sobre <strong>la</strong> iniciativa ciudadana europea, publicado el 11 <strong>de</strong> marzo <strong>de</strong> 2011 8 , en a<strong>de</strong><strong>la</strong>nte<br />
Reg<strong>la</strong>mento ICE. El mismo “se aplicará a partir <strong>de</strong>l 1 <strong>de</strong> abril <strong>de</strong> 2012” (art. 23). Para su aplicación<br />
efectiva se requiere un <strong>de</strong>sarrollo <strong>de</strong> normas y especificaciones técnicas, así como <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
puesta a disposición <strong>de</strong> un soporte tecnológico <strong>de</strong> recogida <strong>de</strong> firmas por parte <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comisión,<br />
que <strong>de</strong>be realizarlo “A más tardar el 1 <strong>de</strong> enero <strong>de</strong> 2012” (Art. 6).<br />
Se trata, pues, <strong>de</strong> un texto aprobado con sorpren<strong>de</strong>nte rapi<strong>de</strong>z y consenso por los actores<br />
legis<strong>la</strong>tivos, máxime teniendo en cuenta que se regu<strong>la</strong> una materia que toca el nervio<br />
político <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión.<br />
Citizens’ Initiative”, en European Constitutional Law Review , n. 1, pp. 79-84. p. 85.acceso completo<br />
http://goo.gl/3uItx<br />
3 Re<strong>la</strong>tivo a <strong>la</strong>s “Disposiciones sobre los principios <strong>de</strong>mocráticos”:<br />
“4. Un grupo <strong>de</strong> al menos un millón <strong>de</strong> ciudadanos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión, que sean nacionales <strong>de</strong> un número<br />
significativo <strong>de</strong> Estados miembros, podrá tomar <strong>la</strong> iniciativa <strong>de</strong> invitar a <strong>la</strong> Comisión Europea, en el<br />
marco <strong>de</strong> sus atribuciones, a que presente una propuesta a<strong>de</strong>cuada sobre cuestiones que estos ciudadanos<br />
estimen que requieren un acto jurídico <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión <strong>para</strong> los fines <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> aplicación <strong>de</strong> los Tratados.”<br />
4 Acceso (acortado) en http://goo.gl/SWql2<br />
5 Comisión Europea, Propuesta <strong>de</strong> Reg<strong>la</strong>mento <strong>de</strong>l Par<strong>la</strong>mento Europeo y <strong>de</strong>l Consejo regu<strong>la</strong>dor <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> iniciativa<br />
ciudadana, Bruse<strong>la</strong>s, 31.3.2010 CoM(2010) 119 final. http://goo.gl/k6iCl en concreto, p. 2.<br />
6 Comité Económico y Social Europeo(2010). Dictamen <strong>de</strong>l Comité Económico y Social Europeo sobre<br />
<strong>la</strong> “Propuesta <strong>de</strong> Reg<strong>la</strong>mento <strong>de</strong>l Par<strong>la</strong>mento Europeo y <strong>de</strong>l Consejo regu<strong>la</strong>dor <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> iniciativa<br />
ciudadana”COM(2010) 119 final - 2010/0074 (COD), abril, http://goo.gl/M6W8o<br />
Comité <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s Regiones (2010). Dictamen <strong>de</strong>l Comité <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s Regiones sobre <strong>la</strong> iniciativa ciudadana<br />
europea (Ponente general: Anne-Marie Sigmund), 1.10.2010 Diario oficial <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión Europea C<br />
267/57. http://goo.gl/LMhwn<br />
SEPD (2010), Dictamen <strong>de</strong>l Supervisor Europeo <strong>de</strong> Protección <strong>de</strong> Datos sobre <strong>la</strong> propuesta <strong>de</strong> Reg<strong>la</strong>mento<br />
<strong>de</strong>l Par<strong>la</strong>mento Europeo y <strong>de</strong>l Consejo regu<strong>la</strong>dor <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> iniciativa ciudadana. Diario oficial <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión<br />
Europea 30.11.2010, 2010/C 323/01. http://goo.gl/SNSd7<br />
7 El iter par<strong>la</strong>mentario pue<strong>de</strong> seguirse en http://goo.gl/Lo0Yi<br />
8 Diario Oficial <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión Europea L 65/1. Acceso acortado http://goo.gl/akUYA
<strong>la</strong> Iniciativa Ciudadana europea electrónica<br />
449<br />
Como recuerda <strong>la</strong> Comisión en su Propuesta inicial <strong>de</strong> Reg<strong>la</strong>mento, <strong>la</strong> iniciativa ciudadana<br />
es un procedimiento <strong>para</strong> introducir <strong>de</strong>terminadas cuestiones en el or<strong>de</strong>n <strong>de</strong>l día<br />
<strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>bates públicos [… que] obligará […] a dar una respuesta meditada a <strong>la</strong>s peticiones<br />
formu<strong>la</strong>das” 9 . Asimismo, como seña<strong>la</strong> el Comité Económico y Social10 , “<strong>la</strong> iniciativa ciudadana<br />
no sólo representa un elemento innovador y transnacional <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>mocracia directa, sino<br />
también un medio <strong>de</strong> comunicación esencial <strong>para</strong> vivificar el <strong>de</strong>bate político europeo. Es el<br />
único medio <strong>de</strong> integrar en el discurso europeo propuestas e i<strong>de</strong>as <strong>de</strong> lo más diverso que <strong>de</strong><br />
otro modo nunca llegarían a <strong>la</strong> fase <strong>de</strong> recogida <strong>de</strong> firmas, lo cual constituye un valor en sí<br />
mismo.” A juicio <strong>de</strong> Allegri se trata <strong>de</strong> “una <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s últimas oportunida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>para</strong> compartir y<br />
dar más c<strong>red</strong>ibilidad al proceso <strong>de</strong> integración continental” 11 .<br />
Coincido con Cuesta cuando afirma que “<strong>de</strong>bemos evitar <strong>la</strong>s altas expectativas sobre<br />
el potencial <strong>de</strong>mocrático” 12 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> ICE. Lo cierto es que el paso se ha dado y parece haberse<br />
hecho <strong>para</strong> tomarse en serio y ejercerse en <strong>la</strong> práctica. El potencial está ahí y serán ciudadanos<br />
y grupos y luego <strong>la</strong>s instituciones comunitarias quienes acaben perfi<strong>la</strong>ndo en qué<br />
queda.<br />
La ICE es singu<strong>la</strong>rmente innovadora, <strong>de</strong> un <strong>la</strong>do, por cuanto se proyecta una institución<br />
complementaria a <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>mocracia representativa <strong>para</strong> el ámbito supranacional <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
Unión Europea, como recuerda Warleigh, algo sin prece<strong>de</strong>ntes en <strong>la</strong> historia <strong>de</strong>l Derecho<br />
internacional13 . Del otro <strong>la</strong>do, <strong>la</strong> ICE es novedosa por cuanto está concebida <strong>para</strong> internet.<br />
La ICE será electrónica o no será. Se ha regu<strong>la</strong>do esencial y estructuralmente pensando en <strong>la</strong><br />
suma <strong>de</strong> apoyos a través <strong>de</strong> nuevas tecnologías e internet. De igual modo, se han tenido en<br />
cuenta los principales riesgos que <strong>de</strong> ello <strong>de</strong>rivan, como lo es <strong>la</strong> seguridad y <strong>la</strong> protección<br />
<strong>de</strong> datos.<br />
1.2. elementos básicos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción y fases <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> iniciativa ciudadana europea<br />
Respecto <strong>de</strong>l diseño <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> ICE y sus fases, telégráficamente cabe seña<strong>la</strong>r que <strong>de</strong> forma<br />
previa <strong>de</strong>be ac<strong>red</strong>itarse el sistema <strong>de</strong> recogida <strong>de</strong> apoyos vía página web ante autorida<strong>de</strong>s<br />
nacionales. Asimismo, <strong>la</strong> ICE se ha p<strong>la</strong>nteado en cuatro etapas: (una) registro formal <strong>de</strong> una<br />
9 Comisión Europea, Propuesta <strong>de</strong> Reg<strong>la</strong>mento… cit., p. 2.<br />
10 Comité Económico y Social Europeo(2010). Dictamen …cit.apartado 3.1.1.<br />
11 Ibí<strong>de</strong>m, p. 12.<br />
12 Cuesta López, V. (2010). The Lisbon Treaty’s Provision on Democratic Principles: A Legal Framework for<br />
Partecipatory Democracy, in European Public Law, 16, n. 1, pp, 123-138, en concreto sobre <strong>la</strong> ICE, pp.<br />
136-138, cita <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> p. 136. Acceso completo en<strong>la</strong>ce acortado http://goo.gl/rPMXa<br />
13 Warleigh, A. (2007) .“on the Path to Legitimacy? A Critical Deliberativist Perspective on the<br />
Right to the Citizens’ Initiative”, en Governance and Civil Society in the European Union: Normative<br />
Perspectives (vol. 1), eds C. Ruzza y Del<strong>la</strong> Sa<strong>la</strong>, Manchester, Manchester University Press, pp. 55-72,<br />
p. 64.
450 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
iniciativa 14 ; (dos) fase <strong>de</strong> recepción <strong>de</strong> los apoyos ciudadanos exigidos 15 ; (tres) examen <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
suficiencia <strong>de</strong> los apoyos válidos por <strong>la</strong>s autorida<strong>de</strong>s nacionales y su certificación a <strong>la</strong> Comisión<br />
Europea y (cuatro), finalmente, evaluación política <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s iniciativas que prosperen 16 .<br />
Como consecuencia y en su caso, <strong>la</strong> iniciativa podrá articu<strong>la</strong>rse a través <strong>de</strong> una propuesta<br />
legis<strong>la</strong>tiva <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comisión y su ulterior tramitación legis<strong>la</strong>tiva.<br />
2. sistemas <strong>de</strong> recogida <strong>de</strong> aPoyos VÍa web y su ac<strong>red</strong>itación Por<br />
los estados<br />
2.1. el <strong>de</strong>sarrollo <strong>de</strong> p<strong>la</strong>taformas a partir <strong>de</strong> normas y programas <strong>de</strong> código abierto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
comisión<br />
En España, <strong>la</strong> posibilidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> recogida <strong>de</strong> firmas y apoyos por medios electrónicos<br />
<strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> 2006 se regu<strong>la</strong> en el artículo 7. 4º Ley orgánica 3/1984 17 y en <strong>la</strong> Ley 1/2006 cata<strong>la</strong>na<br />
(Disp. Ad. 1) 18 . También en <strong>la</strong> (recurrida ante el Tribunal Constitucional) Ley cata<strong>la</strong>na<br />
4/2010, <strong>de</strong> 17 <strong>de</strong> marzo, <strong>de</strong> consultas popu<strong>la</strong>res por vía <strong>de</strong> referéndum 19 . Sin embargo y a<br />
14 También antes <strong>de</strong> cualquier recogida <strong>de</strong> apoyos se crea el comité <strong>de</strong> ciudadanos promotor que se ha<br />
<strong>de</strong> registrar ante <strong>la</strong> Comisión <strong>la</strong> propuesta. El registro pue<strong>de</strong> ser rechazado por no contar con los requisitos<br />
formales; así como por ser “manifiestamente abusiva, frívo<strong>la</strong> o temeraria” o “manifiestamente<br />
contraria a los valores <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión establecidos en el artículo 2 <strong>de</strong>l TUE” (art. 4. 2). Como pue<strong>de</strong><br />
apreciarse por su tenor, se trata <strong>de</strong> parámetros bastante discrecionales que posibilitan filtro <strong>de</strong> naturaleza<br />
casi política. Ello no obsta a que se trate <strong>de</strong> conceptos jurídicos fiscalizables. Así, si <strong>la</strong> Comisión<br />
rechaza un registro caben los “recursos judiciales y extrajudiciales” oportunos (art. 4), ante el Defensor<br />
<strong>de</strong>l Pueblo Europeo por ma<strong>la</strong> administración o ante los tribunales <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión.<br />
15 Una vez se ha practicado el registro, el comité <strong>de</strong> ciudadanos tiene doce meses <strong>para</strong> recoger apoyos<br />
que luego habrán <strong>de</strong> ser verificados y certificados por <strong>la</strong>s autorida<strong>de</strong>s nacionales (art.5). El quórum<br />
exigido es <strong>de</strong> un millón <strong>de</strong> ciudadanos con capacidad <strong>para</strong> votar en elecciones al Par<strong>la</strong>mento Europeo<br />
(art. 3. 4º) que procedan <strong>de</strong>, por lo menos, un cuarto <strong>de</strong> los Estados miembros (arts. 1 y 7). Hay un<br />
número mínimo <strong>de</strong> firmas por Estado fijado en el Anexo I (en el caso <strong>de</strong> España, 37.500).<br />
16 Una vez verificado dicho quórum, los promotores presentan <strong>la</strong> iniciativa ciudadana a <strong>la</strong> Comisión,<br />
así como información sobre <strong>la</strong>s ayudas y <strong>la</strong> financiación que se hayan recibido a efectos <strong>de</strong> transparencia<br />
(art. 9). Tras <strong>la</strong> recepción, <strong>la</strong> Comisión recibe a los organizadores. A<strong>de</strong>más, se pue<strong>de</strong> organizar<br />
audiencia pública <strong>de</strong> los organizadores en el Par<strong>la</strong>mento Europeo (Art. 11). Des<strong>de</strong> que se recibe <strong>la</strong> iniciativa,<br />
<strong>la</strong> Comisión tiene tres meses <strong>para</strong> adoptar una Comunicación con sus conclusiones jurídicas<br />
y políticas y medidas a adoptar (art. 10). Sobre estas bases y <strong>de</strong> consi<strong>de</strong>rarse políticamente oportuno,<br />
continúa en su caso el procedimiento legis<strong>la</strong>tivo.<br />
17 Artículo 7. 4º: “Las firmas se podrán recoger también como firma electrónica conforme a lo que<br />
establezca <strong>la</strong> legis<strong>la</strong>ción correspondiente.”<br />
18 Disp. Ad. 1ª “Firma electrónica en <strong>la</strong> presentación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> iniciativa”: “El Gobierno, <strong>para</strong> facilitar <strong>la</strong><br />
firma electrónica en <strong>la</strong> presentación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> iniciativa legis<strong>la</strong>tiva popu<strong>la</strong>r, <strong>de</strong>be dictar <strong>la</strong>s instrucciones<br />
pertinentes <strong>para</strong> garantizar <strong>la</strong> eficacia y seguridad <strong>de</strong> este medio teleinformático.”<br />
19 En el Título V, los artículos 56-59. Pese a una amplia regu<strong>la</strong>ción, ésta es muy vaga.
<strong>la</strong> Iniciativa Ciudadana europea electrónica<br />
451<br />
diferencia <strong>de</strong>l Reg<strong>la</strong>mento ICE, estas regu<strong>la</strong>ciones ni dotan ni impulsan un marco jurídico<br />
y técnico <strong>para</strong> hacer realidad electrónica <strong>la</strong> iniciativa legis<strong>la</strong>tiva. Al menos hasta ahora, no<br />
hay convicción, conocimiento ni voluntad <strong>de</strong> hacerlo. En cualquier caso <strong>la</strong> Junta Electoral<br />
Central, una vez visto el Informe <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> oficina <strong>de</strong>l Censo Electoral 20 , ha validado una p<strong>la</strong>taforma<br />
<strong>de</strong> recogida <strong>de</strong> firmas electrónicas a través <strong>de</strong>l DNI electrónico por Acuerdo <strong>de</strong> 28<br />
<strong>de</strong> enero <strong>de</strong> 2010 21 . No obstante, el interés político que motivó aquel<strong>la</strong> p<strong>la</strong>taforma <strong>de</strong>cayó y<br />
no ha llegado a emplearse.<br />
A diferencia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s normas españo<strong>la</strong>s, <strong>la</strong> ICE ha regu<strong>la</strong>do <strong>la</strong>recogida <strong>de</strong> apoyos vía web<br />
como elemento estructural. Así, <strong>la</strong> recogida <strong>de</strong> apoyos a una ICE pue<strong>de</strong> realizarse por los<br />
medios clásicos “en papel” y electrónicamente (art. 5 Reg<strong>la</strong>mento ICE). Y el mo<strong>de</strong>lo que se<br />
preten<strong>de</strong> es que <strong>la</strong> Comisión Europea “a más tardar el 1 <strong>de</strong> enero <strong>de</strong> 2012” (art. 6), “aprobará<br />
especificaciones técnicas” (art. 6. 5º) y “establecerá y mantendrá” (art. 6. 2º) programas <strong>de</strong><br />
código abierto y gratuitos que cump<strong>la</strong>n los requisitos técnicos y <strong>de</strong> seguridad fijados.<br />
No se trata <strong>de</strong> que <strong>la</strong> Comisión ponga a disposición una p<strong>la</strong>taforma centralizada <strong>de</strong> recogida<br />
<strong>de</strong> firmas, sino que ha <strong>de</strong> poner a disposición gratuita <strong>la</strong> materia prima y e<strong>la</strong>borada <strong>para</strong> por<br />
medio <strong>de</strong> programas informáticos <strong>de</strong> código abierto, open source,software libre. A mi juicio, se<br />
justifica particu<strong>la</strong>rmente <strong>la</strong> exigencia <strong>de</strong> que se <strong>la</strong>ncen y mantengan soportes <strong>de</strong> código abierto,<br />
ya por <strong>la</strong> mayor transparencia en un asunto <strong>de</strong> esta naturaleza política, así como <strong>para</strong> fomentar<br />
el control 22 , <strong>la</strong> creación y ree<strong>la</strong>boración <strong>de</strong> p<strong>la</strong>taformas <strong>de</strong> recogida <strong>de</strong> apoyos por <strong>la</strong> sociedad<br />
civil, los grupos y organizaciones, así como los po<strong>de</strong>res públicos que quieran implicarse. Cabe<br />
<strong>la</strong> posibilidad <strong>de</strong> que a partir <strong>de</strong> estos programas puestos a disposición por <strong>la</strong> Comisión se <strong>de</strong>sarrollen<br />
p<strong>la</strong>taformas <strong>de</strong> recogida <strong>de</strong> firma por parte <strong>de</strong> iniciativas públicas a través <strong>de</strong> proyectos 23<br />
o por parte <strong>de</strong> iniciativas privadas. En todo caso, también es pensable que <strong>la</strong> ciudadanía 2.0,<br />
implicada en <strong>la</strong> i<strong>de</strong>a co<strong>la</strong>borativa y participativa <strong>de</strong>sarrol<strong>la</strong>rá y mejorará <strong>la</strong>s aplicaciones <strong>para</strong><br />
poner<strong>la</strong>s a disposición <strong>de</strong> promotores <strong>de</strong> ICE. Cabe pensar que estas p<strong>la</strong>taformas <strong>de</strong> recogida<br />
<strong>de</strong> apoyos vía web serán genéricamente ac<strong>red</strong>itables por cumplir <strong>la</strong>s exigencias, si bien <strong>para</strong><br />
cada concreta ICE requerirán <strong>la</strong> certificación concreta que exige el Reg<strong>la</strong>mento ICE.<br />
20 El informe <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> oficina <strong>de</strong>l Censo Electoral se libra a partir <strong>de</strong> los trabajos <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Universidad <strong>de</strong><br />
Murcia. El contenido <strong>de</strong>l informe viene a reflejarse en <strong>la</strong> comunicación <strong>de</strong>l Subdirector General <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
oficina, Viedma Lozano, J. L. (2010), “Experiencia <strong>de</strong> uso <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> firma electrónica en <strong>la</strong> recogida <strong>de</strong><br />
firmas <strong>de</strong> Iniciativas legis<strong>la</strong>tivas popu<strong>la</strong>res”, comunicación al TecniMAP 2010, XI Jornadas sobre Tecnologías<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Información <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> Mo<strong>de</strong>rnización <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s Administraciones Públicas, acceso completo<br />
en http://goo.gl/jKQfG<br />
21 En<strong>la</strong>ce acortado en http://goo.gl/8N4D0<br />
22 En este sentido, cabe recordar el artículo 45. 2º <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> españo<strong>la</strong> Ley 11/2007 “podrán ser <strong>de</strong>c<strong>la</strong>radas<br />
fuentes abiertas, cuando <strong>de</strong> ello se <strong>de</strong>rive una mayor transparencia en el funcionamiento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Administración<br />
Pública o se fomente <strong>la</strong> incorporación <strong>de</strong> los ciudadanos a <strong>la</strong> Sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información”.<br />
23 Cabe recordar que en España el sistema <strong>de</strong> recogida <strong>de</strong> firmas validado por <strong>la</strong> Junta Electoral parte<br />
<strong>de</strong> un proyecto en <strong>la</strong> Universidad <strong>de</strong> Murcia auspiciado por el Gobierno regional, con motivo <strong>de</strong> una<br />
iniciativa política.
452 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
Aunque habrá que esperar acontecimientos, no es <strong>de</strong>scartable que una p<strong>la</strong>taforma <strong>de</strong>sarrol<strong>la</strong>da<br />
a partir <strong>de</strong>l software <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comisión, establezca sus propias condiciones <strong>de</strong> uso. Y<br />
tales requisitos quizá que<strong>de</strong>n vincu<strong>la</strong>dos al sentido o finalidad política <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> ICE concreta <strong>de</strong><br />
que se trate o <strong>de</strong> quiénes sean sus promotores. Que tales tratos diferentes sean discriminatorios<br />
o no <strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>rá <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> naturaleza pública o privada <strong>de</strong>l sujeto que los realice y el medio y<br />
modo empleados. Y <strong>para</strong> resolver algunos <strong>de</strong> estos posibles problemas <strong>la</strong> normativa “técnica”<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comisión podría imponer en sus condiciones que los <strong>de</strong>sarrol<strong>la</strong>dores <strong>de</strong> sistemas <strong>de</strong><br />
recogida <strong>de</strong> apoyos vía web no puedan imponer condiciones <strong>de</strong> naturaleza política a los<br />
promotores <strong>de</strong> ICE que quieran emplear <strong>la</strong>s p<strong>la</strong>taformas.<br />
2.2. requisitos <strong>de</strong> los apoyos y <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> p<strong>la</strong>taforma <strong>de</strong> recogida<br />
Los firmantes <strong>de</strong> una ICE han <strong>de</strong> ser ciudadanos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión Europea con capacidad<br />
<strong>para</strong> votar en elecciones al Par<strong>la</strong>mento Europeo (art. 3. 4º); habrá <strong>de</strong> verificarse <strong>la</strong> i<strong>de</strong>ntidad<br />
<strong>de</strong>l firmante y su capacidad. Asimismo, el ciudadano al momento <strong>de</strong> apoyar ha <strong>de</strong> afirmar<br />
que “solo ha apoyado una vez con su firma <strong>la</strong> presente iniciativa ciudadana propuesta. 24 ” Por<br />
cualquier vía que se <strong>de</strong>n los apoyos <strong>de</strong>ben seguirse los mo<strong>de</strong>los aprobados como anexo III.<br />
A<strong>de</strong>más <strong>de</strong> los requisitos generales, los “sistemas <strong>de</strong> recogida <strong>de</strong> firmas a través <strong>de</strong> una página<br />
web habrán <strong>de</strong> garantizar (art. 6. 4º): que solo <strong>la</strong>s personas físicas puedan apoyar una IDP;<br />
<strong>la</strong> seguridad y garantía <strong>de</strong> los datos y a<strong>de</strong>cuación a <strong>la</strong> finalidad, no <strong>de</strong>strucción o ataques,<br />
pérdida o alteraciones y que se ajuste al formu<strong>la</strong>rio y datos que establece el Anexo III.<br />
Ya respecto <strong>de</strong>apoyos recogidos por sistemas web, el Anexo III erróneamente llega a afirmar<br />
que habrá apoyos recabados electrónicamente “sin firma electrónica” 25 . Debe enten<strong>de</strong>rse que serán<br />
sin firma electrónica avanzada, puesto que en cualquier caso algún tipo <strong>de</strong> firma electrónica<br />
es necesario <strong>para</strong> po<strong>de</strong>r garantizar <strong>la</strong> autenticidad <strong>de</strong>l apoyo <strong>de</strong>l firmante vía web 26 . La cuestión<br />
resi<strong>de</strong>, pues, en qué tipo <strong>de</strong> firma electrónica será requerida <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> recepción <strong>de</strong> apoyos vía web.<br />
2.3. el tipo <strong>de</strong> firma electrónica requerida, el posible uso <strong>de</strong> sistemas poco robusto y el<br />
anonimato o el seudónimo electrónico<br />
En España, pese haber más <strong>de</strong> 21 millones expedidos el nivel <strong>de</strong> usabilidad <strong>de</strong>l e-DNI y<br />
<strong>de</strong> utilización por <strong>la</strong> ciudadanía es muy mejorable 27 . Por ello, consi<strong>de</strong>ro que hay que estar abier-<br />
24 Así en virtud <strong>de</strong>l Anexo III <strong>de</strong> seguimiento obligatorio.<br />
25 Se afirma que “(4) Firma no obligatoria cuando el formu<strong>la</strong>rio se presente en formato electrónico sin<br />
firma electrónica.”<br />
26 Sin ser lugar <strong>de</strong> entrar a concreciones técnicas que aquí no competen, una firma electrónica pue<strong>de</strong> ser<br />
básica, avanzada, y avanzada con certificado <strong>de</strong> creación <strong>de</strong> firma reconocido.<br />
27 Se trata <strong>de</strong> una afirmación, <strong>de</strong> un <strong>la</strong>do, sobre <strong>la</strong> propia experiencia personal y como apoyo, pue<strong>de</strong><br />
seguirse el Estudio <strong>de</strong>l CIS nº 2.794, Barómetro <strong>de</strong> marzo <strong>de</strong> 2009 sobre <strong>la</strong> e-administración, en<strong>la</strong>ce<br />
acortado http://goo.gl/IIAni. Del mismo se <strong>de</strong>riva que <strong>la</strong> complicación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> e-administración es<br />
una barrera (<strong>para</strong> un 10%- 14,5% <strong>de</strong> los encuestados ) así como <strong>la</strong> necesidad <strong>de</strong> tener i<strong>de</strong>ntificación
<strong>la</strong> Iniciativa Ciudadana europea electrónica<br />
453<br />
tos a sistemas <strong>de</strong> e-firma <strong>para</strong> los apoyos vía web más accesibles y usables por <strong>la</strong> ciudadanía, con<br />
los que están mucho más familiarizados. Podrían admitirse, por ejemplo, apoyos electrónicos<br />
a través sistema <strong>de</strong> c<strong>la</strong>ves concertadas que por seguridad podrían generarse al momento y tener<br />
sólo vali<strong>de</strong>z temporal. Los operadores <strong>de</strong> telecomunicaciones bien podrían co<strong>la</strong>borar como<br />
intermediarios en <strong>la</strong> autenticación sus usuarios. También pue<strong>de</strong>n utilizarse sistemas <strong>de</strong> token,<br />
dispositivos físicos o electrónicos que pue<strong>de</strong>n incluso remitirse al or<strong>de</strong>nador o teléfono móvil y<br />
que permiten una i<strong>de</strong>ntificación que pue<strong>de</strong> ser muy robusta. Jurídicamente no hay problemas<br />
<strong>para</strong> admitir firmas menos robustas, con apoyo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> normativa europea y españo<strong>la</strong> 28 . Y en<br />
<strong>la</strong> pon<strong>de</strong>ración <strong>para</strong> admitir los distintos medios <strong>de</strong> i<strong>de</strong>ntificación, <strong>para</strong> una ICE el nivel <strong>de</strong><br />
seguridad necesario no <strong>de</strong>be consi<strong>de</strong>rarse ni alto ni medio 29 . Asimismo, estos sistemas menos<br />
exigentes técnicamente facilitarían que <strong>para</strong> una misma ICE se utilice una misma p<strong>la</strong>taformas<br />
<strong>de</strong> recogida <strong>de</strong> apoyos, lo cual es una finalidad <strong>de</strong>l Reg<strong>la</strong>mento ICE 30 , un sistema <strong>de</strong> recogida<br />
<strong>de</strong> apoyos, homogéneo en su uso e interoperable en los distintos Estados <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión.<br />
Asimismo no hay que <strong>de</strong>scartar <strong>la</strong>s posibilida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> que el apoyo electrónico a una<br />
iniciativa ciudadana europea sea anónimo o seudónimo. Para una ICE que requiere esencialmente<br />
saber que <strong>la</strong> apoya un ciudadano con <strong>de</strong>recho a votar en el Par<strong>la</strong>mento europeo. Y<br />
tecnológicamente se pue<strong>de</strong> verificar plenamente que una persona con <strong>de</strong>recho a hacerlo ha<br />
apoyado una ICE con un medio <strong>de</strong> i<strong>de</strong>ntificación válido y vigente, pero sin que sea necesario<br />
conocer su i<strong>de</strong>ntidad. La normativa <strong>de</strong> firma electrónica lo permite 31 y habría que inclinarse<br />
hacia estos sistemas en razón <strong>de</strong>l principio <strong>de</strong> pertinencia <strong>de</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos y <strong>de</strong> minorar<br />
barreras y riesgos <strong>de</strong> una ICE en <strong>la</strong> ciudadanía. Esta opción daría mayor seguridad<br />
a los ciudadanos, puesto que su apoyo a una ICE no permitiría a los organizadores o a <strong>la</strong>s<br />
autorida<strong>de</strong>s conocer su nombre y apellidos, por ejemplo. Lamentablemente, los <strong>de</strong>spropor-<br />
electrónica (6%- 10%). Con unos 14 millones expedidos al momento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> encuesta, un 30% no lo<br />
conocen y un 70% sabe que sirve <strong>para</strong> interactuar con <strong>la</strong> Administración. De entre los que lo tienen,<br />
sólo lo han utilizado un 4,4% y <strong>de</strong> entre ellos, <strong>la</strong> mayoría no recuerda <strong>para</strong> qué (NS-NC 40%).<br />
28 <strong>la</strong> Directiva 1999/93/CE <strong>de</strong> firma electrónica (art. 5) y <strong>la</strong> Ley 59/2003 españo<strong>la</strong> (art. 3) no excluyen<br />
conferir valor jurídico a diversos sistemas <strong>de</strong> firma electrónica no reconocida. Y <strong>para</strong> concreto ámbito<br />
<strong>de</strong> los po<strong>de</strong>res públicos Ley 11/2007 da cobertura al uso <strong>de</strong> “<strong>otros</strong> medios <strong>de</strong> firma electrónica” (art.<br />
16) tras una evaluación <strong>de</strong> riesgos que exige el principio <strong>de</strong> proporcionalidad <strong>de</strong>l artículo 4 g)<br />
29 Así lo consi<strong>de</strong>ro puesto que: <strong>la</strong> ICE sólo influye en <strong>la</strong> apertura <strong>de</strong> un proceso <strong>de</strong>cisional; hasta <strong>la</strong> fecha, en muchos<br />
países como España han sido muy escasas <strong>la</strong>s exigencias en <strong>la</strong> verificación <strong>de</strong> i<strong>de</strong>ntidad <strong>de</strong> los firmantes; el mismo<br />
Reg<strong>la</strong>mento ICE no establece una rigurosa verificación <strong>de</strong> firmas excluyendo <strong>la</strong> necesidad <strong>de</strong> autenticación.<br />
30 El Reg<strong>la</strong>mento preten<strong>de</strong> “utilizar un único sistema <strong>de</strong> recogida a través <strong>de</strong> páginas web con el fin <strong>de</strong><br />
recoger <strong>de</strong>c<strong>la</strong>raciones <strong>de</strong> apoyo en varios o en todos los Estados miembros” (art. 6. 1º).<br />
31 En esta dirección cabe recordar que <strong>la</strong> Directiva 1999/93/CE <strong>de</strong> firma electrónica cuando regu<strong>la</strong> <strong>la</strong> protección<br />
<strong>de</strong> datos en su artículo 8, en su apartado 3º prevé que el certificado consigne “un seudónimo <strong>de</strong>l<br />
firmante en lugar <strong>de</strong> su verda<strong>de</strong>ro nombre”. De ahí que <strong>la</strong> Ley 59/2003, <strong>de</strong> firma electrónica , permite<br />
<strong>la</strong> i<strong>de</strong>ntificación <strong>de</strong>l firmante a través <strong>de</strong> un seudónimo. En particu<strong>la</strong>r lo dispuesto en el artículo 11.<br />
2º respecto <strong>de</strong> requisitos <strong>de</strong> los certificados reconocidos. Tales certificados incluirán “La i<strong>de</strong>ntificación<br />
<strong>de</strong>l firmante, en el supuesto <strong>de</strong> personas físicas, por su nombre y apellidos y su número <strong>de</strong> documento<br />
nacional <strong>de</strong> i<strong>de</strong>ntidad o a través <strong>de</strong> un seudónimo que conste como tal <strong>de</strong> manera inequívoca”.
454 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
cionados datos requeridos por el Reg<strong>la</strong>mento ICE aun en el caso <strong>de</strong> utilizarse documentos<br />
<strong>de</strong> i<strong>de</strong>ntidad dificultan estas posibilida<strong>de</strong>s, pero no hay que <strong>de</strong>sconocer<strong>la</strong>s.<br />
2.4. <strong>la</strong> ac<strong>red</strong>itación por autoridad competente <strong>de</strong> un estado <strong>de</strong> los ciudadanos que<br />
aun sistema <strong>de</strong> recogida <strong>de</strong> apoyos y el obligatorio reconocimiento por los <strong>de</strong>más<br />
estados<br />
Quienes organizan <strong>la</strong> ICE, y antes <strong>de</strong> recabar cualquier apoyo, tienen que conseguir<br />
<strong>la</strong> ac<strong>red</strong>itación <strong>de</strong>l sistema <strong>de</strong> recogida <strong>de</strong> apoyos que se libra por <strong>la</strong> “autoridad competente”<br />
<strong>de</strong>l Estado miembro; y habrán <strong>de</strong> exhibir<strong>la</strong> en <strong>la</strong> web (art. 6. 2º Reg<strong>la</strong>mento ICE). En<br />
España habrá <strong>de</strong> ser <strong>la</strong> Junta Electoral Central en razón <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> legis<strong>la</strong>ción 32 , que a<strong>de</strong>más, es el<br />
órgano que ya ha validado una p<strong>la</strong>taforma <strong>de</strong> firma electrónica, según se ha expuesto. Ahora<br />
bien, según el Reg<strong>la</strong>mento ICE, <strong>la</strong> autoridad estatal también <strong>de</strong>be ac<strong>red</strong>itar que los datos<br />
<strong>de</strong> los ciudadanos que apoyan al ICE vía web son “recogidos y almacenados con seguridad”<br />
<strong>para</strong> evitar usos distintos, <strong>de</strong>strucciones, alteraciones, difusiones o accesos no autorizados<br />
(art. 6.4º b). Y <strong>para</strong> ello <strong>la</strong> Agencia Españo<strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> Protección <strong>de</strong> Datos parece <strong>la</strong> institución<br />
natural. Por tanto, no sería <strong>de</strong>scartableque se <strong>de</strong>signase a <strong>la</strong> Junta Electoral <strong>de</strong> cara a <strong>la</strong> Unión<br />
Europea, si bien se regu<strong>la</strong>se internamente un procedimiento que exija <strong>la</strong> coparticipación <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> Agencia Españo<strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> Protección <strong>de</strong> Datos.<br />
Como se ha a<strong>de</strong><strong>la</strong>ntado, lo que se preten<strong>de</strong> es “utilizar un único sistema <strong>de</strong> recogida a<br />
través <strong>de</strong> páginas web con el fin <strong>de</strong> recoger <strong>de</strong>c<strong>la</strong>raciones <strong>de</strong> apoyo en varios o en todos los<br />
Estados miembros” (art. 6. 1º). Y una vez obtenida <strong>la</strong> ac<strong>red</strong>itación en un Estado, podrán<br />
recogerse apoyos con dicho sistema en los <strong>de</strong>más Estados miembros, puesto que <strong>la</strong> ac<strong>red</strong>itación<br />
<strong>de</strong> un sistema <strong>de</strong> apoyos vía web por un Estado ha <strong>de</strong> ser reconocida por <strong>la</strong>s autorida<strong>de</strong>s<br />
<strong>de</strong> los <strong>otros</strong> Estados miembros (art. 6. 3º). A mi juicio, pue<strong>de</strong> adivinarse una futura ten<strong>de</strong>ncia<br />
a minorar <strong>la</strong>s exigencias técnicas <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s p<strong>la</strong>taformas <strong>de</strong> apoyos, puesto que aprovechará<br />
que existan Estados más benévolos en otorgar <strong>la</strong> ac<strong>red</strong>itación que luego ha <strong>de</strong> ser reconocida<br />
por los <strong>de</strong>más Estados.<br />
3. <strong>la</strong> Presentación y Verificación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s concretas firmas y<br />
aPoyos recibidos Por una ice<br />
El artículo 8 <strong>de</strong>l Reg<strong>la</strong>mento ICE regu<strong>la</strong> <strong>la</strong> “Verificación y certificación por parte <strong>de</strong><br />
los Estados miembros <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s <strong>de</strong>c<strong>la</strong>raciones <strong>de</strong> apoyo” recibidas por una ICE. Esto no hay<br />
que confundirlo con <strong>la</strong> ac<strong>red</strong>itación <strong>de</strong>l sistema web <strong>de</strong> recogida <strong>de</strong> firmas, que se acaba <strong>de</strong><br />
32 En razón <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> lógica <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> legis<strong>la</strong>ción electoral y más en concreto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Ley orgánica 3/1984, puesto<br />
en virtud <strong>de</strong>l artículo 7. 1º “<strong>la</strong> Junta Electoral Central […] garantizará <strong>la</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ridad <strong>de</strong>l procedimiento<br />
<strong>de</strong> recogida <strong>de</strong> firmas. Asímismo, en razón <strong>de</strong>l artículo 12 “1. Una vez remitidos los pliegos<br />
a <strong>la</strong> Junta Electoral Central, esta proce<strong>de</strong>rá a su comprobación y recuento <strong>de</strong>finitivos.” Y 3º “… <strong>la</strong><br />
Junta Electoral Central elevará al Congreso <strong>de</strong> los Diputados certificación ac<strong>red</strong>itativa <strong>de</strong>l número <strong>de</strong><br />
firmas.”
<strong>la</strong> Iniciativa Ciudadana europea electrónica<br />
455<br />
analizar. Des<strong>de</strong> el inicial Libro Ver<strong>de</strong> se tuvo en cuenta <strong>la</strong> grave disparidad <strong>de</strong> los Estados al<br />
exigir requisitos rigurosos o <strong>la</strong>xos en <strong>la</strong> verificación <strong>de</strong> electores y <strong>de</strong> su firma <strong>de</strong> iniciativas<br />
legis<strong>la</strong>tivas. Y se consi<strong>de</strong>raba que lo “más racional” sería “fijar una serie <strong>de</strong> disposiciones básicas<br />
a esca<strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión Europea” con <strong>la</strong> finalidad <strong>de</strong> “facilitar el proceso <strong>de</strong> recogida y <strong>de</strong><br />
eliminar aquellos requisitos que sean in<strong>de</strong>bidamente restrictivos” 33 .<br />
Pues bien, según el Reg<strong>la</strong>mento ICE, los organizadores, cuando consi<strong>de</strong>ren que han<br />
reunido los apoyos, han <strong>de</strong> presentarlos “al Estado miembro <strong>de</strong> resi<strong>de</strong>ncia o <strong>de</strong> nacionalidad<br />
<strong>de</strong>l firmante” o “al Estado miembro que haya expedido el número <strong>de</strong> i<strong>de</strong>ntificación personal<br />
o el documento <strong>de</strong> i<strong>de</strong>ntificación personal facilitado” (art. 8. 1 a) y b) Reg<strong>la</strong>mento ICE). Tal<br />
“presentación” <strong>de</strong> apoyos electrónicos bien podría ser por medio <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> entrega <strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong> soportes<br />
físicos informáticos con los datos verificables a través <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s oportunas aplicaciones. Los<br />
organizadores también podrían hacer <strong>la</strong> “presentación” facilitando a <strong>la</strong> autoridad nacional el<br />
acceso electrónico a los sistemas <strong>de</strong> recogida <strong>de</strong> apoyos vía web empleados y <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> el sistema<br />
<strong>la</strong>s autorida<strong>de</strong>s realizaran <strong>la</strong> verificación <strong>de</strong> los apoyos recibidos.<br />
Cabe consi<strong>de</strong>rar que <strong>la</strong> autoridad nacional competente en España habrá <strong>de</strong> ser <strong>la</strong> Junta<br />
Electoral 34 . Respecto <strong>de</strong> qué tienen que hacer <strong>la</strong>s autorida<strong>de</strong>s nacionales <strong>para</strong> certificar los<br />
apoyos que ha recibido una ICE, el artículo 8. 2º <strong>de</strong>l Reg<strong>la</strong>mento ICE sólo indica que lo<br />
harán “mediante controles oportunos […] <strong>de</strong> conformidad con <strong>la</strong> legis<strong>la</strong>ción y prácticas<br />
nacionales, según proceda” y en razón <strong>de</strong> una enmienda en el Par<strong>la</strong>mento Europeo 35 , se<br />
añadió que “no se requerirá <strong>la</strong> autenticación <strong>de</strong> firmas” (art. 8. 2º). Por ello, no serán directamente<br />
aplicables en España los artículos 9 y 10 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Ley orgánica 3/1984 re<strong>la</strong>tivos a <strong>la</strong><br />
autenticación. Todo sea dicho, estos preceptos tampoco exigen una seguridad muy elevada 36 .<br />
En cons<strong>de</strong>cuencia, será suficiente con una “comprobación” genérica por <strong>la</strong> Junta Electoral a<br />
<strong>la</strong> que hace referencia el artículo 12 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Ley orgánica 3/1984 37 . En el Consi<strong>de</strong>rando 18<br />
33 Comisión Europea (2009), Libro Ver<strong>de</strong>… cit. p. 8, apartado 5.<br />
34 Ello por <strong>la</strong>s competencias en materia <strong>de</strong> iniciativa legis<strong>la</strong>tiva popu<strong>la</strong>r antes seña<strong>la</strong>das; por sus competencias<br />
generales <strong>de</strong>l artículo 19 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Ley orgánica 5/1985, <strong>de</strong> 19 <strong>de</strong> junio, <strong>de</strong>l Régimen Electoral<br />
General, como por su facultad <strong>de</strong> dirigir y supervisar <strong>la</strong> actuación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> oficina <strong>de</strong>l Censo Electoral<br />
que es quien e<strong>la</strong>bora y revisa el censo electoral (art 29 <strong>de</strong> esta Ley) que incluye a los ciudadanos con<br />
<strong>de</strong>recho a presentar una ICE.<br />
35 Se trató <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Enmienda nº 50 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s presentadas por <strong>la</strong> Comisión <strong>de</strong> Asuntos Constitucionales.<br />
36 Todo sea dicho, el sistema <strong>de</strong> “autenticación” <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Ley no es <strong>de</strong> una elevada seguridad. Así, en virtud<br />
<strong>de</strong>l artículo 9 “firma <strong>de</strong>berá ser autenticada por un Notario, por un Secretario Judicial o por el<br />
Secretario municipal”, si bien “podrá ser colectiva, pliego por pliego. En este caso, junto a <strong>la</strong> fecha<br />
<strong>de</strong>berá consignarse el número <strong>de</strong> firmas contenidas en el pliego.” Es más, el artículo 10 admite el<br />
sistema por el que “<strong>la</strong>s firmas podrán también ser autenticadas por fedatarios especiales <strong>de</strong>signados<br />
por <strong>la</strong> Comisión Promotora” que “juren o prometan ante <strong>la</strong>s Juntas Electorales provinciales dar fe <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> autenticidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s firmas <strong>de</strong> los signatarios <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> proposición <strong>de</strong> Ley”. Todo ello bajo penas por<br />
falsedad.<br />
37 Artículo 12. Presentación, comprobación y recuento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s firmas: “1. Una vez remitidos los pliegos<br />
a <strong>la</strong> Junta Electoral Central, esta proce<strong>de</strong>rá a su comprobación y recuento <strong>de</strong>finitivos. 2. Las firmas<br />
que no reúnan los requisitos exigidos en esta Ley se <strong>de</strong>c<strong>la</strong>rarán inválidas y no serán computadas. 3.
456 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
<strong>de</strong>l Reg<strong>la</strong>mento se explica que los controles “pue<strong>de</strong>n basarse en muestreos aleatorios”, algo<br />
que aparece ya en <strong>la</strong> propuesta <strong>de</strong> Reg<strong>la</strong>mento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Comisiónporque “es el sistema <strong>de</strong> verificación<br />
utilizado por <strong>la</strong> mayor parte <strong>de</strong> los Estados miembros en el caso <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s iniciativas<br />
presentadas por sus ciudadanos” 38 .<br />
Será lógico que los “controles oportunos” a realizar sean diferentes según se trate <strong>de</strong><br />
verificar firmas en papel, firmas electrónicas con certificado reconocido y los apoyos vía web<br />
sin firma avanzada o reconocida en España. Y como punto <strong>de</strong> partida, los apoyos electrónicos<br />
a una ICE cuentan con más seguridad <strong>de</strong> ser auténticos, ciertos y no duplicados, a <strong>la</strong><br />
vez <strong>de</strong> que son susceptibles <strong>de</strong> mejor, mayor y más sencillo control que los apoyos en papel.<br />
Todo ello, c<strong>la</strong>ro está, a salvo <strong>de</strong> que se <strong>de</strong>tectaran riesgos informáticos ciertos a <strong>la</strong> luz <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
experiencia.<br />
En esta fase <strong>de</strong> verificación <strong>de</strong> apoyos por <strong>la</strong> autoridad nacional quizá se emergan discrepancias<br />
y disfunciones respecto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> p<strong>la</strong>taforma <strong>de</strong> apoyos vía web. Cabe recordar que el<br />
Estado que ha <strong>de</strong> verificar los apoyos recibidos pue<strong>de</strong> haberse visto obligado a admitir un sistema<br />
<strong>de</strong> recogida <strong>de</strong> apoyos ac<strong>red</strong>itado en otro país <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión Europea. Y en el momento<br />
<strong>de</strong> reconocer los conc<strong>retos</strong> apoyos ciudadanos se atenga a su legis<strong>la</strong>ción y práctica nacionales<br />
negar <strong>la</strong> vali<strong>de</strong>z <strong>de</strong> los apoyos vía web. A mi juicio <strong>la</strong> remisión a <strong>la</strong> legis<strong>la</strong>ción y práctica nacionales<br />
<strong>de</strong>l artículo 8. 2º no permite negar <strong>la</strong> vali<strong>de</strong>z a los apoyos recabados con un sistema<br />
web ac<strong>red</strong>itado en un Estado miembro.<br />
Una vez verificados los apoyos por <strong>la</strong> autoridad nacional, se expedirá antes <strong>de</strong> tres meses<br />
el certificado <strong>de</strong>l número <strong>de</strong> firmas recabadas. Dicho certificado será gratuito y conforme al<br />
mo<strong>de</strong>lo <strong>de</strong>l Anexo VI <strong>de</strong>l Reg<strong>la</strong>mento (art. 8. 2º y 3º). Los certificados <strong>de</strong> los diferentes países<br />
se remiten luego a <strong>la</strong> Comisión <strong>para</strong> comprobar que se cumplen los requisitos y quórum<br />
exigidos. Para el SEPD este sistema es el mejor por evitar que <strong>la</strong> Comisión Europea concentre<br />
y disponga <strong>de</strong> los datos <strong>de</strong> los firmantes, pues sólo recibe los respectivos certificados<br />
nacionales <strong>de</strong> los apoyos recibidos. 39<br />
4. el rÉgimen <strong>de</strong> Protección <strong>de</strong> datos <strong>de</strong> los aPoyos ciudadanos<br />
Para que <strong>la</strong> ICE tenga éxito en el futuro uno <strong>de</strong> los elementos c<strong>la</strong>ve es <strong>la</strong> confianza<br />
<strong>de</strong> los ciudadanos europeos en el tratamiento <strong>de</strong> los datos personales que vayan a hacer los<br />
organizadores <strong>de</strong> una ICE y <strong>la</strong>s autorida<strong>de</strong>s nacionales, así como <strong>la</strong>s garantías <strong>de</strong> seguridad.<br />
Aunque cada vez parece importar menos a <strong>la</strong> ciudadanía retratarse políticamente en <strong>la</strong>s re-<br />
Comprobado el cumplimiento <strong>de</strong> los requisitos exigidos <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> válida presentación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> proposición,<br />
<strong>la</strong> Junta Electoral Central elevará al Congreso <strong>de</strong> los Diputados certificación ac<strong>red</strong>itativa <strong>de</strong>l número<br />
<strong>de</strong> firmas válidas y proce<strong>de</strong>rá a <strong>de</strong>struir los pliegos <strong>de</strong> firmas que obren en su po<strong>de</strong>r.”<br />
38 Comisión Europea(2010), Propuesta <strong>de</strong> Reg<strong>la</strong>mento … cit. p. 7, apartado 3.8 en comentario al artículo<br />
9.<br />
39 SEPD (2010), Dictamen <strong>de</strong>l Supervisor… cit. nº 21.
<strong>la</strong> Iniciativa Ciudadana europea electrónica<br />
457<br />
<strong>de</strong>s sociales, <strong>la</strong> falta <strong>de</strong> confianza podría <strong>la</strong>strar el futuro <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> ICE. De ahí que el temor a<br />
posibles manipu<strong>la</strong>ciones o frau<strong>de</strong>s políticos por cuanto al número y vali<strong>de</strong>z <strong>de</strong> los apoyos<br />
que recibe una ICE, no es tan importante como el miedo a <strong>la</strong> fuga o <strong>de</strong>svío <strong>de</strong> datos <strong>de</strong> los<br />
ciudadanos. Y el Reg<strong>la</strong>mento ICE da una respuesta estructural a esta cuestión. No en vano,<br />
pue<strong>de</strong> verse como una norma sobre protección <strong>de</strong> datos, al regu<strong>la</strong>rse el sistema <strong>de</strong> recogida<br />
<strong>de</strong> datos, los datos que pue<strong>de</strong>n ser recogidos y por quién, <strong>la</strong> responsabilidad que asumen<br />
quienes tratan estos datos, el régimen general aplicable, el nivel <strong>de</strong> seguridad que proce<strong>de</strong>, así<br />
como <strong>la</strong>s exigencias <strong>de</strong> conservación y <strong>de</strong>strucción <strong>de</strong> tales datos. A mi juicio <strong>la</strong> regu<strong>la</strong>ción<br />
es positiva en general. Amén <strong>de</strong> diversas mejoras técnicas, <strong>la</strong> crítica fundamental es re<strong>la</strong>tiva a<br />
los <strong>de</strong>sproporcionados datos que los ciudadanos <strong>de</strong>ben facilitar <strong>para</strong> apoyar una iniciativa y<br />
<strong>la</strong> no previsión <strong>de</strong>l posible apoyo electrónico anónimo o seudónimo a una ICE.<br />
4.1. los <strong>de</strong>sproporcionados datos que los ciudadanos <strong>de</strong>ben facilitar <strong>para</strong> apoyar una iniciativa<br />
El artículo 5. 3º seña<strong>la</strong> que “únicamente” se podrán requerir los datos <strong>de</strong>l formu<strong>la</strong>rio<br />
<strong>de</strong>l Anexo III. Y cabe seña<strong>la</strong>r que hay nueve países que no exigen <strong>la</strong> facilitación <strong>de</strong> un<br />
número <strong>de</strong> i<strong>de</strong>ntificación o <strong>de</strong> documento personal 40 <strong>para</strong> apoyar una ICE y los restantes<br />
diecinueve Estados miembros –España incluida– que sí que exigen tal i<strong>de</strong>ntificación 41 . Para<br />
España se trata <strong>de</strong>l Documento Nacional <strong>de</strong> I<strong>de</strong>ntidad o <strong>de</strong>l Pasaporte.<br />
Pues bien, lo censurable es que en los países don<strong>de</strong> se exige el número <strong>de</strong> documento <strong>de</strong><br />
i<strong>de</strong>ntidad, se siguen requiriendo datos que sólo tienen sentido <strong>para</strong> los países que no exigen documento<br />
<strong>de</strong> i<strong>de</strong>ntidad. Así, <strong>para</strong> todos los países se requieren datos <strong>de</strong> nombre y apellidos; “calle,<br />
número, código postal, ciudad y país” o “dirección”;fecha y lugar <strong>de</strong> nacimiento y nacionalidad.<br />
Asimismo, se requiere <strong>la</strong> firma, salvo “cuando el formu<strong>la</strong>rio se presente en formato electrónico sin<br />
firma electrónica.” Inicialmente <strong>la</strong> Comisión incluyó también el correo electrónico, pero luego<br />
fue consi<strong>de</strong>rado excesivo por el SEPD y no aparece en <strong>la</strong> versión final aprobada 42 .<br />
Para el caso <strong>de</strong> los países en los que se requiere el número <strong>de</strong> i<strong>de</strong>ntificación, como España,<br />
los datos requeridos son <strong>de</strong>sproporcionados y no tiene sentido solicitar domicilio, fecha<br />
y lugar <strong>de</strong> nacimiento. Se pi<strong>de</strong>n muchos más datos que <strong>para</strong> iniciativa legis<strong>la</strong>tiva popu<strong>la</strong>r<br />
en España 43 . “[S]e exigen <strong>de</strong> modo innecesario diversos datos personales, lo que sin duda<br />
dificulta <strong>la</strong> p<strong>red</strong>isposición a firmar” 44 .<br />
40 Países que no exigen i<strong>de</strong>ntificación –aunque con matices en cada caso–: Bélgica, Dinamarca, Alemania,<br />
Estonia, Ir<strong>la</strong>nda, Países Bajos, Eslovaquia, Fin<strong>la</strong>ndia y Reino Unido.<br />
41 Países que sí exigen i<strong>de</strong>ntificación: Bulgaria, República Checa, Grecia, España, Francia, Italia, Chipre,<br />
Letonia, Lituania, Luxemburgo, Hungría, Malta, Austria, Polonia, Portugal, Rumanía, Eslovenia, y<br />
Suecia<br />
42 SEPD (2010), Dictamen <strong>de</strong>l Supervisor… cit. nº 9.<br />
43 Sólo se exige firma, nombre y apellidos, número <strong>de</strong>l DNI y municipio en cuyas listas electorales se<br />
halle inscrito” (art. 9. 1º Ley orgánica 3/1984).<br />
44 Comité Económico y Social Europeo (2010). Dictamen … cit. Apartado “3.2.1 Números <strong>de</strong> i<strong>de</strong>ntificación”.
458 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
4.2. <strong>la</strong> finalidad exclusiva <strong>de</strong> los datos <strong>de</strong> los ciudadanos<br />
Los datos <strong>de</strong> quienes apoyan una ICE única y exclusivamente son <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> “verificación<br />
y certificación <strong>de</strong>l número <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>c<strong>la</strong>raciones válidas <strong>de</strong> apoyo recibidas <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> [concreta] iniciativa<br />
ciudadana propuesta” 45 . Ello se expresa en diversas ocasiones en el Reg<strong>la</strong>mento (arts.<br />
4. 2º b); 6. 4º b); 12. 3º y 4º; Anexo III y Consi<strong>de</strong>rando 13º), disposiciones que fueron<br />
especialmente reforzadas por el Par<strong>la</strong>mento Europeo. En consecuencia, los organizadores no<br />
pue<strong>de</strong>n aprovechar los datos <strong>de</strong> quienes apoyan <strong>la</strong> ICE <strong>para</strong>informar posteriormente <strong>de</strong> iniciativas<br />
o activida<strong>de</strong>s políticas afines posteriores o <strong>para</strong> requerir un nuevo apoyo a otra IDP<br />
futura o hacer cualquier tipo <strong>de</strong> mailing, incluso en el caso <strong>de</strong> que <strong>la</strong>s direcciones postales<br />
hubieran sido se<strong>para</strong>das <strong>de</strong> los nombres <strong>de</strong> los ciudadanos.<br />
Sin perjuicio <strong>de</strong> lo anterior, sí que consi<strong>de</strong>ro posible <strong>la</strong> utilización <strong>de</strong> los datos conveniente<br />
y proporcionalmente anonimizados 46 <strong>para</strong> fines estadísticos. Así siguiendo <strong>la</strong> Directiva<br />
95/46/CE <strong>de</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos y su transposición españo<strong>la</strong> (art. 6. 1º b Directiva<br />
95/46/CE y artículo 4. 2º LoPD.<br />
4.3. <strong>la</strong> fijación <strong>de</strong> los responsables <strong>de</strong>l tratamiento y el alcance <strong>de</strong> su responsabilidad<br />
El Reg<strong>la</strong>mento ICE fija como responsables <strong>de</strong>l tratamiento <strong>de</strong> datos a “los organizadores<br />
<strong>de</strong> una iniciativa ciudadana y <strong>la</strong>s autorida<strong>de</strong>s competentes” <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> verificación y certificación<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s <strong>de</strong>c<strong>la</strong>raciones <strong>de</strong> apoyo (art. 12. 2º) 47 . Con este precepto se “evita toda duda<br />
respecto a quién <strong>de</strong>be ser consi<strong>de</strong>rado responsable <strong>de</strong>l tratamiento” 48 . Asimismo, “Los organizadores<br />
serán responsables <strong>de</strong> los posibles daños que causen con motivo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> organización<br />
<strong>de</strong> una iniciativa ciudadana <strong>de</strong> acuerdo con el Derecho nacional aplicable” (art. 13). Es más,<br />
se refuerza <strong>la</strong> i<strong>de</strong>a en el artículo 14 49 que dispone que “Los Estados miembros se asegurarán<br />
<strong>de</strong> que los organizadores sean sometidos a <strong>la</strong>s sanciones a<strong>de</strong>cuadas por toda infracción <strong>de</strong>l<br />
presente Reg<strong>la</strong>mento y, en particu<strong>la</strong>r, por […] <strong>la</strong> utilización fraudulenta <strong>de</strong> datos”, siendo<br />
que <strong>la</strong>s sanciones habrán <strong>de</strong> ser “efectivas, proporcionadas y disuasorias”. Y <strong>de</strong>be añadirse<br />
que los organizadores también asumen todas <strong>la</strong>s exigencias que implica ser “responsable <strong>de</strong><br />
tratamiento” en el ámbito <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> normativa europea y nacional.<br />
De igual modo, <strong>la</strong>s responsabilida<strong>de</strong>s no sólo serán por “daños”, sino por cualquier ilícito ya<br />
sea <strong>de</strong>l or<strong>de</strong>n civil, administrativo, penal, etc. en razón <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s respectivas legis<strong>la</strong>ciones aplicables.<br />
Igualmente <strong>la</strong>s autorida<strong>de</strong>s nacionales habrán <strong>de</strong> hacer frente a <strong>la</strong>s correspondientes<br />
responsabilida<strong>de</strong>s civiles, administrativas, patrimoniales y penales que se fijen en su caso<br />
45 Se aprovecha el texto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Dec<strong>la</strong>ración <strong>de</strong> privacidad <strong>de</strong>l Anexo III.<br />
46 Así por ejemplo cabría eliminar el número <strong>de</strong> i<strong>de</strong>ntificación si lo hay, nombre y apellidos, <strong>la</strong> calle y el<br />
número (no el código postal, ciudad o país).<br />
47 El artículo 12. 2º hab<strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s autorida<strong>de</strong>s “<strong>de</strong>signadas con arreglo al artículo 15, apartado 2”, que son,<br />
en razón <strong>de</strong>l artículo 8, <strong>la</strong>s autorida<strong>de</strong>s responsables <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> verificación y certificación <strong>de</strong> firmas y apoyos.<br />
48 Í<strong>de</strong>m.<br />
49 En <strong>la</strong> misma resolución <strong>de</strong>l Par<strong>la</strong>mento Europeo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> nota previa.
<strong>la</strong> Iniciativa Ciudadana europea electrónica<br />
como responsables <strong>de</strong> tratamiento <strong>de</strong> datos. Y ello aunque en el Reg<strong>la</strong>mento sólo se haga<br />
referencia a los organizadores, posiblemente, <strong>para</strong> no herir sensibilida<strong>de</strong>s Estatales.<br />
4.4. el régimen <strong>de</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos aplicable<br />
Como queda c<strong>la</strong>ro en el Reg<strong>la</strong>mento ICE, <strong>la</strong> recogida <strong>de</strong> apoyos <strong>para</strong> una ICE y su<br />
verificación y certificación son tratamientos <strong>de</strong> datos personales, por ello es “plenamente<br />
aplicable” 50 el régimen <strong>de</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos personales tal y como expresa el artículo 12.<br />
1º <strong>de</strong>l Reg<strong>la</strong>mento. El Reg<strong>la</strong>mento ICE supone una regu<strong>la</strong>ción específica <strong>de</strong> protección <strong>de</strong><br />
datos que se superpone e integra con <strong>la</strong>s normas nacionales y europeas <strong>de</strong> protección <strong>de</strong><br />
datos aplicables.<br />
La <strong>de</strong>terminación <strong>de</strong>l Derecho <strong>de</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos aplicable y qué autorida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong><br />
protección <strong>de</strong> datos son <strong>la</strong>s competentes no es <strong>de</strong>l todo sencil<strong>la</strong>. El supuesto general51 será<br />
que los organizadores <strong>de</strong> una ICE sólo hayan <strong>de</strong> someterse a una legis<strong>la</strong>ción nacional <strong>de</strong><br />
protección <strong>de</strong> datos por utilizarse en los diversos Estados un único sistema <strong>de</strong> recogidas <strong>de</strong><br />
apoyos web <strong>para</strong> una ICE (art. 6. 1º). Y sólo será una normativa <strong>la</strong> aplicable puesto que “los<br />
datos obtenidos a través <strong>de</strong>l sistema <strong>de</strong> recogida a través <strong>de</strong> páginas web se almacenarán en el<br />
territorio <strong>de</strong> un Estado miembro” (art. 6. 1º Reg<strong>la</strong>mento ICE). En consecuencia el lugar <strong>de</strong><br />
almacenamiento se tomará <strong>para</strong> <strong>de</strong>terminar <strong>la</strong> competencia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> autoridad <strong>de</strong> protección <strong>de</strong><br />
datos y <strong>la</strong> ley aplicable. Y podría generarse <strong>de</strong> forma natural una ten<strong>de</strong>ncia a radicar <strong>la</strong> recogida<br />
<strong>de</strong> apoyos web <strong>de</strong> una ICE en Estados <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión Europea don<strong>de</strong>, si bien se cumplen<br />
los mínimos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Directiva 95/46/CE, <strong>la</strong>s exigencias sean menores. Hay que enten<strong>de</strong>r que<br />
no será posible que los datos se alberguen fuera <strong>de</strong>l territorio <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión.<br />
Los responsables <strong>de</strong>l tratamiento <strong>de</strong> datos habrán <strong>de</strong> seguir <strong>la</strong>s exigencias <strong>de</strong> protección<br />
<strong>de</strong> datos. Y <strong>la</strong>s autorida<strong>de</strong>s nacionales competentes <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> verificación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s <strong>de</strong>c<strong>la</strong>raciones<br />
<strong>de</strong> apoyo (en España <strong>la</strong> Junta Electoral) se consi<strong>de</strong>rarán responsables <strong>de</strong>l tratamiento<br />
<strong>de</strong> datos (art. 12. 2º <strong>de</strong>l Reg<strong>la</strong>mento ICE) y tendrán que seguir <strong>la</strong>s particu<strong>la</strong>res<br />
exigencias <strong>de</strong> los ficheros públicos previstas en <strong>la</strong> LoPD y normas <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>sarrollo. En este<br />
sentido, antes <strong>de</strong> que se promuevan concretas ICE <strong>la</strong> Junta Electoral<strong>de</strong>bería crear, publicar<br />
y registrar un fichero <strong>de</strong>l sistema <strong>de</strong> gestión <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> verificación <strong>de</strong> apoyos recibidos <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong>s<br />
ICEs que se promuevan. Si lo hace <strong>de</strong>spués <strong>de</strong> que se promueva una ICE y le presenten<br />
los apoyos, no le dará tiempo a crear, registrar y publicar el fichero. Cabe recordar que<br />
<strong>la</strong> notificación e inscripción registral <strong>de</strong> ficheros públicos en España, es diferente <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
“ac<strong>red</strong>itación” <strong>de</strong>l concreto sistema <strong>de</strong> recogida datos a través <strong>de</strong> páginas web que exige el<br />
artículo 6 <strong>de</strong>l Reg<strong>la</strong>mento ICE.<br />
459<br />
50 Consi<strong>de</strong>rando nº 22 <strong>de</strong>l Reg<strong>la</strong>mento.<br />
51 No será así en los casos <strong>de</strong> utilización <strong>de</strong> diversas p<strong>la</strong>taformas <strong>de</strong> recogida <strong>de</strong> apoyos web en diversos<br />
Estados. Ahí don<strong>de</strong> se almacenen los datos, regirá <strong>la</strong> ley y autoridad correspondiente. Lo mismo suce<strong>de</strong><br />
don<strong>de</strong> se recojan apoyos y firmas en formato papel o a través <strong>de</strong> recogida <strong>de</strong> firmas electrónicas<br />
avanzadas que no sea a través <strong>de</strong> sistema web.
460 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
4.5. <strong>la</strong>s exigencias <strong>de</strong> seguridad y <strong>de</strong>strucción <strong>de</strong> ficheros según el reg<strong>la</strong>mento ice y el<br />
alto nivel <strong>de</strong> seguridad exigido por tratarse <strong>de</strong> datos i<strong>de</strong>ológicos<br />
El Reg<strong>la</strong>mento ICE contiene disposiciones sobre requisitos <strong>de</strong> seguridad necesarios <strong>de</strong><br />
los ficheros. Así, en razón <strong>de</strong> los artículos 6. 4º b) y 12. 6º <strong>de</strong>ben garantizarse los datos frente<br />
a <strong>de</strong>strucciones, pérdidas, o alteraciones acci<strong>de</strong>ntales o ilícitas, <strong>la</strong> difusión o acceso sin autorización.<br />
Y como se seña<strong>la</strong> en concreto en el artículo 12. 6º <strong>de</strong>ben garantizarse los datos “en particu<strong>la</strong>r<br />
cuando el tratamiento implique <strong>la</strong> transmisión <strong>de</strong> datos <strong>de</strong>ntro <strong>de</strong> una <strong>red</strong>”, como será<br />
el caso <strong>de</strong> los sistemas <strong>de</strong> recogida <strong>de</strong> apoyos vía web. En buena medida estos requisitos que<br />
exige el Reg<strong>la</strong>mento ICE van <strong>de</strong> suyo en <strong>la</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos <strong>de</strong> nivel alto exigida en España<br />
por <strong>la</strong> normativa. Y es los datos <strong>de</strong> los ciudadanos que apoyan una ICE, así como los <strong>de</strong> sus<br />
organizadores, son “categorías especiales <strong>de</strong> datos por cuanto reve<strong>la</strong>n “<strong>la</strong>s opiniones políticas,<br />
<strong>la</strong>s convicciones religiosas o filosóficas” (art. 8 Directiva 95/46/CE). Y <strong>la</strong> consecuencia <strong>de</strong> ello<br />
más importante es que tanto los organizadores cuanto <strong>la</strong>s autorida<strong>de</strong>s nacionales que <strong>de</strong>ben<br />
verificar <strong>la</strong>s firmas como responsables <strong>de</strong>l tratamiento <strong>de</strong>ben proteger los tatos con medidas <strong>de</strong><br />
seguridad <strong>de</strong> nivel alto. Se trata <strong>de</strong> exigencias <strong>de</strong> protección muy importantes –y necesarias– 52 .<br />
De hecho, po<strong>de</strong>r cumplir estas exigencias y <strong>la</strong>s fuertes sanciones –incluso penas– por su incumplimiento<br />
pue<strong>de</strong>n suponer <strong>de</strong> facto una barrera material <strong>para</strong> organizar una ICE. En este<br />
punto, cabe insistir en el posible fenómeno <strong>de</strong> dumping <strong>de</strong> protección <strong>de</strong> datos y <strong>la</strong> búsqueda<br />
<strong>de</strong> Estados refugio don<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> normativa y controles sean menos exigentes.<br />
El Reg<strong>la</strong>mento ICE en su artículo 12. 3º sí que ha previsto <strong>la</strong> concreta garantía <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
<strong>de</strong>strucción <strong>de</strong> “<strong>la</strong>s <strong>de</strong>c<strong>la</strong>raciones <strong>de</strong> apoyo a esa iniciativa recibidas y todas sus copias” por los<br />
organizadores “como muy tar<strong>de</strong>” o un mes <strong>de</strong>spués <strong>de</strong> que se haya logrado <strong>la</strong> ac<strong>red</strong>itación por<br />
<strong>la</strong> Autoridad estatal <strong>de</strong>l número <strong>de</strong> firmas recabadas en virtud <strong>de</strong>l artículo 9 y tal ac<strong>red</strong>itación<br />
haya sido remitida a <strong>la</strong> Comisión Europea. o dieciocho meses <strong>de</strong>spués <strong>de</strong>l registro <strong>de</strong> una ICE<br />
ante <strong>la</strong> Comisión Europea 53 . Y en el caso <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> autoridad nacional competente que verifica<br />
y certifica al organizador los apoyos que ha recibido <strong>la</strong> ICE también ha <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>struir apoyos y<br />
copias “como muy tar<strong>de</strong>” <strong>de</strong>spués <strong>de</strong> un mes <strong>de</strong> emitir el certificado <strong>de</strong> apoyos (art. 12. 4º).<br />
La <strong>de</strong>strucción se llevará a cabo salvo que “fuera necesario <strong>para</strong> los procedimientos<br />
judiciales o administrativos en re<strong>la</strong>ción con una iniciativa ciudadana propuesta” y en todo<br />
caso, tras <strong>la</strong> conclusión <strong>de</strong> los mismos (art. 12. 5º). En principio, sólo se tratará <strong>de</strong> conflictos<br />
porque un Estado nacional no consi<strong>de</strong>rase verificados el número necesario <strong>de</strong> apoyos y los<br />
organizadores discre<strong>para</strong>n <strong>de</strong> tal <strong>de</strong>cisión 54 .<br />
52 Al respecto cabe remitir a los artículos 79-114 <strong>de</strong>l RLoPD y <strong>la</strong> Guía <strong>de</strong> Seguridad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> propia AEPD AEPD<br />
(2008). Guía <strong>de</strong> Seguridad <strong>de</strong> Datos, Madrid, disponible al completo en en<strong>la</strong>ce acortado http://goo.gl/eK6n1<br />
53 Cabe recordar al respecto, que <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> el registro <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> ICE por <strong>la</strong> Comisión hay doce meses como máximo<br />
<strong>para</strong> recabar apoyos (art. 5. 5º), por lo que, en su caso, habrá hasta seis meses más <strong>para</strong> <strong>de</strong>struir<br />
estos datos y apoyos.<br />
54 En principio, en España, no se daría el supuesto <strong>de</strong> que se impugnara <strong>la</strong> certificación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> autoridad<br />
<strong>de</strong> que sí que se reúnen los apoyos suficientes, puesto que muy dudosamente un tercero tendrá interés<br />
legítimo <strong>para</strong> recurrir tal <strong>de</strong>cisión.
<strong>la</strong> Iniciativa Ciudadana europea electrónica<br />
5. bibliografÍa seleccionada<br />
sobre <strong>la</strong> iniciativa legis<strong>la</strong>tiva europea en españa y europa<br />
461<br />
Cuesta López, V. M. (2007). “Participación directa e iniciativa legis<strong>la</strong>tiva <strong>de</strong>l ciudadano<br />
en <strong>de</strong>mocracia constitucional”, Tesis Doctoral Codirigida por López Agui<strong>la</strong>r, J. F.<br />
y Rodríguez-Drincourt, J. E., Las Palmas <strong>de</strong> Gran Canaria, acceso completo (en<strong>la</strong>ce<br />
acortado) http://goo.gl/oa8Vy / reserva en http://goo.gl/cVqqfLuego en (2008),<br />
Participación directa e iniciativa legis<strong>la</strong>tiva <strong>de</strong>l ciudadano en <strong>de</strong>mocracia constitucional,<br />
Aranzadi-Cívitas, Cizur Menor.<br />
Freixes Sanjuán, T. y Poptcheva, E. M. (2009). “Iniciativa legis<strong>la</strong>tiva popu<strong>la</strong>r: estudio<br />
com<strong>para</strong>tivo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> situación legal en los estados miembros <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión Europea y previsión<br />
<strong>de</strong> su futuro <strong>de</strong>sarrollo a nivel <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión Europea”. Pliegos <strong>de</strong> Yuste: Revista <strong>de</strong><br />
cultura y pensamiento europeos, nº 1, 9-10, 2009 (Ejemp<strong>la</strong>r <strong>de</strong>dicado a: La Europa <strong>de</strong><br />
los ciudadanos), pp. 37-46<br />
sobre <strong>la</strong> iniciativa ciudadana europea, en general, tras el proceso constitucional <strong>de</strong>stacan:<br />
Kohler-Koch B. y Rittberger B. (eds), (2007), Debating the Democratic Legitimacy of the<br />
European Union , Lanham, Rowman -Littlefield. acceso parcial en Google Books en<br />
http://goo.gl/BxpR1<br />
Kaufmann, B. y Dane, M. (2004). Direct Democracy in Europe, A Comprehensive Reference<br />
Gui<strong>de</strong> to the Initiative and Referendum Process in Europe, IRI (Initiative and Referendum<br />
Institut) Europe- Carolina Aca<strong>de</strong>mic Press. Ahí se hace un análisis <strong>de</strong> 32 países <strong>de</strong><br />
Europa, centrándose en el proceso constitucional y <strong>la</strong> Iniciativa Europea. Cabe acce<strong>de</strong>r<br />
al índice completo en http://www.cap-press.com/pdf/waters_fm.pdf<br />
Tibor Pállinger, Z., Kaufmann, B, Marxer, W. y Schiller, T (eds.). (2007). Direct<br />
<strong>de</strong>mocracy in Europe. Developments and Prospect, Ver<strong>la</strong>g fur Sozialwissenschtaten, Wiesba<strong>de</strong>n,<br />
acceso parcial en Google books, http://goo.gl/hlpqH<br />
Cuesta López, V. (2010). The Lisbon Treaty’s Provision on Democratic Principles: A Legal<br />
Framework for Partecipatory Democracy, in European Public Law, 16, n. 1, pp, 123-138,<br />
en concreto sobre <strong>la</strong> ICE, pp. 136-138. Acceso completo en<strong>la</strong>ce acortado http://goo.<br />
gl/rPMXa .<br />
Auer, A. (2005), “European Citizens’ Initiative”, en European Constitutional Law Review , n.<br />
1, pp. 79-84. p. 85.acceso completo http://goo.gl/3uItx<br />
Warleigh, A. (2007) .“on the Path to Legitimacy? A Critical Deliberativist Perspective on<br />
the Right to the Citizens’ Initiative”, en Governance and Civil Society in the European<br />
Union: Normative Perspectives (vol. 1), eds C. Ruzza y Del<strong>la</strong> Sa<strong>la</strong>, Manchester, Manchester<br />
University Press, pp. 55-72.<br />
Zicchittu, P. (2010), “Il diritto di iniziativa <strong>de</strong>i cittadini: un nuovo strumento di partecipazione<br />
all’interno <strong>de</strong>ll’Unione europea”, in Qua<strong>de</strong>rni costituzionali, n. 3, pp. 621-625.<br />
Acceso completo al mismo en el en<strong>la</strong>ce acortado http://goo.gl/JLCUw
462 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
Bova, C. (2010), Il diritto di iniziativa <strong>de</strong>i cittadini europei e i confermati limiti <strong>de</strong>ll’iniziativa<br />
legis<strong>la</strong>tiva italiana, pubblicato in rete presso il Forum di Qua<strong>de</strong>rni Costituzionali, En<strong>la</strong>ce<br />
acortado acceso completo http://goo.gl/a2y5G<br />
Jimena Quesada, L. (2004) “Los instrumentos <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>mocracia directa y <strong>la</strong> Constitución<br />
Europea”, en Garrido Mayol y Alvarez Con<strong>de</strong>, E. Coord.s. (2004) Comentarios a <strong>la</strong><br />
Constitución Europea. Vol. 1º (La Unión Europea, el Derecho <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión, competencias<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unión, <strong>la</strong>s instituciones, pp. 643-667.<br />
sobre el reg<strong>la</strong>mento <strong>de</strong> 2011, aún son muy escasas <strong>la</strong> publicaciones:<br />
Allegri, G. (2011). “Il rego<strong>la</strong>mento UE riguardante ‘l’iniziativa <strong>de</strong>i cittadini’. Note introduttive”,<br />
en Fe<strong>de</strong>ralismi.it, Rivista di diritto pubblico italiano, comunitario e com<strong>para</strong>to<br />
n. 7/2011., acceso a texto completo (acortado) http://goo.gl/IcJsQ .<br />
Gewessler, L. y Barba<strong>la</strong>ta, M. (coords.) (2010). Manual <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Iniciativa Ciudadana Europea.<br />
Guía sobre <strong>la</strong> primera herramienta mundial <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>mocracia directa transnacional,<br />
(trad. Martine Fernán<strong>de</strong>z), Green European Foundation- IRI (Initiative and Referendum<br />
Institut), Bélgica. Acceso completo en<strong>la</strong>ce acortado http://goo.gl/43XC5<br />
sobre liberta<strong>de</strong>s, participación y <strong>de</strong>mocracia electrónicas, a<strong>de</strong>más <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> IDP. Revista <strong>de</strong><br />
Internet, Derecho y Política <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> universitat oberta <strong>de</strong> catalunya, me permito seña<strong>la</strong>r<br />
<strong>la</strong>s distintas obras colectivas que contienen buena parte <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> doctrina en españa.<br />
Barrat i Esteve, J. y Fernán<strong>de</strong>z Riveira, R. Mª. (coord.), (2011). Derecho <strong>de</strong> Sufragio y<br />
Participación ciudadana a través <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s Nuevas Tecnologías, ARANZADI-Instituto <strong>de</strong><br />
Derecho Par<strong>la</strong>mentario Universidad Complutense, Cizur Menor, 2011.<br />
Revista Cata<strong>la</strong>na <strong>de</strong> Derecho Público (segunda etapa <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Revista “Autonomías”), monográfico<br />
sobre “<strong>la</strong> inci<strong>de</strong>ncia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s TIC en el Derecho público”, núm. 35, 2007<br />
Cotino Hueso, L., (coord.) (2006). Liberta<strong>de</strong>s, <strong>de</strong>mocracia y gobierno electrónicos, Comares<br />
(Colección Sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Información, nº 9), Granada, 18 autores.<br />
Cotino Hueso, L., (coord.) (2007). Democracia, participación y voto a través <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s nuevas<br />
tecnologías (Colección Sociedad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Informaciónº 13), Comares, Granada, 28 autores.<br />
Cotino Hueso, L. (ed.), (2007). Libertad en internet. La <strong>red</strong> y <strong>la</strong>s liberta<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> expresión e<br />
información, Tirant lo B<strong>la</strong>nch, Valencia.<br />
Cotino Hueso, L. (ed.), (2011). Liberta<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> expresión e información en Internet y <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s<br />
sociales: ejercicio, amenazas y garantías, PUV (Publicaciones <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Universidad <strong>de</strong><br />
Valencia), Valencia, 2011, 34 autores, acceso completo en<strong>la</strong>ce acortado http://goo.gl/<br />
CCHC9 .
26<br />
INstItUtIONAl trUst AND e-gOVerNmeNt ADOPtION<br />
IN tHe eU: A CrOss-NAtIONAl ANAlysIs<br />
Georgia Foteinou<br />
Department of Politics and International Re<strong>la</strong>tions. University of Oxford<br />
AbstrAct: It has been argued that e-government adoption <strong>la</strong>gs behind compa<strong>red</strong> to e-commerce and<br />
empirical research points out that Europeans are often unwilling or reluctant to engage to e-government.<br />
This paper adopts a neo-institutional perspective and attempts to shed light on some of the un<strong>de</strong>rlying<br />
factors of this behaviour by examining the political nature of e-government. More specifically, this<br />
research examines the role of institutional trust in e-government adoption while mapping the patterns<br />
of e-government adoption in the EU. Methodologically, sequential triangu<strong>la</strong>tion is the adopted method<br />
of study, and both a cross-national and a longitudinal analysis of the e-government adoption levels are<br />
performed. E-government and e-commerce usage levels are analysed in <strong>para</strong>llel in or<strong>de</strong>r to highlight the<br />
factors that lead in the observed differences. The analysis shows that e-government in Europe often follows<br />
<strong>para</strong>doxical adoption patterns that cannot be exp<strong>la</strong>ined by the existing, individual-level, studies. In<br />
contrast, this paper adopts a national-level perspective and it analyses technology adoption through the<br />
lenses of a neo-institutional theoretical framework. The research findings show that confi<strong>de</strong>nce in government<br />
and public institutions have a significant impact on citizens’ attitu<strong>de</strong>s towards e-government.<br />
Accordingly, the observed differences in the EU are, to a <strong>la</strong>rge extent, exp<strong>la</strong>ined by the different levels of<br />
institutional trust.<br />
Keywords: e-government adoption, institutional trust, service avai<strong>la</strong>bility, com<strong>para</strong>tive analysis.<br />
1. introduction<br />
The Lisbon Strategy set the European vision of making the EU the most dynamic<br />
knowledge-based economy in the world. In this framework, e-government has been set as a<br />
central element of Europe’s Digital Agenda which will contribute to a more cohesive, competitive<br />
and dynamic Europe. The European Commission, in its i2010 e-government action<br />
p<strong>la</strong>n, states that “through e-government, public administrations can make a major contribution<br />
to the Lisbon Agenda” by reforming the way Europeans interact with their governments<br />
in various levels. This new, technology-oriented, mo<strong>de</strong>l in public administration is believed<br />
to have the potential to achieve the dual goal of greater responsiveness to citizens’ needs<br />
while making more efficient use of public resources. In short, the European e-government<br />
project is based on the i<strong>de</strong>a of using technology to create value-ad<strong>de</strong>d public services, to<br />
promote European cooperation, to support <strong>de</strong>mocratic processes, to save resources and to<br />
bring governments closer to citizens.<br />
However, <strong>de</strong>spite the high public spending in e-government (the governments are in<br />
most cases the greatest IT consumers in the world), e-government adoption has only mo<strong>de</strong>rate<br />
to low adoption rates in many EU countries. Therefore, although European gover-
464 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
nments offer electronic services to their citizens, it seems that citizens are somehow unable<br />
or unwilling to use them. For example, in the United Kingdom the public expenditure for<br />
e-government has been estimated to be about 13 billion pounds (more than 1% of Britain’s<br />
GDP) –one of the highest in Europe and around the globe– but the level of e-government<br />
usage by British citizens is only about half that of Denmark. Surprisingly, the usage rates<br />
of e-commerce services in Britain are about double of those of e-government and about<br />
the same as those of Denmark. This raises the question of why in some countries citizens<br />
adopt other technologies of simi<strong>la</strong>r nature (i.e. e-commerce) but not e-government. However,<br />
although there is a rich literature in e-government adoption, too little or no research has<br />
been <strong>de</strong>voted in exp<strong>la</strong>ining e-government adoption patterns in the EU. This paper presents<br />
the levels of e-government take up in the EU as well as the factors which contribute in successful<br />
adoption by the citizens.<br />
2. tHe ‘digitally reluctant’ euroPeans<br />
An obvious answer to the question “why citizens do not use e-government” could be<br />
that “because the offe<strong>red</strong> services are not of high standards”. Yet, this applies to e-commerce<br />
technologies and is not necessarily of equal importance in e-government. Democratic principles<br />
and institutional factors have also been i<strong>de</strong>ntified in the literature as having a role and<br />
there is a call for empirical investigation of the interaction between technology and institutions.<br />
E-government policies are intrinsically embed<strong>de</strong>d in organizational and political<br />
reform policies and they are <strong>de</strong>signed to enact and support a fundamental transformation in<br />
public administration (Cor<strong>de</strong>l<strong>la</strong> & Iannacci, 2010). This does not imply that system quality<br />
and <strong>de</strong>sign issues do not matter, but rather that some general political factors have also an<br />
impact on e-government. Thus, a question could be “why in a country, such the United<br />
Kingdom, with e-government spending more the 1% of the GDP e-commerce usage is<br />
about double than this of e-government?”. Are e-commerce services so superior? And if yes,<br />
then it is the case only in the UK? A comparison of e-government usage rates with those of<br />
e-commerce may shed light on this question.<br />
To achieve such goal, two com<strong>para</strong>tive analyses and one longitudinal are performed:<br />
comparing e-government to e-commerce across the EU, then comparing the growth rates<br />
diachronically and finally examining the cross-national variation. This may give us some<br />
insights on the possible factors that may account for the observed variation across the EU.<br />
Figure 1 shows a com<strong>para</strong>tive view of the levels of e-government and e-commerce usage in<br />
the EU in 2010.
Institutional trust and e-government Adoption in the eU: a Cross-National Analysis<br />
Figure 1. E-government and e-commerce usage in the EU-27<br />
in the general popu<strong>la</strong>tion 16-74 (2010)<br />
Source: Eurostat 2011<br />
465<br />
At a first g<strong>la</strong>nce it is evi<strong>de</strong>nt that the upper (left) part of the graph is dominated by the<br />
Nordic countries along with Estonia, Luxembourg, Nether<strong>la</strong>nds and Slovenia. The middle<br />
part consists of mainly West European countries (Germany, UK, France, Spain, Austria),<br />
while the right (lower) part is popu<strong>la</strong>ted by East European and Mediterranean countries.<br />
Also, it unveils three very important ‘outliers’: UK, Germany and France. These three<br />
countries (along with Malta and Ire<strong>la</strong>nd) are the only ones where e-commerce has higher<br />
adoption rates than e-government. In any other EU country the image is inverted, with egovernment<br />
being higher. Another interesting characteristic of the three outliers is that they<br />
exhibit higher over time variation with fluctuating usage rates.<br />
In or<strong>de</strong>r to gain broa<strong>de</strong>r un<strong>de</strong>rstanding of the processes of e-government adoption<br />
an over-time analysis is also performed. The longitudinal analysis of the usage levels of<br />
e-government and e-commerce usage levels in Europe (Figure 2) shows that the two technologies<br />
follow different trajectories with e-government exhibiting shifting adoption rates.<br />
In more <strong>de</strong>tail, e-government usage when measu<strong>red</strong> as a percentage of Internet use exhibits<br />
a downward ten<strong>de</strong>ncy over the years. More specifically, e-government exhibits a <strong>de</strong>cline of<br />
–4.3 percentage points in the general popu<strong>la</strong>tion of internet users in a six-year period, while<br />
e-commerce rises by +5.8 perc. points over the same period (2005-2010).
466 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
Figure 2. e-government and e-commerce usage growth in the EU-27 (2005-2010)<br />
Source: Eurostat 2011<br />
The above summary of the adoption rates shows that e-government usage (among Internet<br />
users) in the EU-27 has a downward ten<strong>de</strong>ncy with e-government usage rates being<br />
lower in 2010 than in 2005. In more <strong>de</strong>tail, e-government users in 2010 are only a 49.2% of<br />
the total of Internet users, while in 2005 was 53.5%. The most significant drop was observed<br />
in 2008, where in Germany the usage levels of e-government dropped by 23% (from 43% in<br />
2007 to 33% in 2008) and the United Kingdom where a drop of 16% was observed (from<br />
38% in 2007 to 32% in 2008).<br />
What figure 2 <strong>de</strong>monstrates is that – among Internet users - e-commerce has an almost<br />
linear growth diachronically, while e-government usage rates exhibit greater fluctuation. To<br />
exp<strong>la</strong>in the observed <strong>de</strong>cline, it is unlikely that the quality of the services <strong>de</strong>clines or that<br />
there are fewer services offe<strong>red</strong> over time. Instead, a factor (or more) that may also fluctuate<br />
over time may account for the observed variation.<br />
3. tHe answers to tHe researcH Problem: wHat tHe literature<br />
suggests<br />
Regardless of the method, the theoretical approach and the data used, most studies<br />
tend to converge (in some aspects) in their answers to the problem. Most of them tend to<br />
agree that Perceived Usefulness (PU) and Perceived Ease of Use (PEoU) have a role on<br />
e-government adoption. However, Horst et al. (2007) examined empirically a number of
Institutional trust and e-government Adoption in the eU: a Cross-National Analysis<br />
467<br />
approaches and found that in the Nether<strong>la</strong>nds the PU and the PEoU have no significant<br />
impact on the intention to adopt e-government. Thus, the empirical investigation of the<br />
usability issue produces mixed and sometimes even contradictory results. At the same time,<br />
other research approaches focus on the significance of citizens’ perceptions and beliefs about<br />
e-government (Titah & Barki, 2006; Codagnone & osimo 2009; Riedl 2004; Hung et al.,<br />
2006; Horst et al., 2005), while others connect e-government acceptance with the citizens’<br />
views of the government (Reddick, 2005; West D. (2004).<br />
The Trust literature is the most often cited response to the research problem where a<br />
number of studies confirm that trust on the agent providing the service have a role in technology<br />
adoption. Nonetheless, this is not always the case as –<strong>de</strong>pending on the approach–<br />
trust on the agent is not always a good p<strong>red</strong>ictor. Therefore, the empirical studies conducted<br />
in this research area tend not to confirm any of the theoretical p<strong>red</strong>ictions <strong>de</strong>scribed above.<br />
Instead, they seem to produce quite often contradictory results <strong>de</strong>pending on the method<br />
and the data they use. Subsequently, a <strong>la</strong>ck of generalizability of the results is frequently<br />
mentioned as one of the limitations of these studies (Fu et al. 2006; Horst et al., 2005).<br />
This paper adopts the view that com<strong>para</strong>tive, longitudinal analysis and the use of aggregate<br />
level data can shed light on the acceptance factors as it captures the general trends<br />
diachronically. The importance of the time perspective has been also i<strong>de</strong>ntified by Moon and<br />
Norris (2005) who suggest that longitudinal studies of more than two years could provi<strong>de</strong><br />
c<strong>la</strong>rity in the results (Moon & Norris, 2005). The European Union is an i<strong>de</strong>al area for com<strong>para</strong>tive<br />
analysis as there is a <strong>de</strong>gree of convergence in e-government policies resulting from<br />
the eEurope Action P<strong>la</strong>ns.<br />
4. trust literature<br />
The <strong>la</strong>st few years there is a growing body of literature which is concerned with the<br />
examination of the re<strong>la</strong>tionship between citizens’ adoption and trust and confi<strong>de</strong>nce in government.<br />
In examining this re<strong>la</strong>tionship, trust is sometimes treated as the exp<strong>la</strong>natory or<br />
the <strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nt variable. Thus, due to the theoretical vagueness of this research area, trust<br />
is treated in both ways: either assuming that e-government builds trust in the government<br />
(because of better quality services, more efficient use of public resources etc.) or that trust<br />
is a prerequisite for e-government adoption (Tolbert & Mossberger, 2006; Norris, 2001; ).<br />
Nevertheless, this research supports the view that trust can only be treated as a <strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nt<br />
variable if the main theoretical argument is based on a micro-performance approach (better<br />
performance of public administration may lead in increasing confi<strong>de</strong>nce in government).<br />
However, no sound theoretical base for such argument has been employed, although it<br />
seems that there is some corre<strong>la</strong>tion between the two variables (Tolbert & Mossberger, 2006;<br />
Heeks & Bailur, 2007; Akkaya et al. 2010). In practice, the great majority of studies, including<br />
the present, consi<strong>de</strong>r trust as the exp<strong>la</strong>natory variable.<br />
Two authors that have extensively examined the role of trust in e-government and<br />
e-commerce acceptance are Be<strong>la</strong>nger and Carter. In their most recent study (2008), they
468 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
acknowledge the fact that trust is an essential element of a re<strong>la</strong>tionship where uncertainty,<br />
or risk, is present and they stress the importance of it in e-government transactions. They<br />
point out that researchers are just beginning to empirically explore the role of trust in egovernment<br />
adoption and they stress the need for empirical investigation of its basic assumptions.<br />
They state that studies that inclu<strong>de</strong> trust on broa<strong>de</strong>r adoption mo<strong>de</strong>ls, such as<br />
the Technology Acceptance Mo<strong>de</strong>l or the Diffusion of Innovation Theory, do not provi<strong>de</strong><br />
satisfactory results and more research is nee<strong>de</strong>d. They also call for research that will focus<br />
exclusively on the role of trust as too few, if any, of the existing focus solely on that (Be<strong>la</strong>nger<br />
& Carter, 2008).<br />
Be<strong>la</strong>nger and Carter adopt a <strong>de</strong>finition of trust drawn from social learning theory:<br />
“trust is an expectancy that the promise of an individual or group can be relied upon” (Rotter,<br />
1971). They i<strong>de</strong>ntify two major components of trust in e-government which are: trust of<br />
the Internet (ToI) and trust of the government (ToG). These two elements represent trust<br />
in the entity providing the service (party trust) and trust in the mechanism through which<br />
is provi<strong>de</strong>d (control trust) (Pavlou, 2003; Carter & Be<strong>la</strong>nger, 2005). They <strong>de</strong>fine ToG as<br />
“one’s perceptions regarding the integrity and ability of the agency providing the service” (Be<strong>la</strong>nger<br />
& Carter, 2008:3). The authors present a well-constructed mo<strong>de</strong>l of trust and they empirically<br />
test their mo<strong>de</strong>l. They conclu<strong>de</strong> that the perceptions of citizens about the c<strong>red</strong>ibility of<br />
e-government services affect their acceptance. They do not exp<strong>la</strong>in however how the citizens’<br />
perceptions about the c<strong>red</strong>ibility of e-government are formed.<br />
The paper adopts a neo-institutional approach and <strong>de</strong>fines trust not as trust in specific<br />
public services or organisations but as a form of institutional trust. Therefore, unlike the<br />
approach <strong>de</strong>veloped by Carter & Be<strong>la</strong>nger, this paper supports the view that trust is of<br />
general nature and citizens are collectively affected by various factors in their perceptions<br />
about the c<strong>red</strong>ibility of their government and/or public administration. Trust in one single<br />
public agent is rare; it either exists as trust in the government as a whole or it is, more or<br />
less, absent (Christensen & Laegreid, 2003; Hudson, 2006). Moreover, it seems that there<br />
is inter-corre<strong>la</strong>tion of trust, not only in different government institutions within the same<br />
country, but also between EU countries (Hendriks, 2009).<br />
5. tHeoretical lenses: a neo-institutional aPProacH<br />
In recent years, there has been an increasing interest on how technology can transform<br />
government or how technology may influence political regimes. on the other hand,<br />
there is the view that technology in the public sector is only the means to an end and not<br />
a driving force for change. However, the view of technology as an objective, external force,<br />
overlooks the role of human actors and implies that technology will inevitably improve the<br />
way a government operates (Heeks & Bailur, 2007; Homburg, 2008). At the same time,<br />
there is a <strong>la</strong>rge volume of recent studies emphasising the social characteristics of technology<br />
and how social structures shape technology through strategic choice and social action<br />
(orlikowski, 1992; King et al., 1994). Quite often, e-government literature seems divi<strong>de</strong>d
Institutional trust and e-government Adoption in the eU: a Cross-National Analysis<br />
469<br />
between technological <strong>de</strong>terminism and social constructivism (Feenberg, 1992). Between<br />
the two extremes, however, there are many approaches which manage to reconcile these two<br />
different views of technology. This paper adopts the view that technology and institutional<br />
and political structures are not in<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nt and their interaction affects the technology<br />
adoption patterns. Therefore, in this study a neo-institutional perspective is adopted. Although<br />
there are no complete theories in e-government, Fountain’s Technology Enactment<br />
Framework and orlikowsky’s Structurational Mo<strong>de</strong>l of Technology can contribute much in<br />
our un<strong>de</strong>rstanding of e-government adoption in specific institutional environments. Besi<strong>de</strong>s,<br />
from the proposed theoretical approaches in e-government literature, neo-institutionalism<br />
has been i<strong>de</strong>ntified as the most relevant and <strong>de</strong>scriptive (Heeks & Bailur, 2007; Yildiz, 2007;<br />
Norris, 2003; Yang, 2003).<br />
Both theoretical approaches put emphasis in the dual nature of technology while they<br />
stress the se<strong>para</strong>tion of embed<strong>de</strong>d and objective technology (Homburg, 2008; Fulk et al.,<br />
1987). Technology is physical and objective in the sense that is <strong>de</strong>signed to meet engineering<br />
requirements and to reflect assumptions on how technology should be applied in the everyday<br />
business of public administration. Synchronously, technology is social in the sense that<br />
has embed<strong>de</strong>d rules and structures which reflect norms of the institutional and social environment<br />
in which its use is nested (Bekkers & Homburg 2005; Williams & Edge, 1996).<br />
Thus, technology is not objective – although it has objective characteristics – and it can be<br />
viewed differently from different actors.<br />
orlikowsky (2000) in the Structurational Mo<strong>de</strong>l of Technology i<strong>de</strong>ntifies two stages<br />
in technology <strong>de</strong>velopment and adoption: the first is where politicians, <strong>de</strong>signers, civil servants<br />
etc. <strong>de</strong>sign and <strong>de</strong>velop technology according to their knowledge, interests and norms,<br />
while the second is where users enact technology if it is in accordance with their perceptions<br />
and interests. Technology has some objective characteristics (functionality, response times,<br />
capacity etc.) but each of these groups of actors perceive technology in subjective ways. If<br />
these actors repeatedly use technology in the way technology has been <strong>de</strong>signed to be used,<br />
then this technology is ‘routinised’ and becomes part of the everyday way of interacting. If<br />
this process <strong>la</strong>sts for long, then technology starts affecting social structures because it gradually<br />
becomes part of the structure and thus it is difficult not to comply with this technologymediated<br />
way of interacting; it is institutionalised. In this <strong>la</strong>st stage, if successful, a ‘soft’ type<br />
of technological <strong>de</strong>terminism may emerge; technology then ‘embodies’ structures which (re)<br />
present various social rules and political interests and starts affecting the social structure in<br />
which its use is embed<strong>de</strong>d (orlikowski, 2000; orlikowski & Barley 2001; King et al., 1994).<br />
However, things are not so evi<strong>de</strong>nt because of the flexibility of the perceptions about<br />
technology. The same system can be un<strong>de</strong>rstood and used by different actors in vastly different<br />
ways. This is the way of the ‘users’ to affect technology and to agree or disagree with<br />
the interests, purposes and institutional context which is embodied in technology. After<br />
a trial period, technology will be adopted, re-<strong>de</strong>signed, abandoned or rep<strong>la</strong>ced following<br />
a technology life-cycle. Depending on the level of acceptance, technology will gradually<br />
be legitimised and institutionalised. However, two e-government systems may have exactly<br />
the same functionality – for example, they may be <strong>de</strong>signed to facilitate an electronic tax
470 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
<strong>de</strong>c<strong>la</strong>ration – but there is a plethora of ways to <strong>de</strong>sign such system (even if the final output<br />
is exactly the same). The <strong>de</strong>sign of an e-government system may take a number of different<br />
forms, not only because engineers have different views, but also because the legis<strong>la</strong>tion and<br />
norms which are embed<strong>de</strong>d in them differ substantially. When individuals use the system,<br />
then, they unconsciously and repeatedly enact a set of rules and norms that are embed<strong>de</strong>d in<br />
this specific system. From this point of view, the role of users is crucial as “structures are not<br />
located in organizations or in technology, but are enacted by users” (orlikowsky, 2000:423). 3<br />
shows how technology is adopted and institutionalised according to orlikowsky:<br />
Figure 3. The Structurational Mo<strong>de</strong>l of Technology<br />
But what are the <strong>de</strong>termining factors behind e-government acceptance? Fountain<br />
(2001) gives us some theoretical insights when she states that individuals are inclined to<br />
enact new technology: “to reproduce existing rules, routines, norms, and power re<strong>la</strong>tions if institutional<br />
rules are clear and no salient alternative uses are visible in the environment” (Fountain,<br />
2001: 89). Therefore, in addition to the ‘traditional’ technology adoption factors (i.e. usability<br />
issues, infrastructure), Fountain exp<strong>la</strong>ins that in e-government institutional variables<br />
have also a role and she focuses at the norms and rules which are embed<strong>de</strong>d in technology.<br />
This implies that when individuals do not trust the specific institutional context in which<br />
technology is embed<strong>de</strong>d then they do not ‘enact’ technology by not using it. They avoid<br />
in this way the institutionalization of technology, and thus the subsequent acceptance of<br />
the rules and control mechanisms which are embodied in it. This process, although not<br />
conscious most times, offers some un<strong>de</strong>rstanding of why trust in government may have a<br />
<strong>de</strong>cisive role in e-government adoption.<br />
Castells (1996), on the other hand, in his seminal work, argues that the impact of<br />
e-government stretches far beyond the limited scope of public administration and public<br />
policy as technological <strong>de</strong>velopments lead in new forms of political interaction (Homburg,
Institutional trust and e-government Adoption in the eU: a Cross-National Analysis<br />
471<br />
2008; Castells, 1996). This technology-mediated form of social and political interaction is<br />
consi<strong>de</strong><strong>red</strong> to be a main force behind the changes in the social fabric that take p<strong>la</strong>ce in the<br />
information age. These changes alter an existing ba<strong>la</strong>nce of power and move the ‘centre of<br />
gravity’ to the means and the dissemination of information (Castells, 1996). The European<br />
Union has set general policy gui<strong>de</strong>lines to address the issues which arise from the evolution<br />
of the information society. The goal is to address the challenges of <strong>de</strong>veloping sufficient<br />
ICT infrastructure, services and skills while stimu<strong>la</strong>ting the economy and preventing digital<br />
exclusion of citizens (Janssen& Rotthier, 2005). However, in some countries it is observed<br />
a <strong>para</strong>doxical phenomenon where intense focus on government service <strong>de</strong>livery wi<strong>de</strong>ns the<br />
gap between citizens and public administration (Fountain, 2001; Homburg, 2008). Fountain<br />
(2001) argues that this happens because governments are involved in complex political<br />
processes and cannot be seen by the citizens only as agents offering services. Defining the<br />
governments as production companies and treating citizens as consumers ignore the inherent<br />
political character of the public sector and eventually leads to greater scepticism by the<br />
citizens (Fountain, 2001). According to Fountain, by overlooking the notions of good governance<br />
and citizenship and focusing only on service <strong>de</strong>livery may lead in growing distrust.<br />
6. tHe outliers: britain, germany and estonia<br />
The overall picture of the EU, as it was presented in section 2, shows that, in general,<br />
e-government has higher usage rates than e-commerce (till the <strong>la</strong>st measurement of 2010).<br />
However, there are a few countries where the image is inverted with e-commerce being higher:<br />
UK, Germany and France (and in a lower <strong>de</strong>gree, Ire<strong>la</strong>nd and Malta). This fact creates<br />
the <strong>para</strong>dox of having three of the countries which are often <strong>de</strong>scribed as ‘e-Government<br />
lea<strong>de</strong>rs’ as outliers (Lee et al., 2005; Strejcek & Theil 2003). What is the factor that leads<br />
three technologically advanced countries, with innovative and consistent e-government strategies<br />
to be ranked as outliers?<br />
Margetts & Dunleavy (2002) exp<strong>la</strong>in that “Citizens’ existing re<strong>la</strong>tionship with government<br />
organisations will obviously affect their approach to e-government services offe<strong>red</strong> by that<br />
organisation. If they have a low expectancy of a government organisation then they will not look<br />
for that organisation on the Internet and they will continue to use traditional methods to <strong>de</strong>al<br />
with it. […] If citizens do not trust government organisations in general, they are less likely to<br />
want to transfer information to government electronically” (Margetts & Dunleavy, (2002).<br />
The authors recognise the role of trust in government organisations in e-government<br />
adoption and they i<strong>de</strong>ntify that in Germany, UK and France the low levels of trust in government<br />
have an impact in e-government acceptance by the citizens (Margetts & Dunleavy,<br />
2002:10):<br />
“In the UK trust in national government is low in comparison with other institutions: In<br />
1999, 41 per cent of respon<strong>de</strong>nts said that they trusted the national government […] This level of<br />
trust (com<strong>para</strong>ble to levels in France and Germany but 25 per cent lower than the Nether<strong>la</strong>nds)<br />
is going to shape the extent to which citizens trust an ‘e-government’.”
472 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
A simi<strong>la</strong>r exp<strong>la</strong>nation is provi<strong>de</strong>d by Akkaya et al. (2010) who argue that “citizens’ <strong>de</strong>cision<br />
to use online services is influenced by their trust in technology and the agent involved. Low levels<br />
of citizen trust towards e-government services in Germany create concerns in the government.”<br />
(Akkaya et al., 2010). Thus, it seems that the three ‘outliers’ could be possibly exp<strong>la</strong>ined by<br />
the low levels of trust in the national government.<br />
on the other extreme of the ranking, however, it is found Estonia with e-government<br />
adoption levels that almost triple this of e-commerce (see figure 9). A quick look at the standard<br />
Eurobarometer of 2010 unveils that Estonia has an impressive 55% of citizens trusting<br />
the national government (the second highest in the whole EU after Luxemburg), while in<br />
the UK only a 28% of citizens tend to trust the national government (one of the lowest in<br />
the EU). A simi<strong>la</strong>r level of trust in the national government appears in Germany (32%) and<br />
an even lower in France (22%). Therefore, there is evi<strong>de</strong>nce that the low levels of trust in the<br />
national government lead in low e-government adoption. The next chapter tests empirically<br />
this hypothesis.<br />
7. factors affecting e-goVernment adoPtion and tHe ‘trust’<br />
HyPotHesis<br />
The com<strong>para</strong>tive analysis of section 2 showed that: first, that e-government and ecommerce<br />
adoption levels are not influenced by the same factors since they follow different<br />
trajectories diachronically and, second, that EU member states exhibit substantially different<br />
adoption patterns. Thus, there are two main types of variation: one over-time and one<br />
cross-national. In or<strong>de</strong>r to further examine the factors which lead in the observed variation,<br />
a more analytical approach is adopted in this section. At this stage, some factors which may<br />
potentially affect technology adoption are tested. The focus is on the examination of the impact<br />
of Trust of the Government (ToG) in e-government adoption by citizens. Additionally,<br />
they are tested the impact of Internet connectivity, e-government service avai<strong>la</strong>bility and<br />
Trust of the Internet (ToI). The impact of these factors (with the only exception of service<br />
avai<strong>la</strong>bility) is tested both for e-government and e-commerce in or<strong>de</strong>r to preserve the same<br />
base of comparison.<br />
7.1. methodology<br />
All data used in this analysis are survey data collected by Eurostat and Eurobarometer<br />
surveys conducted yearly in about one thousand people per country. Thus, the data collection<br />
is based on samples that are used to p<strong>red</strong>ict the values in the general popu<strong>la</strong>tion of each<br />
EU member state. Therefore they are measu<strong>red</strong> as estimated percentages. This type of mo<strong>de</strong>ls<br />
are called Estimated Depen<strong>de</strong>nt Variable (EDV) mo<strong>de</strong>ls. It is a category of statistical mo<strong>de</strong>ls<br />
which inclu<strong>de</strong> all mo<strong>de</strong>ls where the <strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nt variable is an estimated mean, a proportion<br />
or a regression coefficient (Lewis & Linzer, 2005). The most common methodological problem<br />
with EDV mo<strong>de</strong>ls is heteroscedasticity due to the variation in the sampling variance of<br />
the observations of the <strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nt variable (Madda<strong>la</strong>, 1983). For this reason, the statistical
Institutional trust and e-government Adoption in the eU: a Cross-National Analysis<br />
473<br />
analysis is performed using normalized data so as to ensure that the data distribution follows<br />
(or at least resembles) the normal distribution. For reasons of simplicity the original<br />
Eurostat data are transformed using a log10 transformation. This method has been chosen<br />
because in linear tests the use of proportional or percentage data (values between 0 and 1) is<br />
problematic since the distributions of these values are not strictly Gaussian (especially when<br />
the proportions are near 0 or 1). The log10 transformation is a common data transformation<br />
for this type of data which normalizes the data distribution and thus it allows a <strong>para</strong>metric<br />
test like linear regression to be used (osborne, 2002).<br />
7.2. data, variables and measurement<br />
The main comparison conducted in this paper is this between e-government and ecommerce<br />
usage levels in Europe. The utilisation of two <strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nt variables which have<br />
most exp<strong>la</strong>natory factors in common –apart from the level of service avai<strong>la</strong>bility– offers a<br />
sound base for benchmarking and comparison. The way, however, the usage levels of these<br />
two technologies are measu<strong>red</strong> is different due to the differences in the nature of the offe<strong>red</strong><br />
services:<br />
• e-government usage: Percentage of individuals aged 16 to 74 using the Internet for<br />
interaction with public authorities in the <strong>la</strong>st 3 months before the survey.<br />
• e-commerce usage: Individuals who or<strong>de</strong><strong>red</strong> goods or services, over the Internet, for<br />
private use, in the <strong>la</strong>st 3 months before the survey.<br />
The exp<strong>la</strong>natory variables used to p<strong>red</strong>ict e-government adoption cover both technical<br />
and non-technical factors (Connectivity, Service avai<strong>la</strong>bility, Trust of the Government, Trust<br />
of the Internet). The purpose is to cover the main exp<strong>la</strong>natory variables p<strong>red</strong>icted by the<br />
theoretical mo<strong>de</strong>l while controlling for general technology adoption factors. For reasons<br />
of ‘economy’ in the research mo<strong>de</strong>l, as the data-set is re<strong>la</strong>tively small (N=27 over a six year<br />
period give a total of 162 observations), and in or<strong>de</strong>r to achieve simplicity more inclusive<br />
variables have been chosen that cover a variety of factors. For example the variable Internet<br />
Connectivity measures digital infrastructure, Internet access, frequency, age group etc. The<br />
main exp<strong>la</strong>natory variable is Trust of the Government, the rest p<strong>red</strong>ictors are used as control<br />
variables.<br />
Table 1. List of variables<br />
Variable indicator <strong>de</strong>scription<br />
e-government<br />
adoption<br />
(Depen<strong>de</strong>nt)<br />
e-Commerce<br />
adoption<br />
(Depen<strong>de</strong>nt)<br />
e-government<br />
Usage<br />
e-Commerce<br />
Usage<br />
Percentage of individuals aged 16-74 using the Internet for<br />
interaction with public authorities<br />
Individuals who or<strong>de</strong><strong>red</strong> goods or services, over the Internet,<br />
for private use
474 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
Variable indicator <strong>de</strong>scription<br />
Trust of the<br />
Government<br />
(Exp<strong>la</strong>natory)<br />
Connectivity<br />
(Exp<strong>la</strong>natory)<br />
Service supply<br />
(Exp<strong>la</strong>natory)<br />
Percentage of<br />
citizens who<br />
‘tend to trust the<br />
government’<br />
Internet Use<br />
Service<br />
avai<strong>la</strong>bility<br />
7.3. The role of trust in e-government adoption<br />
General p<strong>red</strong>isposition to trust the Government. Three<br />
possible answers: Tend to trust, tend not to trust, DK<br />
% of people who use the Internet at least once a week. All<br />
individuals aged 16 to 74 who access the Internet, within the<br />
<strong>la</strong>st 3 months before the survey. Use inclu<strong>de</strong>s all locations and<br />
methods of access<br />
Percentage of online avai<strong>la</strong>bility of 20 basic public services<br />
In or<strong>de</strong>r to analyse the effect of trust in e-government adoption linear regression techniques<br />
are applied. The mo<strong>de</strong>l takes into account the combined effect of all p<strong>red</strong>ictors on<br />
e-government adoption. For this purpose a multiple regression mo<strong>de</strong>l is fitted to the data.<br />
The mo<strong>de</strong>l specifies the magnitu<strong>de</strong> of the effect of each individual factor when the effect of<br />
the other p<strong>red</strong>ictors is taken into account. Also, it tests for multicolinearity between the<br />
exp<strong>la</strong>natory variables. The results are shown on table 2.<br />
Table 2. Multiple regression mo<strong>de</strong>l of the effect of<br />
individual factors on e-government adoption<br />
e-gov usage (log10) std. coef. (β) std. error t P>|t| collinearity stat. (Vif)<br />
constant 0.04 -1.66 0.11<br />
tog (log10) 0.18 0.08 2.31 0.03 1.6<br />
internet use (log10) 0.75 0.19 8.55 0.00 2.1<br />
service supply (log10) 0.18 0.19 2.40 0.03 1.5<br />
( R 2 = 0.92, Adjusted R 2 = 0.91)<br />
The mo<strong>de</strong>l shows that he effect of ToG on e-government adoption is statistically significant<br />
(p-value = 0.03 < 5%) and the magnitu<strong>de</strong> of its effect is the same as this of Service<br />
Supply ( = 0.18). This in simple words means that, one per cent increase in the number<br />
of citizens who tend to trust their government would lead in an average increase of 0.18%<br />
in the e-government usage. After estimating these effects, the regression equation takes the<br />
following form:<br />
Equation 1. Regression equation of the mo<strong>de</strong>l p<strong>red</strong>icting the e-government adoption levels<br />
The most important p<strong>red</strong>ictor remains the level of Internet use in the general popu<strong>la</strong>tion,<br />
but this is something expected as Internet connectivity is a necessary factor. However,
Institutional trust and e-government Adoption in the eU: a Cross-National Analysis<br />
475<br />
multicolinearity can be an issue of concern as ToG and Internet Use corre<strong>la</strong>te significantly<br />
(r=0.56, p-value = 0.02). In or<strong>de</strong>r to control for this factor and to enhance the p<strong>red</strong>icting<br />
power of the mo<strong>de</strong>l I control for Internet use while <strong>red</strong>ucing the number of variables used<br />
in the mo<strong>de</strong>l. In or<strong>de</strong>r to achieve this, another variable is created which is the fraction of<br />
e-government usage levels divi<strong>de</strong>d by the level of Internet Use in the general popu<strong>la</strong>tion.<br />
Equation 2. New <strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nt variable <strong>de</strong>finition: e-government<br />
usage as a proportion of Internet use<br />
Thus, the new variable is the proportion of Internet users who use e-government services.<br />
By doing so, e-government users are not measu<strong>red</strong> as a percentage of the general popu<strong>la</strong>tion,<br />
but as a proportion of the Internet users (controlling this way for Internet use). This is<br />
the new <strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nt variable and a new regression mo<strong>de</strong>l is constructed. The variable Internet<br />
use is removed from the new mo<strong>de</strong>l as the information about the Internet use is contained<br />
in the <strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nt variable. This method <strong>red</strong>uces the number of p<strong>red</strong>ictors, avoiding this way<br />
over-fitting of the data (the re<strong>la</strong>tively small data-set (N=27) offers more reliable results with<br />
fewer p<strong>red</strong>ictors). The tests results are shown on Table 3.<br />
Table 3. overall mo<strong>de</strong>l of the effect of individual factors<br />
on e-government adoption in the EU<br />
e-gov usage (log10) std. coef. (β) std. error t P>|t| collinearity stat. (Vif)<br />
constant -0.07 0.04 -1.57 0.13<br />
tog (log10) 0.57 0.08 4.71 0.00 1.00<br />
service supply (log10) 0.54 0.18 4.48 0.00 1.00<br />
( R 2 = 0.65, Adjusted R 2 = 0.62)<br />
A new regression equation is constructed to p<strong>red</strong>ict the levels of e-government usage<br />
when changes in Internet Use, level of Trust of the Government and service avai<strong>la</strong>bility supply<br />
occur. This equation has the following form:<br />
Equation 3. Final form of the egression equation<br />
p<strong>red</strong>icting the e-government adoption levels<br />
The new equation shows that, one per cent increase in the number of citizens who tend<br />
to trust their government would lead in an (average) increase of 0.57% in e-government usage<br />
by Internet users. The p<strong>red</strong>icting power of the new mo<strong>de</strong>l is quite strong as two variables
476 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
alone (ToG and Service Supply) exp<strong>la</strong>in 62% of the observed cross-national variation in<br />
the <strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nt variable.<br />
8. conclusions<br />
The com<strong>para</strong>tive analysis conducted in this study shows that e-government and e-commerce<br />
follow different trajectories. Therefore, the wi<strong>de</strong>ly held practice to utilise e-commerce<br />
research mo<strong>de</strong>ls to analyse e-government is questioned. In contrast, this study makes an<br />
attempt to exp<strong>la</strong>in what produces the different growth rates of the two technologies by<br />
stressing the political nature of e-government. The view held in this study – and this is the<br />
main argument – is that e-government fluctuates because it is affected by more factors than<br />
is e-commerce. These factors are political in nature and that is why they are not exp<strong>la</strong>ined by<br />
the levels of Internet access or the levels of trust of the Internet (ToI) as a communication<br />
channel. To support this argument, this study builds on the trust literature and it extents<br />
one of its basics i<strong>de</strong>as on the role of trust. However, unlike the original mo<strong>de</strong>l that it is employed<br />
for individual level research, the modified mo<strong>de</strong>l used in this paper analyses nationallevel<br />
factors. The main modification is on the <strong>de</strong>finition and operationalisation of the trust<br />
variable. Trust of the Government (ToG) in this study is <strong>de</strong>fined as the institutional trust<br />
in the government as whole (while the original mo<strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>veloped by Carter and Be<strong>la</strong>nger<br />
<strong>de</strong>fines trust as ‘trust of the agent offering the service’).<br />
Then, the paper proceeds with the statistical analysis and test of the main research<br />
hypothesis which is that institutional trust has an effect in e-government adoption. The<br />
<strong>de</strong>veloped linear regression mo<strong>de</strong>l shows that there is a statistically significant re<strong>la</strong>tionship<br />
between trust and e-government adoption. This re<strong>la</strong>tionship does seem weaker when different<br />
mo<strong>de</strong>ls are tested, although the magnitu<strong>de</strong> of its effect <strong>de</strong>pends on the number of the<br />
variables which are inclu<strong>de</strong>d in the mo<strong>de</strong>l. When the overall mo<strong>de</strong>l is tested, trust of the<br />
government has a significant effect on e-government usage. This offers strong evi<strong>de</strong>nce that<br />
the research hypothesis is correct.<br />
overall, this paper has challenged the wi<strong>de</strong>ly held practice to utilise e-commerce research<br />
mo<strong>de</strong>ls to analyse e-government. The argument is that e-government is influenced<br />
by institutional and political factors and it reflects a political reality. Therefore, a utilitarian<br />
approach cannot offer <strong>de</strong>finite answers as it overlooks these factors. In<strong>de</strong>ed, the literature<br />
review shows that, not only the existing research produces contradictory research outcomes,<br />
but it has also overlooked the actual adoption levels. Prominent authors in e-government<br />
research have long warned that the utilisation of individual-level research is inconclusive and<br />
it overlooks the political nature of e-government. They exp<strong>la</strong>in that neo-institutionalism is<br />
better in exp<strong>la</strong>ining the interactions between citizens and governments over the internet and<br />
they stress the role of institutional trust in e-government adoption. However, due to a <strong>la</strong>ck<br />
of well-<strong>de</strong>veloped theories that will lead in the formation of testable hypotheses, there is a<br />
pluralism of approaches in e-Government that they are often ungroun<strong>de</strong>d. This study makes
Institutional trust and e-government Adoption in the eU: a Cross-National Analysis<br />
477<br />
a first attempt to test empirically the neo-institutional c<strong>la</strong>im that institutional factors have a<br />
role in e-government diffusion and adoption.<br />
The main i<strong>de</strong>a is that, when citizens tend to trust their government, they also trust the<br />
offe<strong>red</strong> e-government technology and the rules and norms which are embodied in it. This<br />
view is supported by the findings and thus it offers some un<strong>de</strong>rstanding of why e-government<br />
adoption exhibits the observed variation across the EU. The views of the citizens on<br />
the performance and c<strong>red</strong>ibility of their government are not static and instead they exhibit<br />
some fluctuation. Thus, trust is a factor that it may exp<strong>la</strong>in this fluctuation and the empirical<br />
analysis shows that this assumption is probably correct.<br />
While examining the role of trust in e-government adoption, some other factors have<br />
also been analysed in or<strong>de</strong>r to offer a complete view of the factors leading in successful adoption.<br />
In this framework, the impact of citizens’ trust of the Internet (ToI), the avai<strong>la</strong>bility of<br />
online services and levels of Internet use are inclu<strong>de</strong>d in the research mo<strong>de</strong>l. The analysis of<br />
these factors shows that the level of Internet use is a good p<strong>red</strong>ictor, while service avai<strong>la</strong>bility<br />
may also be a good p<strong>red</strong>ictor (although some methodological issues need to be resolved in<br />
the operationalisation of this variable).<br />
9. bibliograPHy<br />
Akkaya C. Wolf P. & Krcmar H. (2010), ‘The Role of Trust in e-Government Adoption: A<br />
Literature Review’, Proceedings of the Americas Conference on Information Systems,<br />
paper 297<br />
Bekkers M. & Homburg V. (2005), The Information Ecology of e-government, Amsterdam:<br />
IoS press<br />
Carter & Be<strong>la</strong>nger, 2008, ‘Trust and risk in e-government adoption’, The Journal of Strategic<br />
Information Systems, vol. 17(2), pp. 165-176<br />
Carter L. & Be<strong>la</strong>nger F. (2005) ‘The utilisation of e-government services: citizen trust, innovation<br />
and accepance’, Information Systems Journal, vol. 15, pp. 5-25<br />
Castells M. (1996), The rise of the network society, Mal<strong>de</strong>n, MA: B<strong>la</strong>ckwell<br />
Christensen T. and Laegreid P. (2003), ‘Trust in Government: The Significance of Attitu<strong>de</strong>s<br />
Towards Democracy, Public Sector and Public Sector Reforms’, Working Paper 7,<br />
Stein Rokkan Center for Social Studies and Bergen University, p. 25 Research Foundation,<br />
April, p. 1-30. Avai<strong>la</strong>ble at: http://www.ub.uib.no/elpub/rokkan/N/N07-03.pdf<br />
(<strong>la</strong>st accessed May 17, 2010)<br />
Codagnone C. & osimo D. (2009), ‘e-government current challenges and future scenarios’,<br />
in Nixon P., Koutrakou V. & Rawal R. (eds) Un<strong>de</strong>rstanding e-government in Europe,<br />
Routledge, New York<br />
Cor<strong>de</strong>l<strong>la</strong> A. & Iannacci F. (2010), ‘Information systems in the public sector: The e-Government<br />
enactment framework’, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, vol. (19), pp.<br />
52-66
478 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
Feenberg A. (1992), ‘Subversive rationalization: Technology, power, and <strong>de</strong>mocracy’, Inquiry,<br />
Vol. 35(3&4), pp. 301-322<br />
Fu R. Farm K. & Chao P. (2006), ‘Acceptance of electronic tax filling: a study of taxpayer<br />
intentions, Information and Management’, vol. 43, pp.109-126<br />
Fulk J., Steinfield W., Schmitz J. (1987), ‘A social information processing mo<strong>de</strong>l of media<br />
use in organizations’, Communication Research, vol.14, pp. 529-552<br />
Heeks R. & Bailur S. (2007), ‘Analyzing e-government research: Perspectives, philosophies,<br />
theories, methods, and practice’, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 24, pp. 243-<br />
265<br />
Hendriks F. (2009), ‘Contextualizing the Dutch drop in political trust: connecting un<strong>de</strong>rlying<br />
factors’, International Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 75(3), pp. 473-492.<br />
Hereafter: Hendriks, 2009<br />
Homburg V. (2008), Un<strong>de</strong>rstanding e-government: Information systems in public administration,<br />
Routledge, New York<br />
Horst M., Kuttschreuter M., & Guttelin J. (2007), ‘Perceived usefulness, personal<br />
experiences, risk perception and trust as <strong>de</strong>terminants of adoption of e-government<br />
services in The Nether<strong>la</strong>nds’, Computers in Human Behavior, vol.23, pp. 1838–185<br />
Hudson, (2006), ‘Institutional Trust and Subjective Well-Being across the EU’, KYKLOS,<br />
vol. 59(1), pp. 43–62<br />
Hung S., Chang C. & Yu T. (2006), ‘Determinants of user acceptance of the e-Government<br />
services: The case of on-line tax filling and payment system’, Government Information<br />
Quarterly, Vol. 23, pp.97-122<br />
Janssen D. & Rotthier S. (2005), ‘Trends and consolidations in e-government implementation’.<br />
In Bekkers V. & Homburg V. (eds), The Information ecology of e-government:<br />
e-government as Institutional and Technological Innovation, Amsterdam: IoS Press<br />
King J., Gurbaxani V, Kraemer K, McFar<strong>la</strong>n F, Raman K, Yap C. (1994) ‘Institutional<br />
Factors in Information Technology Innovation’, Information Systems Research, vol. 5(2),<br />
pp. 139-16<br />
Lee S., Tan X. & Trimi S. (2005), ‘Current practices of leading e-government countries’,<br />
Communications of the ACM - The digital society, vol. 48(10), pp. 99 – 104<br />
Lewis J. & Linzer A. (2005), ‘Estimating Regression Mo<strong>de</strong>ls in Which the Depen<strong>de</strong>nt Variable<br />
Is Based on Estimates’, Political Analysis, vol. 13, pp. 345-364<br />
Madda<strong>la</strong> S. (1983) Limited Depen<strong>de</strong>nt and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics, Cambridge:<br />
Cambridge University Press<br />
Margetts, H. & Dunleavy, P. (2002) Cultural Barriers to e-Government, National Audit<br />
office, House of Common, London: UK, p.10<br />
Markus L. (1983), ‘Power, Politics and MIS implementation’, Communications of the ACM,<br />
vol. 26, pp. 430-444
Institutional trust and e-government Adoption in the eU: a Cross-National Analysis<br />
479<br />
Moon J. & Norris D. (2005), ‘Does managerial orientation matters? The adoption of reinventing<br />
government and e-government at the municipal level’, Information Systems<br />
Journal, vol. 15, pp. 43-60<br />
Norris P. (2001), Digital Divi<strong>de</strong>: Citizen Engagement, Information Poverty and the Internet<br />
Worldwi<strong>de</strong>, Cambridge University Press: New York<br />
Norris, D. (2003), ‘Building the virtual state … or not: A critical appraisal’, Social Science<br />
Computer Review, vol. 21(4), pp. 417−424. Hereafter: Norris, 2003<br />
orlikowski W. & Barley R. (2001), ‘Technology and institutions: What can research on<br />
information technology and research on organizations learn from each other?’ MIS<br />
Quarterly, Vol. 25(2), pp. 145-165<br />
orlikowski W. (2000). ‘Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens for<br />
Studying Technology in organizations’, Organization Science, Vol. 11(4), pp. 404-428<br />
osborne, J. (2002), ‘Notes on the use of data transformations’, Practical Assessment, Research<br />
& Evaluation, vol. 8(6)<br />
Reddick C. (2005), ‘Citizen interaction with e-government: from the streets to servers?’,<br />
Government Information Quarterly, vol. 22, pp. 38-57<br />
Riedl R. (2004), ‘Rethinking trust and confi<strong>de</strong>nce in European e-government: Linking the<br />
public sector with post-mo<strong>de</strong>rn society’ in W. Lamersdorf, V. Tschammer, and S. Amarger<br />
(eds.), Building the E-Service Society: E-Commerce, E-Business, and E-government.<br />
Norvell, MA: Kluwer, pp. 89-108<br />
Rotter B. (1971), ‘Generalized expectations for interpersonal trust’, American Psychologist,<br />
vol. 26 (5), pp. 443–452<br />
Strejcek G. & Theil M. (2003), ‘Technology push, legis<strong>la</strong>tion pull? E-government in the<br />
European Union’, Decision Support Systems, vol. 34( 3), pp. 305-313<br />
Titah R. & Barki H. (2006), ‘E-government adoption and acceptance: A literature review’,<br />
International Journal of Electronic Government Research, vol. 2(3), pp. 23-57<br />
Tolbert & Mossberger, 2006;<br />
Tolbert J. & Mossberger K. (2006), ‘The effect of e-government on trust and confi<strong>de</strong>nce<br />
in government’, Public Administration Review, vol. 66, pp.354-369; Hereafter: Tolbert<br />
& Mossberger, 2006<br />
West D. (2004), ‘E-government and the Transformation of Service Delivery and Citizen<br />
Attitu<strong>de</strong>s’, Public Administration Review, Vol. 64, pp. 15-27<br />
Williams R. & Edge D. (1996), ‘The Social Shaping of Technology’, Research Policy, vol.25,<br />
pp. 865-899
27<br />
AN INtrODUCtOry HIstOrICAl CONtextUAlIzAtION<br />
Of ONlINe CreAtION COmmUNItIes fOr tHe<br />
BUIlDINg Of DIgItAl COmmONs: tHe emergeNCe<br />
Of A free CUltUre mOVemeNt<br />
Mayo Fuster Morell<br />
Postdoctoral researcher at the Institute of Govern and Public Policies (Autonomous University of Barcelona)<br />
and visiting scho<strong>la</strong>r at the Internet Interdisciplinary Institute (Open University of Catalonia)<br />
AbstrAct: online Creation Communities (oCCs) are a set of individuals that communicate, interact<br />
and col<strong>la</strong>borate; in several forms and <strong>de</strong>grees of participation which are eco-systemically integrated;<br />
mainly via a p<strong>la</strong>tform of participation on the Internet, on which they <strong>de</strong>pend; and aiming at knowledgemaking<br />
and sharing. The paper will first provi<strong>de</strong> an historical contextualization oCCs. Then, it will<br />
show how the <strong>de</strong>velopment of oCCs is fuelled by and contributes to, the rise of a free culture movement<br />
<strong>de</strong>fending and advocating the creation of digital commons, and provi<strong>de</strong> an empirically groun<strong>de</strong>d<br />
<strong>de</strong>finition of free culture movement. The empirical analyses is based content analysis of 80 interviews to<br />
free culture practitioners, promoters and activists with an international background or rooted in Europe,<br />
USA and Latino-America and the content analysis of two seminar discussions. The data collection was<br />
<strong>de</strong>veloped from 2008 to 2010.<br />
Keywords: online creation communities; Free culture movement; Digital commons; Web 2.0;<br />
online col<strong>la</strong>boration.<br />
1. introduction<br />
online Creation Communities (oCCs) are a set of individuals that communicate, interact<br />
and col<strong>la</strong>borate; in several forms and <strong>de</strong>grees of participation which are eco-systemically integrated;<br />
mainly via a p<strong>la</strong>tform of participation on the Internet, on which they <strong>de</strong>pend; and aiming<br />
at knowledge-making and sharing (Fuster Morell, 2010). oCCs based on certain governance<br />
conditions result on the building of a digital commons. Digital commons are <strong>de</strong>fined as an<br />
information and knowledge resources that are collectively created and owned or sha<strong>red</strong> between<br />
or among a community and that tend to be non-exclusivedible, that is, be (generally freely) avai<strong>la</strong>ble<br />
to third parties. Thus, they are oriented to favor use and reuse, rather than to exchange as a<br />
commodity. Additionally, the community of people building them can intervene in the governing<br />
of their interaction processes and of their sha<strong>red</strong> resources (Fuster Morell, 2010).<br />
oCCs early <strong>de</strong>velopment and cultural roots could be found back in 1950s; continue<br />
through the appearance and success of the first oCCs around Free and open source software<br />
<strong>de</strong>velopment in the 1990s, to the <strong>la</strong>ter <strong>de</strong>velopments in the first <strong>de</strong>ca<strong>de</strong> of the 21 st<br />
century, particu<strong>la</strong>rly with the explosion of commercial Web 2.0, and the new frontiers of<br />
potentiality that are evolving. The paper politically contextualize the oCCs. It will show
482 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
how the <strong>de</strong>velopment of oCCs is fuelled by and contributes to, the rise of a free culture<br />
movement <strong>de</strong>fending and advocating the creation of digital commons. To then provi<strong>de</strong> an<br />
empirically groun<strong>de</strong>d <strong>de</strong>finition of free culture movement.<br />
The empirical analyses is based content analysis of 80 interviews to free culture practitioners,<br />
promoters and activists with an international background or rooted in Europe,<br />
USA and Latino-America and the content analysis of two seminar discussions 1 . The data<br />
collection was <strong>de</strong>veloped from 2008 to 2010.<br />
2. from tHe 1950s: cultural roots of occs: Pioneer online<br />
communities<br />
A first cultural origin of oCCs is the hacker culture. The hacking culture emerged in<br />
the 1950s around the Artificial Intelligence Lab of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology<br />
(MIT). The hacking culture was based first on a sense of exploration and creative enjoyment<br />
with technology, and afterwards on the optimization of technology. The hacker ethic<br />
is characterized by a passion to create and share knowledge and to consi<strong>de</strong>r collective creation<br />
as a humorous and enjoyable action (Himanen, 2001). A hacker is <strong>de</strong>fined as a person interested<br />
in experimenting with technology and its social uses, who acts to distribute knowledge<br />
in an effective, free and creative way; and for whom the Internet is not only a medium, but<br />
also a political space (Raymond, 2000, 2001).<br />
In this first period of software coding, most of the software circu<strong>la</strong>ted freely between<br />
the <strong>de</strong>veloper-hackers (Castells, 2002). However, in the 1970s a proprietary sense of the<br />
software started to grow, meaning restrictions on the use of software and the incorporation<br />
of a commercial sense. Richard Stallman, a programmer from the Artificial Intelligence Lab<br />
of the MIT, c<strong>la</strong>imed the risk of the privatization of software to be an attack on the freedom<br />
of expression. In the famous words of Stallman: “Free as in free speech, not necessarily free as<br />
in free beer” 2 . In or<strong>de</strong>r to preserve the free character of the software, Stallman foun<strong>de</strong>d the<br />
GNU project in 1984 to <strong>de</strong>velop an operating system that was to be completely free. Stallman<br />
also foun<strong>de</strong>d, in Boston in 1985, the Free Software Foundation, and with legal assistance<br />
established the General Public License and the Lesser General Public License, which<br />
allowed for the legal protection of free software (Stal<strong>de</strong>r, 2010).<br />
Another cultural reference of the oCCs is the counter-culture movement of the 1960s.<br />
In the book “From counterculture to cyberculture” Turner presents in <strong>de</strong>tail the roots of cyberculture<br />
in the American counterculture of the 1960s (2006). one of the first social sectors<br />
to see meaning in the new technologies of information and communication was the North-<br />
1 Networked Politics seminar on Networked Politics, Berlin, June 2006 and Networked Politics seminar<br />
on commons, Berkeley, 7th December, 2009.<br />
2 Free software <strong>de</strong>finition by the Free software foundation. Retrieved May 28, 2010 from http://www.<br />
gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html (May 28, 2010).
An introductory historical contextualization of online creation communities for the building of digital…<br />
483<br />
American counterculture. The WELL (Whole Earth ’Lectronic Link) was a pioneering online<br />
community established in 1985. Its participants were mainly composed of members of<br />
the “back to the <strong>la</strong>nd” movement based on the Californian coast.<br />
A third point of reference for oCCs are previous experiences of participatory knowledge-making.<br />
The oCCs are characterized by their participative approach to knowledgemaking.<br />
However, the oCCs do not represent the first attempt to <strong>de</strong>velop a participatory<br />
and collective approach to knowledge-building. Some examples of previous experiences of<br />
collective and col<strong>la</strong>borative methodologies for knowledge-building are: Italian <strong>la</strong>bour coresearch;<br />
women’s groups of self-awareness and feminist epistemology; French institutional<br />
analysis; the Latino-American action-participation methodologies and communitarian research<br />
in general (Malo, 2004). The aca<strong>de</strong>mic communities were initially also constituted<br />
by highly col<strong>la</strong>borative environments and communitarian dynamics. oCCs take special<br />
advantage of new technologies of information and communication (NTI) to <strong>de</strong>velop i<strong>de</strong>as<br />
already present in these previous experiences.<br />
3. from tHe 1990s: tHe aPPearance of tHe first online creation<br />
communities: free and oPen source software Projects<br />
The first oCCs to appear were <strong>de</strong>velopment communities based around software programming.<br />
By the early 1990s, the Internet had become a medium for col<strong>la</strong>boration among<br />
programmers. Linus Torvalds from Helsinki suggested, in 1991, the further <strong>de</strong>velopment of<br />
the Linux kernel (a key component) to a newsgroup on the Internet. This led to the rise of<br />
one of the first and <strong>la</strong>rgest oCCs on col<strong>la</strong>borative software <strong>de</strong>velopment. The work involved<br />
Linux joining the previous work of GNU, which led to the first completely free operating<br />
system built by a <strong>de</strong>velopment community (Stal<strong>de</strong>r, 2010).<br />
Since the 1990s <strong>de</strong>velopment communities have proliferated. Free software became<br />
very popu<strong>la</strong>r and most of the software infrastructure that powers the internet is FLoSS<br />
(Weber, 2004). In 2007 Wheeler, drawing on an extensive survey of the rate of FLoSS<br />
adoption across various sectors, conclu<strong>de</strong>d that in many cases FLoSS is more used than<br />
proprietary competitiors’ productus according to various measures (Wheeler, 2007) 3 . From<br />
the <strong>la</strong>te 1990s onwards, some alternative terms for free software came into common usage,<br />
including open source software (FoSS), software libre, free, libre and open source software<br />
(FLoSS). The distinction between free software and open software is not so much a question<br />
of the software itself, but of two different i<strong>de</strong>ological approaches. Whereas free software<br />
emphasizes the liberty free software gives users, open source instead emphasizes productive<br />
efficiency and business mo<strong>de</strong>ls based on open col<strong>la</strong>boration (Stallman, 1996).<br />
3 For example, several of the Internet’s most basic technologies, such as the domain name system, have since<br />
its beginnings used FLoSS. other components such as mail and web servers also run p<strong>red</strong>ominantly on<br />
FLoSS (Wheeler, 2007). According to web analytics firm Netcraft, in August 2010, 56% of webservers<br />
run on Apache based and free software. Retrieved August 15, 2010 from htt://www.netcraft.com.
484 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
4. 2001: from free software to free culture: tHe exPansion of<br />
occs to otHer immaterial content<br />
At the beginning of the millennium, the spread of the Internet and personal computers<br />
lowe<strong>red</strong> barriers, the expansion of education, particu<strong>la</strong>rly in the global North, and knowledge-based<br />
markets saw <strong>la</strong>rger sections of the popu<strong>la</strong>tion able to communicate and col<strong>la</strong>borate<br />
in online settings and holding the skills for engaging in activities of cultural creativity.<br />
Additionally, starting in the 1980s and 1990s a group of USA aca<strong>de</strong>mics –mostly <strong>la</strong>w<br />
scho<strong>la</strong>rs– began to worry about the expansion of Intellectual Property in the neoliberal frame<br />
and initiated action in or<strong>de</strong>r to protect creativity and the public domain 4 . These aca<strong>de</strong>mics<br />
helped <strong>de</strong>velop the i<strong>de</strong>a of the intellectual commons and invented Creative Commons<br />
licenses with the aid of Lawrence Lessig (2004). Creative Commons Licenses enable sharing<br />
and <strong>de</strong>velop <strong>de</strong>rivative work from previous materials and were adopted to support online<br />
col<strong>la</strong>boration (Creative Commons, 2009).<br />
In this context, oCCs based on content other than software began to grow. New “free<br />
culture” expressions emerged with the aim of col<strong>la</strong>boratively creating cultural content and<br />
generating universal access to knowledge. The most important example of this is Wikipedia.<br />
It is an online encyclopedia foun<strong>de</strong>d in 2001 which has grown enormously since then.<br />
The strategy to build an autonomous infrastructure of communication and coordination<br />
within the GJM for the global confluence of the movement after the events of Seattle<br />
against the World Tra<strong>de</strong> organization in 1999 represents another important step in the<br />
formation of oCCs around social memory processes (Mi<strong>la</strong>n, 2009). The structure of communication<br />
of the Global Justice Movement (GJM) was extremely innovative at the time,<br />
and Indymedia (an alternative media website) became a reference point for open publishing<br />
and content generated by users (Haas, 2007). The distinctive emphasis on the participatory<br />
methods characteristic of the GJM, in contrast to the more centralized or hierarchical methods<br />
of the past, has also been applied to the role and nature of knowledge generated by<br />
the GJM (Fuster Morell, 2004; Santos, 2007; Wainwright, 2005). Furthermore, with the<br />
growing importance of NTI in society, access to NTI and its consequences, <strong>de</strong>fined as communication<br />
rights, is becoming an area of continuous struggle, and was incorporated into the<br />
GJM’s agenda (Mi<strong>la</strong>n & Hintz, 2004).<br />
In 1999, influenced by the impact of Indymedia, journalism produced “by the people”<br />
began to flourish, enabled in part by emerging Internet and networking technologies, such<br />
as weblogs, chat rooms, message boards, wikis and mobile computing. Furthermore, hund<strong>red</strong>s<br />
of virtual news communities have been created and spread using Free Culture i<strong>de</strong>als,<br />
generating a critical media ecosystem, experimenting with different regimes in terms of<br />
intellectual property rights and conceptions, ready to mobilize and diffuse the a<strong>la</strong>rm when a<br />
new impediment to free circu<strong>la</strong>tion appears (Keren, 2006).<br />
4 Among them Pame<strong>la</strong> Samuelson, Jessica Litman, James Boyle, Yochai Benkler, Larry Lessig and<br />
among others.
An introductory historical contextualization of online creation communities for the building of digital…<br />
485<br />
Another relevant part of oCCs’ configuration is the first generation to be ‘born digital’.<br />
The first “digital generations” were born in the 1980s and 1990s. In rich countries, most of the<br />
younger generations grow up with access to education at different levels, and with access to<br />
the Internet and use the Internet in their everyday lives. These generations are known as digital<br />
born or digital native generations (Palfrey & Gasser, 2008; Tapscott, 2008). The normalcy of<br />
the online multi-interactive environment for the digital generation has resulted in what Lessig<br />
calls the “Remix Culture”, also known as “read/write” culture (Lessig, 2008). The Remix Culture<br />
of the digital generation is characterized by: easy access to text information and knowledge<br />
and audio-visual materials; easy access and the capacity to use programs and tools to create<br />
and e<strong>la</strong>borate new cultural products; proactive or “prosumer” attitu<strong>de</strong>s, that is a combination<br />
of a consumer attitu<strong>de</strong> and a producer attitu<strong>de</strong>, an i<strong>de</strong>ntity of creators, not of consumers or<br />
spectators; and the habit of public exposure and living in public. Alex Kozak from Stu<strong>de</strong>nts for<br />
Free Culture – Berkeley puts it this way: ‘It is part of the i<strong>de</strong>ntity of my generation to create and<br />
share content on <strong>la</strong>rge social networks, organise events online and share with each other our favourite<br />
music and movies, sometimes legally and sometimes not,’ (Buxton, 2009).<br />
Finally, the history of oCCs also saw an important moment with the European invention<br />
of file-sharing and peer-to-peer architectures of information to facilitate access to cultural<br />
products. File sharing is the practice of making files avai<strong>la</strong>ble for others to use though<br />
the Internet or smaller intranet networks (Bauwens, 2005). A good example is the Swedish<br />
Pirate Bay. To <strong>de</strong>fend the values of file-sharing, a political party, called the Pirate Party, has<br />
also been formed in Swe<strong>de</strong>n, which won representation in the European elections in 2009.<br />
oCCs i<strong>de</strong>als have also arrived in the scientific world with the building of digital commons<br />
with scientific content. Several online mechanisms for scientific col<strong>la</strong>boration emerged, such as<br />
the establishment of poles of empirical data (David, 2004). Furthermore, an important historical<br />
moment for the emergence of oCCs guaranteeing access to scientific knowledge were the struggles<br />
over access to anti-retroviral drugs to treat HIV/AIDS in South Africa during the 1990s.<br />
This impulse led to the wish to rec<strong>la</strong>im the public character of research through open access to<br />
research results. one example of this is the Public Library of Science (PloS). PloS is a non-profit,<br />
open access scientific publishing project fun<strong>de</strong>d in 2001, aimed at creating a library of open<br />
access journals and other scientific literature un<strong>de</strong>r an open content license 5 . Finally, another<br />
preeminent example of mobilizing for access to knowledge is Stu<strong>de</strong>nts For Free Culture. Stu<strong>de</strong>nts<br />
For Free Culture is composed by a network of over 35 chapters in universities. The chapters are<br />
mainly in United States universities but are expanding in other countries.<br />
5. 2006: tHe exPlosion of commercial web 2.0<br />
While previous <strong>de</strong>velopments are key for oCCs following a commons logic, another<br />
approach appears in the new economy based on information access and sharing.<br />
5 Website of the Public Library of Science: http://www.plos.org/
486 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
In the fall of 2001, the technological industry suffe<strong>red</strong> what was called the “dot-com”<br />
crisis, which marked a turning point for the sector. The companies that had survived the dotcom<br />
col<strong>la</strong>pse had some things in common. With the spread of the Internet during the 1990s,<br />
a major shift from storing data online and virtually instead of on individual computers took<br />
p<strong>la</strong>ce, known as data cloud. With data cloud more and more commercial provi<strong>de</strong>rs specializing in<br />
services for data storage and exchange online appea<strong>red</strong>. The new economy of information access<br />
and sharing, also known as Web 2.0 or Wikinomics, is an innovative economic trend based on<br />
the commercialization of flows and services of information and knowledge by multinational<br />
communication (o’Reilly, 2005; Tapscott & Williams, 2007) 6 . The most distinctive example<br />
of the New economy is Google. Examples can also be found in YouTube, MySpace or Flickr,<br />
p<strong>la</strong>tforms provi<strong>de</strong>d by Multinational Communication Companies 7 .<br />
The <strong>de</strong>velopment of a new economy based on information access and sharing contributed<br />
substantially to the popu<strong>la</strong>rization of the multi-interactive infrastructure of the web.<br />
However, major accessibility (linked to Internet diffusion) instead of functionality is what<br />
distinguishes the Web 2.0 from the Web 1.0 (Shirky, 2008).<br />
The new economy was inspi<strong>red</strong> by the innovations presented in the previous sections (I.e.<br />
FLoSS, Wikipedia, Indymedia, among others) to <strong>de</strong>fine a new business mo<strong>de</strong>l based on the data<br />
cloud. However, in the light of this research, the corporation as infrastructure provi<strong>de</strong>r also changed<br />
the conditions of use of infrastructure in contrast to previous cases based on commons logic.<br />
In this period, oCCs based on commons logic and GJM position as protagonists in the use<br />
of the technology was taken by the communications companies of the new economy. A media<br />
activist from Mi<strong>la</strong>n characterized this stage with the expression the “market is going beyond us”<br />
(A, Foti, Notes Networked Politics seminar on Networked Politics, Berlin, June 2006).<br />
The expansion of commercial type of infrastructure provi<strong>de</strong>rs online based on a corporate<br />
logic stresses the conflict with oCCs based instead of a commons logic. Previous<br />
empirical research sheds light on and exp<strong>la</strong>ins the difference between a commons logic and<br />
a corporate logic in shaping collective action in the digital era (Fuster Morell, 2010). In the<br />
light of this research, it can be p<strong>red</strong>icted that in coming years, the possibilities for political<br />
mobilization on free culture issues will be likely to increase.<br />
6. a free culture moVement in formation?<br />
The <strong>de</strong>velopment of oCCs is also fuelled by and contributes to the rise of the movement<br />
<strong>de</strong>fending and advocating the creation of digital commons.<br />
6 The term Web 2.0 was originally used to represent a shift in the business mo<strong>de</strong>l, “a new way of doing<br />
business”, after the dot-com crisis (o’Reilly, 2005; Tapscott & Williams, 2007).<br />
7 YouTube, with the slogan “Broadcast yourself”, is a website to archive, share and comment on homema<strong>de</strong><br />
vi<strong>de</strong>os; Myspace is a website for social networking where each person has their own page to<br />
present him or herself and interact with others; and Flickr is a website to archive, share and comment<br />
on photos.
An introductory historical contextualization of online creation communities for the building of digital…<br />
Several events, campaigns and international networks led to the formation of a free<br />
culture movement. The International networks such as the commons international network<br />
of supporters of Creative Commons licenses (Dobusch, 2009), the recent Campaign against<br />
the Telecom Pack Reform in the European Union (Breindl, 2010), and the celebration of<br />
the first free culture and access to knowledge forum in 2009 constitute some of the key<br />
moments of confluence. Additionally, the oCCs for the building of digital commons are<br />
instances of participation in this FCM. By producing digital commons, oCCs fulfill the<br />
broad political goals of the FCM. oCCs for the building of digital commons, based on a<br />
commons logic, are arenas in which the communities c<strong>la</strong>sh and contrast with oCCs based<br />
instead on corporate logic, challenging the established proprietary production system of information<br />
and knowledge and a corporate oriented adoption of NTI. However, free culture<br />
activism and buil<strong>de</strong>rs of oCCs are not necessarily the same people. Plus, a common i<strong>de</strong>ntity<br />
for both profiles does not yet exist.<br />
Several political aims are present in the FCM discourse: first, to preserve digital commons<br />
and empower oCCs through the avai<strong>la</strong>bility of infrastructure for sharing and <strong>de</strong>centralised<br />
creativity and col<strong>la</strong>boration based on conditions which empower communities<br />
vis-à-vis infrastructure provi<strong>de</strong>rs and guarantee their individual and collective autonomy<br />
and in<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nce. Second, the FCM aims to make important information avai<strong>la</strong>ble to<br />
the public for discussion and ultimately to increase freedom of expression by guaranteeing<br />
the possibility to intervene and the free circu<strong>la</strong>tion of information in public life. North<br />
American free culture activists frame this goal as inspi<strong>red</strong> by the Free Speech Movement of<br />
the 1960s and aim to have a simi<strong>la</strong>r impact to the Free Speech Movement. In Alex Kozak’s<br />
words: ‘Like the Free Speech movement, we are fighting against the top-down control of speech<br />
and are motivated by beliefs about basic rights. The differences are in our ability to organise<br />
electronically – our Mario Savio [one of the lea<strong>de</strong>rs of the Free Speech Movement] is more likely<br />
to inspire with a blog post than with a speech,’ (A. Kozak, Presentation at Networked Politics<br />
seminar on commons, Berkeley, 7th December, 2009). Third, the FCM aims to improve<br />
social justice and solidarity, particu<strong>la</strong>rly in the global North/South context, by removing<br />
barriers to access to knowledge goods. Fourth, in or<strong>de</strong>r to achieve the previous goals, the<br />
movement seeks to influence policy making and reform copyright, patent, and tra<strong>de</strong>mark<br />
<strong>la</strong>w in the public interest, as well as the reform of the management of scientific knowledge<br />
at Universities.<br />
Interestingly, the term “political remix” illustrates how the above c<strong>la</strong>im is built. According<br />
to this research, political remix can be un<strong>de</strong>rstood as the customization of the political<br />
message according to the “remix” of each individual’s preferences, supported by the use of<br />
“individual media”. This means, on the one hand, not only pushing to see the Free Culture<br />
message in mainstream old media, but activists themselves spreading the free culture though<br />
their own means, contacts and audiences online. on the other hand, an activist does not<br />
“consume” or adopt the political message on free culture as a package, but creates the message<br />
and customizes it. Generally, the message combines the private and personal information of<br />
the person who spreads it with information of public interest.<br />
487
488 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
However, the FCM is not easily characterized with traditional political categories. It<br />
it is better characterized by political ambivalence 8 . The form of collective aggregation of<br />
the FCM could be one of the reasons that exp<strong>la</strong>in this political ambivalence. It tends to be<br />
specific, mission oriented, and pragmatic. The FCM emerged around series of practices and<br />
sha<strong>red</strong> conception of knowledge and its politics. Moreover, and, importantly, participants of<br />
the FCM do not need to agree on aspects that go beyond this specific area. The aggregation<br />
on specific common objectives could be exemplified with the case of Wikipedia. Wikipedia<br />
editors contribute on the base of very diverse motivations (Glott, Schmidt, & Ghosh, 2009)<br />
additionally, through my participant observation; I observed that Wikipedia editors can be<br />
situated across the political spectrum (from right to left). The aggregation around Wikipedia,<br />
however, is mission oriented and based on a pragmatic approach to col<strong>la</strong>boration in the<br />
common task of building of an online encyclopedia accessible to as many people as possible.<br />
There is no expectation that the editors share a common program or common politics which<br />
goes beyond building an encyclopedia.<br />
The same can be said about the FLoSS communities. Here too, the motivations to<br />
contribute are very diverse, but the communities focus on specific goals of solfware <strong>de</strong>velopment<br />
with a sha<strong>red</strong> politics of knowledge (Ghosh, Ruediger, Bernhard, & Robles, 2002;<br />
Weber, 2004). FLoSS can be seen as a rich political expression from the feminist theory<br />
approaches to the political, with however, a political agnosticism. Colleman stresses the firm<br />
<strong>de</strong>nial by FLoSS <strong>de</strong>velopers of having any <strong>de</strong>liberate political agenda, in a conventional<br />
conception of politics. Though as Colleman argues, this political agnosticism has its own<br />
complexity. As Coleman puts it:“while (among FOSS <strong>de</strong>velopers) it is perfectly acceptable and<br />
encouraged to have a panel on free software at an anti-globalization conference, FOSS <strong>de</strong>velopers<br />
would suggest that it is unacceptable to c<strong>la</strong>im that FOSS has as one of its goals anti-globalization,<br />
or for that matter any political program –a subtle but vital difference” (Colleman, 2004, p. 1).<br />
Colleman and Hill (2004) points to FLoSS`s political agnosticism and its resistance to<br />
<strong>de</strong>fining FLoSS in traditional political terms as one of the factors which would favor the<br />
“traveling” of the FLoSS and its adoption in diverse terrains. In the words of Colleman and<br />
Hill: Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) has been adopted as a political tool by leftist activists.<br />
At the same time, it has been embraced by <strong>la</strong>rge corporations to extend profits and has been<br />
criticized as an integral force in <strong>la</strong>te capitalism. It has been adopted by members of the growing<br />
Commons movement as a mo<strong>de</strong>l for limiting the power of capitalism (2004, p. 1). This political<br />
agnosticism could be read as an instrumental approach, a way to create more force around<br />
the adoption of FLoSS; however, it cannot be exp<strong>la</strong>ined simply in terms of instrumentalism.<br />
FCM aggregation is built around specific missions with a strong ten<strong>de</strong>ncy towards<br />
performative politics (that is, around “building” practices), and in the <strong>la</strong>nd of politics of<br />
knowledge, not involving other dimensions such as those linked to political i<strong>de</strong>ology in<br />
a c<strong>la</strong>ssic sense. As a result, there is around the FCM, a <strong>la</strong>rge political spectrum of partici-<br />
8 Benkler suggests that the FCM open an opportunity to approach the left and libertarian agenda (Y.<br />
Benkler, personal communication, June 29, 2010).
An introductory historical contextualization of online creation communities for the building of digital…<br />
489<br />
pants, and the aggregation is based on their communality around the conditions of access to<br />
knowledge and the possibility to share and col<strong>la</strong>borate around information and knowledge<br />
creation. Around these issues of access to knowledge and the digital rights linked to sharing<br />
and col<strong>la</strong>boration, the FCM <strong>de</strong>velops political actions, such as the Pirate Party which aims<br />
to give a political representation to the the interests of the FCM, or lobbying and political<br />
campaigns in the most traditional sense. In this regard, the FCM represents an emerging<br />
source of conflict and a c<strong>la</strong>sh in society around several conceptions of knowledge. The FCM<br />
grew over a new source of aggregation in society which is able of put together and create<br />
col<strong>la</strong>boration between very diverse forces, and of actors which are part of the whole political<br />
spectrum. However, the FCM does not aggregate around conflicts or areas which go beyond<br />
the politics of knowledge (which could un<strong>de</strong>rmine the possibility of col<strong>la</strong>boration around<br />
the sha<strong>red</strong> terrain).<br />
It is worth highlighting that more recently, linked to changes in the regu<strong>la</strong>tion of Intellectual<br />
Property and the lobbying pressure of the cultural industry, a more conventional<br />
political dimension of the FCM is gaining in importance. However, the ten<strong>de</strong>ncy towards<br />
<strong>de</strong>fining specific common goals and targets bringing together a plurality of actors, also<br />
applies to the more politically conventional expressions of the FCM, such as protest actions,<br />
campaigns, lobbing activities or/ and search of political representation. For example, the<br />
agenda of the Pirate Party with political representation at the European Parliament is limited<br />
to issues linked to knowledge policy and its voters are part of the diverse political spectrum 9 .<br />
Finally, the political support that the FCM gains in institutions tends to be different in<br />
the North than in the South. While in the North, particu<strong>la</strong>rly in Europe, the traditional left<br />
has been reluctant to adopt and support the FCM agenda (perhaps because FCM challenges<br />
traditional left visions of culture and knowledge, and its forms of collective aggregation); in<br />
the South, where the consequences of the current conditions to access to knowledge (such<br />
as in terms of access to medicines, education materials, etc) can be seen to be more dramatic,<br />
lefties parties, such as the Workers party in Brazil, has adopted the FCM agenda as one of<br />
its priorities.<br />
7. <strong>de</strong>fining tHe moVement dimension of free culture<br />
According to Tilly social movements are <strong>de</strong>fined as “a series of challenges to established<br />
authorities, especially national authorities, in the name of an unrepresented constituency”<br />
(Tilly 1983, p. 466). The FCM fits Tilly <strong>de</strong>finition of a social movement insofar as it aims<br />
to challenge authorities in a traditional sense in or<strong>de</strong>r to reform the Intellectual Proprietary<br />
regime and c<strong>la</strong>im the support of public institutions for free culture expression, in particu<strong>la</strong>r<br />
by protecting and preserving digital commons. However, a national authority is not its main<br />
target, it focuses instead on the European Union and the World Intellectual Property or-<br />
9 Sources: Amelia An<strong>de</strong>rsdotter (Member European Parliament for the Swedish Pirate Party) and programe<br />
Pirate Party 2009. Retrieved from http://www.piratpartiet.se/
490 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
ganization (WIPo), a sub-organization of the United Nations. For example, the campaign<br />
against the approval of software patents in the European Parliament in 2006 was one of the<br />
major victories of the FCM (Breindl, 2010). The same can be said with regard to the achievement<br />
of the 2007 lobbying campaign at the WIPo in or<strong>de</strong>r to introduce a <strong>de</strong>velopment<br />
agenda, which un<strong>de</strong>rlined the need for access to intellectual property to meet <strong>de</strong>velopment<br />
goals, regarding, for example access to medicines (Stal<strong>de</strong>r, 2010). other authors have pointed<br />
out the transnational evolution of social mobilizations, (<strong>de</strong>l<strong>la</strong> Porta & Tarrow 2005;<br />
Keck & Sikkink, 1998; Rucht, 1999), as is the case for the GJM (<strong>de</strong>l<strong>la</strong> Porta, 2009).<br />
Additionally, focusing on state-re<strong>la</strong>ted outcomes has kept scho<strong>la</strong>rs from <strong>de</strong>veloping a<br />
comprehensive un<strong>de</strong>rstanding of how social movements effect change in socio-economic<br />
and cultural contexts (Amenta & Caren, 2004; Earl, 2000; Melucci, 1996). Social movement<br />
scho<strong>la</strong>rs have traditionally viewed movement outcomes narrowly, as the ability of a<br />
movement to achieve political or policy goals (Amenta & Caren, 2004; Gamson, 1992).<br />
Melucci states how a social movement “entails a breach of the limits of compatibility of the<br />
system within which the action itself takes p<strong>la</strong>ce” (1996, pp. 29-30).<br />
The FCM adopted the goal of putting participative knowledge-making into practice.<br />
However, in or<strong>de</strong>r to make it possible, it engaged in <strong>de</strong>veloping legal innovations, protest<br />
and lobbying political institutions (Frickel & Gross, 2005; Moore, 1996). Those involved<br />
in the Free culture movement are not only interested in policy outcomes, but also contest<br />
cultural values and beliefs (Earl, 2000), leading to the construction of oCCs as alternative<br />
systems of production (Carroll & Swaminathan, 2000; Rao, 1998; Schneiberg, 2002). Very<br />
significant examples in this regard are the Free and open source projects, which transformed<br />
the production of software in the NTI industry. Recent research shows that movements engaged<br />
in production as a mo<strong>de</strong> of opposition have ma<strong>de</strong> significant creative and economic<br />
contributions to society (Dah<strong>la</strong>n<strong>de</strong>r & Magnusson, 2005; Shah, 2005; von Hippel, 2005).<br />
Furthermore, a focus on protest risks an incomplete un<strong>de</strong>rstanding of how cycles of contestation<br />
evolve. Contestation is not likely to remain constant, mobilization may characterize<br />
early stages but then transform.<br />
As is typical of New Social Movements, the movement struggles for broad cultural<br />
change as opposed to material c<strong>la</strong>ims. – fitting into the current shift towards the postmaterial<br />
(Appadurai, 1996). Touraine stressed that “the social control of the main cultural<br />
patterns, that is, of the patterns through which our re<strong>la</strong>tionships with the environment are<br />
normatively organized” (Touraine, 2008, p. 213) or “great cultural orientations” (Tourraine,<br />
1981) are at stake in social movements. This could have no better expression than in the Free<br />
culture movement, which contests a certain conception of culture and the protocols which<br />
gui<strong>de</strong> the possibility to construct culture in a digital environment.<br />
According to <strong>de</strong>l<strong>la</strong> Porta and Diani, a social movement dynamic is present “when single<br />
episo<strong>de</strong>s of collective action are perceived as components of a longer-<strong>la</strong>sting action, rather than discrete<br />
events; and when those who are engaged in them feel linked by ties of solidarity and of i<strong>de</strong>al<br />
communion with protagonists of other analogous mobilization” (<strong>de</strong>l<strong>la</strong> Porta & Diani, 2006, p. 23).<br />
The FCM can be consi<strong>de</strong><strong>red</strong> as in a stage of emergence and formation. Additionally, the FCM<br />
is less centralized than traditional social movements, ma<strong>de</strong> up of loosely connected commu-
An introductory historical contextualization of online creation communities for the building of digital…<br />
491<br />
nities that in<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>ntly organize or produce digital goods and which occasionally engage in<br />
common campaigns. Additionally, the FCM can be <strong>de</strong>fined as a “movement of movements”.<br />
It is the result of the confluence and networking of several experiences and diverse trajectories<br />
based on a common set of values and principles, the most important of which are: accessibility<br />
and the flow of information and knowledge; creativity; participative formats; network settings;<br />
and communal ownership. Although still emerging and loose in character, the celebration of<br />
the first international forum on free culture and access to knowledge in october 2009 marks<br />
one of the moments in which an umbrel<strong>la</strong> framing of these various collective actions took<br />
p<strong>la</strong>ce. on this occasion, a coalition of 200 organizations from several continents drafted and<br />
signed a common Charter for innovation, creativity and access to knowledge.<br />
Additionally, alongsi<strong>de</strong> the informal exchanges between individuals or organizations engaged<br />
in collective projects, Diani i<strong>de</strong>ntifies other two elements that <strong>de</strong>fine a social movement:<br />
conflictual orientations to clearly i<strong>de</strong>ntified opponents and a sha<strong>red</strong> collective i<strong>de</strong>ntity<br />
(Diani, 2003, p. 301). The above mentioned Charter for innovation, creativity and access<br />
to knowledge is an example of how the FCM frames its opponents as political institutions<br />
regu<strong>la</strong>ting against its c<strong>la</strong>ims and multinational corporations (and their lobbies) as adopting<br />
monopolistic and abusive practices against the principles of the net. In line with the cultural<br />
theory approach to the <strong>de</strong>finition of social movements, it also raises a sense of injustice (Ryan<br />
& Gamson, 2006). However, sha<strong>red</strong> collective action seems to be the least (or most loosely)<br />
<strong>de</strong>veloped dimension in the FCM. The FCM is in its very early stages and is still <strong>de</strong>veloping<br />
its collective i<strong>de</strong>ntity. There is no single term to refer to it, and although free culture is the<br />
most common one, other terms used inclu<strong>de</strong> the Free knowledge movement and the Universal<br />
access to knowledge movement, among others. The term which frames the movement, that is<br />
free culture, was originally the title of a 2004 book by <strong>la</strong>w scho<strong>la</strong>r Laurence Lessig. Since then,<br />
it has been wi<strong>de</strong>ly adopted. However, internal confrontations on <strong>de</strong>fining the movement’s<br />
i<strong>de</strong>ntity are also present. A survey on the use of free culture term of 256 free culture initiatives<br />
in Brazil conclu<strong>de</strong>d that there is inconsistency between the concept of free culture as held<br />
by practitioners and that used by theorists (referring to Lessig’s <strong>de</strong>finition of free culture and<br />
Stallman’s <strong>de</strong>finition of free software) (Reia, 2009). Additionally, the <strong>de</strong>centralized orientation<br />
of the FCM, as well as oCCs, stresses a challenge that already exists within the GJM, that is<br />
how intense interaction among members should be, and how homogeneous should a way of<br />
thinking be before we may speak of movements or collective i<strong>de</strong>ntities.<br />
The repertoire of action inclu<strong>de</strong>s a range of strategies. From the building of the digital<br />
commons to lobbying for legal and policy changes that affect the free circu<strong>la</strong>tion of information<br />
and the governance of the Internet. The FCM is composed by oCCs’ foundations,<br />
peer-to-peer infrastructures, international networks, specific campaigns, lobbies, alternative<br />
licenses, stu<strong>de</strong>nts and librarian groups, blog rings, meet-ups and local collectives, f<strong>la</strong>sh mobs,<br />
and individuals 10 .<br />
10 The more visible organizations and expressions of the FCM are the Linux operating system, the Free<br />
Software Foundation, Pirate Bay file-sharing architecture, Indymedia an alternative media p<strong>la</strong>tform,
492 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
The recent history of the FCMs goes hand in hand with the cultural conception, evolution<br />
and diffusion of NTI. The FCMs seems to <strong>de</strong>pend on the level of diffusion of NTI<br />
because it is more visible in p<strong>la</strong>ces where accessibility to the Internet is greater. Furthermore,<br />
the Free Culture frame seems to be moul<strong>de</strong>d by the context of political opportunity and overall<br />
socio-political schemata of each p<strong>la</strong>ce. FCM in the USA has closer connections with entrepreneurship<br />
and with universities (E. Stark, Interview, February 1, 2009; B. Moskowitz,<br />
Interview, December 16, 2008; J. Jacob, Interview, December 15, 2008; D. Harris, Interview,<br />
December 7, 2008). Additionally, the San Francisco Bay Area hosts the headquarters<br />
of a significant proportion of prominent organizations supporting the FCM. In Europe, the<br />
FCM has instead <strong>de</strong>veloped more connections with the autonomous sector of the GJM 11 . In<br />
Latin America, the FCM is linked to popu<strong>la</strong>r education and the “culture of the periphery” as<br />
seen from the popu<strong>la</strong>r expression of the “fave<strong>la</strong>s” (P. ortel<strong>la</strong>do, Informal interview, January<br />
28, 2009). Furthermore, a particu<strong>la</strong>r case is Brazil where there is institutional support for<br />
Free Culture from the Lu<strong>la</strong> Government. In this regard, the Brazilian government has adopted<br />
and promoted Free and open Source Software and promotes a Free Culture industry,<br />
among others. In the Brazilian context, a “counter-view” of the official discourse around<br />
“Free Culture” has also emerged, rec<strong>la</strong>iming a vision of Free Culture not seen as a commodity,<br />
and the <strong>de</strong>velopment of mechanisms to restrict State control over the production of culture<br />
and expression. As the Brazilian Epi<strong>de</strong>mia collective wrote in their manifesto; “Free Culture<br />
is not a characteristic of the product alone. (...) Culture is free when those who re<strong>la</strong>te to it are<br />
also free (...). Free Culture is a step towards the construction of a new society” (Epi<strong>de</strong>mia, 2009).<br />
FCM challenges traditional conceptions of social movements. However, simi<strong>la</strong>rities<br />
with other social movements can be pointed out – particu<strong>la</strong>rly concerning its contemporary,<br />
the GJM. Boyle suggests that free cultural activism is a new form of environmentalism (Boyle,<br />
1997). However, other authors c<strong>la</strong>im that a comparison with music-based subcultures<br />
is more appropriate than any simi<strong>la</strong>rities with traditional conceptions of social movements<br />
(Dafermos, 2009; Dafermos & So<strong>de</strong>rberg, 2009; Gel<strong>de</strong>r, 2007).<br />
In conclusion, the Free culture movement (FCM) is <strong>de</strong>fined as a network of individuals<br />
and organizations, linked by more or less <strong>de</strong>nse networks, solidarity ties and moments<br />
of confluence, sharing a loose collective i<strong>de</strong>ntity and a common set of values and principles<br />
(most importantly accessibility and the flow of information and knowledge, creativity, participative<br />
formats, network settings and communal ownership), whose acting together aims to<br />
challenge forms of knowledge-making and accessibility by engaging in the construction of<br />
Wikipedia an online free encyclopedia, Creative Commons Licenses, the Electronic Frontier Foundation,<br />
the Public Knowledge Foundation, the Public Library of Science archive, and the Stu<strong>de</strong>nts for<br />
Free Culture network, among others.<br />
11 The FCM in Southern Europe <strong>de</strong>veloped connections with networks formed by the alternative media,<br />
the “hackmeetings” process, movements in <strong>de</strong>fense of free circu<strong>la</strong>tion of people and the squatter<br />
movement. For example, Copyfight (http://www.e<strong>la</strong>stico.net/copyfight) and Fadaiat (http://www.<br />
fadaiat.net) have a special interest in connecting the free circu<strong>la</strong>tion of information with the free<br />
circu<strong>la</strong>tion of people.
An introductory historical contextualization of online creation communities for the building of digital…<br />
digital commons and mobilizations directed against the media and cultural industries, their<br />
lobbies, and political institutions (at the national, regional and global levels).<br />
8. bibliograPHic references<br />
493<br />
Amenta, E., & CAREN, N. (2004). The legis<strong>la</strong>tive, organization al, and beneficiary consequences<br />
of state-oriented challengers. In SNoW, D. A, SoULE, S. A. & H. KRIESI<br />
(Eds.). The B<strong>la</strong>ckwell Com panion to Social Movements (pp. 461–488). Mal<strong>de</strong>n, MA:<br />
Wiley B<strong>la</strong>ckwell.<br />
and Global Politcs. Solidarity Beyond the State. New York: Syracuse University Press<br />
Appadurai, A. (1996). Mo<strong>de</strong>rnity at Large: cultural dimensions of globalization. Minneapolis:<br />
University of Minnesota Press.<br />
Bauwens, M. (2005). The Political Economy of Peer Production. 1000 Days of Theory. Retrieved<br />
from http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=499<br />
Breindl, Y. (2010). Internet-based protest in European policymaking: The case of digital<br />
activism International Journal of E-Politics (IJEP), 1, 57-72.<br />
Buxton, N. (2009). Piracy and the digital revolution. Red Pepper. Retrieved from http://tni.<br />
org/inthemedia/piracy-and-digital-revolution<br />
Carroll, G. R., & Swaminathan, A. (2000). Why the microbrewery movement? organizational<br />
dynamics of resource partitioning in the US brewing industry. American Journal<br />
of Sociology, 106, 715–762.<br />
Castells, M. (2002, october 4). La dimensió cultural <strong>de</strong> Internet. Sesion 1: Cultura y sociedad<br />
<strong>de</strong>l conocimiento: presente y perspectivas <strong>de</strong> futuro [Culture and knowledge<br />
society: present and perspective for the future]. Institut <strong>de</strong> cultura. Barcelona, Spain.<br />
Colleman, G. (2004). The political agnosticism of free and open source software and the inadvertent<br />
politics of contrast. Anthropology Quarterly. 77, 507-519.<br />
Colleman, G., & HILL, M. (2004). The social production of ethics in Debian and free software<br />
communities. In S. KoCH (Ed.), Free and open source software <strong>de</strong>velopment (pp.<br />
27-58). Hershey, PA: I<strong>de</strong>a Group.<br />
Creative Commons. (2009, September). Defining “noncommercial”: A study of how the online<br />
popu<strong>la</strong>tion un<strong>de</strong>rstands “noncommercial use”. Retrieved from http://mirrors.creativecommons.org/<strong>de</strong>fining-noncommercial/Defining_Noncommercial_fullreport.pdf<br />
Dafermos, G., & Sö<strong>de</strong>rberg, J. (2009, March 22). The hacker movement as a continuation<br />
of <strong>la</strong>bour struggle. Capital and C<strong>la</strong>ss. Retrieved from http://www.thefreelibrary.<br />
com/The+hacker+movement+as+a+continuation+of+<strong>la</strong>bour+struggle.-a0194549143<br />
Dafermos, G. (2009). Hackers and social movements. Paper presented at the conference<br />
Shaping Europe in a Globalized World? Protest Movements and the Rise of a Transnational<br />
Civil Society. University of Zurich, Switzer<strong>la</strong>nd June 23-26, 2009.
494 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
Dah<strong>la</strong>n<strong>de</strong>r, L., & Magnusson, M. G. (2005). Re<strong>la</strong>tionships between open source software<br />
companies and communities: observa tions from Nordic firms. Research Policy, 34,<br />
481–493.<br />
Darvid, P. A. (2004). Un<strong>de</strong>rstanding the emergence of “open science” institutions: Funtionalist<br />
economics in history context. Industrial and Corporate Change, 13, 571–589.<br />
Del<strong>la</strong> Porta, D., & Diani, M. (2006). Social Movements. An Introduction. 2nd edition.<br />
oxford: B<strong>la</strong>ckwell.<br />
Del<strong>la</strong> Porta, D. & Tarrow, S. (Eds.). (2005). Transnational protest and global activism.<br />
New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.<br />
Del<strong>la</strong> Porta, D. (Ed.). (2009). Democracy in social movements. New York, NY: Palgrave.<br />
Diani, M. (2003). Introduction: social movements, contentious actions, and social networks:<br />
‘metaphor to substance?. In DIANI, M. & MCADAM, D. (Eds.), Social movements<br />
and networks. Re<strong>la</strong>tional approaches to collective action (pp. 1-18 ). New York: oxford<br />
University Press.Dobusch, L. (2009). Wikimania preview the importance of clear<br />
boundaries for community-participation. Retrieved from http://governancexbor<strong>de</strong>rs.<br />
wordpress.com/2009/05/25/wikimania-preview-1-the-importance-of-clear-boundaries-for-community-participation/<br />
Earl, J. (2000). Methods, movements, and outcomes: Methodological difficulties in the<br />
study of extra movement outcomes. In P. G. CoY (ed.), Research in Social Movements,<br />
Conflicts, and Change (pp. 3–25). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.<br />
Epi<strong>de</strong>mia. (2009). Free culture is not a commodity. (Paper distributed at the World Social<br />
Forum).<br />
Frickel, S., & Gross, N. (2005). A general theory of scientific/intellectual movements.<br />
American Sociological Review, 70, 204–232.<br />
Fuster Morell, M. (2004). InvestigAction and social forums. In o. REYES, H.<br />
WAINWRIGHT, M. FUSTER MoRELL, and M. BERLINGUER (2004). Euromovements<br />
Newsletter: European Social Forum, a <strong>de</strong>bate on the challenges for its future. Retrieved<br />
from http://www.euromovements.info/newsletter/mayo.htm<br />
Fuster Morell, M. (2010). Governance of online creation communities. Provision of infrastructure<br />
for the building of digital commons. Unpublished dissertation. European<br />
University Institute, Florence.<br />
Gamson, W. A. (1992). Talking Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.<br />
Gel<strong>de</strong>r, K. (2007). Subcultures: Cultural Histories and Social Practice. Routledge.<br />
Ghosh, R., Ruediger, G., Bernhard, K., & Robles, G. (2002). Free/Libre and open source<br />
software: Survey and study [Report]. Maastricht, The Nether<strong>la</strong>nds: International Institute<br />
of Infonomics. Retrieved from http://www.flossproject.org/report/FLoSS_Final4.<br />
pdf<br />
Glott, R., Schmidt, P., & Ghosh, R. (2009). Wikipedia survey. Working draft. Unu - Merit.
An introductory historical contextualization of online creation communities for the building of digital…<br />
495<br />
Haas, T. (2007). Do citizen-based media of communication advance public journalism’s<br />
i<strong>de</strong>als? Evi<strong>de</strong>nce from the empirical research literature. International Journal of Communication.<br />
New York: Gale Group.<br />
Himanen, P. (2001). The hackers ethics and the and the spirit of information age. New York,<br />
NY: Random House.<br />
Keck, M. & Sikkink, K., (1998). Activists beyond bor<strong>de</strong>rs. Advocacy Networks in International<br />
Policy. London: Cornell University Press.<br />
Keren, M. (2006). Blogosphere: The New Political Arena. Lexington Books<br />
Lessig, L. (2004). Free culture: How big media uses technology and the <strong>la</strong>w to lock down culture<br />
and control creativity. New York, NY: Penguin Press.<br />
Malo, M. (2004). Nociones comunes: Experiencias y ensayos entre investigación y militancia.<br />
[Common notions: Experiences and tests between investigation and militancy]. Posse,<br />
Deriva approdi, Precarias a <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>riva, Grupo 116, Colectivo Sin Ticket, Colectivo<br />
Situaciones. Madrid Ed: Traficantes <strong>de</strong> sueños.<br />
Melucci, A. (1996). Challenging co<strong>de</strong>s. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press<br />
Mi<strong>la</strong>n, S., & Hintz, A. (2004, July). Civil society media and visions for communication governance:<br />
The cases of the world social forum and the World Summit on the Information<br />
Society. International Association for Media and Communication Research Annual<br />
Conference. Porto Alegre, Brazil.<br />
Moore, K. (1996). organizing integrity: American science and the creation of public interest<br />
organizations, 1955–1975. American Journal of Sociology, 101, 1592–1627.<br />
o’reilly, T. (2005, September 20). What is Web2.0? Design patters and business mo<strong>de</strong>ls for<br />
the next generation of software. Retrieved from http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html<br />
Palfrey, J., & Gasser, U. (2008). Born digital: Un<strong>de</strong>rstanding the first generation of digital<br />
natives. New York, NY: Basic Books.<br />
Rao, H. (1998). Caveat emptor: The construction of nonprofit consumer watchdog organizations.<br />
American Journal of an open project. Aca<strong>de</strong>my of Sociology, 103, 912–961.<br />
Raymond, E. S. (2000). The cathedral and the bazaar. Retrieved from http://www.apogeonline.com/openpress/cathedral<br />
Raymond, E.S. (2001). The cathedral and the bazaar: musings on Linux and Open Source<br />
from an acci<strong>de</strong>ntal revolutionary. Sebastapol, CA: o’Reilly and Associates.<br />
Reia, J. F. (2009). Alternative Licensing and the free culture movement in Sao Paulo. Free<br />
culture research workshop, october 2009. Harvard University. Retrieved from<br />
http://cyber.<strong>la</strong>w.harvard.edu fcrw/sites/fcrw/images/Reia_Free_Culture_2009__<br />
Harvard.pdf<br />
Rucht, D. (1999). The Transnationalisation of Social Movements: Trends, Causes, Problems.<br />
In D. DELLA PoRTA. H. KRIESI, & D. RUCHT (Eds.). Social Movements<br />
in a Globalizing World. (pp. 206-22). Basingstoke: Macmil<strong>la</strong>n.
496 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
Ryan, C., & Gamson, W. A. (2009). Are Frames Enough? (from “The Art of Reframing<br />
Political <strong>de</strong>bate”). In GooDWIN, J., & JASPER, J. J. (Eds.). The Social Movement<br />
Rea<strong>de</strong>r. Cases and Concepts. (pp. 167-174). Mal<strong>de</strong>n, MA: Wiley-B<strong>la</strong>ckwell.<br />
Santos, B. <strong>de</strong> S., (Ed.). (2007). Another knowledge is possible. London, UK: Verso.<br />
Schneiberg, M. (2002). organizational heterogeneity and the production of new forms:<br />
Politics, social movements and mutual companies in American fire insurance, 1990–<br />
1930. In M. LoUNSBURY & M. J. VENTRESCA (Eds.). Research in the Sociology of<br />
Organizations, 19, 39–89.<br />
Shah, S. (2005). open beyond software. In DIBoNA, C., CooPER D., & M. SToNE,<br />
M. (Eds.). Open Sources, 2, (pp. 339–360). Sebastapol, CA: o’Reilly.<br />
Shirky, C. (2008). Here comes everybody: The power of organizing without organizations. New<br />
York, NY: Penguin Press.<br />
Stal<strong>de</strong>r, F. (2010). Digital Commons. In: Hart, Keith; Laville, Jean-Louis; Cattani, Antonio<br />
David (eds). The Human Economy: A World Citizen’s Gui<strong>de</strong>. Cambridge, UK, Polity<br />
Press.<br />
Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. (2007). Wikinomics. Portfolio. New York, NY: Penguin.<br />
Tapscott, D. (2008). Grown up digital: How the net generation is changing your world. Columbus,<br />
oH: McGraw-Hill.<br />
Tilly, C. (1983). Speaking Your Mind Without Elections, Surveys, and Social Movements.<br />
The Public Opinion Quarterly, 47(4), 461-478 .<br />
Touraine, A. (2008). An Introduction to the study of social movements. In RUGGIERo,<br />
V., & MoNTAGNA, N., (Eds.) Social Movements. A Rea<strong>de</strong>r. (pp. 212-217. ) London<br />
and New York: Routledge.<br />
Touraine, A. (1981). The voice and the eye: An analysis of social movements. Cambridge, UK:<br />
Cambridge University Press.<br />
Turner, F. (2006). From counterculture to cyberculture: Stewart Brand, the Whole Earth Network,<br />
and the rise of digital utopianism. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.<br />
Von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.<br />
Wainwright, H. (2005). Report on the methodology of the WSF and its possible relevance for<br />
the 2006 ESF Transnational Institute: Retrieved from http://tni.org/article/reportmethodology-wsf-and-its-possible-relevance-2006-esf<br />
Weber, S. (2004). The success of open source. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
28<br />
self-gOVerNeD sOCIO-teCHNICAl INfrAstrUCtUres.<br />
Autonomy and Cooperation through free software<br />
and Community wireless Networks<br />
Daniel Guagnin<br />
Junior researcher at the Technical University Berlin<br />
Car<strong>la</strong> Ilten<br />
Junior researcher at the Technical University Berlin<br />
AbstrAct: open Source Software has become a well-known concept over the past years, representing<br />
a hybrid of the initial Free Software i<strong>de</strong>a and commercial structures. These <strong>de</strong>velopments call for<br />
a reconsi<strong>de</strong>ration of the political dimension of “freedom of co<strong>de</strong>” as stated in the famous quote of R.<br />
Stallman “free as in free speech“. At the same time, the hardware and infrastructures un<strong>de</strong>rlying software<br />
applications are un<strong>de</strong>rgoing transformation and possibly incorporation into economic structures. This<br />
poses a threat to the Internet as a <strong>de</strong>mocratizing infrastructure, as argued by Net Neutrality proponents.<br />
This presentation approaches the issue from two si<strong>de</strong>s: it investigates the i<strong>de</strong>a of “freedom” in software<br />
and how the freedom of software affects real life. It will be argued from a sociological perspective that<br />
the structure of an application, namely the character of being free or closed source can have an impact<br />
on the practice of <strong>de</strong>mocracy. Secondly, a case study on a Community Wireless project is presented as<br />
an example for the use of Free Software in or<strong>de</strong>r to build in<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nt infrastructures for disadvantaged<br />
communities – one way to preserve Net Neutrality.<br />
Keywords: Free Software, Community Wireless Networks, Net Neutrality, open Source, Crowd<br />
Sourcing, Expert-<strong>la</strong>y distinction, Alternative Niches.<br />
introduction<br />
People need not only to obtain things, they need above all the freedom to make things among<br />
which they can live, to give shape to them according to their own tastes, and to put them to<br />
use in caring for and about others. – Ivan Illich 1 .<br />
Network Neutrality is about the freedom to use a communication infrastructure in<br />
all possible ways without constraints on content, software or hardware elements of this<br />
complex infrastructure. It is about the user’s freedom and creativity within an increasingly<br />
commercialised socio-technical space.<br />
The freedom of software and infrastructure can be un<strong>de</strong>rstood in terms of power structures<br />
as discussed in the sociological literature. Using Gid<strong>de</strong>ns’ un<strong>de</strong>rstanding of expert systems<br />
based on scientific knowledge, it can be shown how the closed structure of proprietary<br />
1 See Illich 2011.
498 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
software makes it impossible to un<strong>de</strong>rstand the rules un<strong>de</strong>rlying the systems. This represents<br />
a re<strong>la</strong>pse into the tradition of pre-mo<strong>de</strong>rn times, where rules were opaque and unquestionable,<br />
com<strong>para</strong>ble to religious dogmas.<br />
We will argue here that specific characteristics of technology necessitate a critique of<br />
the above <strong>de</strong>scribed proprietary structure of software. Latour <strong>de</strong>scribes technology as „society<br />
ma<strong>de</strong> durable“ insofar as practical rules are inscribed into technology, and Lessig argues<br />
from a legal perspective that „Co<strong>de</strong> is Law“. In other words, har<strong>de</strong>ned technology structures<br />
such as closed-source software constitute societal power structures.<br />
open access to knowledge about the workings of expert systems is about transparency<br />
and trust –and about power, the distribution of which is a central characteristic of <strong>de</strong>mocracies.<br />
The case study of Community Wireless Networks which we present illustrates the empowerment<br />
dimension of in<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nt and noncommercial infrastructures. Fundamental<br />
elements of this empowering characteristic are their modifiability and a blur<strong>red</strong> expert-<strong>la</strong>y<br />
distinction.<br />
1. free software: a constitution for crowd sourcing<br />
1.1. Principles of free software<br />
open Source Software has become a well-known concept of crowd-sourced programming<br />
which is often used synonymously with Free Software. Although there are different<br />
concepts and philosophies behind the terms, the distinction between these is nowadays not<br />
very popu<strong>la</strong>r. Quite the converse, the <strong>de</strong>cision about which term to use has been avoi<strong>de</strong>d as<br />
of <strong>la</strong>te by scho<strong>la</strong>rs through using another term: Free/Libre open Source Software (FLoSS).<br />
This term reintroduces the notion of liberty which is originally inten<strong>de</strong>d in the “free” quality<br />
of Free Software, but the philosophical distinction is mostly neglected in favour of analysing<br />
the organisational phenomenon of crowd-sourced <strong>de</strong>veloping: the different styles of collective<br />
programming which have been famously compa<strong>red</strong> to a “bazaar” versus the building<br />
of a “cathedral” by Eric Raymond (2000). In this paper we want to stress the philosophical<br />
aspect of freedom and follow the Free Software Definition according to the Free Software<br />
Foundation:<br />
“Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. To un<strong>de</strong>rstand the concept, you should<br />
think of free as in free speech, not as in free beer” 2 .<br />
The Free Software Definition is as follows:<br />
1. “The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.<br />
2. The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs. Access to<br />
the source co<strong>de</strong> is a precondition for this.<br />
3. The freedom to <strong>red</strong>istribute copies so you can help your neighbor.<br />
2 http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html [Last accessed 19.5.2011]
self-governed socio-technical Infrastructures Autonomy and Cooperation through free software…<br />
499<br />
4. The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements (and modified<br />
versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits. Access to<br />
the source co<strong>de</strong> is a precondition for this.” (Free Software Foundation, 2011a)<br />
While the term open Source is often used to <strong>de</strong>scribe the access to the source co<strong>de</strong>,<br />
the open Source Initiative’s open Source Definition is simi<strong>la</strong>r to the Free Software Definition<br />
in many points. However there is one main difference between the <strong>de</strong>finitions:<br />
The Free Software Foundation stresses the so called copyleft effect of Free Software which is<br />
consciously omitted by the open Source Initiative. The open Source Initiative argues that<br />
commercial <strong>de</strong>velopers should not be exclu<strong>de</strong>d and that the Software should be adaptable<br />
to business mo<strong>de</strong>ls and hybrids:<br />
“6. No Discrimination Against Fields of En<strong>de</strong>avor – […] Rationale: The major intention<br />
of this c<strong>la</strong>use is to prohibit license traps that prevent open source from being used<br />
commercially. We want commercial users to join our community, not feel exclu<strong>de</strong>d<br />
from it.” (open Source Initiative, 2011)<br />
The Free Software Foundation stresses the copyleft principle as a sine qua non argument:<br />
“That’s the basic reason why the GNU General Public License is written the way it is<br />
–as a copyleft. All co<strong>de</strong> ad<strong>de</strong>d to a GPL-cove<strong>red</strong> program must be free software, even<br />
if it is put in a se<strong>para</strong>te file. I make my co<strong>de</strong> avai<strong>la</strong>ble for use in free software, and not<br />
for use in proprietary software, in or<strong>de</strong>r to encourage other people who write software<br />
to make it free as well. I figure that since proprietary software <strong>de</strong>velopers use copyright<br />
to stop us from sharing, we cooperators can use copyright to give other cooperators an<br />
advantage of their own: they can use our co<strong>de</strong>.” (Free Software Foundation, 2011b)<br />
Finally, besi<strong>de</strong>s the transparency and openness of the source co<strong>de</strong> –as we will argue below–<br />
this copyleft is a main feature of Free Software which we consi<strong>de</strong>r part of a constitution<br />
of free cooperation.<br />
But what is meant by openness of the source co<strong>de</strong>? In short, source co<strong>de</strong> is the humanreadable<br />
set of rules behind the software programme. It consists of logical conditions, loops<br />
and instructions. To make this readable for the computer, it has to be trans<strong>la</strong>ted into so-called<br />
binary co<strong>de</strong> consisting of zeros and ones. This binary co<strong>de</strong> is hardly readable for human<br />
beings, and it is extremely difficult to reconstruct the original instructions. In contrast to<br />
closed proprietary software, open Source and Free Software provi<strong>de</strong>s the human-readable<br />
source co<strong>de</strong>, which is not necessary to execute the programme. The rationale behind the<br />
“closing”of co<strong>de</strong> is to prevent an un<strong>de</strong>rstanding of its structure and the reuse or the remake<br />
of parts of the programme.<br />
1.2. why freedom of software affects the freedom of everyday life<br />
obviously, freedom is a very strong term, and surely Free Software will not be able to<br />
provi<strong>de</strong> a general, overall freedom to its users. The term of freedom remains limited to the<br />
socio-technical arrangement user – computer – software. However within this setting, Free<br />
Software provi<strong>de</strong>s an environment which enables users to recognize the structure of its im-
500 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
plementation, to be in<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nt from software companies, and to choose and change their<br />
virtual environment: it offers autonomy and self-<strong>de</strong>termination to users – this is the freedom<br />
which Free Software can provi<strong>de</strong>.<br />
Free Software is about transparent source co<strong>de</strong> which empowers user control in terms<br />
of monitoring the functions performed by a programme. Beyond that, users have the possibility<br />
to become a part of the <strong>de</strong>velopment process and to spread their improvements, and<br />
thus exert some <strong>de</strong>gree of control through participation.<br />
1.2.1. Society Ma<strong>de</strong> Durable and the Law of Cyberspace<br />
We now introduce two perspectives from sociological theory which provi<strong>de</strong> us with<br />
further insight into the meaning of transparency in technological settings. According to an<br />
essay by Bruno Latour (1991), we can consi<strong>de</strong>r technology – and thus software – as “society<br />
ma<strong>de</strong> durable.” He <strong>de</strong>scribes technologies as enforcements of ‘programmes’, based on the<br />
assumption that ‘programmes’ inscribed in technology are easier to enforce then social conventions<br />
and regu<strong>la</strong>tions. A simple example is a locked door: it is a technological measure<br />
that regu<strong>la</strong>tes that only authorized people are allowed to enter the room behind the door.<br />
In the realm of computers, restrictions can be implemented in various ways by software; for<br />
example proprietary software usually cannot be installed without accepting the End User<br />
License Agreement (EULA). The absence of the “next” button when the “accept” option is<br />
not selected shows the software implementation of the ‘programme’ accept the EULA.<br />
With the growing presence of computers in our every day life, the possibilities to enforce<br />
rules via software are increasing, too. This is what Lawrence Lessig (1999) calls the<br />
“<strong>la</strong>w of cyberspace”. To give another example, Apple restricts iPod users to use iTunes for<br />
merely syncing Music with the personal library rather than allowing to share the music with<br />
friends. This ‘programme’ is implemented with the application marking the music on the<br />
iPod as part of one’s personal music library. Consequently one cannot sync their iPod with<br />
the personal music library of friends –unless the user knows how to bypass these mechanisms<br />
(e.g. by using Free Software like amarok 3 ). While this can be seen as a mechanism to<br />
enforce existing copyright <strong>la</strong>ws, Apple takes it one step further with the iPad: Apple restricts<br />
contents in applications offe<strong>red</strong> in its App store, such as tabloid newspapers which inclu<strong>de</strong><br />
pictures of lightly c<strong>la</strong>d women 4 –and rejected some newspapers entirely from the store. A<br />
journal about Android –the main competitor in mobile applications– was not accepted for<br />
distribution through the App store 5 .<br />
It is evi<strong>de</strong>nt that software can enforce serious restrictions, endangering Net Neutrality<br />
–even when experts may always find ways to avoid some restrictions. But the restrictions do<br />
3 http://amarok.k<strong>de</strong>.org/ [<strong>la</strong>st accessed 20.5.2011]<br />
4 http://www.heise.<strong>de</strong>/mac-and-i/meldung/Boulevardzeitung-will-leichtbeklei<strong>de</strong>te-Maedchen-in-<strong>de</strong>n-<br />
App-Store-k<strong>la</strong>gen-1150054.html [<strong>la</strong>st accessed 20.5.2011]<br />
5 http://mediawatch.dk/artikel/apple-bans-mag-app-android-app-store [<strong>la</strong>st accessed 20.5.2011]
self-governed socio-technical Infrastructures Autonomy and Cooperation through free software…<br />
501<br />
not necessarily become visible – the trans<strong>la</strong>tion of rules into hard restrictions ren<strong>de</strong>r those<br />
“natural” to the onlooker. (cf. Degele 2002, p. 132f) For iPod users it will seem self-evi<strong>de</strong>nt<br />
that you can only store music of your own library on the iPod, while users of common music<br />
p<strong>la</strong>yers will be surprised that they can only transfer music on a iPod when using iTunes. This<br />
invisibility becomes even more clear when applications such as Google search will not show<br />
some pages because there is a content restriction –users will not even know that they are not<br />
seeing these pages.<br />
one way to make these inscribed rules visible in software is to open up the source co<strong>de</strong>.<br />
It may still be difficult to find the relevant co<strong>de</strong> lines, but it is possible. To be able to see the<br />
functions and restrictions is just a passive type of control, however. Free Software implies that<br />
everyone is allowed to modify the co<strong>de</strong> and to <strong>red</strong>istribute the modified software. This enables<br />
users not only to recognize uninten<strong>de</strong>d functions, but also to change the behaviour of the<br />
software – it enables people to change the rules un<strong>de</strong>rlying their socio-technical environment.<br />
of course there are obstacles: Not everyone is able to read or even modify software<br />
co<strong>de</strong>. However the possibility to take a look, to learn and to inquire exists. This question<br />
engages us in the next section: who is supposed to be an expert?<br />
1.2.2. Expert Systems, Resources and the Power of Laypeople<br />
We will now focus on the question how technology is <strong>de</strong>fined. Who gets to formu<strong>la</strong>te rules,<br />
and why do these rules become stronger in a technological setting: Since technology has<br />
no inherent agency, rules are interpreted following strict (techno)logical patterns. of course,<br />
users of technology have a certain range of interaction with technologies, but through the<br />
socio-technical environment, rules represent materialized framework. The constitution of<br />
rules (<strong>de</strong>velopment) is disembed<strong>de</strong>d from the practical sphere of application –this is a main<br />
characteristic of expert systems. This division of work is a main driver of rationalisation in<br />
the mo<strong>de</strong>rn age: experts build expert systems and negotiate their rules, and <strong>la</strong>ypeople can<br />
reference these rules, that is, use these expert systems without knowing why but just how<br />
they “work”. (cf. Gid<strong>de</strong>ns, 1995, p. 32)<br />
It follows that actors are <strong>de</strong>fined through different levels of knowledge: Experts know<br />
about the rules un<strong>de</strong>rlying the systems while <strong>la</strong>ypeople merely use them (Schulz-Schaeffer,<br />
2000, p. 191) However there are certain access points to knowledge, mostly knowledge about<br />
the “how” of systems. Contact with experts, e.g. a visit at the doctor’s (if we think more generally<br />
of expert systems beyond technological settings), or artefacts like user manuals are instances<br />
of expert-<strong>la</strong>y interfaces. They enable <strong>la</strong>ypeople to access to necessary knowledge in or<strong>de</strong>r to use<br />
the expert systems and provi<strong>de</strong> a flow of knowledge from the experts to <strong>la</strong>ypeople.<br />
Because the users do not know why the systems work, they have to <strong>de</strong>velop trust.<br />
Gid<strong>de</strong>ns compares the necessity of trust in expert systems to the necessity to trust in religious<br />
lea<strong>de</strong>rs in pre-mo<strong>de</strong>rn times. However a characteristic of the mo<strong>de</strong>rn age is that<br />
through the scientific base of expert systems, <strong>la</strong>ypeople principally have the possibility to<br />
learn more about the systems, or eventually become experts. Even if there may be obstacles<br />
in un<strong>de</strong>rstanding the expert <strong>la</strong>nguage, trust in expert systems is based on the traceability of
502 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
the un<strong>de</strong>rlying rules. This principle of traceability enhances trust and at the same time limits<br />
the power of the experts. (Gid<strong>de</strong>ns, 1996, p. 127)<br />
If we think of software as expert systems, traceability of a programme is not given when<br />
we look at the binary co<strong>de</strong> – the system remains shadowy like the healing procedure employed<br />
by a shaman. This prevents <strong>la</strong>ypeople from reviewing the mechanisms in p<strong>la</strong>ce. However<br />
both trust in the system and the limitation of expert power are based on the principle of<br />
traceability. Given the openness of Free Software, <strong>la</strong>ypeople have access to the knowledge<br />
about “how” the expert systems work, and can thus become experts of their own. This leads<br />
to a growing community of semi-experts and experts which constitute further access points<br />
to expert knowledge. The blurring of expert-<strong>la</strong>ypeople boundaries becomes visible in online<br />
communities like user forums and wikis, and in local user groups who share their knowledge<br />
and support each other. Since Free Software projects are highly dynamic and innovate on a<br />
regu<strong>la</strong>r basis, an entirely new support culture has <strong>de</strong>veloped around the accompanying bugs<br />
and “teething troubles”.<br />
To revisit the meaning of software, we now consi<strong>de</strong>r the concept of resources. Within<br />
Gid<strong>de</strong>ns’ theory of stucturation, resources represent the second aspect of structure besi<strong>de</strong>s<br />
rules. He distinguishes authoritative resources –the authority over persons through the organisation<br />
of space and time– and allocative resources –the authority over goods and products<br />
(Schulz-Schaeffer, 2000, p. 186) An important feature of resources is the possibility to store<br />
these in or<strong>de</strong>r to increase the power of accessible resources. While the storage of allocative<br />
resources is obvious, the storage of authoritative resources becomes clear if we think of administrative<br />
data like personal files, health records or expanding numbers of electronic databases.<br />
In this regard, computers increase the efficacy of storage and access to authoritative<br />
resources and thus the power associated with these resources.<br />
Consequently, access to these information structures and the potentiality to constitute<br />
the un<strong>de</strong>rlying rules is a matter of power. To prevent that a small elite has the authority over<br />
the formu<strong>la</strong>tion of rules and access to the (allocative and authoritative) resources at the same<br />
time, it is imperative to <strong>de</strong>centralise this power and to make the rules transparent to everyone<br />
(cf. Gid<strong>de</strong>ns, 1992). Citizens’ trust in the systems and the <strong>de</strong>gree of <strong>de</strong>mocratisation of<br />
the virtual world <strong>de</strong>pend on the state of this re<strong>la</strong>tionship.<br />
If software can be un<strong>de</strong>rstood as the <strong>la</strong>w of cyberspace, it is important to open up the<br />
<strong>la</strong>w for transparency and participation. Evi<strong>de</strong>ntly, cyberspace or the virtual world have become<br />
part of daily life. Having been <strong>la</strong>rgely unregu<strong>la</strong>ted in its early times, cyberspace has now<br />
become a p<strong>la</strong>ying field for commercial interests. The inherent danger is a subtle shift towards<br />
opaque structures of oligarchy that eventually affect all realms of life that take p<strong>la</strong>ce in virtual<br />
structures. As pointed out, Free Software is a way to provi<strong>de</strong> the necessary transparency and<br />
participation in the socio-technical environment and to empower users to regain autonomy.<br />
1.3. a constitution for crowd sourcing<br />
The transparency and modifiability of Free Software is relevant for the issue of Net<br />
Neutrality. As initially stated, the main distinctive feature of Free Software is the copyleft
self-governed socio-technical Infrastructures Autonomy and Cooperation through free software…<br />
503<br />
principle. The GNU Public License (GPL) forces distributors of Free Software to distribute<br />
all co<strong>de</strong> ad<strong>de</strong>d to it as Free Software – even if it is in a se<strong>para</strong>te file.<br />
“Copyleft is a general method for making a program (or other work) free, and requiring<br />
all modified and exten<strong>de</strong>d versions of the program to be free as well.” (Free Software<br />
Foundation, 2011c)<br />
Stallmann argues that copyleft “provi<strong>de</strong>s an incentive for other programmers to add to<br />
free software.” (Free Software Foundation, 2011c) While the i<strong>de</strong>a of open Source is not to<br />
exclu<strong>de</strong> commercial <strong>de</strong>velopers and companies, Stallman exp<strong>la</strong>ins that in his perspective commercial<br />
<strong>de</strong>velopers are not explicitly exclu<strong>de</strong>d but invited to join the community which is<br />
however based on the copyleft principle. He prefers convincing a smaller portion of them to<br />
become a part of the Free Software community rather than dropping the copyleft principle.<br />
The i<strong>de</strong>a behind copyleft is to protect the voluntary work of a whole community which<br />
is materialized in a Free Software Programme. Without protection, it could be used to<br />
serve the commercial interests of a company which adds slight modifications and sells the<br />
product as non-free software. This is essentially free-riding by a for-profit company on the<br />
performance of a crowd. In contrast, copyleft assures that any subsequent modification to a<br />
programme must be licensed as Free Software: the benefit of the community’s work is given<br />
back to it, and both the community and its wealth are growing.<br />
one example is the C++ compiler which is a modification of the GNU C compiler.<br />
MCC, the company that enhanced it to a C++ compiler usually uses proprietary licenses,<br />
but had to apply a free license because of the copyleft principle. The copyleft thus can<br />
be un<strong>de</strong>rstood as an enforceable copyright turned upsi<strong>de</strong> down which ensures that sha<strong>red</strong><br />
knowledge stays within the community. It is “contagious” in that it regu<strong>la</strong>tes all subsequent<br />
<strong>de</strong>velopment based on the original work. This can be seen as a constitution of crowd sourcing,<br />
where volunteers can be sure that their work will not be exploited as cheap work force,<br />
but will serve the i<strong>de</strong>al of a community to spread knowledge, cooperation and freedom.<br />
1.4. interlu<strong>de</strong><br />
We have stressed that Free Software is more than a crowd-sourced form of software<br />
<strong>de</strong>velopment. It is based on a philosophy of freedom and collective control. Within this<br />
socio-technical arrangement, Free Software provi<strong>de</strong>s transparency of the rules that constitute<br />
it and opens up options to participate in the configuration of the rules. The potential<br />
to modify the socio-technical environment corresponds with autonomy and self-<strong>de</strong>termination.<br />
Consequently, <strong>la</strong>ypeople can become experts and communities of <strong>la</strong>y-expert hybrids<br />
can grow, giving more representation to <strong>la</strong>ypeople. Groups like the Chaos Computer Club<br />
popu<strong>la</strong>rly have taken on the role of an expert panel and advocate of computer users –and<br />
thus the citizen.<br />
In the next section a case study of Community Wireless Networks (CWN) will be<br />
presented to illustrate how Free Software is used in concert with Do-It-Yourself hardware in<br />
or<strong>de</strong>r to build autonomous infrastructures. It will be argued that both Free Software and free<br />
infrastructures are important niches that work towards Net Neutrality.
504 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
2. community wireless networks: free software and diy<br />
Hardware citizen-owned infrastructures<br />
2.1. what are community wireless networks?<br />
For some ten years, community wireless networks as well as municipally owned wireless<br />
networks have been set up all over the world, but prominently in the US and Europe.<br />
This article is based on an earlier case study (Ilten, 2009) about a Chicago-based Community<br />
Wireless Network (CWN) and the CWN niche that has been <strong>de</strong>veloping as an alternative<br />
communication infrastructure.<br />
2.1.1. Wireless Architectures: Socio-Technical Configurations<br />
A wireless network uses radio to send data via the medium of airwaves. This medium<br />
is limited by the frequencies that can be used for transmission, but is otherwise much more<br />
unlimited than cable-based transmission: radio antennas send all around or in one direction,<br />
but the reach of their waves cannot be limited sensibly. The traffic thus takes p<strong>la</strong>ce “openly”<br />
and must be limited artificially if only particu<strong>la</strong>r receivers are allowed to read the traffic. This<br />
characteristic helps wireless networks to an entirely different potential when compa<strong>red</strong> to<br />
cabled networks: a much bigger range can be reached with radio without having to inclu<strong>de</strong><br />
every single recipient to a cost intensive cable line per <strong>la</strong>st mile connections.<br />
Wireless networks are much more flexible when it comes to architectures. Hub-andspokes<br />
mo<strong>de</strong>l architectures are com<strong>para</strong>ble to a cable set-up: participants are hooked up to a<br />
base station, e.g. an Internet router, via wireless. This is the c<strong>la</strong>ssic set-up for home networks<br />
or Hot Spots in public p<strong>la</strong>ces that aim to share an Internet connection among a number of<br />
computers. This architecture is limited to the transmission range of the base station antenna.<br />
A different type of architecture is the peer-to-peer or ad hoc network. In this constel<strong>la</strong>tion,<br />
computers take on the role of access points that repeat signals to other receivers that<br />
would otherwise be out of range. The network is <strong>de</strong>centralized and sca<strong>la</strong>ble – it works like a<br />
mesh and is accordingly also called mesh network. The more no<strong>de</strong>s there are in close proximity,<br />
the more stable the mesh becomes. The failure of single no<strong>de</strong>s does not lead to network<br />
failure because routing is done dynamically along possible no<strong>de</strong>s in an ad hoc fashion.<br />
The specific software that enables this dynamic routing has been <strong>de</strong>veloped since<br />
2000 by CUWiN, the Champaign-Urbana Wireless Network: “CUWiN has been working<br />
since 2000 to <strong>de</strong>velop the community wireless networking software that is DIY open<br />
source technology.” 6 CUWiN <strong>de</strong>velops software un<strong>de</strong>r the BSD 4-c<strong>la</strong>use license (the “original”<br />
BSD license), which is a Free Software license that, however, does not incorporate the<br />
copyleft mechanism. This makes it a more “permissive” license than the contagious copyleft<br />
6 CUWIN: The Champaign-Urbana Community Wireless Network. Website URL http://www.cuwin.<br />
net/. – retrieved July 5, 2008
self-governed socio-technical Infrastructures Autonomy and Cooperation through free software…<br />
505<br />
licenses, since the software can be incorporated into commercial software as long as attribution<br />
is ma<strong>de</strong> to the creator.<br />
The mesh architecture has been re<strong>la</strong>tively experimental in 2002, and local projects<br />
such as the Chicago Wireless Community Networks project have started using CUWiN’s<br />
software in or<strong>de</strong>r to set up a mesh architecture network that builds a specific socio-technical<br />
configuration. A cooperation between software <strong>de</strong>velopers, hardware provi<strong>de</strong>rs, non-profit<br />
project p<strong>la</strong>nners and <strong>la</strong>st but not least, participants, have ma<strong>de</strong> these networks possible in<br />
hund<strong>red</strong>s of communities.<br />
While commercial cable Internet connections tie participants in a business mo<strong>de</strong>l via hardware<br />
–the use of a cable infrastructure– wireless networks are already “out there”. The physical<br />
transmission of data is potentially unlimited and must be turned into a scarce good by closing up<br />
these networks using passwords for access and encryption for data. Most private households close<br />
their hub-and-spoke networks in or<strong>de</strong>r to exclu<strong>de</strong> unknown participants. The situation where a<br />
<strong>la</strong>ptop receives some 20 different network signals, but none of them allows traffic, has become a<br />
common sight –a frustrating sight from the perspective of mesh network <strong>de</strong>velopers.<br />
Mesh networks help a theoretically 7 unlimited number of participants to share Internet<br />
connections. Since these networks must be open or regu<strong>la</strong>ted on a community basis, they are<br />
called “free wireless” (e.g. Freifunk in Germany) or “community wireless” (common in the<br />
US). The quality of a mesh network is highly <strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nt on its geographic set-up of no<strong>de</strong>s and<br />
their <strong>de</strong>nsity. Urban environments with high buildings pose entirely different conditions than<br />
rural long-distance no<strong>de</strong> connections. Neighbourly cooperation is thus a precondition for a<br />
working, commonly used mesh network. Community networks not only provi<strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
connection to their participants, but build a Local Area Network between these neighbours.<br />
2.1.2. Chicago Wireless Community Networks<br />
The case studied closely by the author is a project run by a regionally operating nonprofit<br />
focusing on sustainable and livable urban neighbourhoods. The Center for neighbourhood<br />
Technology’s WCN project accordingly aimed mostly to support community organizing<br />
efforts and poverty alleviation through these networks: not only is a sha<strong>red</strong> Internet<br />
connecting a very cheap way to link up un<strong>de</strong>r-served communities, the networks can also<br />
become resources for local issues. Lastly, building and maintaining the network itself is a<br />
huge effort and can help build re<strong>la</strong>tionships and a sense of community and accomplishment:<br />
“Wireless technology in a mesh network mo<strong>de</strong>l acts much like a neighbourhood – becoming<br />
stronger as more people support it and as more “repeaters” are p<strong>la</strong>ced; the network’s<br />
infrastructure reinforces the concept of a community of users.” 8<br />
7 of course, in practice, the greater the number of participants, the smaller the transmission rate for<br />
each participant; it thus <strong>de</strong>pends on the Internet connection and the usage how sca<strong>la</strong>ble a particu<strong>la</strong>r<br />
set-up is.<br />
8 WCN: Wireless Community Networks. Handout for presentation. 2005
506 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
The CNT emphasized the innovative character of both the technical infrastructure of<br />
the mesh wireless network as well as the organizational configuration. The two elements are<br />
combined into a structure that is in stark contrast with the dominant regime of telecommunication<br />
–market based, cable-based and individualized Internet access. From an STS quasievolutionary<br />
perspective, the socio-technical configuration of a CWN can be consi<strong>de</strong><strong>red</strong> a<br />
radical alternative to the incumbent regime.<br />
CNT’s goal with the Wireless Community Networks project in 2003-2006 was the<br />
implementation of WCN infrastructures in four quite different neighbourhoods in Chicago<br />
and greater area. Its activities were both technologically and socially oriented: hardware<br />
nee<strong>de</strong>d to be acqui<strong>red</strong> –mostly through donations– and assembled into functioning ensembles,<br />
which was done collectively most of the time in so called “no<strong>de</strong> build parties” by<br />
volunteers. Then the material infrastructure had to be installed in homes, on rooftops, be<br />
configu<strong>red</strong> and tested in real life conditions. CNT used CUWiN’s free software for routing<br />
and reported its performance to the group. The performance of the network was constantly<br />
monito<strong>red</strong>, and <strong>la</strong>st but not least, users and potential users had to be won for participation<br />
and introduced to using the network –or even a computer.<br />
The project thus had a very strong aspect of training in some neighbourhoods where<br />
digital literacy is very low. The ambitions of the project were high in that a lot of community<br />
organizing and persuasion was necessary in some of neighbourhoods where levels of<br />
education were low and poverty was persistent. This poses a utterly different situation from<br />
networks such as Freifunk in Germany where many participants come from an aca<strong>de</strong>mic<br />
milieu or IT professional background and help build the community network for i<strong>de</strong>ological<br />
(as well as technical) reasons rather than because no access would be affordable to them<br />
otherwise.<br />
Since the WCN project was only fun<strong>de</strong>d for a few years, it worked as a jump start<br />
effort. A central goal of the project was of course to build networks that would be continued<br />
by their respective communities. A second goal was policy oriented, though, and concerned<br />
the general issue of access to broadband Internet for disadvantaged communities. The CNT<br />
used its WCN project to lobby for a telecommunications policy that allows for alternative<br />
infrastructures (e.g. through a public interest spectrum policy) and engaged in the discussion<br />
about a possible municipally owned city-wi<strong>de</strong> wireless network. While a municipal<br />
architecture would satisfy the basic need for access, CNT argued that there is more to community<br />
networks than just access –they represent socially valuable assets and an important<br />
variant in the ecosystem of communications infrastructures.<br />
2.2. a community wireless networks niche<br />
The CNT project clearly had mo<strong>de</strong>l character –which makes it an interesting case for<br />
our argumentation. Its managers were very aware of the political <strong>la</strong>ndscape and telecommunications<br />
market situation. At the same time, the conditions for this WCN project were<br />
adverse seen that it <strong>de</strong>alt with disadvantaged neighbourhoods. CNT tried to both build four<br />
concrete communication infrastructures taking all the local idiosyncrasies into account; at
self-governed socio-technical Infrastructures Autonomy and Cooperation through free software…<br />
the same time, the non-profit used its expertise and connections to engage in niche-building<br />
activities.<br />
2.2.1. The Broadband Market<br />
507<br />
Why did the CNT even perceive the need for self-ma<strong>de</strong>, community owned communication<br />
infrastructures? It recognized the importance of access to the Internet –in broadband<br />
quality– for these already left behind individuals and communities. Due to the current telecommunications<br />
market structure, this access is far from taken for granted for many people<br />
and is highly contingent on the geographic region they happen to live in.<br />
The Internet has become an ever more important –and taken for granted– medium<br />
for participation in the job market, in political discourse and <strong>de</strong>cision making, as well as in<br />
social engagement. The qualities of the Internet that have been <strong>la</strong>u<strong>de</strong>d as potentially <strong>de</strong>mocratizing<br />
–equal representation of socially and hierarchically dis<strong>para</strong>te actors, access to heaps<br />
of information, new structures of communication and archiving for social groups etc.– are<br />
empowering to those who have good access –but become a real disadvantage to those who<br />
cannot enter this infrastructure. This discussion has been led un<strong>de</strong>r the umbrel<strong>la</strong> term of<br />
Digital Divi<strong>de</strong> and refers to global as well as regional divi<strong>de</strong>s in access and (IT) literacy. Even<br />
in countries like the US –the cradle of the Internet– a Digital Divi<strong>de</strong> powerfully exclu<strong>de</strong>s<br />
social groups. While the divi<strong>de</strong> might not always be about access, the rise of data intensive<br />
high graphics software ren<strong>de</strong>rs simple dial-up connections unbearable.<br />
The US telecommunications market is regu<strong>la</strong>ted by the Fe<strong>de</strong>ral Communications Commission<br />
(FCC). While regional service provi<strong>de</strong>rs are requi<strong>red</strong> to let others use their hardware<br />
infrastructure since 1996, this is not true for the so called “information services” which are distinguished<br />
from telephone services (cf. Al<strong>de</strong>n, 2002, p. 16). High speed fiber cable and cable<br />
TV infrastructures fall un<strong>de</strong>r this category, thus exempting them from the obligation to provi<strong>de</strong><br />
service or opening up the infrastructures to other provi<strong>de</strong>rs (cf. Daggett & Morris, 2005, p.<br />
7). Consumers are entirely <strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nt on service provi<strong>de</strong>rs’ choices to build infrastructure and<br />
on their pricing schemes (cf. For<strong>la</strong>no, Powell, Shaffer, & Lennett, 2011, p. 3).<br />
Net Neutrality starts here – when it comes to sheer access. The above <strong>de</strong>scribed market<br />
structure is at the root of the Net Neutrality controversy: provi<strong>de</strong>rs are in monopoly-like<br />
positions and are free of service obligations. The Internet has – surprisingly enough - not yet<br />
been <strong>de</strong>fined as a utility, or a public interest infrastructure. It is wi<strong>de</strong>ly viewed as a p<strong>la</strong>ying<br />
field for business mo<strong>de</strong>ls rather than as a communication infrastructure with major societal<br />
impact and of <strong>de</strong>mocratic value.<br />
2.2.2. Alternative Niches<br />
Com<strong>para</strong>ble to the somewhat longer standing battle about in<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nt media in the<br />
US 9 , activists perceive a need to build alternative communication infrastructures in or<strong>de</strong>r to<br />
9 FreePress, MediaAccessProject etc.
508 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
remedy this state of exclusion and dominance. CNT’s local project can thus be analysed as<br />
a contribution to a higher-level niche of “Community Wireless Networks” that has started<br />
to <strong>de</strong>velop internationally as of ten years.<br />
In the <strong>la</strong>nguage of quasi-evolutionary theories on socio-technical change, niches <strong>de</strong>nominate<br />
the particu<strong>la</strong>r social spaces where socio-technical novelty is <strong>de</strong>veloped, tested and<br />
radical alternatives to existing structures come into being. Niches grow in the shadow of<br />
existing, stable socio-technical arrangements:<br />
“Technological regimes, as we <strong>de</strong>fine them, are configurations of science, technics, organizational<br />
routines, practices, norms and values, <strong>la</strong>beled for their core technology or<br />
mo<strong>de</strong> of organization.” (Kemp, Rip, & Schot, 2001, p. 273)<br />
Regimes become stable through mechanisms of path <strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nce, returns and social<br />
learning. They enable <strong>la</strong>rge technological infrastructures, but they also have a ten<strong>de</strong>ncy to<br />
block other alternative infrastructures. This is best observed in <strong>la</strong>rge-scale infrastructures<br />
such as energy provision or mobility regimes. The <strong>de</strong>velopment of niches –for example<br />
electro-mobility– is hence a challenging en<strong>de</strong>avour over time. It <strong>de</strong>pends on whether expectations<br />
can be coupled to current problems, how the new alternative is articu<strong>la</strong>ted, for<br />
example through mo<strong>de</strong>l building, and whether a powerful actor network can be formed to<br />
support the niche.<br />
These processes happen in “real” p<strong>la</strong>ces: when actors like CNT start local projects in or<strong>de</strong>r<br />
to build a specific, geographically <strong>de</strong>fined infrastructure, but also to enact the general i<strong>de</strong>a of<br />
open infrastructures and a right to access. They share these i<strong>de</strong>as with other activists, and when<br />
they link up and meet for events like the “International Summit for Community Wireless Networks<br />
” (as of 2004), then a niche is being built around a new socio-technical configuration.<br />
This configuration now <strong>de</strong>velops its own rules and <strong>para</strong>digms – what is a Community Wireless<br />
Network? Why are we building one, and what are our goals and visions?<br />
2.2.3. Community Wireless I<strong>de</strong>als<br />
Before wireless became a well-known technological option, the “community networks”<br />
i<strong>de</strong>a has already existed on wi<strong>red</strong> basis within the Community Technology niche. Schuler’s<br />
“New Community Networks. Wi<strong>red</strong> for Change” (1996) represents a manifest for the “marriage<br />
of community and technology”. This is a call for community/civil society owned<br />
socio-technical infrastructures and media and community produced content (cf. 32).<br />
Simi<strong>la</strong>rly to the ol<strong>de</strong>r Alternative Technology movement, Schuler explicates the following<br />
values for this “new community”: “Community over individual”, “public over private”,<br />
“community culture over mass culture”, “civic over commercial”, “process over goal”,<br />
“networks over hierachies” and so on. (Schuler, 1996, p. 33) and Hess et al. (2008a) <strong>de</strong>scribe<br />
how the “community media movement” came about in the 1990s, fostering new hopes for<br />
<strong>de</strong>mocratic participation. Wi<strong>red</strong> community networks, amateur radio, alternative media<br />
and community informatics as well as the Free Software movement are among the ancestors<br />
of today’s Community Wireless Networks (Doheny-Farina, 1996; Hess, Breyman, Campbell,<br />
& Martin, 2008b; Wikipedia, 2011a).
self-governed socio-technical Infrastructures Autonomy and Cooperation through free software…<br />
509<br />
The Champaign-Urbana Community Wireless Network initiative (CUWiN) was one<br />
of the first to systematically work on the technological infrastructure of a mesh wireless and<br />
the corresponding software, but also to articu<strong>la</strong>te their i<strong>de</strong>ology with regard to Community<br />
Wireless:<br />
“The CUWiN Foundation <strong>de</strong>velops <strong>de</strong>centralized, community-owned networks that<br />
foster <strong>de</strong>mocratic cultures and local content. Through advocacy and through our commitment<br />
to open source technology, we support organic networks that grow to meet<br />
the needs of their community.” (CUWiN 2008) 10<br />
The central goals of Community Wireless are autonomy and cooperation. These basic<br />
i<strong>de</strong>als of social communal life are exten<strong>de</strong>d to socio-technical infrastructures in general and<br />
are un<strong>de</strong>rstood in the context of the politics of technology. Actors clearly i<strong>de</strong>ntify as a “movement”<br />
with specific technology oriented visions:<br />
“The Freifunk community is part of a global movement for free infrastructures. The vision<br />
behind Freifunk initiatives is the diffusion of free networks, the <strong>de</strong>mocratisation of<br />
communication media and the fostering of local social structures. Through networking<br />
entire neighbourhoods, vil<strong>la</strong>ges and regions, the initiatives want to resist the Digital<br />
Divi<strong>de</strong> and build free in<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nt network structures. These free networks enable<br />
license free community radio, the transmission of local events, private swap sites and<br />
collective cheap use of one Internet connection. The exchange within free networks is<br />
not based in commercial interests, but in voluntary give and take of everyone in the<br />
network. This i<strong>de</strong>a has been articu<strong>la</strong>ted in the Pico Peering Agreement.” 11 (Wikipedia,<br />
2011b)<br />
Free infrastructures encompass both software and hardware structures. The re<strong>la</strong>tion<br />
between the above discussed “freedom” of software and Community Wireless Networks<br />
becomes immediately clear: self-owned, self-built infrastructures can only work if both hardware<br />
and software are avai<strong>la</strong>ble and modifiable in or<strong>de</strong>r to meet the local requirements. The<br />
Free Software movement and Community Wireless activists are soul mates in the sense that<br />
they build IT based on their own constitution of cooperation.<br />
In the above quote, a central articu<strong>la</strong>tion of this CWN constitution is mentioned: the<br />
Pico Peering Agreement. This agreement is an important framework for open, dynamic<br />
networks with spontaneous ad hoc peering (rather than highly organised neighbourhood<br />
networks): the network represents a “commons” whose use is regu<strong>la</strong>ted by the Agreement:<br />
“This process involves finding partners willing to link up and then working with them<br />
to build a network. The necessary rules are established via processes based on the principle<br />
of self-organization. The Network Commons draws on the <strong>de</strong>sire to create a network<br />
based on free cooperation and self-ma<strong>de</strong> rules. It was to provi<strong>de</strong> a framework for<br />
making such rules that the Pico-Peering Agreement was <strong>de</strong>veloped.” (Medosch, 2011)<br />
10 CUWIN: The Champaign-Urbana Community Wireless Network. Website URL http://www.cuwin.<br />
net/. – retrieved July 5, 2008<br />
11 Trans<strong>la</strong>ted from German by the authors.
510 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
Thus, the agreement is equivalent to a copyleft license with regard to Free Software in<br />
that it formally articu<strong>la</strong>tes the “freedom” in free networks. The agreement regu<strong>la</strong>tes through<br />
the following principles (cf. Picopeering, 2011):<br />
1. Free transit (f.ex. “The owner agrees to provi<strong>de</strong> free transit across their free network”)<br />
2. open Communication (“The owner agrees to publish the information necessary for<br />
peering to take p<strong>la</strong>ce”)<br />
3. No warranty (“The service can be scaled back or withdrawn at any time”)<br />
The document itself is open and modifiable by users as long as the spirit is adhe<strong>red</strong> to.<br />
In conclusion, it offers a constitution to CW and free network initiatives. This formalisation<br />
of i<strong>de</strong>als is an important aspect of niche building. Local networks have the opportunity to<br />
use these resources and to build upon the knowledge and rules that have been tested in<br />
trial and error. At the same time, common values are har<strong>de</strong>ned among the community and<br />
certain actors take on lea<strong>de</strong>rship with regard to its policies. Eventually, the niche becomes a<br />
structure with some stability of its own and a real alternative to existing structures e.g. the<br />
incumbent telecommunication or commercial broadband regime.<br />
2.3. diversity and local expertise Through socio-technical niches<br />
Very simi<strong>la</strong>rly to Free Software, the proponents of free networks and CWN emphasize<br />
the cooperative use of some sort of technological commons – they value the collective<br />
social quality of this self-governed crowd sourcing. At the same time, the collective element<br />
is very functional in that it creates control over infrastructures both for individuals and for<br />
the general public. As stated in the first part, control through participation is part of the<br />
Free Software agenda, and the same is true for Community Technology in general, and for<br />
wireless networks in particu<strong>la</strong>r.<br />
Participation can be seen as a standing offer, a possibility to get engaged within these<br />
expert systems on different levels. The expert-<strong>la</strong>y distinction becomes much more blur<strong>red</strong><br />
when communities organise around a socio-technical infrastructure. Typically, there are core<br />
groups that maintain the infrastructure with high commitment and knowledge. The se<strong>para</strong>ting<br />
line, though, is not drawn formally and every participant in a CWN is explicitly invited<br />
to engage in the collective en<strong>de</strong>avour –be it through technical support, organisational<br />
support or i<strong>de</strong>ological work.<br />
By <strong>de</strong>finition, CWN operate in a specific local setting such as a neighbourhood in a<br />
city with particu<strong>la</strong>r geographical characteristics and conditions, e.g. climate, air quality, and<br />
energy supply. Expertise within a network hence always also inclu<strong>de</strong>s local expertise that<br />
pertains to this socio-technical configuration only. Who knows what, and where did we buy<br />
this <strong>de</strong>vice a few years ago? How did the signal change when the weather was this extreme?<br />
Local projects profit from niche-wi<strong>de</strong> knowledge and best practices, but will always have to<br />
figure out some of the difficulties of making things “work” in everyday practice themselves.<br />
Knowledge from local projects, in turn, inform niche building processes and helps other<br />
communities with simi<strong>la</strong>r conditions and struggles. The expert-<strong>la</strong>y distinction is permeable<br />
not only at the local level, but at niche level where knowledge is easily and happily sha<strong>red</strong>.
self-governed socio-technical Infrastructures Autonomy and Cooperation through free software…<br />
511<br />
The possibilities of transparency and trust are taken to the next level of organisation, as the<br />
Picopeering Agreement shows.<br />
Self-organised infrastructures contribute to a diverse socio-technical <strong>la</strong>ndscape and<br />
offer sometimes radical alternatives to existing commercial systems of e.g. software or telecommunication.<br />
Diversity is a given for these infrastructures because of the local character<br />
and changing needs of communities. The more options are avai<strong>la</strong>ble, the more in<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nt<br />
users become of incumbent market p<strong>la</strong>yers. Looking at society as a whole and its technological<br />
regimes, diversity means that a “portfolio of promises” is existent (Hoogma, Weber,<br />
& Elzen, 2005, p. 226) – this implies the <strong>de</strong>centralised innovation of new socio-technical<br />
configurations and re<strong>la</strong>ted values and constitutions. Diversity on a societal level ensures<br />
neutrality in the sense that control is diffused among many actors rather than just one regu<strong>la</strong>tory<br />
agency.<br />
3. nicHes based on tHe usage of free software and Hardware<br />
foster network neutrality<br />
In this article, we have tried to highlight the significance of alternative socio-technical<br />
infrastructures which transcend the expert-<strong>la</strong>ypeople distinction that has become so adamant<br />
in many socio-technical systems. We have argued that the issue of Net Neutrality can<br />
be un<strong>de</strong>rstood as a battle about the control over infrastructures and socio-technical regimes,<br />
simi<strong>la</strong>r to control of infrastructures of energy generation or mobility.<br />
We have used sociological concepts of structuration and expert-<strong>la</strong>y re<strong>la</strong>tionships to exp<strong>la</strong>in<br />
how transparency and trust are necessary conditions for socio-technical constel<strong>la</strong>tions<br />
that enable <strong>de</strong>mocratic control. Rules become har<strong>de</strong>ned when inscribed in technological<br />
structures and add to the power exercised over users and <strong>la</strong>ypeople. A massive distinction<br />
between experts and <strong>la</strong>ypeople must be seen critically at a societal level because it concentrates<br />
knowledge and control over infrastructures that affect almost everyone. This is true<br />
for the Internet today where attempts to heavily regu<strong>la</strong>te its commercialization <strong>de</strong>form its<br />
original structure and potential as a universal communication infrastructure.<br />
As long as the Internet is not politically <strong>de</strong>fined as a universal neutral utility, it is especially<br />
important that non-commercial niches exist where alternative infrastructures are set<br />
up. We have presented Free Software and Community Wireless Networks as two re<strong>la</strong>ted<br />
niches that are governed by their own “constitutions” and are built on values of cooperation<br />
and freedom of knowledge. These movements transcend the expert-<strong>la</strong>y distinction in that<br />
all knowledge is collected and distributed publicly and that everyone is invited to become a<br />
(semi-)expert and exercise some <strong>de</strong>gree of control over socio-technical infrastructures.<br />
These niches in particu<strong>la</strong>r, and diversity through alternatives in general, thus contribute<br />
to neutrality at a societal level: alternative hardware and software structures exist which can<br />
be used to circumvent incumbent systems of non-neutrality – as long as regu<strong>la</strong>tion does not<br />
thwart this, as the ongoing battles about the legal status of Community Wireless Networks<br />
show. Moreover, these solutions are real, sometimes radical, alternatives both technologically
512 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
and organisationally and represent hopeful promises for future, more <strong>de</strong>mocratically controlled<br />
infrastructures.<br />
4. bibliograPHy<br />
Al<strong>de</strong>n, J. (2002). Competition Policy in Telecommunications: The Case of the United States of<br />
America. International Telecommunication Union.<br />
Daggett, B. V., & Morris, D. (2005). Who will own Minnesota’s information highways?<br />
Minneapolis, MN: Institute for Local Self-Reliance.<br />
Degele, Nina. 2002. Einführung in die Techniksoziologie. München: Wilhelm Fink Ver<strong>la</strong>g.<br />
Doheny-Farina, S. (1996). The wi<strong>red</strong> neighborhood. New Haven and London: Yale University<br />
Press.<br />
For<strong>la</strong>no, L., Powell, A., Shaffer, G., & Lennett, B. (2011). From the Digital Divi<strong>de</strong> to<br />
Digital Excellence. Global best practices to aid <strong>de</strong>velopment of municipal and community<br />
wireless networks in the United States. New America Foundation.<br />
Free Software Foundation. (2011a). The Free Software Definition. Retrieved from http://<br />
www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html<br />
Free Software Foundation. (2011b). Copyleft: Pragmatic I<strong>de</strong>alism. Retrieved May 20,<br />
2011, from http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html<br />
Free Software Foundation. (2011c). What is Copyleft? Retrieved May 20, 2011, from<br />
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/<br />
Gid<strong>de</strong>ns, A. (1992). Die Konstitution <strong>de</strong>r Gesellschaft. Grundzüge einer Theorie <strong>de</strong>r Strukturierung.<br />
Frankfurt am Main: Campus Ver<strong>la</strong>g.<br />
Gid<strong>de</strong>ns, A. (1995). Konsequenzen <strong>de</strong>r Mo<strong>de</strong>rne (1st ed.). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.<br />
Gid<strong>de</strong>ns, A. (1996). Leben in einer Posttraditionalen Gesellschaft. In U. Beck, A. Gid<strong>de</strong>ns,<br />
& S. Lash (Eds.), Reflexive Mo<strong>de</strong>rnisierung. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.<br />
Hess, D., Breyman, S., Campbell, N., & Martin, B. (2008a). Science, Technology, and<br />
Social Movements. In E. J. Hackett, o. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman<br />
(Eds.), The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (Vol. 3, pp. 473-498). Cambridge,<br />
MA: The MIT Press.<br />
Hess, D., Breyman, S., Campbell, N., & Martin, B. (2008b). Science, Technology, and<br />
Social Movements. In E. J. Hackett, o. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman<br />
(Eds.), The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (Vol. 3, pp. 473-498). Cambridge,<br />
MA: The MIT Press.<br />
Hoogma, R., Weber, M., & Elzen, B. (2005). Integrated Long-Term Strategies to Induce<br />
Regime Shift towards Sustainability: The Approach of Strategic Niche Management.<br />
In M. Weber & J. Hemmelkamp (Eds.), Towards Environmental Innovation Systems.<br />
Berlin: Springer.
self-governed socio-technical Infrastructures Autonomy and Cooperation through free software…<br />
513<br />
Illich, I. (2011). Tools for Conviviality. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from http://opencollector.org/history/homebrew/tools.html<br />
Ilten, C. (2009). Strategisches und soziales Nischenmanagement : zur Analyse gesellschaftspolitisch<br />
motivierter Innovation (1st ed.). Wiesba<strong>de</strong>n: VS Research.<br />
Kemp, R., Rip, A., & Schot, J. (2001). Constructing Transition Paths Through the Management<br />
of Niches. In R. Garud & P. Karn\oe (Eds.), Path Depen<strong>de</strong>nce and Creation,<br />
LEA’s organization and Management Series (pp. 269-299). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence<br />
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.<br />
Latour, B. (1991). Technology is Society Ma<strong>de</strong> Durable. In J. Law (Ed.), A Sociology of<br />
Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination. London: Routledge.<br />
Lessig, L. (1999). Co<strong>de</strong> and other <strong>la</strong>ws of cyberspace. New York: Basic Books.<br />
Medosch, A. (2011, May 19). Free Networks Movement - P2P Foundation. Retrieved May<br />
19, 2011, from http://p2pfoundation.net/Free_Networks_Movement<br />
open Source Initiative. (2011). The Open Source Definition. Retrieved from http://www.<br />
opensource.org/docs/osd<br />
Picopeering. (2011, May 19). Picopeering Agreement v1.0. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from<br />
http://picopeer.net/PPA-en.html<br />
Raymond, E. S. (2000). The Cathedral and the Bazaar. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from<br />
http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/in<strong>de</strong>x.html<br />
Schuler, D. (1996). New Community Networks. Wi<strong>red</strong> for Change. Reading, MA: Addison-<br />
Wesley.<br />
Schulz-Schaeffer, I. (2000). Sozialtheorie <strong>de</strong>r Technik. Frankfurt am Main; New York:<br />
Campus-Verl.<br />
Wikipedia. (2011a, May 19). Wireless community network - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.<br />
Retrieved May 19, 2011, from https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/<br />
Community_wireless_network<br />
Wikipedia. (2011b, May 19). Freies Funknetz – Wikipedia. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from<br />
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/<strong>de</strong>/wiki/Freies_Funknetz
29<br />
CONflICts ABOUt tHe regUlAtION Of<br />
INtelleCtUAl PrOPerty IN INterNet: COmPArINg<br />
tHe IssUe NetwOrks IN Uk AND sPAIN<br />
Jorge Luis Salcedo 1<br />
Universidad Autónoma <strong>de</strong> Barcelona, Spain<br />
Research group on Democracy, Elections and Citizenship (DEC)<br />
AbstrAct: Regu<strong>la</strong>tions and policy initiatives concerning the non-authorized use of copyright contents<br />
in the Internet have generated in multiple countries strong lobby processes which inclu<strong>de</strong> a media<br />
campaign between the different agents that consi<strong>de</strong>r these regu<strong>la</strong>tions essential for their interests. The<br />
copyrights coalition (CRC) argues that “un-authorized” uses of contents are a risk for their business and<br />
because of that they lobby for strong policies to protect rights hol<strong>de</strong>rs. The Internet Service Provi<strong>de</strong>rs<br />
(ISP) do not want to assume the supervision cost of internet users´ behaviour although they would<br />
like to participate in the profits of the digital content business. Digital Rights Activists (DRA) believe<br />
that regu<strong>la</strong>tion proposals and policies threaten fundamental rights such as personal privacy, freedom of<br />
speech, free circu<strong>la</strong>tion of information and knowledge as well as the right of Internet access. In this paper<br />
we study the media visibility of different stakehol<strong>de</strong>rs that are part of this conflict; we analyze the cases<br />
of United Kingdom (Digital Economy Act) and Spain (Ley <strong>de</strong> Economía Sostenible). We suppose that<br />
the most visible agents have a greater chance of exerting influence in the issue in terms of spreading and<br />
legitimating their statements about the regu<strong>la</strong>tion and to influence policy maker’s <strong>de</strong>cisions. We measure<br />
visibility in terms of the stakehol<strong>de</strong>rs’ saliency on the issue network, saliency that we calcu<strong>la</strong>te drawing<br />
upon a content analysis in multiple channels (news and blogs) and a network analysis consi<strong>de</strong>ring the<br />
back-links between stakehol<strong>de</strong>rs’ web sites and its back-links according to Google and Alexa. We do<br />
this in or<strong>de</strong>r to i<strong>de</strong>ntify and to compare the most visible agents in multiple channels. In this way we<br />
i<strong>de</strong>ntify the visibility of the stakehol<strong>de</strong>rs and asses if there is a corre<strong>la</strong>tion between the agents’ visibilities<br />
on different channels. We i<strong>de</strong>ntify and exp<strong>la</strong>in how <strong>de</strong>pending on the contextual features and the agents´<br />
attributes the visibility in different channels varies.<br />
Keywords: Antipiracy <strong>la</strong>ws, copyrights, media visibility, hyperlink analysis, new media, and internet<br />
policies. 1<br />
1. introduction<br />
Regu<strong>la</strong>tions initiatives concerning the “un-authorized” 2 use of copyright contents in<br />
the Internet are being negotiated around the world in supranational and national levels,<br />
1 This work has the support of a grant from the European Social Foundation and the Agència <strong>de</strong> Gestió<br />
d’Ajuts Universitaris i <strong>de</strong> Recerca AGAUR.<br />
2 Un authorized by the titu<strong>la</strong>r rights hol<strong>de</strong>rs of the contents.
516 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
for instance the ACTA 3 and recently, the European Union (EU) <strong>la</strong>unched the initiative of<br />
a common European Digital Market and has approved a set of norms called the Telecoms<br />
package 4 (November 2009) that in one of its amendments (138) allows to members states<br />
to <strong>de</strong>velop their own legal initiatives to fight against what they typify as internet infringements;<br />
the only consi<strong>de</strong>rations are that the states members have to ensure “a prior, fair and<br />
impartial procedure” and they have to respect the European Convention for the Protection<br />
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (EU Parliament and Council 2009) a very<br />
wi<strong>de</strong> framework that allows each state to create its own legal procedure to fight against<br />
the un-authorized use of copyrighted content on the Web. All the states of the EU have<br />
to implement Telecoms package provisions before June 2011. Currently, multiple national<br />
regu<strong>la</strong>tions have been approved: the French Hadopi Law, the Spanish Sustainable Economy<br />
Law-LES- and the British Digital Economy Act-DEA.<br />
We focus on the Spanish (LES) and the UK (DEA) regu<strong>la</strong>tions. This selection answers<br />
to a criterion of diversity. Spanish <strong>la</strong>w compa<strong>red</strong> to the British differs in the scope in terms<br />
of the target and type of punishments; the DEA does not only consi<strong>de</strong>r the closure of web<br />
sites with “un-authorized” contents as it is proposed in the LES, but also the DEA penalizes<br />
Internet users with fines or even with Internet disconnection in cases of recurring consume<br />
of “un-authorized” contents, at least in the final act version that we know until March of<br />
2011, date we finished the data collection.<br />
Nevertheless, we do not analyze all the lobbying process along the <strong>de</strong>velopment of the<br />
<strong>la</strong>w. We concentrate in the media campaign and specifically, in the media visibility that the<br />
stakehol<strong>de</strong>rs of the conflict achieve in different channels. Several authors sustain how mass<br />
media are a fundamental part of the policy process to achieve public support and legitimize<br />
the stakehol<strong>de</strong>rs’ causes (M. Hajer 2009; Helms 2008; Newton 1999; Bennett & Entman<br />
2001; Crozier 2007), and how media have an essential role in the formation of public opinion<br />
and in the <strong>de</strong>finition of the public agenda (Walgrave & De Swert 2005; Walgrave &<br />
Van Aelst 2006), but it is surprising as Hajer (2009) sustains the little attention paid to the<br />
impact of media visibility on the public policy <strong>de</strong>velopment . This work expects to contribute<br />
to the un<strong>de</strong>rstanding of media visibility of different type of stakehol<strong>de</strong>rs in a policy<br />
process. We assume that every si<strong>de</strong> who expects to have influence in the final outcome of a<br />
policy and specifically communicate their standpoints to the public opinion is expected to<br />
be worried about their visibility on the different media channels.<br />
By analyzing the two political campaigns that have been implemented by different advocacy<br />
groups (Copyrights Coalition-CRC, and what we call Digital Rights Activists DRA)<br />
3 Anti-Counterfeiting Agreement, members Australia, Canada, European Union (EU), Japan, Mexico,<br />
Morocco, New Zea<strong>la</strong>nd, South Korea, Singapore, Switzer<strong>la</strong>nd and United States (US)<br />
4 The package covers a diversity of issues, for instance: –improved consumer rights, e.g. by allowing<br />
customers to have their mobile telephone number transfer<strong>red</strong> within one working day when changing<br />
operators; requiring a user’s consent before “cookies” are installed on his computer; an obligation<br />
for provi<strong>de</strong>rs to simplify their contracts; easier access to the internet for people with disabilities.(European<br />
parliament, 2009)
Conflicts about the regu<strong>la</strong>tion of intellectual property in Internet: comparing the issue networks…<br />
517<br />
in a bid to influence national policy making, this paper examines the conditions un<strong>de</strong>r<br />
which stakehol<strong>de</strong>rs in the conflict are visible in different type of media channels and the specific<br />
characteristics of the political context that have an effect on the way that stakehol<strong>de</strong>rs<br />
achieve media visibility. In this vein our main research questions are:<br />
1. How is media visibility distributed between the stakehol<strong>de</strong>rs in this conflict in the<br />
different studied contexts?<br />
2. Does a specific stakehol<strong>de</strong>r of the conflict tend to be in the core (highest visibility) of<br />
one channel but not in the core of another one?<br />
In or<strong>de</strong>r to address these questions and exp<strong>la</strong>in the difference on media visibility between<br />
the stakehol<strong>de</strong>rs in the conflict, we consi<strong>de</strong>r as exp<strong>la</strong>ined factors the features that each<br />
channel present, the stakehol<strong>de</strong>rs´ attributes and how these attributes differ in the studied<br />
context.<br />
The paper is structu<strong>red</strong> in the following way: first of all we present our theoretical framework<br />
and hypotheses to try to answer our research questions. Secondly we present our<br />
methodology in which we exp<strong>la</strong>in the documentary analysis that we make to <strong>de</strong>scribe the<br />
conflict, the social hyperlink and automatic content analyses implemented to i<strong>de</strong>ntify the<br />
most visible agents in different channels and the way we c<strong>la</strong>ssify the different agents who<br />
compose the issue network, then we contextualize and make a <strong>de</strong>scription of the stakehol<strong>de</strong>rs<br />
in conflict. Finally we expose our findings and we discuss them<br />
2. literature<br />
2.1. why media visibility is important?<br />
Traditionally it is consi<strong>de</strong><strong>red</strong> to be more effective and intelligent for some agents like<br />
coalition members and corporations to lobby and to promote face to face contact with<br />
policy makers in or<strong>de</strong>r to achieve their policy objectives. Nowadays in <strong>de</strong>mocratic regimes,<br />
although this action seems to be very common, policy makers are also very concerned<br />
with showing the image to their electors that they support their interests. When the issue<br />
becomes a part of the public <strong>de</strong>bate it is inevitable that even coalition members will try to<br />
legitimize their standpoints and mobilize public support, while politicians will try to avoid<br />
being penalized with the antipathy of their electors.<br />
The <strong>de</strong>bate about the effects of mass media in the shaping of public opinion is very<br />
extensive and there is no established agreement between scho<strong>la</strong>rs (Newton 1999; Entman<br />
1989; Milner 2002; D. Weaver & Drew 2001; Voltmer & Schmitt-Beck 2002), except on<br />
a few common matters, such as on the importance of media visibility. Higher visibility of<br />
media sources implies higher chances to capture issue attention and <strong>de</strong>termine the public<br />
agenda (Entman 1989; Walgrave & Van Aelst 2006; McCombs & Shaw 1993; Iyengar<br />
& Simon 2000). It is fundamental the role of the media in making sense of the world by<br />
casting issues within frames (Reese et al. 2003), or as Zaller (1996) illustrates, the powerful<br />
effects by locating instances of information imba<strong>la</strong>nce, where one campaign is several times<br />
more visible than the opposing campaign, a sizable portion of respon<strong>de</strong>nts will exhibit a
518 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
“reception gap”: having got one message but not the other (pp. 23-26). In this vein we could<br />
assume that agents will try to have the highest level of success in terms of media visibility<br />
Media have always performed a fundamental role in politics, given that they have<br />
always been a necessary intermediate between people and political centres and vice-versa<br />
to transmit news. Additionally in contemporary <strong>de</strong>mocratic regimes we observe the growing<br />
importance that politicians give to their image and their popu<strong>la</strong>rity and when an issue<br />
becomes a part of the public agenda it is difficult to consi<strong>de</strong>r that media visibility is just a<br />
concern for politicians. Any political agent (movements or coalitions) who expects to get the<br />
politicians support and who needs public opinion contentment must consi<strong>de</strong>r media visibility.<br />
At least in a mediatic <strong>de</strong>mocratic context it is relevant to those who want to influence<br />
in policy making and legitimize their cause.<br />
Nevertheless, the concept of media inclu<strong>de</strong>s a wi<strong>de</strong> diversity of media channels such as<br />
traditional (newspapers, radio, TV) and non traditional media (social networks, blogs, web<br />
pages, micro blogging, vi<strong>de</strong>o-sharing...), this <strong>la</strong>st ones with a <strong>de</strong>centralized and a low cost of<br />
access compa<strong>red</strong> to traditional media. Features that makes much more difficult to control<br />
the creation of contents and information flow, and hence much more difficult for those in<br />
power to ensure that the information avai<strong>la</strong>ble to individuals is the one that they want to<br />
make visible. These conditions in a <strong>de</strong>mocratic regime generate a space of ubiquity where<br />
it is difficult for a public issue to avoid the public scrutiny (J. B. Thompson 2005). In that<br />
sense, multiple agents involved in the <strong>de</strong>velopment of different types of policies will be worried<br />
about the standpoint that they want to diffuse trough the media and the visibility and<br />
the type of visibility that they want to have.<br />
The concept of visibility should not only be assumed in a positive connotation. It can<br />
be a double-edged sword (J. B. Thompson 2005) and in many cases could be against the interests<br />
that we wish to c<strong>la</strong>im. An agent can be very visible but with an image that attracts the<br />
hat<strong>red</strong> of the public. In this sense, the visibility has different faces. on one hand it implies<br />
endorsement, a form of social visibility but still could be positive or negative. In this paper<br />
we assess visibility in a positive sense that means the ability to be heard and to capture the<br />
attention of the public opinion. Being visible means that the message to be conveyed has<br />
a <strong>la</strong>rger audience, which indirectly increases the power to mobilize, to influence the public<br />
<strong>de</strong>bate and to <strong>de</strong>termine what people give priority as an important actor or as an influential<br />
media (John B Thompson 2008; Brighenti 2007; J. B. Thompson 2005). Being visible allows<br />
positioning particu<strong>la</strong>r perspectives and contending potential challengers.<br />
obviously it is not the same approach to media visibility if you are a coalition of economical<br />
groups or a social movement, but in all cases when the issue is part of the public<br />
agenda the stakehol<strong>de</strong>rs in a policy will try to obtain public support to legitimize their cause<br />
at least in a <strong>de</strong>mocratic context. For instance, strategically the government together with<br />
the CRC who promote the bill, in a first stage of the conflict they prefer do not make a lot<br />
of noise, and consequently have a low media profile, but when the conflict emerges as part<br />
of the public agenda, they will try to justify and <strong>de</strong>fend their standpoints against the critics<br />
of the digital rights movement and other agents who oppose to the bill. For the politicians,<br />
their electoral capital is very important and they will pretend that they are <strong>de</strong>fending the
Conflicts about the regu<strong>la</strong>tion of intellectual property in Internet: comparing the issue networks…<br />
519<br />
interest of their electorates and not private interests; in this vein if the coalition expects that<br />
politicians support its causes, it is important that its causes seem to be aligned with the public<br />
interests because of that the CRC together with the government will promote a media<br />
campaign to try to influence the behaviour of people who consume un-authorized digital<br />
contents, and also advertising about the social and economical importance of its industry.<br />
(Figure number 1)<br />
Gráficos UOC Jorge Luis Salcedo<br />
Figure 1: Campaign stage of Copyright Advocacy coalition<br />
Figure 1: Campaign stage of Copyright Advocacy coalition<br />
First stage<br />
•!A low volume of news coverage may<br />
be a strategic value.They do not<br />
want the issue to be inclu<strong>de</strong>d in the<br />
general public agenda.<br />
Source: own e<strong>la</strong>boration<br />
First Stage<br />
Digital rights movement<br />
has the incentive to<br />
expand the scope of the<br />
conflict and inclu<strong>de</strong> it in<br />
public agenda but direct<br />
traditional media access<br />
is so expensive.<br />
Second stage<br />
•!If the proposal is part of the public<br />
agenda the coalition would like to<br />
<strong>de</strong>fend it against all the critics, look<br />
for media access and try to<br />
legitimize its stament.<br />
Source: own e<strong>la</strong>boration<br />
Second Stage<br />
They concentrate their<br />
campaign effort in nontraditional<br />
channels<br />
(more granu<strong>la</strong>r) and try to<br />
make the highest level of<br />
noise to capture<br />
traditional media<br />
attention and public<br />
support.<br />
Second and third stage<br />
•!The coalition uses its economical<br />
resources and bussiness ties to<br />
access to traditional media, applying<br />
a campaing of stick and carrot to<br />
diffuse and justify their cause.<br />
Moreover, there is an extensive literature about what is called the political economical<br />
Figure 2 Campaign stage of DRA<br />
approach of media (K<strong>la</strong>ehn 2002; Chomsky & E. S. Herman 2002; Castells 2009), literature<br />
that questions the i<strong>de</strong>a about the normative values that theoretically must gui<strong>de</strong> media,<br />
values as impartiality, justice, equity and the i<strong>de</strong>a of media as a public good. This literature<br />
sustains that media are not alien of commercial purposes and favour the interests of the<br />
elites that they advertise and that are their main stockhol<strong>de</strong>rs (Castells 2009; K<strong>la</strong>ehn 2002;<br />
Strömberg 2001). In our case the CRC is economical elite (CNN money team 2008) that<br />
has the economical resources to pay for traditional media access and it has strong business<br />
ties with them. According to this fact we expect that:<br />
Third Stage<br />
Only when digital rights<br />
movement campaing in<br />
non-traditional media is<br />
highly noisy it achieves<br />
the attention in<br />
traditional channels and<br />
in policy makers.<br />
1. The regu<strong>la</strong>tion supporters (CRC and–governments) will achieve a greater visibility level<br />
on the news channel.<br />
on the other hand, the DRA will try to make a high level of noise trying to set the<br />
issue in the public agenda. It is well known that the Web <strong>red</strong>uces the barrier of entrance5 and also it is cheaper to diffuse a message in comparison to traditional media channels<br />
Source: own e<strong>la</strong>boration<br />
5 obviously when you have guaranteed the access to internet, that in our agents we take for granted
Gráficos UOC Jorge Luis Salcedo<br />
Figure 1: Campaign stage of Copyright Advocacy coalition<br />
520 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
(Castells 2009; Benkler 2006; Rheingold 2003; Chadwick 2008). Besi<strong>de</strong>s non traditional<br />
First stage<br />
Second stage<br />
Second and third stage<br />
•!A media low volume have of news long coverage been may consi<strong>de</strong><strong>red</strong> •!If the proposal a key is part element of the public in the •!The emergence coalition uses of its economical social movements<br />
be a strategic value.They do not<br />
agenda the coalition would like to resources and bussiness ties to<br />
because want the issue of to its be inclu<strong>de</strong>d impact in the on information <strong>de</strong>fend it against diffusion all the critics, look access to traditional media, applying<br />
and contagious processes, by enhancing<br />
general public agenda.<br />
for media access and try to<br />
a campaing of stick and carrot to<br />
the speed, flexibility and reach legitimize of information its stament.<br />
diffuse and justify their cause.<br />
flows, by allowing communication across<br />
<strong>la</strong>rge distances in real time and facilitating the success of spontaneous protest to draw the<br />
attention of traditional media, politicians and the support of public opinion (Pickerill<br />
2003; Andrews & Biggs 2006). The easiest and cheapest way for a social movement to<br />
spread its message is to use what we call non-traditional channels because these channels<br />
give the possibility to stakehol<strong>de</strong>rs that do not have the economical resources or business<br />
ties to spread and to amplify the scope of their message and to try to incorporate the issue<br />
in the public agenda (Figure number 2)<br />
Source: own e<strong>la</strong>boration<br />
Figure 2 Campaign stage of DRA<br />
Source: own e<strong>la</strong>boration<br />
First Stage<br />
Digital rights movement<br />
has the incentive to<br />
expand the scope of the<br />
conflict and inclu<strong>de</strong> it in<br />
public agenda but direct<br />
traditional media access<br />
is so expensive.<br />
Figure 2 Campaign stage of DRA<br />
Second Stage<br />
They concentrate their<br />
campaign effort in nontraditional<br />
channels<br />
(more granu<strong>la</strong>r) and try to<br />
make the highest level of<br />
noise to capture<br />
traditional media<br />
attention and public<br />
support.<br />
Source: own e<strong>la</strong>boration<br />
Third Stage<br />
Only when digital rights<br />
movement campaing in<br />
non-traditional media is<br />
highly noisy it achieves<br />
the attention in<br />
traditional channels and<br />
in policy makers.<br />
Moreover, as we point out this is an international conflict, Herman (2009) in his policy<br />
analysis of the <strong>de</strong>bate of the digital rights management in US and Briatte (2008) in the<br />
French case confirm that the digital rights movement has a higher visibility online compa<strong>red</strong><br />
to the coalition that has a slightly higher visibility in traditional media. In that sense we<br />
expect that:<br />
2. The DRA will have a higher visibility on non traditional media (blogs, web) than the CRC.<br />
In<strong>de</strong>ed Internet has increased the opportunities to communicate with the <strong>red</strong>uction<br />
of the diffusion cost but it has not resolve the question about how to gain the public attention.<br />
Several authors have i<strong>de</strong>ntified that just a few web sites concentrate most of the public<br />
attention, they are the central no<strong>de</strong>s on the Web, this means that in terms of the web confi-
Conflicts about the regu<strong>la</strong>tion of intellectual property in Internet: comparing the issue networks…<br />
521<br />
guration this implies to concentrate the most important 6 and the majority of back-links (S.<br />
Gonzalez-Bailon 2009; Lada A. Adamic et al. 2001; L. A Adamic & B. A Huberman 2002;<br />
Barabási 2003).<br />
The links have important functional attributes on the Web, González (2008) says that<br />
“links are the basic building blocks that <strong>de</strong>fine the structure of this information <strong>la</strong>ndscape”<br />
they are important because they are the routes that surfers and search engines follow when<br />
browsing and mapping web content. Most of the search engines that are the main entrance<br />
to the web7 and specifically Google which is the most popu<strong>la</strong>r search engine consi<strong>de</strong>r the<br />
back-links that receive each web site to rank on the Google results, following this i<strong>de</strong>a “the<br />
rich get richer” (Barabási 2003; Watts 2003; Taleb 2007), the sites receiving attention tend<br />
to acquire more visibility. The difference between the centre and the other no<strong>de</strong>s may tend<br />
to grow. Moreover as González <strong>de</strong>monstrates (2009) back-links are not in<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nt of the<br />
level of economical resources managed by the targets of those links. Better resources allow<br />
hiring the services to optimize websites and improve the position in search engines rankings.<br />
Because of that, we challenge our second hypothesis and we also want to assess if the<br />
DRA compa<strong>red</strong> to the wealthy group of agents who support the <strong>la</strong>w (CRC and government)<br />
not necessarily is going to be the most visible on the entire web. The DRA could be more<br />
visible in the specific issue network (blogs, websites) but not in the search engines and according<br />
to web traffic ranks.<br />
3. The DRA has a higher visibility in specific web channels but not on the entire web.<br />
other important matter re<strong>la</strong>ted to the nature and features of the media channels is<br />
that not all of them have the same level of public trust (Tumber 2001). Different surveys<br />
confirm that citizens continue trusting more in traditional channels than in non-traditional<br />
ones (European Commission 2009a; Dutton et al. 2009; Pew Research Center’s Internet &<br />
American Life Project 2010; CIS 2736 2007) In a context of superabundance of information<br />
as internet, it seems to be important to have a trust gui<strong>de</strong> to choose reliable information.<br />
González (2008) and Hindman (2008) found a strong corre<strong>la</strong>tion between saliency on traditional<br />
channels with saliency on non traditional channels, in our case we expect to observe<br />
a simi<strong>la</strong>r ten<strong>de</strong>ncy, although this could question our first hypothesis:<br />
4. The most visible agents on the news channels are going to be the most visible on the issue<br />
network and in blogs.<br />
6 Not all the back-links have the same value; the back-links from the most popu<strong>la</strong>r web sites have a<br />
highest weight in the final outcome of the search engines rankings in this case Google. (Brin & Page<br />
1998).<br />
7 Until 2010 Google continues to be the main entrance to the web, however authors as Rogers i<strong>de</strong>ntify<br />
that the era of the back link web may be close to the end because of the growing of social networks<br />
and specifically Facebook. Despite of this trend in the next years we bet for the coexistence and also<br />
for a convergence of both systems to organize information.
522 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
3. metHods<br />
A mixed-method approach is used to <strong>de</strong>fine the issue network and to analyze the visibility<br />
level of multiple stakehol<strong>de</strong>rs in different channels. We apply documentary analysis,<br />
hyperlinks network analysis and automatic content analysis.<br />
our units of analysis are the stakehol<strong>de</strong>rs involved in this conflict, most of them civil<br />
organizations, governmental and enterprise organizations (CRC and DRA). We focus in the<br />
channels that traditionally have had more political influence: as traditional media we consi<strong>de</strong>r<br />
the news filte<strong>red</strong> by period of time and by region (Spain-UK) 8 aggregated by Google<br />
news 9 and as non-traditional media we analyze national blogs and the stakehol<strong>de</strong>rs’ organization<br />
web sites. Although we recognize the relevance of social networks, micro-blogging,<br />
and vi<strong>de</strong>o sharing services, these are channels that we expect to analyze in further research.<br />
The period un<strong>de</strong>r study in the Spanish case is from october of 2009 until the end of<br />
March of 2011 and in the UK case the period is from June 2009 until November 2010. These<br />
periods have been <strong>de</strong>fined because they inclu<strong>de</strong> all the <strong>de</strong>velopment of the regu<strong>la</strong>tion, we<br />
analyze since the regu<strong>la</strong>tion initiative was <strong>la</strong>unched until the regu<strong>la</strong>tion has been approved,<br />
however we cannot achieve to cover the implementation process.<br />
We measure visibility according to:<br />
1. The presence of policy agents’ web sites within the online issue network.<br />
2. The saliency of the stakehol<strong>de</strong>r’s websites measu<strong>red</strong> by back-links within the issue network.<br />
3. To asses our hypothesis number three we compare the level of back-links of our issue<br />
network with the level of back-links obtained by Google and Alexa. The first case is an<br />
indicator to asses in what extend each agent’s web site is also visible in Google that is<br />
the most popu<strong>la</strong>r search engine. Alexa back-links indicate us the general online audiences<br />
of agents’ web sites.<br />
4. Finally we evaluate visibility in Blogs and News measu<strong>red</strong> by the number of times that<br />
each agent is mentioned. Data that we contrast with the visibility of the main messages<br />
formu<strong>la</strong>ted by the stakehol<strong>de</strong>rs.<br />
In a first stage the documentary analysis allows us to:<br />
1. obtain an overview of the conflict and create a first set of the diverse agents involved<br />
in it. The documents are composed by journalist research, TV programs, YouTube<br />
vi<strong>de</strong>os and some wikis that exp<strong>la</strong>in the regu<strong>la</strong>tion; finally we inclu<strong>de</strong> a set of news<br />
whose main sources were “El Pais” and “El Mundo” in the Spanish case and the BBC<br />
in the UK case. Because in this step the process is strictly manual we just have the<br />
8 For each case we use Goggle News Spain and Goggle News UK, we apply the same process for searching<br />
on blogs.<br />
9 To compare some of the difference of using Lexis-Nexis or Google News see: (D. A. Weaver & Bimber<br />
2008)
Conflicts about the regu<strong>la</strong>tion of intellectual property in Internet: comparing the issue networks…<br />
523<br />
chance to analyze a few sources; we recognize that these sources could have a small bias<br />
as a consequence of their corporate and i<strong>de</strong>ological p<strong>red</strong>isposition, however we have<br />
privileged the special section that these sources <strong>de</strong>dicate to cover the policy across their<br />
<strong>de</strong>velopment.<br />
2. To in<strong>de</strong>ntify the most saliency messages that advertises the stakehol<strong>de</strong>rs. (Next table)<br />
Table 1. List of main messages by stakehol<strong>de</strong>rs LES and DEA<br />
LES-Spain DEA-UK<br />
Oppose Favor Oppose Favor<br />
En <strong>de</strong>fensa <strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>rechos<br />
fundamentales en Internet<br />
Derechos <strong>de</strong> los creadores Freedom os Speech Copyrights protection<br />
Por una <strong>red</strong> sostenible Protección <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> creación For the dark ages Defense of copyrights<br />
No a <strong>la</strong> censura en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> Protección <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> cultura Don’t Disconnect Us Against piracy<br />
Compartir no es un crimen Si eres legal, eres legal Digital Rights Why Music Matters<br />
Ciber-<strong>de</strong>rechos La música es cultura, <strong>la</strong><br />
música es empleo<br />
Por <strong>la</strong> cultura remix Defensa <strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>rechos <strong>de</strong><br />
propiedad intelectual<br />
Free knowledge Stop piracy<br />
Free culture Stop Illegal file-sharing<br />
Nos<strong>otros</strong> también creamos Di no a <strong>la</strong> piratería Piracy is not theft Not piracy<br />
Internet no será otra TV No mates <strong>la</strong> música File sharing is not piracy Don’t Kill the Music<br />
Cultura libre No a <strong>la</strong> piratería File sharing is not theft<br />
Conocimiento libre Se legal Respect privacy<br />
Por <strong>la</strong> libertad en <strong>la</strong> Red.<br />
No al cierre <strong>de</strong> webs<br />
La propiedad intelectual<br />
no pue<strong>de</strong> colocarse por<br />
encima <strong>de</strong> los <strong>de</strong>rechos<br />
fundamentales<br />
Rights in the digital age<br />
Source: own e<strong>la</strong>boration<br />
3. Moreover, this documentary analysis allows us to recognize the main features of the<br />
opposing stances and to i<strong>de</strong>ntify simi<strong>la</strong>rities and differences between the regu<strong>la</strong>tions. 10<br />
Although the documentary analysis is a rich source of valuable information, it could<br />
also be a little bit limited, when we are building a data set that covers a long period of time<br />
with a <strong>la</strong>rge number of agents and recording many events. In that sense we <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong> to test<br />
other methods.<br />
As it is known, Internet users create different types of networks and most of their interactions<br />
are documented on the Web. When we use web communication tools, database<br />
are created and maintained with records and log files that document the <strong>de</strong>tails of the time,<br />
10 The documents that we have analyzed can be consulted in this reference (Salcedo M 2011). We do not<br />
inclu<strong>de</strong> it here because of their size (more than 30 pages).
524 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
p<strong>la</strong>ce and participants of each interaction. In that sense we have an accurate and extensive set<br />
of data to explore. For this reason, in or<strong>de</strong>r to complement our traditional methodological<br />
approaches such as documentary analysis and automatic content analysis, we have <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong>d<br />
to apply hyperlink network analysis.<br />
We emphasize in the functional attributes of hyperlinks, as we exp<strong>la</strong>in web sites visibility<br />
is <strong>la</strong>rgely <strong>de</strong>termined by the number of back-links from other web sites particu<strong>la</strong>rly<br />
from the highly ranked ones. Referring to hyperlink analysis, in the footnotes we consi<strong>de</strong>r<br />
important to make a short review of some key concepts that are essential to un<strong>de</strong>rstand this<br />
process. These concepts are crawling and seeds. 11 The crawler and the scrapper that we use<br />
have been <strong>de</strong>veloped by the Digital Methods Initiative 12 .<br />
How do we <strong>de</strong>fine our media issue network?<br />
1. We use the documentary analysis to <strong>de</strong>fine the selection of agents that we use as seeds<br />
to the online issue network. In our first crawlers we <strong>de</strong>fine as seeds:<br />
a. In the first Spanish crawler, we <strong>de</strong>fine twenty-five initial agents. Seven of them are a<br />
part of the coalition and the other eighteen are a part of the digital rights movement.<br />
b. In the first UK crawler our list of seeds is composed by ten agents, six of them are<br />
a part of the coalition and the other four are a part of the digital rights movement.<br />
c. With both lists of agents we <strong>la</strong>unched two preliminary crawlers for each of the cases,<br />
in or<strong>de</strong>r to test with our final crawlers and to have more robust results.<br />
2. Following Park and Thewall (2005:179), we must be very careful to ensure that the<br />
interpretations p<strong>la</strong>ced upon links in online networks are genuinely evi<strong>de</strong>nt from the<br />
data, as some individual links appear to have no meaning at all and do not perform a<br />
communication role (Thelwall 2009). This means that the links must be assessed to corroborate<br />
if they actually reflect the intention that we suppose and in that vein we have<br />
to clean and to c<strong>la</strong>ssify our crawler outcomes according to a <strong>de</strong>fined criteria. To i<strong>de</strong>ntify<br />
what an organization represents on the Web we study the web sites, coding the crawler<br />
outcomes (URLs), to do that we visit and read each site obtained, this process help us<br />
to obtain more information about the conflict and the stance of the different actors. If<br />
they have any <strong>de</strong>c<strong>la</strong>rations (opinion, comments or logo of the campaign...) about the<br />
11 Crawling is the process of fetching (getting / downloading) web pages using what is called a crawl,<br />
which is a software robot who is programmed to <strong>de</strong>velop this kind of task. (Rogers 2006a). The<br />
process of crawling that we applied is a co-link analysis. That means that out links of the initial<br />
URLs(<strong>de</strong>gree one) are located and the website pages (no<strong>de</strong>s) that share minimum two links in common<br />
are saved.. After the first <strong>de</strong>gree the crawl begins again the process. It could do it until three<br />
<strong>de</strong>grees. We use at least three iterations for locating an issue network.<br />
Seeds: In any process of hyperlinks analyses it is crucial how we <strong>de</strong>fine our starting points -what we<br />
called seeds. The crawler builds the web graph from the seed of URLs that we provi<strong>de</strong>d. The seed is expected<br />
to inclu<strong>de</strong> the websites of the most significant agents in the issue of interest.<br />
12 Richard Rogers. http://wiki.digitalmethods.net/ (03/03/2011)
Conflicts about the regu<strong>la</strong>tion of intellectual property in Internet: comparing the issue networks…<br />
525<br />
<strong>la</strong>w, we <strong>de</strong>termine their stance in the conflict (Favour/oppose). When the issue stance<br />
of the agent is not evi<strong>de</strong>nt we do an advanced search within each site looking for the<br />
following queries: “Ley <strong>de</strong> Economía Sostenible” oR “Ley Sin<strong>de</strong>” oR “Digital Act”<br />
oR “Digital Bill” according if it is part of the Spanish or UK network. If we do not<br />
find anything we c<strong>la</strong>ssify it as no position (NP). This process allow us to answer how<br />
much a specific web site has to say about the given issue, or why it is likely to have been<br />
inclu<strong>de</strong>d in the web graph results.<br />
3. The criteria we use to co<strong>de</strong> the URLs by the type of agents are the following:<br />
i. Digital Rights Movement (associations of users, and civil and fundamental rights)<br />
ii. Copyright advocacy coalition (members of the entertainment industry, tra<strong>de</strong> associations,<br />
private software organizations)<br />
iii. Government (national and international governmental agencies)<br />
iv. Company (enterprises that <strong>de</strong>fend their own interests but not are totally aligned with<br />
the coalition or the movement such as internet service provi<strong>de</strong>rs, search engines).<br />
4. After this process we <strong>la</strong>unch a second wave of crawls with a more representative set of<br />
seeds. To <strong>de</strong>fine our seeds for the second crawl, we do a specialized search in Google<br />
news UK and Google news Spain, to i<strong>de</strong>ntify which are the first one hund<strong>red</strong> results on<br />
the issue (“Digital Act” oR “Digital Economy Bill” oR “Man<strong>de</strong>lson’s <strong>la</strong>w”” oR “Antipiracy<br />
<strong>la</strong>w”/”ley <strong>de</strong> Economía Sostenible” oR “ley Sin<strong>de</strong>” oR “ley anti<strong>de</strong>scargas” oR<br />
“ley antipiratería”). We consi<strong>de</strong>r that with one hund<strong>red</strong> we have a correct level of reliability<br />
(Jansen & Spink 2003; Spink & Jansen 2004); we chose 100 sorted by Google News<br />
relevance. The period of analysis is the same one that we use in the documentary analysis.<br />
5. In these one hund<strong>red</strong> results with the list of agents that we have obtained in the first<br />
wave of crawlers we do an automatic content analysis to i<strong>de</strong>ntify the agents with the<br />
highest frequency of citations in news. We use this list of agents (the URLs) as our new<br />
seeds. We obtain 46 seeds for each case (UK and Spain), 23 that oppose to the <strong>la</strong>w<br />
and 23 which support the <strong>la</strong>w. This is the minimum number of agents that are visible,<br />
there are agents that ranking by the number of citation have a measure of zero in the<br />
position 24, this was our cut-off to choose the first 23 seeds for each issue stance. Also<br />
the number of agents must be the same in both networks in or<strong>de</strong>r to avoid the problem<br />
of imba<strong>la</strong>nce (in terms of number of seeds that could affect the final outcome) that the<br />
preliminary crawlers had (see the list of final seeds in the next tables).<br />
Table 2. List of seeds Spain, LES<br />
Seeds Spain favor Seeds Spain oppose<br />
1 http://www.aisge.es http://www.alt1040.com<br />
2 http://www.asesoriajuridica<strong>de</strong><strong>la</strong>sartes.com/ http://www.archive.org<br />
3 http://www.asociacion<strong>de</strong>distribuidoreseimportadorescinema.visualnet.com/ http://www.aui.es<br />
4 http://www.bsa.org/country.aspx?sc_<strong>la</strong>ng=es-ES http://www.bufetalmeida.com<br />
5 http://www.cedro.org http://www.conservas.tk<br />
6 http://www.cinemavip.com/companies/adivan http://www.creativecommons.org
526 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
Seeds Spain favor Seeds Spain oppose<br />
7 http://www.circulo.es/ http://www.culturalibre.org<br />
8 http://www.damautor.es http://www.eff.org<br />
9 http://www.egeda.es http://www.elcosmonauta.es<br />
10 http://www.fap.org.es http://www.enriquedans.com<br />
11 http://www.fnac.com/ http://www.error500.net<br />
12 http://www.llorenteycuenca.com/ http://www.estalel<strong>la</strong>.wordpress.com<br />
13 http://www.mcu.es http://www.exgae.net<br />
14 http://www.nearco.es/ http://www.fsf.org<br />
15 http://www.promusicae.es http://www.gnu.org<br />
16 http://www.<strong>red</strong>.es http://www.hispalinux.es<br />
17 http://www.sansebastianfestival.com http://www.internautas.org<br />
18 http://www.secies.com/ http://www.jamendo.com<br />
19 http://www.sgae.es http://www.<strong>la</strong>quadrature.net<br />
20 http://www.siereslegalereslegal.com http://www.mangasver<strong>de</strong>s.es<br />
21 http://www.tercermercado.com/ http://www.mero<strong>de</strong>ando.com<br />
22 http://www.uveunionvi<strong>de</strong>ograficaespano<strong>la</strong>.visualnet.com/ http://www.noalcierre<strong>de</strong>webs.com<br />
23 http://www.ecam.es http://www.nomada.blogs.com<br />
Source: own e<strong>la</strong>boration<br />
Table 3. List of UK seeds. Digital Economy Act.<br />
Seeds UK favor Seeds UK oppose<br />
1 http://www.abo.org.uk http://www.38<strong>de</strong>grees.org.uk/page/speakout/extremeinternetl<br />
2 http://www.berr.gov.uk http://www.archive.org<br />
3 http://www.billboard.biz http://www.chillingeffects.org<br />
4 http://www.billboard.com http://www.creativecommons.org<br />
5 http://www.bmi.com http://www.dontdisconnect.us<br />
6 http://www.bpi.co.uk http://www.eff.org<br />
7 http://www.britishaca<strong>de</strong>my.com http://www.effi.org<br />
8 http://www.britishcopyright.org http://www.epic.org<br />
9 http://www.brits.co.uk http://www.ffii.org<br />
10 http://www.ccskills.org.uk http://www.fipr.org<br />
11 http://www.creative-choices.co.uk http://www.freeculture.org<br />
12 http://www.culture.gov.uk http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com<br />
13 http://www.equity.org.uk http://www.ico.gov.uk<br />
14 http://www.hp.com http://www.lessig.org<br />
15 http://www.ifpi.org http://www.magnatune.com<br />
16 http://www.interactive.bis.gov.uk http://www.musicindie.com<br />
17 http://www.ipo.gov.uk http://www.musicindie.org<br />
18 http://www.ism.org http://www.mysociety.org<br />
19 http://www.mi<strong>de</strong>m.com http://www.no2id.net<br />
20 http://www.mpg.org.uk http://www.openrightsgroup.org
Conflicts about the regu<strong>la</strong>tion of intellectual property in Internet: comparing the issue networks…<br />
Seeds UK favor Seeds UK oppose<br />
21 http://www.musicweek.com http://www.privacyinternational.org<br />
22 http://www.own-it.org http://www.soros.org<br />
23 http://www.patent.gov.uk http://www.theyworkforyou.com<br />
Source: own e<strong>la</strong>boration.<br />
527<br />
6. With the outcomes of the second crawl we c<strong>la</strong>ssify and co<strong>de</strong> the URLs again following<br />
the same criteria as in step 3 in or<strong>de</strong>r to i<strong>de</strong>ntify the stance and type of the different<br />
agents in the issue network.<br />
7. With the crawl results we calcu<strong>la</strong>te the number of back-links for each URL in the issue<br />
network, and at the same time we obtain the back-links in Google and Alexa, in or<strong>de</strong>r to<br />
observe if there is a corre<strong>la</strong>tion between visibility in the sample, and visibility on the Web.<br />
8. With the stakehol<strong>de</strong>rs’ name list that we get after coding and making our database<br />
with the crawl results, we scrape the news (Google news) and the blogosphere (Google<br />
Blogs) in or<strong>de</strong>r to i<strong>de</strong>ntify the number of times that each agent is mentioned in each<br />
channel. Also we assess the corre<strong>la</strong>tion level between presences in the different channels.<br />
As we mention we expect to i<strong>de</strong>ntify if the same agents who have a high level of<br />
citation on news and also on blogs have a high level of visibility on the web. In this case<br />
we use the first 100 results of each channel. In or<strong>de</strong>r to query each channel we use the<br />
same syntax and the same period of time used in the documentary analysis.<br />
4. contextual features<br />
Spain and United Kingdom are countries with a high penetration rate of Internet users,<br />
both of them are ranked among the top 20 countries worldwi<strong>de</strong>; however in the European<br />
context Spain compa<strong>red</strong> to UK in internet uses and practice is not a frontrunner (Table 4).<br />
According to the Europe´s digital competitiveness report (European Commission 2009b) in<br />
EU (27 countries) Spain has a lot of indicators below average and show low rankings. In the<br />
same report UK is consi<strong>de</strong><strong>red</strong> one of the best performing countries in Europe, with most of<br />
the benchmarking indicators above the EU average.<br />
Table 4. Internet use statistics.<br />
UK Spain<br />
EU ranking top 10 (in terms of number of users) 3 7<br />
World ranking (top 20 in terms of number of users) 8 18<br />
Internet (penetration rate in households) 62% 47%<br />
Broadband (penetration rate in households) 58% 44%<br />
Downloading/listening to/watching music and/or films (popu<strong>la</strong>tion %) 34% 31%<br />
Paying for online audiovisual contents (popu<strong>la</strong>tion %) 12% 3%<br />
Source: Internet world stats 2010, Eurobarometer No.335 -2010,<br />
Europe’s Digital Competitiveness Report, 2009
528 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
The exceptions are with downloading, listening and watching music vi<strong>de</strong>os or films,<br />
which present a very close popu<strong>la</strong>tion rate in both cases (Table 4), however in the Spanish<br />
case we can observe that just a 3% of the popu<strong>la</strong>tion finally pay for the audiovisual content<br />
that they consume compa<strong>red</strong> to the 12% in UK. It seems that Spanish audiovisual<br />
consumers compa<strong>red</strong> to UK usually do not pay for audiovisual contents, and prefer other<br />
mechanisms to get these contents. one common comment from people of the DRA is<br />
that in Spain there is not an enough legal supply of digital contents as we can find in UK<br />
or USA, also they sustain that the price continue being so high and it is difficult to find<br />
updated content (Grueso Stéphane 2011; Levi 2011; Cuchí 2011; Dans 2010). According<br />
to the report of E-communication 2008 (Fundación orange 2009) Spain is the European<br />
country with the highest circu<strong>la</strong>tion of P2P networks and at the same time is the country<br />
with the highest level of Creative of Commons licenses (El Pais 2010; creativecommonsorg<br />
2009). These facts may exp<strong>la</strong>in a higher visibility of the Spanish DRM movement<br />
on the web.<br />
other contextual factor to consi<strong>de</strong>r is the public perception about internet regu<strong>la</strong>tion<br />
in both cases. Spanish internet users are divi<strong>de</strong>d about regu<strong>la</strong>tion, 47% of users agree<br />
with the position that the internet should never be subject to any level of government<br />
regu<strong>la</strong>tion, whereas 51% disagree with this statement. In the British case, 43% of Internet<br />
users agree with the statement that Internet should never be subject to any level of government<br />
regu<strong>la</strong>tion, whereas 55 % disagree (GlobeScan 2009). Consequently we could<br />
expect that the opposition regarding the regu<strong>la</strong>tion in Spain has a slight higher public<br />
support compa<strong>red</strong> to British movement, and this may affect in a positive way its levels of<br />
media visibility.<br />
If we analyze the <strong>la</strong>ws, Spanish regu<strong>la</strong>tion –LES-compa<strong>red</strong> to the British-DEA– differs<br />
in the scope in terms of the target and type of punishments; the DEA does not only consi<strong>de</strong>r<br />
the closure of websites with “un-authorized” contents as it is proposed in the LES, but<br />
also the DEA inclu<strong>de</strong>s the provision to penalize Internet users with fines or even Internet<br />
disconnection in cases of repeated consume of “un-authorized” contents. This fact allows<br />
us to think, that internet users in UK have a stronger motivation to mobilize against the<br />
government proposal.<br />
The process to approve the <strong>la</strong>w has also been different in both countries; in UK all<br />
the government and also the parties have supported the <strong>la</strong>w. Moreover, the <strong>la</strong>w has been<br />
approved in an extraordinary parliamentary term, what is called the “wash-up” period in<br />
which bills are not given the usual <strong>de</strong>tailed examination. It is one of the critics of the movement<br />
and some internet service provi<strong>de</strong>rs to the <strong>la</strong>w; they say that the <strong>la</strong>w has just two<br />
hours of <strong>de</strong>bate in the Commons. In Spain all the parties initially, except the government<br />
party, opposed to the <strong>la</strong>w, and also it was very difficult to obtain parties support after all<br />
the leaks of the US Department of State about the lobby of US officials to promote this<br />
regu<strong>la</strong>tion (El País 2010a, El País 2010b; Elo<strong>la</strong> 2010; Fraguas 2010). Finally the <strong>la</strong>w was<br />
approved in a second <strong>de</strong>bate, but with some changes that seem to have unsatisfied all the<br />
stakehol<strong>de</strong>rs in the conflict (Iglesia 2011; El País 2011; El mundo.es 2011; Alonso Julio<br />
et al. 2011).
Conflicts about the regu<strong>la</strong>tion of intellectual property in Internet: comparing the issue networks…<br />
5. findings<br />
529<br />
In or<strong>de</strong>r to answer our hypothesis number one about the higher visibility of the CRC<br />
and the government on news channel, on the next table it can be observed that the CRC<br />
in the Spanish case is more visible than the movement (in terms of number of citations)<br />
something that is according to our expectations. If we also consi<strong>de</strong>r the government, the<br />
news visibility of those who support the <strong>la</strong>w is higher in Spain. In UK if we consi<strong>de</strong>r that<br />
the government agencies share the same position with the CRC this alliance will be much<br />
more visible than DRA but if we focus only in the CRC we must reject our hypothesis<br />
one, however the difference between both (CRC and DRA) in news visibility is very slight<br />
and with this data there is little evi<strong>de</strong>nce that one stakehol<strong>de</strong>r is more visible than the<br />
other in UK 13 .<br />
Table 5. Number of times the agents are mentioned in different channels by type of agent<br />
CRC<br />
DRA<br />
Gov<br />
News (# of<br />
times quoted)<br />
UK Spain<br />
Blogs (# of<br />
times quoted)<br />
OIN* (backlinks)<br />
News (# of times<br />
quoted)<br />
Blogs (# of times<br />
quoted)<br />
OIN (backlinks)<br />
Mean 177 5380 60 48581 27700 7<br />
%Sum Colum ,5% 10,6% 10,4% 10,1% 30,6% ,3%<br />
Std. Deviation 989 12407 160 14582 67392 15<br />
Max 6017 68465 707 4658 220426 42<br />
Min 0 0 0 0 0 0<br />
n 37 11<br />
Mean 248 7778 125 611 1350 353<br />
%Sum Colum ,7% 15,8% 22,8% 7,3% 8,3% 86,2%<br />
Std. Deviation 1122 19342 301 3713 3097 656<br />
Max 6619 93828 1360 28808 15372 3725<br />
Min 0 0 0 0 0 0<br />
n 39 61<br />
Mean 21358 23961 249 56583 105154 136<br />
%Sum Colum 80,8% 67,7% 61,6% 44,5% 42,2% 2,2%<br />
Std. Deviation 151100 149587 731 113156 209531 159<br />
Max 1100519 1091379 4831 226316 419449 308<br />
Min 0 0 0 0 0 0<br />
n 53 4<br />
13 It is important to observe that our data has very high standard <strong>de</strong>viations; this means that there are extreme<br />
values that affect the visibility distribution; in our case this implies that a few agents (members<br />
of the CRC, DRA, Government, Companies) concentrate a very high level of visibility and others<br />
have a very low level.
530 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
Companies<br />
News (# of<br />
times quoted)<br />
UK Spain<br />
Blogs (# of<br />
times quoted)<br />
OIN* (backlinks)<br />
News (# of times<br />
quoted)<br />
Blogs (# of times<br />
quoted)<br />
OIN (backlinks)<br />
Mean 252820 27739 278 19389 18809 284<br />
%Sum Colum 18,0% 5,9% 5,2% 38,1% 18,9% 11,4%<br />
Std. Deviation 126410 52768 314 60541 48246 569<br />
Max 63205 106837 561 191681 153323 1667<br />
Min 0 0 0 0 0 0<br />
n 4 10<br />
Source: own e<strong>la</strong>boration<br />
Nevertheless, this measure is not highly reliable if we want to assess visibility in a positive<br />
way, because it is possible that your name is mentioned very often but it is to criticize you,<br />
or it is mentioned with other purpose not re<strong>la</strong>ted with the regu<strong>la</strong>tion. Because of that and<br />
to triangu<strong>la</strong>te our first findings, we <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong>d to assess the visibility of the main slogans advertised<br />
by the stakehol<strong>de</strong>rs in the different channels. In the table 6 we summarize our findings.<br />
UK<br />
Spain<br />
Table 6. Number of times the stakehol<strong>de</strong>rs slogans are<br />
mentioned in different channels by issue stance.<br />
Blogs Mean Blogs News-Mean News<br />
Oppose 124211 92,7% 17049 54,8%<br />
Favour 10855 7,3% 15626 45,2%<br />
Oppose 610 99,9% 11207 11,3%<br />
Favour 1 ,1% 103626 88,7%<br />
Source: own e<strong>la</strong>boration<br />
Following our analysis in news channel, we confirm that in UK the stakehol<strong>de</strong>rs who<br />
are against the <strong>la</strong>w have a higher news visibility (55%), so we have to refute our hypothesis<br />
one for the UK case. In Spain the data about slogans verify our previous findings; the CRC<br />
is more visible on news (89%) than the DRA.<br />
Figure 3: Stakehol<strong>de</strong>rs presence on the online issue network.<br />
Source: own e<strong>la</strong>boration
Conflicts about the regu<strong>la</strong>tion of intellectual property in Internet: comparing the issue networks…<br />
531<br />
To asses our hypothesis number two about the higher visibility by the DRA on nontraditional<br />
media, firstly in the figure three in terms of the presence on the online issue<br />
network in both cases (UK-Spain), there are more DRA members (organizations web sites)<br />
than CRC members, this is something that we expected. When we analyse percentage of<br />
back-links to each type of actor (table 5) which is a more accurate measure of online visibility<br />
we observe the same trend. In UK the DRA concentrates 23% of backlinks versus 10% of<br />
backlinks to the CRC, as we point out in the news analysis in UK if we consi<strong>de</strong>r also the<br />
government this alliance has a higher visibility than the DRA; in Spain the difference is huge,<br />
the DRA concentrates 86% of back-links. When we consi<strong>de</strong>r the slogans visibility on blogs<br />
(table 6), the trend is the same, and the slogans against the <strong>la</strong>w in both cases (UK-Spain)<br />
dominate wi<strong>de</strong>ly the blogs channels. The DRA is stronger on the online <strong>de</strong>bate, and in this<br />
way we confirm our hypothesis number two.<br />
As we expected and because of the contextual features that we <strong>de</strong>scribe the movement<br />
in Spain is stronger than in UK, but someone may have presence on the issue network that<br />
is a small sample of the web and this is not a guarantee that these agents are really visible on<br />
the entire web which is what we expected to <strong>de</strong>monstrate in our hypotheses number three.<br />
Because of that and to asses our third hypotheses we compare the sample back-links with<br />
Google and Alexa back-links.<br />
Table 7. Corre<strong>la</strong>tion DRA back-links sample, Alexa and Google<br />
Spearman’s rho<br />
Back-links Google Back-links Alexa<br />
Back-links DRA UK ,424** ,410**<br />
UK N 39<br />
Back-links DRA Spain ,335** ,416**<br />
Spain N 61<br />
**. Corre<strong>la</strong>tion is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).<br />
Source: own e<strong>la</strong>boration<br />
In table 7 we can observe the Spearman’s corre<strong>la</strong>tion coefficient between the visibility<br />
of the DRA agents’ web sites sample and the visibility of these web sites according to Google<br />
and Alexa. For the UK case our results are 0.42 (Google) and 0.41 (Alexa) and in the Spanish<br />
case there are 0.33 (Google) and 0.42 (Alexa). These results suggest that the visibility<br />
on the issue network and the visibility on the entire web is re<strong>la</strong>ted in a certain extent, and<br />
just in a few cases they are in<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nt (the coefficients tell us that the corre<strong>la</strong>tion is mo<strong>de</strong>rate).<br />
When we do the same analysis with the other types of actors we do not find significant<br />
corre<strong>la</strong>tions 14 . From this analysis we must reject our hypothesis number three. Being visible<br />
14 Just in the case of companies for the Spanish online issue network but in a negative direction, something<br />
that we expect to explore carefully in a further work.
532 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
on the online issue network for the DRA corresponds to be visible in the entire web, at least<br />
in a mo<strong>de</strong>rate level.<br />
To asses our hypotheses number 4, that is about the corre<strong>la</strong>tion of visibility in news<br />
with visibility on the issue network and blogs, we analyze the visibility of the stakehol<strong>de</strong>rs in<br />
terms of the number of times they are mentioned in blogs and news, and we compare them<br />
with the number of back-links of the sample; we expected to i<strong>de</strong>ntify a corre<strong>la</strong>tion between<br />
visibility on traditional and non traditional channels (back-links).<br />
Log_n_ sample backlinks<br />
Log_n_news<br />
Log_n_blogs<br />
Table 8. Corre<strong>la</strong>tion between Back-linkss, news and blogs.<br />
**. Corre<strong>la</strong>tion is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).<br />
Spanish Spearman’s rho<br />
Log_n_ sample backlinks Log_n_news Log_n_blogs<br />
Corre<strong>la</strong>tion Coefficient 1.000 ,163 -,436**<br />
Sig. (2-tailed) . ,130 ,000<br />
N 88 88 88<br />
Corre<strong>la</strong>tion Coefficient ,163 1.000 ,433**<br />
Sig. (2-tailed) ,130 . ,000<br />
N 88 88 88<br />
Corre<strong>la</strong>tion Coefficient -,436** ,433** 1.000<br />
Sig. (2-tailed) ,000 ,000 .<br />
N 88 88 88<br />
Source: own e<strong>la</strong>boration<br />
In the Spanish case we find a mo<strong>de</strong>rate positive corre<strong>la</strong>tion between news visibility<br />
and blogs, a finding that is according to the theory (Sandra Gonzalez-Bailon 2008; Hindman<br />
2009). on the other hand, when we assess the corre<strong>la</strong>tion between back-links and<br />
blogs we find a negative mo<strong>de</strong>rate corre<strong>la</strong>tion, something that in the theoretical perspective<br />
has not much sense. The corre<strong>la</strong>tion between news and back-links is not significant.<br />
This suggests that in this media <strong>de</strong>bate being visible on the news channels does not imply<br />
visibility on the online issue network (sample backlinks). In the UK case the same corre<strong>la</strong>tion<br />
between the different channels is not significant; each channel seems to have an<br />
in<strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong>nt behaviour.<br />
Discussion<br />
In the online Spanish network, the Digital Rights Movement is dominant. We did<br />
not expect that the gap between the issue network visibility (presence and back-links) of<br />
the movement compa<strong>red</strong> to the visibility of the coalition would be so wi<strong>de</strong>. We recognize<br />
that the coalition has other strategies to lobby and to achieve visibility, but what we can see<br />
in the Spanish case is that the coalition visibility (Blogs and the issue network) is really low<br />
compa<strong>red</strong> to the movement, the coalition in Spain privileges traditional media.
Conflicts about the regu<strong>la</strong>tion of intellectual property in Internet: comparing the issue networks…<br />
533<br />
In Spain the control of the <strong>de</strong>bate online by the DRA is almost total something that<br />
may be a projection of the public antipathy that the CRC has in Spain and other contextual<br />
features that we have mentioned as the citizen perception about internet regu<strong>la</strong>tion in Spain<br />
furthermore the low online visibility level of the CRC in Spain may be associated with other<br />
signals of the bad performance on the online media of the Spanish CRC, signals as the weak<br />
and inefficient legal supply of digital contents compa<strong>red</strong> to other European countries.<br />
The DRA in both cases dominates the online channels; these findings are in the same<br />
direction as the findings of Herman (2009) in US and Briatte (2008) in France. In UK DRA<br />
seems to be a little passive if we compare it to the online visibility level of the Spanish DRA,<br />
nevertheless when we are assessing the hypothesis number two the UK DRA is also visible<br />
in news channels, a fact that theoretically involves a high level of economical resources; in<br />
addition focusing in the online channels the CRC in UK is much bigger than the CRC in<br />
Spain and seems to be better prepa<strong>red</strong> to this environment; because of that the competition<br />
to achieve online visibility is stronger in UK than in Spain and this can exp<strong>la</strong>in that the UK<br />
DRA is not as visible as the Spanish one. In addition, <strong>de</strong>spite the UK regu<strong>la</strong>tion contemp<strong>la</strong>tes<br />
penalties to internet users they have more and better legal alternatives to download<br />
“authorized” digital content, in this way there are fewer motivations to mobilize.<br />
The UK coalition is not hated as it is in the case of Spain (the Sgae bad reputation) and<br />
seems to have public support. For instance only the Lib<strong>de</strong>m has some amendments about<br />
the <strong>la</strong>w, all parties supported the <strong>la</strong>w in the UK parliament and the issue network composition<br />
shows that there are more agents that support the regu<strong>la</strong>tion than oppose it. This result<br />
is in contrast with the Spanish case, in which the regu<strong>la</strong>tion has a very low level of public<br />
support, for instance in the first <strong>de</strong>bate all the parties opposed to the government initiative,<br />
most of them seem to be afraid of the electoral cost .<br />
In contrast with the Spanish case and with US findings (B. D. Herman 2009) the<br />
UK coalition has a strong visibility on the online <strong>de</strong>bate (both in number of blog mentions<br />
and web in-links) when compa<strong>red</strong> to the Spanish coalition, which is quite weak in terms<br />
of media visibility. We can see a great difference between the UK coalition and the Spanish<br />
coalition in size, resources and digital market knowledge. This possibly exp<strong>la</strong>ins why the<br />
UK coalition has a higher visibility than the Spanish coalition. Even so, if we compare the<br />
UK case with the study of Herman (2009), his findings are in contradiction with the results<br />
we find for the case of the UK, consi<strong>de</strong>ring that the US coalition is the world’s <strong>la</strong>rgest one.<br />
Nevertheless, we need to go <strong>de</strong>eply in the UK case, the coalition seems to learn from the US<br />
experience and in this sense has <strong>de</strong>veloped a strong online campaign, and also has <strong>la</strong>unched<br />
a massive and attractive media campaign called “Why Mussic Matters?”About the personal<br />
risks and the threats to the industry and to Internet users that result from consuming unauthorized<br />
contents. Also as we mentioned in the UK the entertainment industry supplies<br />
a wi<strong>de</strong> set of legal p<strong>la</strong>tforms to consume digital content and currently the digital market in<br />
Britain is more dynamic and richer than the Spanish one. For instance nowadays Internet<br />
publicity in UK is bigger than TV advertising (Sweney Mark 2009).<br />
Re<strong>la</strong>ted to the question of a particu<strong>la</strong>r si<strong>de</strong> of the conflict being in the core of one channel,<br />
we could answer that the DRA dominates the blogosphere and in general is stronger in
534 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
the online <strong>de</strong>bate as we expected. However, if we consi<strong>de</strong>r the government as being in the<br />
same si<strong>de</strong> as the coalition, in UK the visibility of the agents who support the regu<strong>la</strong>tion is<br />
much stronger. We can see that the alliance has a high visibility (Table 5)<br />
other issues that we have to explore more <strong>de</strong>eply are the features of these agents who<br />
attain the highest level of visibility (e.g. Creative Commons, GNU org or Arts council).<br />
What are the most relevant factors that exp<strong>la</strong>in the media visibility of different stakehol<strong>de</strong>rs?<br />
And specifically insi<strong>de</strong> the DRA where as in other agents there are high levels of dispersion<br />
between visibility levels. We expect to explore if it is just the avai<strong>la</strong>bility of economical resources<br />
the possible answer to the dispersion between visibility levels.<br />
Nevertheless, in this specific conflict we observe that those agents who are not necessary<br />
wealthy have the chance to be highly visible and spread their standpoints about how<br />
the Internet should be, also their visibility on internet seems to facilitate the access to traditional<br />
media. It is not guaranteed that the authorities will incorporate their <strong>de</strong>mands in<br />
the final version of the <strong>la</strong>w, but the consequences of the policy should be analyzed during a<br />
long period of time, at this moment in both countries it is <strong>de</strong>veloped the regu<strong>la</strong>tion and the<br />
mechanism to implement the <strong>la</strong>w. The <strong>de</strong>bate continues and the stakehol<strong>de</strong>rs’ arguments in<br />
different levels are becoming visible, the DRA seems not to be limited to act against the <strong>la</strong>w,<br />
their slogans c<strong>la</strong>im for a <strong>de</strong>eper social change, further research is to analyze other countries<br />
and their c<strong>la</strong>ims and to compare them to see if common patterns emerge.<br />
6. references<br />
Adamic, L. A & Huberman, B. A, 2002. Zipf’s <strong>la</strong>w and the Internet. Glottometrics, 3(1),<br />
pág.143–150.<br />
Adamic, Lada A. et al., 2001. Search in power-<strong>la</strong>w networks. Physical Review E, 64(4),<br />
pág.046135.<br />
Alonso Julio et al., 2011. Diez visiones sobre <strong>la</strong> «Ley Sin<strong>de</strong>» | Navegante | elmundo.es.<br />
Avai<strong>la</strong>ble at: http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2011/01/27/navegante/1296143905.<br />
html [Accedido Enero 30, 2011].<br />
Andrews, K.T. & Biggs, M., 2006. The dynamics of protest diffusion: Movement organizations,<br />
social networks, and news media in the 1960 sit-ins. American Sociological<br />
Review, 71(5), pág.752.<br />
Barabási, A.-L., 2003. Linked: How Everything Is Connected to Everything Else and What It<br />
Means for Business, Science, and Everyday Life, New York, NY: A plume book.<br />
Benkler, Y., 2006. The wealth of networks : how social production transforms markets and<br />
freedom, New Haven [Conn.]: Yale University Press.<br />
Bennett, W.L. & Entman, R.M., 2001. Mediated politics: Communication in the future of<br />
<strong>de</strong>mocracy, Cambridge Univ Pr.
Conflicts about the regu<strong>la</strong>tion of intellectual property in Internet: comparing the issue networks…<br />
535<br />
Briatte, F., 2008. Parliamentary Controversy Expansion over Digital Rights Management<br />
in France. En Joint Sessions ECPR. Rennes. Avai<strong>la</strong>ble at: http://f.briatte.org/research/<br />
[Accedido Noviembre 3, 2010].<br />
Brighenti, A., 2007. Visibility. Current Sociology, 55(3), págs.323 -342.<br />
Brin, S. & Page, L., 1998. The anatomy of a <strong>la</strong>rge-scale hypertextual Web search engine.<br />
Computer networks and ISDN systems, 30(1-7), pág.107–117.<br />
Castells, M., 2009. Comunicación Y Po<strong>de</strong>r, Madrid: Alianza.<br />
Chadwick, A., 2008. Web 2.0: New Challenges for the Study of E-Democracy in Era of<br />
Informational Exuberance. I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society,<br />
5, págs.9-42.<br />
Chomsky, N. & Herman, E.S., 2002. A Propaganda Mo<strong>de</strong>l. Manufacturing Consent: the<br />
Political Economy of the Mass Media. 2d ed. New York: Pantheon Books, pág.1–35.<br />
CIS 2736, 2007. Internet y Participación Política, Avai<strong>la</strong>ble at: http://www.cis.es/cis/<br />
opencms/-Archivos/Marginales/2720_2739/2736/e273600.html [Accedido Febrero<br />
24, 2010].<br />
CNN money team, 2008. FoRTUNE 500 2007: Top Performers. Avai<strong>la</strong>ble at: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2007/performers/industries/return_on_<br />
revenues/in<strong>de</strong>x.html [Accedido Julio 28, 2010].<br />
creativecommonsorg, 2009. World - CC Monitor. Avai<strong>la</strong>ble at: http://monitor.creativecommons.org/World<br />
[Accedido Abril 6, 2010].<br />
Crozier, M., 2007. Recursive governance: Contemporary political communication and<br />
public policy. Political Communication, 24(1), pág.1–18.<br />
Cuchí, J., 2011. Entrevista representate Asociación <strong>de</strong> Internautas por Jorge L Salcedo.<br />
Dans, E., 2010. Entrevistas Digitales en ELPAÍS.com. Avai<strong>la</strong>ble at: http://www.elpais.com/<br />
edigitales/entrevista.html?encuentro=6344&k=Enrique_Dans [Accedido Marzo 5,<br />
2010].<br />
Dutton, W., Helsper, E. & Gerber, M., 2009. oxIS - oxford Internet Surveys. Avai<strong>la</strong>ble<br />
at: http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/microsites/oxis/ [Accedido Mayo 26, 2010].<br />
El mundo.es, 2011. El PP y Cultura negocian <strong>la</strong> ley Sin<strong>de</strong> | Cultura | elmundo.es. Avai<strong>la</strong>ble<br />
at: http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2011/01/17/cultura/1295260642.html<br />
[Accedido Enero 17, 2011].<br />
El Pais, 2010. España, primer país <strong>de</strong>l mundo en <strong>la</strong> adopción <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> licencia Creative Commons ·<br />
ELPAÍS.com. Avai<strong>la</strong>ble at: http://www.elpais.com/articulo/tecnologia/Espana/primer/<br />
pais/mundo/adopcion/licencia/Creative/Commons/elpeputec/20100326elpeputec_4/<br />
Tes [Accedido Marzo 26, 2010].<br />
El País, 2010a. Cable que resume <strong>la</strong>s entrevistas mantenidas en España por el «número 2»<br />
<strong>de</strong> Comercio Exterior <strong>de</strong> EE UU · ELPAÍS.com. Avai<strong>la</strong>ble at: http://www.elpais.com/<br />
articulo/espana/Cable/resume/entrevistas/mantenidas/Espana/numero/Comercio/Exterior/EE/UU/elpepuesp/20101220elpepunac_25/Tes<br />
[Accedido Febrero 4, 2011].
536 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
El País, 2010b. Cable sobre <strong>la</strong> polémica por <strong>la</strong> ley contra <strong>la</strong> piratería · ELPAÍS.com.<br />
Avai<strong>la</strong>ble at: http://www.elpais.com/articulo/espana/Cable/polemica/ley/pirateria/<br />
elpepuesp/20101203elpepunac_49/Tes [Accedido Diciembre 4, 2010].<br />
El País, 2011. El «acuerdo <strong>de</strong>l Senado» encien<strong>de</strong> los ánimos en todos los sectores · ELPAÍS.<br />
com. Avai<strong>la</strong>ble at: http://www.elpais.com/articulo/cultura/acuerdo/Senado/encien<strong>de</strong>/<br />
animos/todos/sectores/elpepucul/20110125elpepucul_2/Tes [Accedido Enero 25,<br />
2011].<br />
Elo<strong>la</strong>, J., 2010. EE UU ejecutó un p<strong>la</strong>n <strong>para</strong> conseguir una ley anti<strong>de</strong>scargas · ELPAÍS.com.<br />
Avai<strong>la</strong>ble at: http://www.elpais.com/articulo/espana/EE/UU/ejecuto/p<strong>la</strong>n/conseguir/<br />
ley/anti<strong>de</strong>scargas/elpepuesp/20101203elpepunac_52/Tes [Accedido Diciembre 4,<br />
2010].<br />
Entman, R.M., 1989. How the media affect what people think: An information processing<br />
approach. The journal of Politics, 51(02), pág.347–370.<br />
EU Parliament and Council, 2009. Telecoms Package EUR-Lex - Case-<strong>la</strong>w. Avai<strong>la</strong>ble at:<br />
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JoHtml.do?uri=oJ:L:2009:337:SoM:EN:HTML [Accedido<br />
Mayo 18, 2011].<br />
European Commission, 2009a. European Commission Information society statistics - Statistics<br />
exp<strong>la</strong>ined. Avai<strong>la</strong>ble at: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_exp<strong>la</strong>ined/in<strong>de</strong>x.php/Information_society_statistics<br />
[Accedido Marzo 6, 2010].<br />
European Commission, 2009b. Europes Digital Competitiveness Report. Avai<strong>la</strong>ble<br />
at: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/i2010/key_documents/in<strong>de</strong>x_<br />
en.htm [Accedido Mayo 18, 2010].<br />
Fraguas, A., 2010. El Gobierno pidió a EE UU que presionase al PP, CiU y PNV ELPAÍS.<br />
com. Avai<strong>la</strong>ble at: http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/Gobierno/pidio/EE/<br />
UU/presionase/PP/CiU/PNV/elpepuint/20101220elpepuint_28/Tes [Accedido Diciembre<br />
21, 2010].<br />
Fundación orange, 2009. eEspaña2008, España: Fundación orange. Avai<strong>la</strong>ble at: http://<br />
fundacionorange.es/areas/25_publicaciones/publi_analisis_prospectiva.asp [Accedido<br />
Marzo 1, 2011].<br />
GlobeScan, 2009. Global Poll on Internet Access. Avai<strong>la</strong>ble at: http://globescan.com/news_<br />
archives/bbc2010_internet/ [Accedido Marzo 8, 2010].<br />
Gonzalez-Bailon, S., 2009. opening the b<strong>la</strong>ck box of link formation: Social factors un<strong>de</strong>rlying<br />
the structure of the web. Social Networks, 31(4), pág.271–280.<br />
Gonzalez-Bailon, Sandra, 2008. The inner circle divi<strong>de</strong>:How the web contributes (or not)<br />
to political equality. Oxford OXI 3UQ, Departament of Sociology, 2, págs.1-22.<br />
Grueso Stéphane, 2011. ¡Copiad, malditos! - El documental - RTVE.es. ¡Copiad, malditos!<br />
Avai<strong>la</strong>ble at: http://www.rtve.es/television/documentales/copiad-malditos/ [Accedido<br />
Abril 18, 2011].<br />
Hajer, M., 2009. Authoritative governance : policy-making in the age of mediatization,<br />
oxford ;;New York: oxford University Press.
Conflicts about the regu<strong>la</strong>tion of intellectual property in Internet: comparing the issue networks…<br />
537<br />
Hajer, M.A., 2009. Authoritative governance: policy-making in the age of mediatization,<br />
oxford University Press.<br />
Helms, L., 2008. Governing in the Media Age: The Impact of the Mass Media on Executive<br />
Lea<strong>de</strong>rship in Contemporary Democracies1. Government and Opposition, 43(1),<br />
pág.26–54.<br />
Herman, B.D., 2009. The Battle over Digital Rights Management: A Multi-Method Study of<br />
the Politics of Copyright Management Technologies. SSRN eLibrary. Avai<strong>la</strong>ble at: http://<br />
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1357203 [Accedido Mayo 11, 2010].<br />
Hindman, M.S., 2009. The myth of digital <strong>de</strong>mocracy, Princeton Univ Press.<br />
Iglesia, A., 2011. «Después <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> ga<strong>la</strong>, dimito como presi<strong>de</strong>nte» · ELPAÍS.com. Avai<strong>la</strong>ble<br />
at: http://www.elpais.com/articulo/cultura/Despues/ga<strong>la</strong>/dimito/presi<strong>de</strong>nte/<br />
elpepucul/20110125elpepucul_9/Tes [Accedido Enero 25, 2011].<br />
Iyengar, S. & Simon, A.F., 2000. New perspectives and evi<strong>de</strong>nce on political communication<br />
and campaign effects. Annual Review of Psychology, 51(1), pág.149–169.<br />
Jansen, B.J. & Spink, A., 2003. An analysis of web documents retrieved and viewed. En<br />
International Conference on Internet Computing. pág 65–69.<br />
K<strong>la</strong>ehn, J., 2002. A critical review and assessment of Herman and Chomsky’s’ propaganda<br />
mo<strong>de</strong>l’. European Journal of Communication, 17(2), pág.147.<br />
Levi, S., 2011. Entrevista Simona Leví por Jorge L Salcedo.<br />
McCombs, M.E. & Shaw, D.L., 1993. The evolution of agenda-setting research: twentyfive<br />
years in the marketp<strong>la</strong>ce of i<strong>de</strong>as. Journal of Communication, 43(2), pág.58–67.<br />
Milner, H., 2002. Civic literacy: How informed citizens make <strong>de</strong>mocracy work, Tufts University.<br />
Newton, K., 1999. Mass media effects: mobilization or media ma<strong>la</strong>ise? British Journal of<br />
Political Science, 29(04), pág.577–599.<br />
Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project, 2010. Infographics | Pew<br />
Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project. Avai<strong>la</strong>ble at: http://www.pewinternet.org/Static-Pages/Data-Tools/Get-the-Latest-Statistics/Infographics.aspx[Accedido<br />
Enero 30, 2011].<br />
Pickerill, J., 2003. Cyberprotest: Environmental Activism Online, Manchester [etc.]: Manchester<br />
University Press.<br />
Reese, S.D., Gandy, o.H. & Grant, A.E., 2003. Framing public life: perspectives on media<br />
and our un<strong>de</strong>rstanding of the social world, Routledge.<br />
Rheingold, H., 2003. Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution, Basic Books.<br />
Salcedo M, J.L., 2011. Jorge Luis Salcedo Maldonado | Universitat Autònoma <strong>de</strong> Barcelona<br />
- Aca<strong>de</strong>mia.edu. Avai<strong>la</strong>ble at: http://uab.aca<strong>de</strong>mia.edu/JorgeLuisSalcedoMaldonado<br />
[Accedido Marzo 2, 2011].<br />
Spink & Jansen, 2004. A study of Web search trends. Avai<strong>la</strong>ble at: http://webology.ir/2004/<br />
v1n2/a4.html [Accedido Julio 18, 2010].
538 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
Strömberg, D., 2001. Mass media and public policy. European Economic Review, 45(4-6),<br />
págs.652-663.<br />
Sweney Mark, 2009. Internet overtakes television to become biggest advertising sector in<br />
the UK | Media | The Guardian. Avai<strong>la</strong>ble at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/<br />
sep/30/internet-biggest-uk-advertising-sector [Accedido Mayo 26, 2010].<br />
Taleb, N.N., 2007. B<strong>la</strong>ck swans and the domains of statistics. The American Statistician,<br />
61(3), pág.198–200.<br />
Thelwall, 2009. Introduction to webometrics quantitative Web research for the social sciences,<br />
[San Rafael, Calif.] :: Morgan & C<strong>la</strong>ypool Publishers,.<br />
Thompson, J. B., 2005. The New Visibility. Theory, Culture & Society, 22(6), págs.31-51.<br />
Thompson, John B, 2008. :: revista TELoS Por una teoría interre<strong>la</strong>cional <strong>de</strong> los<br />
medios.La nueva visibilidadTowards an Integrated Theory of Media.The<br />
New Visibility. Avai<strong>la</strong>ble at: http://sociedadinformacion.fundacion.telefonica.com/<br />
telos/cua<strong>de</strong>rnoimprimible.asp@idarticulo=7&rev=74.htm [Accedido Enero 24, 2011].<br />
Voltmer, K. & Schmitt-Beck, R., 2002. The Mass Media and Citizens’ orientations Towards<br />
Democracy: The Experience of Six ‘Third-Wave’Democracies in Southern Europe,<br />
Eastern Europe and Latin America. En Workshops of the European Consortium for<br />
Political Research. pág 22–27.<br />
Walgrave, S. & De Swert, K., 2005. Does news content matter? Ethical Perspectives, 9(4),<br />
pág.249–274.<br />
Walgrave, S. & Van Aelst, P., 2006. The contingency of the mass media’s political agenda setting<br />
power: Toward a preliminary theory. Journal of Communication, 56(1), pág.88–109.<br />
Watts, D.J., 2003. Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age, New York [etc.]: W.W. Norton.<br />
Weaver, D.A. & Bimber, B., 2008. Finding news stories: A comparison of searches using<br />
LexisNexis and Google News. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 85(3),<br />
pág.515–530.<br />
Weaver, D. & Drew, D., 2001. Voter Learning and Interest in the 2000 Presi<strong>de</strong>ntial Election:<br />
Did the Media Matter?. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 78(4),<br />
pág.787–98.<br />
Zaller, J., 1996. The myth of massive media impact revived: New support for a disc<strong>red</strong>ited<br />
i<strong>de</strong>a. En Political persuasion and attitu<strong>de</strong> change. pág 17–78.
30<br />
lAs CIBer-CAmPAñAs eN AmérICA lAtINA:<br />
POteNCIAlIDADes y lImItANtes<br />
Dr. Andrés Val<strong>de</strong>z Zepeda<br />
Universidad <strong>de</strong> Guada<strong>la</strong>jara (México)<br />
AbstrAct: La ponencia discute sobre el <strong>de</strong>sarrollo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s ciber-campañas en América Latina a <strong>la</strong> luz<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s transformaciones políticas <strong>de</strong> cuño <strong>de</strong>mocrático <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s últimas décadas y <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> socialización <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s<br />
nuevas tecnologías <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información y <strong>la</strong>s telecomunicaciones que se ha observado en <strong>la</strong> región.<br />
Se analiza el caso <strong>de</strong> seis países <strong>de</strong> este subcontinente (Argentina, Brasil, Chile, Colombia, México y<br />
Venezue<strong>la</strong>) que han incorporado a <strong>la</strong>s nuevas tecnologías <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información y <strong>la</strong>s telecomunicaciones<br />
como parte central <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s estrategias <strong>de</strong> campaña en <strong>la</strong>s elecciones generales. Se analizan también <strong>la</strong>s<br />
potencialida<strong>de</strong>s y limitantes <strong>de</strong> este tipo <strong>de</strong> campañas. Se concluye que <strong>la</strong>s cibercampañas llegaron <strong>para</strong><br />
quedarse en América <strong>la</strong>tina, cuyo nivel <strong>de</strong> socialización tecnológica avanza a pasos agigantados. Sin embargo,<br />
este tipo <strong>de</strong> campañas tiene sus limitantes <strong>para</strong> lograr sus objetivos, ante un electorado con bajos<br />
niveles educativos y cada día más <strong>de</strong>cepcionado <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> c<strong>la</strong>se política.<br />
pAlAbrAs clAve: Cibercampañas, América <strong>la</strong>tina, re<strong>de</strong>s sociales, <strong>de</strong>mocracia digital, <strong>la</strong> política en<br />
<strong>la</strong> era punto com.<br />
1. introducción<br />
Las cibercampañas electorales se están <strong>institucional</strong>izando como una nueva forma <strong>de</strong><br />
hacer política en América <strong>la</strong>tina, producto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> socialización <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s nuevas tecnologías y <strong>de</strong><br />
los procesos <strong>de</strong> consolidación <strong>de</strong>mocrática, a<strong>de</strong>más <strong>de</strong>l aprendizaje que se ha obtenido <strong>de</strong>l<br />
ejemplo que han dado <strong>la</strong>s naciones <strong>de</strong>sarrol<strong>la</strong>das, como Estados Unidos <strong>de</strong> Norteamérica y<br />
España, respecto <strong>de</strong> su funcionalidad y eficiencia.<br />
Los ejemplos <strong>de</strong> Argentina, Brasil, Chile, Colombia, México y Venezue<strong>la</strong> muestran que<br />
este tipo <strong>de</strong> campaña es cada día más utilizado por los partidos y sus candidatos en <strong>la</strong> región,<br />
ya sea <strong>para</strong> tratar <strong>de</strong> ganar un mayor número <strong>de</strong> votos a su favor o <strong>para</strong> tratar <strong>de</strong> quitárselos<br />
a sus opositores.<br />
En este sentido, bien se pue<strong>de</strong> asegurar que <strong>la</strong>s campañas digitales, como también se les<br />
conoce a <strong>la</strong>s cibercampañas, llegaron <strong>para</strong> quedarse en América <strong>la</strong>tina, cuyo nivel <strong>de</strong> socialización<br />
tecnológica avanza a pasos agigantados. Sin embargo, este tipo <strong>de</strong> campañas tiene sus<br />
limitantes <strong>para</strong> lograr sus objetivos, ante un electorado con bajos niveles educativos y cada<br />
día más <strong>de</strong>cepcionado <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> c<strong>la</strong>se política.<br />
En esta ponencia, se realiza un diagnóstico situacional <strong>de</strong>l uso <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s cibrercampañas<br />
en los principales países <strong>de</strong> América <strong>la</strong>tina, se seña<strong>la</strong>n sus potencialida<strong>de</strong>s en materia <strong>de</strong> persuasión<br />
y movilización electoral y, sobre todo, se analizan <strong>la</strong>s limitaciones que este tipo <strong>de</strong><br />
estrategias políticas enfrentan en esta importante región <strong>de</strong>l continente americano.
540 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
2. <strong>la</strong> PolÍtica en <strong>la</strong> era “Punto.com”<br />
La política ha sido transformada históricamente gracias, en gran medida, al <strong>de</strong>sarrollo<br />
tecnológico. Por ejemplo, con <strong>la</strong> invención <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> imprenta mo<strong>de</strong>rna, en 1440 por el alemán<br />
Johannes Gutenberg, <strong>la</strong>s i<strong>de</strong>as políticas y religiosas pudieron ser reproducidas masivamente<br />
<strong>para</strong> po<strong>de</strong>r llegar a más gente. De esta forma, <strong>la</strong>s copias manuscritas <strong>de</strong> proc<strong>la</strong>mas, manifiestos,<br />
i<strong>de</strong>arios o doctrinas políticas, dieron paso a reproducciones <strong>de</strong> publicaciones en serie <strong>de</strong><br />
libros, periódicos y revistas, lo que significó un avance revolucionario <strong>para</strong> po<strong>de</strong>r propagar<br />
i<strong>de</strong>as y proyectos políticos a esca<strong>la</strong> mucho mayor. Fue así como <strong>la</strong>s i<strong>de</strong>as renacentistas tuvieron<br />
mayor eco y difusión al ser reproducidas en textos e imágenes en toda <strong>la</strong> vieja Europa.<br />
Hoy día, <strong>la</strong> impresión manual ha cedido lugar a <strong>la</strong> impresión electrónica y digital que posibilita<br />
una alta calidad y rapi<strong>de</strong>z en <strong>la</strong> reproducción <strong>de</strong> textos e imágenes <strong>de</strong> carácter político.<br />
Por su parte, con <strong>la</strong> invención <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> radio por el inglés Guglielmo Marconi en 18971 ,<br />
<strong>la</strong>s posibilida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> propagar <strong>la</strong>s i<strong>de</strong>as políticas y sociales aumentaron significativamente2 .<br />
Ahora ya no sólo era el texto, sino <strong>la</strong> voz, el medio por el cual se pudo propagar <strong>la</strong>s i<strong>de</strong>as<br />
políticas a gran<strong>de</strong>s distancias. Ya <strong>para</strong> los años veinte <strong>de</strong>l siglo próximo pasado (XX), <strong>la</strong>s<br />
estaciones <strong>de</strong> radio con programas <strong>de</strong> entretenimiento e informativos empezaron a surgir<br />
en diferentes partes <strong>de</strong>l mundo, como en los Estados Unidos y Argentina. Para <strong>la</strong> siguiente<br />
década, <strong>la</strong> radio había incursionado <strong>de</strong> lleno en <strong>la</strong> política y, en lo particu<strong>la</strong>r, en <strong>la</strong>s campañas<br />
electorales. Un ejemplo <strong>de</strong> esto fue <strong>la</strong> campaña <strong>de</strong> F.D. Roosevelt en los Estados Unidos <strong>de</strong><br />
Norteamérica, quien utilizó <strong>la</strong> radio como medio <strong>para</strong> ganar <strong>la</strong>s elecciones presi<strong>de</strong>nciales3 .<br />
Con <strong>la</strong> invención <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> televisión, a finales <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> década <strong>de</strong> los veinte4 , <strong>la</strong> comunicación<br />
política alcanzó niveles sin prece<strong>de</strong>nte, posibilitando <strong>la</strong> transmisión a distancia <strong>de</strong> sonidos,<br />
imágenes y textos. En 1952, el candidato republicano D. Eisenhower utilizó <strong>la</strong> televisión<br />
<strong>para</strong> ganar <strong>la</strong> elección presi<strong>de</strong>ncial, transmitiendo 36 diferentes spots publicitarios en este<br />
nuevo medio <strong>de</strong> comunicación <strong>de</strong> masas. A partir <strong>de</strong> este momento, <strong>la</strong> televisión se convirtió<br />
en el medio privilegiado <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> política a nivel global <strong>para</strong> tratar <strong>de</strong> influir en el comportamiento<br />
y conducta <strong>de</strong> los electores5 .<br />
1 Marconi montó <strong>la</strong> primera estación <strong>de</strong> radio <strong>de</strong>l mundo en Ing<strong>la</strong>terra, utilizando <strong>la</strong>s ondas electromagnéticas<br />
<strong>de</strong>scubiertas por Heinrich Rudolf Hertz y James Clerk Maxwell.<br />
2 Ya antes, en 1840 Samuel Morse había inventado el telégrafo y en 1875 Graham Bell inventó <strong>la</strong> telefonía,<br />
misma que posibilitó propagar sonidos y mensajes a través <strong>de</strong> cables.<br />
3 En Argentina, por su parte, <strong>la</strong> radio hizo su aparición como medio hegemónico <strong>de</strong> comunicación<br />
política en <strong>la</strong> elección <strong>de</strong> 1928, en el segundo periodo <strong>de</strong> Hipólito Yrigoyen.<br />
4 En 1927 se inició <strong>la</strong> primera emisión <strong>de</strong> televisión pública en Ing<strong>la</strong>terra y en 1930 en los Estados<br />
Unidos <strong>de</strong> Norteamérica. En 1937, comenzaron <strong>la</strong>s transmisiones regu<strong>la</strong>res <strong>de</strong> televisión electrónica<br />
en Francia e Ing<strong>la</strong>terra. En México, en 1946 se inaugura el primer canal <strong>de</strong> televisión, Canal 5, en<br />
1951 en Argentina con el Canal 7 y en Nicaragua en 1956, con el Canal 8.<br />
5 John F. Kennedy ganó <strong>la</strong> elección presi<strong>de</strong>ncial en 1960 gracias a su mejor <strong>de</strong>sempeño en un <strong>de</strong>bate<br />
televisado frente a Richard Nixon.
<strong>la</strong>s Ciber-campañas en América <strong>la</strong>tina: Potencialida<strong>de</strong>s y limitantes<br />
541<br />
Para <strong>la</strong> década <strong>de</strong> los setentas, con <strong>la</strong> invención <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Internet6 y su socialización a<br />
fines <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> década <strong>de</strong> los ochentas, esta nueva tecnología <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información y <strong>la</strong>s telecomunicaciones<br />
generó otro gran avance, mismo que posibilitó una comunicación política<br />
muchos más masiva, pero a su vez, personalizada. Hoy día, gracias a <strong>la</strong>s nuevas tecnologías<br />
es posible hacer llegar a millones <strong>de</strong> electores los mensajes <strong>de</strong> campaña <strong>de</strong> los partidos y<br />
los candidatos7 . Es posible también, a través <strong>de</strong> este medio, recabar sumas millonarias<br />
<strong>para</strong> el financiamiento político, como lo hizo Barack obama en los Estados Unidos <strong>de</strong><br />
Norteamérica durante el 2008. De hecho, <strong>la</strong> nueva ten<strong>de</strong>ncia mundial es impulsar cibercampañas<br />
electorales, utilizando <strong>la</strong>s nuevas tecnologías <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información y <strong>la</strong>s telecomunicaciones<br />
con el fin <strong>de</strong> ganar una elección a un puesto público. Es <strong>de</strong>cir, <strong>la</strong> mayoría <strong>de</strong><br />
los ejercicios proselitistas en el orbe utilizan <strong>la</strong>s nuevas tecnologías <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información y <strong>la</strong>s<br />
comunicaciones como medio <strong>para</strong> tratar <strong>de</strong> influir en <strong>la</strong> conducta <strong>de</strong>l votante y ganar <strong>la</strong>s<br />
campañas electorales.<br />
En cierta medida, hoy día estamos viviendo en <strong>la</strong> política una nueva era, que bien se<br />
podría <strong>de</strong>nominar “punto.com,” sustentado en el uso <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> internet, <strong>la</strong> telefonía (celu<strong>la</strong>r) y<br />
<strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones mediadas por dispositivos computacionales <strong>para</strong> tratar <strong>de</strong> influir en los<br />
<strong>de</strong>más y alcanzar objetivos políticos.<br />
3. <strong>la</strong>s ciber-camPaÑas<br />
Las ciber-campañas pue<strong>de</strong>n ser conceptualizadas como <strong>la</strong>s diversas acciones y activida<strong>de</strong>s<br />
<strong>de</strong> investigación, comunicación, organización, financiación, movilización y cuidado<br />
y <strong>de</strong>fensa <strong>de</strong>l voto que realizan partidos y candidatos usando <strong>la</strong>s nuevas tecnologías <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
información y <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones con el objetivo, por un <strong>la</strong>do, <strong>de</strong> conseguir el voto <strong>de</strong><br />
los electores y, por el otro, <strong>de</strong> evitar que los opositores ganen <strong>la</strong>s elecciones. Es <strong>de</strong>cir, <strong>la</strong>s<br />
ciber-campañas implican dos frentes: el frente <strong>de</strong> atracción <strong>de</strong> votos a favor <strong>de</strong> un partido o<br />
candidato y el frente <strong>de</strong> repulsión <strong>de</strong> votos hacia <strong>la</strong> competencia8 .<br />
A través <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s ciber-campañas es posible conocer los gustos, necesida<strong>de</strong>s, problemas,<br />
<strong>de</strong>seos, aspiraciones, expectativas, sentimientos y emociones <strong>de</strong> los electores, así como permiten<br />
conocer sobre sus filias y fobias, simpatías y antipatías políticas. En otras pa<strong>la</strong>bras, a<br />
6 Paul Baran es consi<strong>de</strong>rado como una <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s figuras c<strong>la</strong>ve <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> creación <strong>de</strong> Internet. En 1964, él tuvo <strong>la</strong><br />
i<strong>de</strong>a <strong>de</strong> crear una <strong>red</strong> con <strong>la</strong> forma <strong>de</strong> una enorme te<strong>la</strong>raña. En agosto <strong>de</strong> 1969, al margen <strong>de</strong>l proyecto<br />
militar, ARPA (Agencia <strong>de</strong> Proyectos <strong>de</strong> Investigación Avanzados, una división <strong>de</strong>l Ministerio <strong>de</strong> Defensa<br />
<strong>de</strong> Estados Unidos) creó <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> experimental Arpanet, cuyo fin era conectar cuatro universida<strong>de</strong>s.<br />
7 Las nuevas tecnologías posibilitan una comunicación no sólo bidireccional (políticos ciudadanos),<br />
sino también multidireccional, (políticos-ciudadanos-ciudadanos- políticos).<br />
8 El primer frente es lo que da origen a lo que se conoce como ciber campaña positiva y el segundo a<br />
<strong>la</strong> ciber-campaña negativa. Estas últimas, han sido proscritas o prohibidas en <strong>la</strong> televisión en varios<br />
países, como México, pero no en el ciber-espacio.
542 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
través <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s nuevas tecnologías es posible conocer a profundidad a los votantes y saber qué<br />
es lo que los mueve, simpatiza o motiva 9 .<br />
Por <strong>la</strong>s ciber-campañas, también, es posible comunicarse con los electores, principalmente<br />
con los más jóvenes y los sectores con mayores niveles <strong>de</strong> educación e ingreso<br />
económico que tienen acceso a <strong>la</strong> Internet y a <strong>la</strong> telefonía, l<strong>la</strong>mados “generación web”. De<br />
hecho, <strong>la</strong>s nuevas tecnologías <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información y <strong>la</strong>s telecomunicaciones permiten una<br />
comunicación más interactiva entre los candidatos y los votantes, facilitan el diálogo multidireccional<br />
y, sobre todo, posibilitan una comunicación más horizontal con los electores,<br />
amén <strong>de</strong> facilitar <strong>la</strong> comunicación interna entre los impulsores <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> campaña. De cierta<br />
manera, <strong>la</strong> ciber-campañas son entendidas como activida<strong>de</strong>s o acciones eminentemente <strong>de</strong><br />
comunicación entre políticos y ciudadanos utilizando los nuevos dispositivos tecnológicos.<br />
(Lopez, 2000).<br />
A través <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s ciber-campañas, también, es posible organizar a los electores, transformándolos<br />
en ciber-militantes o ciber-voluntarios que impulsen también acciones proselitistas<br />
<strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> comodidad <strong>de</strong> su hogar o su trabajo a través <strong>de</strong> sus re<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> amigos, familiares y<br />
vecinos, organizado ejércitos <strong>de</strong> promotores <strong>de</strong>l voto y dotándolos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información necesaria<br />
<strong>para</strong> el trabajo político.<br />
Recolectar fondos económicos <strong>para</strong> financiar <strong>la</strong>s diferentes activida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> campaña y<br />
hacer frente a los gastos, producto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s activida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> proselitismo electoral, a través <strong>de</strong> donaciones<br />
<strong>de</strong> los simpatizantes, es posible también mediante el uso <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s nuevas tecnologías<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información y <strong>la</strong>s telecomunicaciones. Este ha sido el caso, por ejemplo, <strong>de</strong> naciones<br />
que sustentan el financiamiento <strong>de</strong> sus campañas en fondos privados más que públicos,<br />
como es el caso <strong>de</strong> Estados Unidos <strong>de</strong> Norteamérica.<br />
Usando <strong>la</strong>s nuevas tecnologías <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información y <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones, también, es<br />
posible movilizar a los votantes a <strong>la</strong>s urnas el día <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s elecciones, facilitando los operativos<br />
<strong>de</strong> organización, logística y movilización electoral, con el fin <strong>de</strong> ganar <strong>la</strong>s elecciones. Es <strong>de</strong>cir,<br />
<strong>la</strong>s ciber-campañas no sólo ayudan a conocer a los electores, a comunicarse con ellos y a<br />
organizarlos, sino también a movilizarlos, políticamente hab<strong>la</strong>ndo. (Da<strong>de</strong>r, 2006).<br />
Finalmente, los nuevos dispositivos tecnológicos, también, son herramientas o medios<br />
muy útiles que pue<strong>de</strong>n ayudar en <strong>la</strong>s tareas <strong>de</strong> vigi<strong>la</strong>ncia, observación, cuidado y <strong>de</strong>fensa<br />
<strong>de</strong>l voto, especialmente los re<strong>la</strong>cionados con <strong>la</strong>s vi<strong>de</strong>ograbaciones, que pue<strong>de</strong>n ser utilizados<br />
como medios disuasivos <strong>para</strong> evitar conductas y prácticas ilegales o <strong>para</strong> documentar irregu<strong>la</strong>rida<strong>de</strong>s<br />
y <strong>de</strong>litos que se cometan durante <strong>la</strong> jornada electoral. (Holmes, 1997)<br />
En suma, <strong>la</strong>s nuevas tecnologías <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información y <strong>la</strong>s telecomunicaciones han posibilitado<br />
<strong>la</strong> existencia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s ciber-campañas, <strong>la</strong>s cuales son estratégicas en <strong>la</strong> nueva arena<br />
político electoral en el orbe, ayudando <strong>de</strong> sobremanera a construir ventajas competitivas,<br />
con el fin <strong>de</strong> ganar un puesto <strong>de</strong> elección popu<strong>la</strong>r.<br />
9 Es <strong>de</strong>cir, <strong>de</strong>tectar los temas que preocupan a los futuros votantes en sus diferencias y similitu<strong>de</strong>s, escuchar<br />
sugerencias y ofrecer soluciones al respecto.
<strong>la</strong>s Ciber-campañas en América <strong>la</strong>tina: Potencialida<strong>de</strong>s y limitantes<br />
4. <strong>la</strong>s ciber-camPaÑas en amÉrica <strong>la</strong>tina<br />
543<br />
Las ciber-campañas llegaron a América <strong>la</strong>tina a finales <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> década <strong>de</strong> los noventas<br />
<strong>de</strong>l siglo XX y hoy día se han popu<strong>la</strong>rizado como formas tradicionales <strong>de</strong> hacer, enten<strong>de</strong>r y<br />
procesar <strong>la</strong> política en esta importante región. Estos ejercicios <strong>de</strong> proselitismo mo<strong>de</strong>rno, no<br />
sólo han implicado el impulso <strong>de</strong> campañas <strong>de</strong> precisión, usando bases <strong>de</strong> datos y estudios<br />
históricos sobre comportamientos <strong>de</strong> los votantes a nivel, incluso, <strong>de</strong> sección electoral o casil<strong>la</strong>,<br />
sino también como medios i<strong>de</strong>ales <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> persuasión política <strong>de</strong> alto impacto.<br />
Estos ejercicios <strong>de</strong> proselitismo mo<strong>de</strong>rno, se han apoyado en el uso principalmente <strong>de</strong><br />
YouTube, Hi5, MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, wikis, blogs, MSM, páginas <strong>de</strong> internet y los<br />
correos electrónicos, como nuevos instrumentos o medios digitales <strong>de</strong> hacer campaña. El <strong>de</strong>sarrollo<br />
<strong>de</strong> este tipo <strong>de</strong> campañas, se ha dado <strong>de</strong> manera más intensa y amplia en países con<br />
economías más pujantes y con mayores niveles educativos, como Argentina, Brasil, Chile,<br />
Colombia, México y Venezue<strong>la</strong> 10 .<br />
¿Cuándo inician <strong>la</strong>s ciber-campañas en estas naciones y cómo se han <strong>de</strong>sarrol<strong>la</strong>do estos<br />
nuevos ejercicios <strong>de</strong> proselitismo político electoral? A continuación, se <strong>de</strong>scribe el estado<br />
actual <strong>de</strong> este tipo <strong>de</strong> campañas en seis países <strong>de</strong> América <strong>la</strong>tina.<br />
argentina<br />
La primera gran ciber-campaña electoral a nivel <strong>de</strong> elección presi<strong>de</strong>ncial en este país se<br />
impulsó 11 en el 2007, por Cristina Fernán<strong>de</strong>z <strong>de</strong> Kirchner, candidata <strong>de</strong>l Partido Justicialista<br />
(Frente por <strong>la</strong> Victoria). Durante el proceso electoral y como parte <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s cibercampañas se<br />
crearon cientos <strong>de</strong> weblogs, se utilizó los chats, el messenger, los teléfonos celu<strong>la</strong>res, los call<br />
centers, Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, Hi5 y todos los dispositivos computaciones asociadas<br />
a <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s sociales con el fin <strong>de</strong> ganar el voto <strong>de</strong> los ciudadanos. El slogan <strong>de</strong> esta campaña<br />
fue “Blog por blog, vecino por vecino, <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> lo virtual a <strong>la</strong>s urnas. 12 ” De esta forma, los seguidores<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> candidata se convirtieron en ciber-activistas que lograron impactar a miles <strong>de</strong><br />
votantes, ganando <strong>la</strong> elección presi<strong>de</strong>ncial celebrada en octubre <strong>de</strong>l 2007 con el 45.29 por<br />
ciento <strong>de</strong> los votos.<br />
Des<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> p<strong>la</strong>taforma en <strong>la</strong> Web www.sumateacristina.com sus seguidores pudieron bajar<br />
y utilizar diferentes herramientas informáticas, propagandísticas y manuales promociones<br />
10 En <strong>otros</strong> países <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> región como Nicaragua, Bolivia, Ecuador y El Salvador <strong>la</strong>s cibercampañas han<br />
sido menos utilizadas, ya que <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>nominada “brecha digital” es más gran<strong>de</strong> y, por lo tanto, el porcentaje<br />
<strong>de</strong> penetración <strong>de</strong> internet es <strong>red</strong>ucido.<br />
11 Se consi<strong>de</strong>ra que <strong>la</strong> campaña legis<strong>la</strong>tiva <strong>de</strong>l 2005 Francisco De Narváez fue una <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s pioneras en <strong>la</strong><br />
Argentina al apostarle fuertemente a <strong>la</strong> Web 2.0. Sin embargo, <strong>la</strong> campaña <strong>de</strong> Cristina fue <strong>la</strong> primer<br />
gran cibercampaña a nivel presi<strong>de</strong>ncial.<br />
12 Al final, el slogan que quedó como parte central <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> ciber-estrategia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Generación K fue “Vota a<br />
Cristina, Súmate,” <strong>la</strong> cual duro en su totalidad 60 días.
544 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
<strong>de</strong>l voto a favor <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> candidata presi<strong>de</strong>ncial 13 . De esta forma, utilizando <strong>la</strong>s nuevas tecnologías<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información y <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones, <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>nominada “Generación K” pudo activar<br />
miles <strong>de</strong> blogs que llegaron a impactar en los más <strong>de</strong> 260 mil bloggers que <strong>para</strong> esa fecha<br />
estaban activadas en <strong>la</strong> Argentina, llegando <strong>de</strong> esta forma a los jóvenes <strong>de</strong> entre 20 y 40 años<br />
y a sectores sociales con mayores niveles educativos.<br />
La ciber-campaña consistió en un esfuerzo “24 por 24” durante treinta días en <strong>la</strong>s que<br />
cualesquier lista que tuviera en <strong>la</strong> cabeza a “Cristina presi<strong>de</strong>nte” tuvo asistencia técnica <strong>para</strong><br />
construir su página, diseñar su gráfica o tener data e imagen sobre algún tema en <strong>de</strong>bate<br />
durante esta jornada electoral 14 .<br />
Esta campaña resultó exitosa y complementaria a <strong>la</strong> campaña por televisión y a <strong>la</strong> campaña<br />
por tierra, <strong>para</strong> finalmente po<strong>de</strong>r incidir <strong>de</strong>terminantemente en el resultado final <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
elección. Se consi<strong>de</strong>ra que <strong>de</strong> 41.3 millones <strong>de</strong> habitantes que tenía esta nación <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> fecha<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> elección, 26.61 millones <strong>de</strong> argentinos eran usuarios <strong>de</strong> internet, lo que representaba<br />
un 64.4 por ciento <strong>de</strong> penetración <strong>de</strong> Internet, según lo seña<strong>la</strong> <strong>la</strong> Internet World Stadistics<br />
(IWS).<br />
brasil<br />
En el caso <strong>de</strong> Brasil, <strong>la</strong> última elección presi<strong>de</strong>ncial se realizó en octubre <strong>de</strong>l 2010. Durante<br />
el proceso electoral, al igual que en Argentina, se utilizaron <strong>de</strong> manera amplia <strong>la</strong>s diferentes<br />
tecnologías digitales <strong>para</strong> tratar <strong>de</strong> ganar <strong>la</strong> elección 15 . De esta forma, <strong>la</strong>s páginas Web<br />
<strong>de</strong> los candidatos y sus apoyadores, los blogs, <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s sociales (orkut 16 , Facebook, MySpace,<br />
Hi5 y Twitter), así como los news groups, los correos electrónicos, los vi<strong>de</strong>os en Youtube, los<br />
mensajes por telefonía celu<strong>la</strong>r y los ciber-<strong>de</strong>bates fueron parte <strong>de</strong> los medios utilizados <strong>para</strong><br />
tratar <strong>de</strong> persuadir a los electores.<br />
De hecho, <strong>para</strong> el 2 <strong>de</strong> agosto <strong>de</strong>l 2010, José Serra, candidato <strong>de</strong>l Partido <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Social<br />
Democracia <strong>de</strong> Brasil (PSDB) contaba con 318 mil seguidores en su cuenta Twitter (@joseserra_),<br />
mientras que Dilma Rousseff (@dilmabr), candidata <strong>de</strong>l Partido <strong>de</strong> los Trabajadores<br />
(PT) poseía 135 mil seguidores.<br />
Algo novedoso en esta campaña fue el ciber <strong>de</strong>bate, ya que el 18 <strong>de</strong> abril <strong>de</strong>l 2010 se<br />
realizó el primer <strong>de</strong>bate presi<strong>de</strong>ncial on-line <strong>de</strong> ese país, organizado por Folha <strong>de</strong> São Paulo<br />
y UoL. Este <strong>de</strong>bate contó con <strong>la</strong> presencia <strong>de</strong> los tres principales candidatos a ganar <strong>la</strong>s<br />
elecciones: Marina Silva (Partido Ver<strong>de</strong>), José Serra (PSDB) y <strong>la</strong> candidata oficialista Dilma<br />
13 Hubo diferentes portales interactivos en esta campaña, como el www.cristinacobosyvos.com en el que<br />
se mostraba fotos, vi<strong>de</strong>os y discursos <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> entonces primera dama <strong>de</strong> este país.<br />
14 Véase Ciber-militantes <strong>para</strong> CFK, Página 12, 28 <strong>de</strong> septiembre <strong>de</strong>l 2007.<br />
15 Según datos <strong>de</strong>l Instituto Brasileño <strong>de</strong> opinión Pública y Estadística, al momento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> elección 67.5<br />
millones <strong>de</strong> brasileños mayores <strong>de</strong> 16 años, que representaba el 35por ciento <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> pob<strong>la</strong>ción, tenían<br />
acceso a Internet.<br />
16 orkut es <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> social más popu<strong>la</strong>r en este país.
<strong>la</strong>s Ciber-campañas en América <strong>la</strong>tina: Potencialida<strong>de</strong>s y limitantes<br />
545<br />
Rousseff (PT). El encuentro contó con diferentes bloques temáticos <strong>para</strong> que los candidatos<br />
se hicieran preguntas entre ellos y tuvo un momento en el que fueron los ciudadanos que<br />
seguían el <strong>de</strong>bate on-line los que tuvieron <strong>la</strong> posibilidad <strong>de</strong> transmitir sus inquietu<strong>de</strong>s a los<br />
candidatos17 . Se consi<strong>de</strong>ra que este <strong>de</strong>bate fue seguido en vivo por más <strong>de</strong> 50 millones <strong>de</strong><br />
internautas a través <strong>de</strong> Twitter y Facebook, <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> 127 países18 .<br />
Durante esta campaña, también se establecieron sitios en Internet como el http://<br />
www.10preguntas.com.br en el cual los ciudadanos podían hacer preguntas a los candidatos<br />
presi<strong>de</strong>nciales y recibir respuestas a los cuestionamientos más reiterativos y que tenía que ver<br />
con <strong>la</strong> p<strong>la</strong>taforma electoral y el proyecto <strong>de</strong> país que proponía cada uno <strong>de</strong> los partidos. Para<br />
esas fechas, <strong>de</strong> acuerdo a IWS se consi<strong>de</strong>raba que cerca <strong>de</strong> ochenta millones <strong>de</strong> brasileños<br />
tenían acceso a Internet. Al final, <strong>la</strong> candidata <strong>de</strong>l PT logró ganar <strong>la</strong> elección al obtener el<br />
54.74 por ciento <strong>de</strong> los votos, contra 45.78 <strong>de</strong> votos <strong>de</strong>l candidato <strong>de</strong>l PSDB19 .<br />
chile<br />
La elección presi<strong>de</strong>ncial en este país se realizó, en su segunda vuelta, el 17 <strong>de</strong> enero<br />
<strong>de</strong>l 2010, resultando ganador Sebastián Piñera, candidato por <strong>la</strong> “Coalición por el<br />
Cambio” como primer presi<strong>de</strong>nte no elegido por <strong>la</strong> Concertación (<strong>de</strong> Partidos por <strong>la</strong><br />
Democracia), <strong>de</strong>s<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> salida <strong>de</strong> Augusto Pinochet <strong>de</strong>l po<strong>de</strong>r en 199020 . La campaña <strong>de</strong><br />
Piñera apostó fuerte por <strong>la</strong> comunicación 2.0 como el eje fundamental <strong>de</strong> su carrera hacia<br />
el Pa<strong>la</strong>cio <strong>de</strong> La Moneda21 . Su estrategia estuvo orientada a generar un auténtico vínculo<br />
entre el candidato y <strong>la</strong> ciudadanía, li<strong>de</strong>rando siempre <strong>la</strong> elección en el terreno digital. Tan<br />
sólo en Youtube, por ejemplo, Piñera acumuló más <strong>de</strong> un millón <strong>de</strong> visitas a sus vi<strong>de</strong>os<br />
subidos a esta p<strong>la</strong>taforma.<br />
“El trabajo <strong>de</strong> Piñera comenzó años antes <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> cita con <strong>la</strong>s urnas, mediante <strong>la</strong> formación<br />
<strong>de</strong> los grupos <strong>de</strong> trabajo Tantauco, que recorrieron el país y recogieron propuestas <strong>para</strong> el futuro<br />
programa electoral. Internet sirvió <strong>para</strong> conectar el proceso <strong>de</strong> coordinación interna <strong>de</strong><br />
17 Véase “Los presi<strong>de</strong>nciales en Brasil <strong>de</strong>baten en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>” en http://webpoliticadoscero.blogspot.com/<br />
search/<strong>la</strong>bel/Brasil.<br />
18 El candidato <strong>de</strong>l Partido Socialismo y Libertad, Plinio <strong>de</strong> Arruda Sampaio, como no fue invitado<br />
al <strong>de</strong>bate, utilizó <strong>la</strong> herramienta Twitcam, <strong>la</strong> cual le permitió <strong>la</strong> transmisión en tiempo real <strong>de</strong> sus<br />
mensajes (Si no me invitan a los <strong>de</strong>bates, aparezco a través <strong>de</strong> Twitter. ¡No me he marchado!). Este<br />
candidato, también, ofreció una serie <strong>de</strong> vi<strong>de</strong>oconferencias en Twitter.<br />
19 La estrategia <strong>de</strong> Dilma se centró también en aprovechar los buenos resultados que había generado en<br />
gobierno saliente <strong>de</strong> Luis Ignacio Lu<strong>la</strong> da Silva, especialmente en materia económica y combate a <strong>la</strong><br />
pobreza.<br />
20 Sebastián Piñera obtuvo un 51.61 por ciento <strong>de</strong> los votos frente a 48.38 por ciento <strong>de</strong> Eduardo Frei,<br />
candidato <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Concertación.<br />
21 Véase Diego Sánchez <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Cruz, “Política 2.0 en <strong>la</strong> Campaña Presi<strong>de</strong>ncial <strong>de</strong> Sebastián Piñera,” 1 <strong>de</strong><br />
febrero <strong>de</strong>l 2011.
546 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
<strong>la</strong> campaña, mediante <strong>la</strong> creación <strong>de</strong> foros y <strong>de</strong>más canales, enfocado a organizar el activismo<br />
<strong>de</strong> los simpatizantes a través <strong>de</strong>l portal “Chile con todos. 22 ”<br />
Su estrategia online fue articu<strong>la</strong>da <strong>para</strong> mostrar a un candidato cercano y asequible a los<br />
votantes, impulsando una comunicación mo<strong>de</strong>rna y atrevida, asociándolo con el cambio que<br />
querían ver los chilenos 23 . Esta campaña fue <strong>de</strong>sarrol<strong>la</strong>da sobre <strong>la</strong> p<strong>la</strong>taforma wordpress, más<br />
flexible y dinámica, en <strong>la</strong> que se implementaron los siguientes servicios disponibles en <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong>:<br />
Google Apps (correos pinera2010.ch, algunos casos <strong>de</strong> gestión <strong>de</strong> documentos, formu<strong>la</strong>rios<br />
en línea), Facebook, Twitter, (sebatianpinera y comandosp), Flickr, fotolog, Youtube (Canal<br />
oficial y Grupos Tantauco), Google Maps, Podcaster, Issuu, Twitpic y Twinnon, entre <strong>otros</strong> 24 .<br />
A<strong>de</strong>más, se uso por parte <strong>de</strong>l comando online otras tecnologías como el streaming, un<br />
CRM centralizado, campañas <strong>de</strong> mailing y mensajes vía SMS, a<strong>de</strong>más <strong>de</strong>l uso <strong>de</strong> equipo<br />
Bluetooth <strong>para</strong> entregar contenidos por celu<strong>la</strong>res. De esta forma, <strong>la</strong>s nuevas tecnologías <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> información y <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones se transformaron en un componente importante <strong>de</strong><br />
difusión <strong>de</strong> los mensajes políticos 25 .<br />
Al final, <strong>la</strong> estrategia <strong>de</strong> comunicación online <strong>de</strong> Piñera, con sus estrategias creativas <strong>de</strong> interacción<br />
social 26 , fue mucho mejor que <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong> Frei 27 , contribuyendo a <strong>de</strong>finir el resultado final <strong>de</strong> esta<br />
histórica contienda presi<strong>de</strong>ncial, que marcó, <strong>de</strong> hecho, el regreso <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>recha al po<strong>de</strong>r en Chile.<br />
colombia<br />
La elección presi<strong>de</strong>ncial en Colombia se realizó, en su primera vuelta, el 30 <strong>de</strong> mayo<br />
<strong>de</strong>l 2010, en <strong>la</strong> que compitieron seis como candidatos 28 , entre los que sobresalieron Juan<br />
Manuel Santos <strong>de</strong>l Partido Social <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unidad Nacional, conocido como el Partido <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
U y Antanás Mockus <strong>de</strong>l Partido Ver<strong>de</strong>. Esta fue una elección muy competida en su primer<br />
vuelta, en <strong>la</strong> que el Partido Ver<strong>de</strong> articuló una gran ciber campaña sustentada en <strong>la</strong>s nuevas<br />
herramientas 2.0.La elección <strong>de</strong>finitiva, segunda vuelta, se realizó el 20 <strong>de</strong> junio <strong>de</strong>l 2010,<br />
con los dos candidatos punteros: Santos y Mockus.<br />
22 Ibí<strong>de</strong>m.<br />
23 Su lema <strong>de</strong> campaña fue “Así queremos a Chile,” en <strong>la</strong> que <strong>la</strong> ciudadanía podía opinar y dar propuestas<br />
<strong>para</strong> integrar su p<strong>la</strong>n <strong>de</strong> gobierno, todo esto facilitado a través <strong>de</strong> una aplicación Web.<br />
24 En esta campaña también se utilizó Google Webmaster Tools y Analytics.<br />
25 Se creó a<strong>de</strong>más, una i<strong>de</strong>ntidad digital <strong>de</strong> Sebastián, el diseño <strong>de</strong> esquemas eficientes <strong>de</strong> generación <strong>de</strong><br />
contenido y una RedSP que posibilitó <strong>la</strong> comunicación y organización <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> campaña y su vincu<strong>la</strong>ción<br />
con los votantes.<br />
26 Su diseño invitaban a <strong>la</strong> acción y su arquitectura <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información en <strong>la</strong> Web 2.0 era muy estética y<br />
atractiva.<br />
27 Su portal se <strong>de</strong>nominó “Chile Primero,” el cual contenía <strong>de</strong>masiada información y su lectura era<br />
cansada y tediosa.<br />
28 Los <strong>otros</strong> candidatos fueron German Vargas <strong>de</strong>l Partido Cambio Radical, Gustavo Petro <strong>de</strong>l Polo Democrático<br />
Alternativo, Noemí Sanín <strong>de</strong>l Partido Conservador Colombiano y Rafael Pardo <strong>de</strong>l Partido<br />
Liberal Colombiano.
<strong>la</strong>s Ciber-campañas en América <strong>la</strong>tina: Potencialida<strong>de</strong>s y limitantes<br />
547<br />
Lo novedoso <strong>de</strong> esta ciber campaña fue <strong>la</strong> creación <strong>de</strong> una emisora <strong>de</strong> radio on line <strong>de</strong>nominada<br />
<strong>la</strong> “o<strong>la</strong> ver<strong>de</strong>,” que logró ser muy popu<strong>la</strong>r entre los colombianos, a<strong>de</strong>más <strong>de</strong>l uso<br />
intensivo <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s nuevas tecnologías <strong>de</strong> información y <strong>la</strong> comunicación, lográndolo posicionar<br />
como uno <strong>de</strong> los candidatos más competitivos en <strong>la</strong> elección.<br />
Por ejemplo, a través <strong>de</strong>l número <strong>de</strong> búsquedas <strong>de</strong> Google se pudo constatar cómo el<br />
término “Antanas Mockus”, sólo en el mes <strong>de</strong> abril <strong>de</strong> ese año, duplicaba el nombre <strong>de</strong> sus<br />
competidores. Una situación simi<strong>la</strong>r sucedió con el término “La o<strong>la</strong> ver<strong>de</strong>” en los tags29 .<br />
Para el 5 <strong>de</strong> mayo, el candidato sobrepasó el medio millón <strong>de</strong> seguidores en Facebook,<br />
sólo en su página personal. Pero el fenómeno <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> o<strong>la</strong> ver<strong>de</strong> superó los límites <strong>de</strong>l ciberespacio,<br />
dando lugar a <strong>la</strong>s expectativas <strong>de</strong> participación <strong>de</strong> miles <strong>de</strong> ciudadanos. Si bien <strong>la</strong>s<br />
elecciones se realizaron sino hasta el 30 <strong>de</strong> mayo en su primera vuelta, <strong>la</strong> intención <strong>de</strong> voto,<br />
producto <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s cibercampañas, en pocas semanas ascendió más <strong>de</strong>l 18% a favor <strong>de</strong> Mockus,<br />
quedando en primer lugar frente al candidato <strong>de</strong> Uribe, Juan Manuel Santos30 .<br />
Su estrategia digital diseminó <strong>la</strong> fórmu<strong>la</strong> presi<strong>de</strong>ncial Mockus-Fajardo a través <strong>de</strong> todos<br />
los espacios que <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> ofrecía: no sólo re<strong>de</strong>s sociales, sino también sus sitios web, blogs y<br />
canales <strong>de</strong> YouTube, don<strong>de</strong> los visitantes podían participar ampliamente, tanto en el p<strong>la</strong>no<br />
virtual como real. De esta forma, consiguieron, en este sentido, que fueran sus seguidores los<br />
que propagarán su mensaje <strong>de</strong> campaña.<br />
Por su parte, Juan Manuel Santos, también, se apoyó en <strong>la</strong>s nuevas tecnologías y herramientas<br />
2.0 en su campaña electoral, impulsando una ciber campaña creativa e intensa, a<br />
través <strong>de</strong> wikis, re<strong>de</strong>s sociales, blogs, páginas web, teléfonos celu<strong>la</strong>res, Youtube, foros virtuales,<br />
y correos electrónicos, aprovechando el auge en el uso <strong>de</strong> estas tecnologías por parte <strong>de</strong><br />
amplios sectores sociales31 .<br />
De acuerdo con el resultado <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> elección, Santos obtuvo el 46.67 por ciento <strong>de</strong> los<br />
votos en <strong>la</strong> primera vuelta y el 69.13 por ciento en <strong>la</strong> segunda vuelta. Por su parte, Mockus<br />
logró el 21.51 por ciento <strong>de</strong> sufragios en <strong>la</strong> primer vuelta y 27.47 por ciento en <strong>la</strong> segunda<br />
vuelta.<br />
méxico<br />
En México, <strong>la</strong>s primeras cibercampañas se realizaron en el año 2000, durante <strong>la</strong> histórica<br />
elección en <strong>la</strong> que el otrora partido hegemónico <strong>de</strong> Estado (Partido Revolucionario<br />
29 Véase “La o<strong>la</strong> ver<strong>de</strong> se extien<strong>de</strong> a <strong>la</strong> realidad política” en http://webpoliticadoscero.blogspot.com/<br />
search/<strong>la</strong>bel/Colombia. Fecha <strong>de</strong> consulta: 6 <strong>de</strong> abril <strong>de</strong>l 2011.<br />
30 Algunos <strong>otros</strong> cálculos apuntaban que Mockus pasó <strong>de</strong> 4 por ciento en <strong>la</strong>s preferencias electorales<br />
a cerca <strong>de</strong>l 34 por ciento tan solo en un mes, <strong>de</strong> acuerdo a diferentes son<strong>de</strong>os <strong>de</strong> opinión (Centro<br />
Nacional <strong>de</strong> Consultoría).<br />
31 Para 2010, <strong>de</strong> acuerdo con <strong>la</strong> IWS, Colombia tenía más <strong>de</strong> 21.5 millones <strong>de</strong> usuarios <strong>de</strong> Internet, lo<br />
cual representaba un 48.7 por ciento <strong>de</strong> penetración <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s nuevas tecnologías digitales.
548 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
Institucional) perdió <strong>la</strong> presi<strong>de</strong>ncia <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> república y <strong>la</strong> mayoría <strong>de</strong> los asientos en el congreso<br />
bicameral 32 .<br />
Durante <strong>la</strong> elección presi<strong>de</strong>ncial <strong>de</strong>l 2006, <strong>la</strong> internet sirvió no sólo <strong>para</strong> hacer llegar<br />
los mensajes y <strong>la</strong>s propuestas <strong>de</strong> los diferentes candidatos a un puesto <strong>de</strong> elección popu<strong>la</strong>r,<br />
sino, sobre todo, <strong>para</strong> atacar y <strong>de</strong>nostar a los adversarios. De hecho, <strong>la</strong> campaña negativa en<br />
contra <strong>de</strong> Andrés Manuel López obrador (AMLo), entonces candidato presi<strong>de</strong>ncial <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
Alianza por el Bien <strong>de</strong> México 33 , se dio principalmente a través <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s nuevas tecnologías <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> información, <strong>la</strong> telefonía celu<strong>la</strong>r y, por supuesto, <strong>la</strong> televisión.<br />
De esta forma, era común ver vi<strong>de</strong>os <strong>de</strong>mostrativos en Youtube, recibir correos electrónicos<br />
difamatorios y, sobre todo, atacar por diversos medios digitales a AMLo, articu<strong>la</strong>ndo<br />
una campaña <strong>de</strong> odio y miedo, que logró finalmente sus objetivos 34 .<br />
En <strong>la</strong>s elecciones <strong>de</strong>l 2009, el uso <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s nuevas tecnologías <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información y <strong>la</strong>s<br />
comunicaciones se intensificó 35 , especialmente a través <strong>de</strong>l uso <strong>de</strong> Facebook 36 y Twitter. Por<br />
ejemplo, el Partido Acción Nacional (PAN), a través <strong>de</strong> su página ofreció a los ciudadanos<br />
<strong>la</strong> posibilidad <strong>de</strong> opinar sobre sus notas y noticias, a<strong>de</strong>más <strong>de</strong> usar <strong>de</strong> manera amplia <strong>la</strong>s<br />
diferentes herramientas <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Web 2.0.<br />
<strong>otros</strong> partidos como el Partido <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Revolución Democrática (PRD) y el Partido<br />
Revolucionario Institucional (PRI), también acudieron a <strong>la</strong>s ciber campañas, utilizando <strong>la</strong>s<br />
re<strong>de</strong>s sociales <strong>para</strong>r tratar <strong>de</strong> incidir en <strong>la</strong> conducta y comportamiento <strong>de</strong> los electores, impulsando<br />
diferentes info estrategias e info tácticas, así como articu<strong>la</strong>ron, incluso, mítines<br />
virtuales y canales <strong>de</strong> televisión y radio en Internet, como medios alternativos <strong>para</strong> tratar <strong>de</strong><br />
ganar <strong>la</strong>s elecciones.<br />
Venezue<strong>la</strong><br />
Las últimas elecciones legis<strong>la</strong>tivas <strong>para</strong> integrar <strong>la</strong> Asamblea Nacional en este país se realizaron<br />
el 26 <strong>de</strong> septiembre <strong>de</strong>l 2010, generándose el siguiente resultado. El Partido Socialista<br />
32 De 500 asientos en <strong>la</strong> cámara <strong>de</strong> diputados el PRI obtuvo 211 y <strong>de</strong> 128 curules en el Senado este<br />
partido obtuvo sólo 60.<br />
33 Esta alianza fue formada por el Partido <strong>de</strong>l Trabajo, el Partido Convergencia y el Partido <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Revolución<br />
Democrática.<br />
34 De acuerdo con los resultados electorales dados a conocer por el Instituto Fe<strong>de</strong>ral Electoral, Felipe<br />
Cal<strong>de</strong>rón ganó <strong>la</strong> elección con el 35.89 por ciento <strong>de</strong> los votos en contra <strong>de</strong>l 35.33 por ciento <strong>de</strong><br />
AMLo. Roberto Madrazo Pintado, candidato <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Alianza por México, integrada por el PRI y el<br />
Partido Ver<strong>de</strong> Ecologista <strong>de</strong> México, obtuvo 22.23 por ciento.<br />
35 Según un estudio <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> IAB, <strong>para</strong> 2010, el 86 por ciento <strong>de</strong> los mexicanos contaba con teléfono celu<strong>la</strong>r,<br />
59 por ciento computadora <strong>de</strong> escritorio, 54 por ciento computadora portátil, 45 por ciento a<strong>para</strong>tos<br />
<strong>de</strong> vi<strong>de</strong>ojuegos, 14 por ciento teléfonos inteligentes, 8 por ciento asistentes personales PDA y 4 por<br />
ciento Ipads.<br />
36 De acuerdo a Socialbaker, una <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s empresas consultoras <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s nuevas tecnologías <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información,<br />
tan sólo en <strong>la</strong> ciudad <strong>de</strong> México existen más <strong>de</strong> 9.3 millones <strong>de</strong> usuarios <strong>de</strong> Facebook.
<strong>la</strong>s Ciber-campañas en América <strong>la</strong>tina: Potencialida<strong>de</strong>s y limitantes<br />
549<br />
Unificado <strong>de</strong> Venezue<strong>la</strong> y sus aliados (el Partido Comunista <strong>de</strong> Venezue<strong>la</strong>) obtuvieron el 48.13<br />
por ciento <strong>de</strong> los votos y <strong>la</strong> Mesa <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Unidad Nacional 47.22 por ciento, lo que les representó<br />
98 escaños <strong>para</strong> los primeros y 65 escaños en el par<strong>la</strong>mento <strong>para</strong> <strong>la</strong> opción opositora.<br />
De acuerdo con los resultados electorales, votaron el 66.45 por ciento <strong>de</strong> los inscritos<br />
en el padrón electoral, siendo motivados a través <strong>de</strong> campañas mediáticas, <strong>de</strong> tierra y, sobre<br />
todo, por <strong>la</strong>s cibercampañas. De acuerdo a estadísticas gubernamentales, un tercio <strong>de</strong> los<br />
electores en este país usan Facebook, un diez por ciento posee un B<strong>la</strong>ckBerry y un siete punto<br />
cinco por ciento utiliza Twitter. De acuerdo a IWS, <strong>la</strong> penetración <strong>de</strong> Internet es <strong>de</strong> 34.2<br />
por ciento, teniendo acceso a <strong>la</strong>s nuevas tecnologías <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información cerca <strong>de</strong> 10 millones<br />
<strong>de</strong> venezo<strong>la</strong>nos.<br />
Estas campañas se caracterizaron por <strong>la</strong> po<strong>la</strong>rización, en <strong>la</strong> que los opositores utilizaron,<br />
<strong>de</strong> manera intensiva, <strong>la</strong>s nuevas tecnologías como formas alternas <strong>para</strong> tratar <strong>de</strong> contrarrestar<br />
<strong>la</strong> hegemonía mediática <strong>de</strong> los partidarios <strong>de</strong> Hugo Chávez. Sin embargo, también los<br />
aliados <strong>de</strong>l presi<strong>de</strong>nte Chávez hicieron uso intensivo <strong>de</strong> estas herramientas 2.0, con el fin <strong>de</strong><br />
alcanzar <strong>la</strong> mayoría calificada <strong>de</strong> escaños <strong>para</strong> po<strong>de</strong>r realizar reformas constitucionales.<br />
De esta forma, <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s sociales, el Facebook, los microbloggs, los teléfonos con capacidad<br />
Wap y los #hastag invadieron el timeline <strong>de</strong> miles <strong>de</strong> usuarios <strong>de</strong> Twitter, entre ellos<br />
los famosos #26S, #hayuncaminomejor, # MUD y #elecciones, entre <strong>otros</strong>. La finalidad era<br />
tratar <strong>de</strong> ganar el mayor número <strong>de</strong> apoyos en esta importante elección legis<strong>la</strong>tiva, previa a<br />
<strong>la</strong> elección presi<strong>de</strong>ncial <strong>de</strong>l 2012.<br />
5. limitantes y Potencialida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s ciber-camPaÑas<br />
Las ciber campañas en América Latina, se han generalizado <strong>de</strong> tal forma que prácticamente<br />
todas <strong>la</strong>s elecciones presi<strong>de</strong>nciales y par<strong>la</strong>mentarias utilizan <strong>la</strong>s nuevas tecnologías <strong>de</strong><br />
<strong>la</strong> información y <strong>la</strong>s telecomunicaciones como medio <strong>para</strong> tratar <strong>de</strong> influir en <strong>la</strong> conducta<br />
y comportamiento <strong>de</strong> los electores. Sin embargo, en varios casos <strong>la</strong> utilización <strong>de</strong> estas herramientas<br />
presentan una serie <strong>de</strong> limitantes, más allá <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s ventajas que conllevan. (Rash,<br />
1997)<br />
Las principales limitaciones <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s ciber campañas en estos países son <strong>la</strong>s siguientes:<br />
Primero, son campañas que sólo llegan a una parte minoritaria <strong>de</strong> los electores, ya<br />
que <strong>la</strong> mayoría <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> pob<strong>la</strong>ción todavía no tiene acceso al internet. De acuerdo con <strong>la</strong><br />
Internet World Stadistics (IWS) <strong>para</strong> 2010 Argentina tenía un 64.4 por ciento penetración<br />
<strong>de</strong> usuarios <strong>de</strong> Internet respecto <strong>de</strong> su pob<strong>la</strong>ción, Brasil un 37.8%, Colombia<br />
un 48.7%, Venezue<strong>la</strong> un 34.2% y México un 27.2 por ciento, mientras que el índice<br />
<strong>de</strong> penetración <strong>de</strong> Facebook era mucho más baja en estos países, como se muestra en<br />
el siguiente cuadro. Es <strong>de</strong>cir, por el bajo nivel <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>sarrollo económico y social <strong>de</strong> estos<br />
países, en com<strong>para</strong>ción con <strong>la</strong>s naciones <strong>de</strong>sarrol<strong>la</strong>das, ha generado una “brecha” y una<br />
exclusión digital <strong>de</strong> amplios sectores sociales, quienes no tienen acceso a <strong>la</strong>s nuevas<br />
tecnologías <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información y, por lo tanto, están excluidos <strong>de</strong> po<strong>de</strong>r ser persuadidos<br />
por <strong>la</strong>s ciber campañas.
550 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
Segundo, los sectores sociales con mayor índice <strong>de</strong> penetración <strong>de</strong> Internet en estos países<br />
son <strong>la</strong>s c<strong>la</strong>ses medias y altas, jóvenes en su mayoría y con re<strong>la</strong>tivamente altos niveles<br />
<strong>de</strong> esco<strong>la</strong>ridad. Sin embargo, estos mismos sectores sociales son los que presentan un<br />
mayor nivel <strong>de</strong> abstencionismo.<br />
Tercero, existe una creciente ten<strong>de</strong>ncia <strong>de</strong> interactividad (técnica) que no significa automáticamente<br />
una mayor interacción (diálogo) entre políticos y ciudadanos en estos<br />
países. La comunicación mediada por computadora dificulta o imposibilita el contacto<br />
directo, el calor humano y <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>la</strong>ciones afectivas entre los principales actores <strong>de</strong>l proceso<br />
electoral.<br />
Cuarto, por <strong>la</strong> dificultad <strong>de</strong> su regu<strong>la</strong>ción y control, <strong>la</strong>s cibercampañas se han utilizado<br />
también como forma maniqueas <strong>para</strong> manipu<strong>la</strong>r a los electores usando <strong>la</strong>s herramientas<br />
2.0 con correos electrónicos injuriosos, con información falsa, ataques y<br />
difamaciones en contra <strong>de</strong> los adversarios, <strong>de</strong>teriorando <strong>la</strong> calidad <strong>de</strong>l <strong>de</strong>bate político y<br />
<strong>de</strong>sinformando a los ciudadanos.<br />
Quinto, <strong>la</strong>s ciber campañas han sido hasta hoy muy generales, utilizando <strong>la</strong> “estrategia<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> escopeta,” tratando <strong>de</strong> incidir en <strong>la</strong> conducta política <strong>de</strong> todo tipo <strong>de</strong> electores.<br />
Sin embargo, esto no ha posibilitado realizar campañas digitales <strong>de</strong> precisión, con targets<br />
muchos más específicos producto <strong>de</strong> una mayor segmentación <strong>de</strong> mercados electorales<br />
y con formas <strong>de</strong> comunicación ad dock <strong>de</strong>pendiendo <strong>de</strong>l tipo <strong>de</strong> elector al que<br />
se quiera persuadir.<br />
Sexto, <strong>la</strong>s ciber-campañas no han podido superar el grave problema <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> falta <strong>de</strong> c<strong>red</strong>ibilidad<br />
y <strong>de</strong> confianza que tienen amplios sectores sociales sobre sus políticos. Los<br />
diseños gráficos, los mensajes, vi<strong>de</strong>os y <strong>la</strong> publicidad en <strong>la</strong>s re<strong>de</strong>s sociales digitalizadas<br />
no abonan necesariamente a reconstruir <strong>la</strong> c<strong>red</strong>ibilidad y confianza ciudadana sobre sus<br />
políticos que requiere tener una real <strong>de</strong>mocracia.<br />
Séptimo, <strong>la</strong>s cibercampañas en <strong>la</strong> región han estado orientadas prácticamente a <strong>la</strong> publicidad,<br />
pensando contactar más bien con los medios <strong>de</strong> comunicación, distendiendo<br />
<strong>la</strong> posibilidad <strong>de</strong> un verda<strong>de</strong>ro diálogo e interacción con <strong>la</strong> ciudadanía.<br />
octavo, <strong>la</strong>s convergencias que ayudan a obtener <strong>la</strong>s ciber campañas muchas veces son<br />
efímeras (coyunturales) y reactivas (poco meditadas) por parte <strong>de</strong> amplios sectores sociales,<br />
lo que pue<strong>de</strong> generar <strong>la</strong> elección <strong>de</strong> gobernantes sobre bases muy superficiales.<br />
Como lo apunta Divina Frau-Meigs (2001) “<strong>la</strong> tecnología no incrementa por si misma<br />
<strong>la</strong>s opiniones cívicas,” ni <strong>la</strong> calidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>mocracia.<br />
Novena, el nivel <strong>de</strong> persuabilidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s ciber campañas es mucho más bajo en com<strong>para</strong>ción<br />
<strong>de</strong> campañas <strong>de</strong> tierra centrados en el contacto directo <strong>de</strong>l partido, los candidatos<br />
o los equipos <strong>de</strong> campaña con <strong>la</strong> gente, en <strong>la</strong>s comunida<strong>de</strong>s, barrios, ejidos, ciuda<strong>de</strong>s<br />
y calles <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> circunscripción electoral <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> que se traté. A<strong>de</strong>más, el problema <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong><br />
<strong>de</strong>sconfianza en el medio persiste, ya que, al igual que muchos electores <strong>de</strong>sconfían en<br />
<strong>la</strong> televisión o en <strong>la</strong> radio, también <strong>de</strong>sconfían en <strong>la</strong> Internet, porque le llega, muchas<br />
veces, gran cantidad <strong>de</strong> información <strong>de</strong> personas <strong>de</strong>sconocidas.
<strong>la</strong>s Ciber-campañas en América <strong>la</strong>tina: Potencialida<strong>de</strong>s y limitantes<br />
551<br />
Por otro <strong>la</strong>do, es indudable que el uso <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s nuevas tecnologías <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información y <strong>la</strong>s<br />
telecomunicaciones proporcionan una serie <strong>de</strong> ventajas o potencialida<strong>de</strong>s en <strong>la</strong>s campañas<br />
electorales, sobresaliendo <strong>la</strong>s siguientes:<br />
Primero, el costo económico es mucho más bajo en com<strong>para</strong>ción con campañas por<br />
radio, televisión o campañas <strong>de</strong> contacto directo con el electorado. Es <strong>de</strong>cir, <strong>la</strong>s ciber<br />
campañas <strong>red</strong>ucen significativamente su costo económico y son accesibles a partidos y<br />
candidatos con bajos presupuestos.<br />
Segundo, <strong>la</strong> rapi<strong>de</strong>z con <strong>la</strong>s que llega el mensaje a los electores es mucho mayor que <strong>la</strong>s<br />
campañas mediáticas y <strong>de</strong> tierra, teniendo una comunicación prácticamente inmediata<br />
con <strong>la</strong> ciudadanía o los representantes <strong>de</strong> los medios <strong>de</strong> comunicación. A<strong>de</strong>más, el flujo<br />
<strong>de</strong> información, en formato <strong>de</strong> imagen, fotografías, vi<strong>de</strong>os, audio y texto que <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong><br />
pue<strong>de</strong> ayudar a proporcionar a los ciudadanos es abundante.<br />
Tercero, <strong>la</strong> Internet permite al ciudadano rastrear selectivamente cualquier tipo <strong>de</strong> documentación<br />
política y convertirse ellos mismos, en productores <strong>de</strong> mensajes como<br />
parte <strong>de</strong>l trabajo co<strong>la</strong>borativo y en generadores <strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong>mandas a los candidatos a un<br />
puesto <strong>de</strong> elección popu<strong>la</strong>r (Rodota, 2004).<br />
Cuarto, <strong>la</strong>s nuevas tecnologías permiten comunicarse con el elector, establecer re<strong>la</strong>ciones<br />
con los votantes y po<strong>de</strong>r hacerles llegar sus propuestas y mensajes, apoyando <strong>la</strong>s<br />
estrategias <strong>de</strong> comunicación interna y externa durante <strong>la</strong>s campañas electorales.<br />
Quinto, <strong>la</strong>s nuevas tecnologías posibilitan y facilitan <strong>la</strong> participación <strong>de</strong> los ciudadanos<br />
en <strong>la</strong> vida política electoral y pue<strong>de</strong>n lograr generar interés e impulsar <strong>la</strong> participación<br />
en sectores <strong>de</strong> electores que tradicionalmente no votan, <strong>red</strong>uciendo el abstencionismo.<br />
Sexto, <strong>la</strong> Internet posibilita una respuesta o ac<strong>la</strong>ración rápida ante rumores, ataques,<br />
críticas y <strong>de</strong>nostaciones <strong>de</strong> los adversarios, así como el po<strong>de</strong>r impulsar contra-estrategias<br />
<strong>para</strong> tratar <strong>de</strong> neutralizar acometidas y campañas negativas.<br />
Séptimo, el internet posibilita el obtener el apoyo <strong>de</strong> los votantes, reforzando p<strong>red</strong>isposiciones<br />
políticas ya existentes en <strong>la</strong> mente <strong>de</strong> los ciudadanos y, sobre todo, pue<strong>de</strong><br />
generar el voto <strong>de</strong> nuevos electores, especialmente <strong>de</strong>l sector social <strong>de</strong> los usualmente<br />
abstencionistas o los <strong>de</strong>nominados switchers.<br />
octavo, <strong>la</strong>s nuevas tecnologías <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información y <strong>la</strong>s telecomunicaciones posibilitan<br />
el impulso <strong>de</strong> campañas más profesionalizadas, ayudando a lograr una mejor comunicación<br />
interna y coordinación operativa entre los equipos <strong>de</strong> campaña, construyendo<br />
ventajas competitivas en <strong>la</strong> disputa por el po<strong>de</strong>r público.<br />
Finalmente, <strong>la</strong>s cibercampañas ayudan a evitar un mayor daño ecológico, ya que <strong>la</strong><br />
propaganda tradicional llena <strong>de</strong> basura y contaminación visual a <strong>la</strong>s ciuda<strong>de</strong>s, evitándose o<br />
aminorándose el problema con el uso <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s nuevas tecnologías digitales.
552 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
País<br />
total <strong>de</strong> habitantes, total <strong>de</strong> usuarios <strong>de</strong> internet y facebook, penetración<br />
en américa central y sudamérica<br />
Pob<strong>la</strong>ción<br />
estimada<br />
Usuarios <strong>de</strong><br />
Internet<br />
Usuarios <strong>de</strong><br />
Facebook<br />
Penetración<br />
<strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
Brasil 201,103,330 75,943,600 6,114,340 37.8% 3.0%<br />
Penetración<br />
<strong>de</strong> Facebook<br />
Colombia 44,205,293 21,529,415 11,115,840 48.7% 25.1%<br />
México 112,468,855 30,600,000 15,037,020 27.2% 13.4%<br />
Venezue<strong>la</strong> 27,223,228 9,306,916 7,148,100 34.2% 26.3%<br />
Argentina 41,343,201 26,614,813 11,381,120 64.4% 27.5%<br />
Fuente: E<strong>la</strong>boración propia con base en información disponible en el IWS<br />
6. a modo <strong>de</strong> conclusión<br />
Las nuevas tecnologías <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información y <strong>la</strong>s comunicaciones han transformado <strong>la</strong><br />
forma como se realizan <strong>la</strong>s campañas electorales en América <strong>la</strong>tina. A partir <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> gran experiencia<br />
exitosa <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s ciber campañas en los Estados Unidos <strong>de</strong> Norteamérica en <strong>la</strong> elección<br />
presi<strong>de</strong>ncial <strong>de</strong>l 2008 37 , cuando obama 38 ganó <strong>la</strong> contienda, esta región ha revolucionado su<br />
forma <strong>de</strong> hacer política y <strong>de</strong> tratar <strong>de</strong> ganar el voto <strong>de</strong> los ciudadanos 39 .<br />
De esta forma, hoy día toda campaña electoral exitosa implica el establecimiento <strong>de</strong><br />
tres gran<strong>de</strong>s frentes estratégicos: 1) El mediático, centrado en <strong>la</strong> radio y <strong>la</strong> televisión; 2) El<br />
territorial, centrado en el contacto directo con <strong>la</strong> gente; y 3) El <strong>de</strong>l ciberespacio, centrado en<br />
el uso <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s nuevas tecnologías <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información y <strong>la</strong>s telecomunicaciones.<br />
El frente <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s ciber campañas ha experimentado, en los últimos años, un crecimiento<br />
exponencial <strong>de</strong>bido a <strong>la</strong> socialización <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s nuevas tecnologías <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> computación y <strong>la</strong><br />
telefonía. De acuerdo a <strong>la</strong> consultora ComScore, el uso <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> social Twitter en América<br />
Latina ha tenido aumentos sustanciales en los últimos años, ya que, por ejemplo, <strong>de</strong>l 2009<br />
37 En <strong>la</strong> campaña presi<strong>de</strong>ncial <strong>de</strong>l 2008, obama invirtió 750 millones <strong>de</strong> dó<strong>la</strong>res y en <strong>la</strong> campaña <strong>de</strong>l<br />
2012 se estima pueda superar <strong>la</strong> cifra <strong>de</strong> los mil millones <strong>de</strong> dó<strong>la</strong>res. La mayoría <strong>de</strong> estos recursos<br />
obtenidos a través <strong>de</strong> recaudaciones utilizando <strong>la</strong>s nuevas tecnologías <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información.<br />
38 El 4 <strong>de</strong> abril <strong>de</strong>l 2011, en los Estados Unidos <strong>de</strong> Norteamérica el presi<strong>de</strong>nte Barack obama anunció<br />
su candidatura rumbo a <strong>la</strong> reelección a través <strong>de</strong> un correo electrónico dirigido a sus seguidores, un<br />
mensaje en Twitter y un vi<strong>de</strong>o subido a Youtube y a su sitio Web con testimonios <strong>de</strong> partidarios con el<br />
título “Comienza con nos<strong>otros</strong>.” De esta forma, obama continuó con <strong>la</strong> estrategia digital que utilizó<br />
en su última campaña y que ha marcado <strong>la</strong> nueva política en el presente siglo (Véase Rafael Mathus<br />
Ruiz, Costará reelección <strong>de</strong> obama mil millones <strong>de</strong> dó<strong>la</strong>res, periódico Mural, sección internacional,<br />
5 <strong>de</strong> abril <strong>de</strong>l 2011, p. 9).<br />
39 De acuerdo a Luis Arvizu, anteriormente los partidos asignaban lo que sobraba <strong>de</strong> sus presupuestos al<br />
uso <strong>de</strong> internet. Hoy <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> forma parte importante <strong>de</strong> sus estrategias.
<strong>la</strong>s Ciber-campañas en América <strong>la</strong>tina: Potencialida<strong>de</strong>s y limitantes<br />
553<br />
al 2010 se tuvo un aumento <strong>de</strong> usuarios <strong>de</strong> un 305 por ciento 40 . Algo simi<strong>la</strong>r ha pasado<br />
con Facebook, con los micro blogs, los wikis, Hi5, Myspace y <strong>la</strong>s <strong>de</strong>más re<strong>de</strong>s sociales. Sin<br />
embargo, el mayor uso <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s nuevas tecnologías no significa automáticamente un mayor<br />
número <strong>de</strong> votos <strong>para</strong> los candidatos usuarios, ni una mayor calidad <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>mocracia en los<br />
países <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> región. Todo <strong>de</strong>pen<strong>de</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> forma como se usen estas tecnologías y el fin que se<br />
pretenda alcanzar.<br />
Hoy día, <strong>la</strong>s elecciones no necesariamente se ganan en <strong>la</strong> televisión, sino también en el<br />
ciber-espacio, utilizando <strong>la</strong>s nuevas formas <strong>de</strong> comunicación política alternativa, que posibilitan<br />
el posicionamiento <strong>de</strong> candidatos, partidos y temas <strong>de</strong> campaña en sectores específicos<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> sociedad. Las ciber campañas, también, posibilitan <strong>la</strong> transformación <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s campañas<br />
tradicionales sustentadas en <strong>la</strong> acción uni<strong>la</strong>teral <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> c<strong>la</strong>se política hacedores <strong>de</strong> campañas en<br />
amplios y verda<strong>de</strong>ros movimientos ciudadanos en <strong>la</strong> búsqueda <strong>de</strong> un mejor futuro.<br />
Ciertamente, <strong>la</strong>s ciber campañas abaratan, simplifican y hacen accesible los mensajes<br />
<strong>de</strong> los candidatos y partidos a <strong>la</strong> ciudadanía. Sin embargo, todavía no se ha sabido explotar<br />
en <strong>la</strong> región <strong>la</strong>s potencialida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> este tipo <strong>de</strong> herramientas y los políticos lo que comúnmente<br />
han hecho es tras<strong>la</strong>dar <strong>la</strong> forma tradicional <strong>de</strong> hacer política a <strong>la</strong> Internet con poca<br />
innovación y creatividad 41 .<br />
En el ámbito electoral, <strong>la</strong> mejor campaña no es <strong>la</strong> que sólo proporciona información,<br />
sino <strong>la</strong> que invita a <strong>la</strong> acción, involucra a los ciudadanos, generan confianza y los hace participes<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> contienda, permite a <strong>la</strong> gente interesarse, presentar proyectos y propuesta <strong>de</strong><br />
gobierno, manifestar criticas y preocupaciones, subir a <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> vi<strong>de</strong>os y fotos, publicar eventos<br />
y, sobre todo, logra el involucramiento y <strong>la</strong> participación <strong>de</strong> amplios sectores sociales.<br />
Por ello, <strong>la</strong>s ciber campañas <strong>de</strong>ben ir mucho más allá <strong>de</strong>l simple hecho <strong>de</strong> dar información<br />
y difundir <strong>la</strong>s activida<strong>de</strong>s <strong>de</strong> los candidatos y partidos. Las ciber campañas <strong>de</strong>be ser consi<strong>de</strong>radas<br />
como un conjunto <strong>de</strong> herramientas que le permitan a los electores y, especialmente<br />
a los simpatizantes y apoyadores, el po<strong>de</strong>r comunicarse y organizarse <strong>para</strong> hacer proselitismo<br />
ellos mismos. Es <strong>de</strong>cir, <strong>la</strong>s ciber campañas <strong>de</strong>ben ser concebidas como un medio que facilite<br />
<strong>la</strong> comunicación y <strong>la</strong> organización <strong>de</strong> los ciudadanos <strong>para</strong> convertir a <strong>la</strong> campaña en un gran<br />
movimiento social capaz <strong>de</strong> movilizar a miles <strong>de</strong> votantes a <strong>la</strong>s urnas <strong>para</strong> construir una gran<br />
victoria electoral.<br />
Finalmente, se <strong>de</strong>be consi<strong>de</strong>rar que <strong>la</strong> política es construcción y <strong>la</strong>s nuevas tecnologías<br />
<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> información y <strong>la</strong>s telecomunicaciones son herramientas importantes e imprescindibles<br />
<strong>para</strong> po<strong>de</strong>r edificar gran<strong>de</strong>s proyectos <strong>de</strong> política, ya sea a nivel local, regional, nacional o internacional.<br />
En el futuro, el tiempo <strong>de</strong>dicado a Internet por parte <strong>de</strong> los electores en América<br />
<strong>la</strong>tina será mayor al número <strong>de</strong> horas por semanas <strong>de</strong>stinadas a <strong>la</strong> exposición en televisión.<br />
40 ComScore es una empresa norteamericana que se <strong>de</strong>dica a medir <strong>la</strong>s audiencias en el mundo digital,<br />
su página Web es www.comscore.com.<br />
41 La <strong>de</strong>sconfianza social en los políticos y los partidos, a<strong>de</strong>más, <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>de</strong>sconfianza en <strong>la</strong> Internet ha<br />
limitado a <strong>la</strong>s ciber campañas como medio alternativo <strong>de</strong> propaganda electoral, que ayu<strong>de</strong> a fomentar<br />
una mayor participación ciudadana en <strong>la</strong>s urnas.
554 <strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet<br />
De ahí <strong>la</strong> importancia <strong>de</strong> mejorar <strong>la</strong>s estrategias <strong>de</strong> persuasión, interre<strong>la</strong>ción, diseño y arquitectura<br />
propagandística <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s ciber campañas.<br />
7. bibliografÍa<br />
Lopez, C. E. (2000). Las Ciber-campañas In<strong>de</strong>pendientes Gutiérrez Fernando e Is<strong>la</strong>s Carmona<br />
Octavio, Revista Latina <strong>de</strong> Comunicación Social No. 33.<br />
Da<strong>de</strong>r, J. L. (2006). Comunicación Política en <strong>la</strong> Red: Des<strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong>s Cibercampañas a <strong>la</strong> Transparencia<br />
Virtual <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> Administración. Ponencia presentada en <strong>la</strong>s Jornadas Autoría y<br />
Contenidos en <strong>la</strong> Red, Universidad Internacional Menén<strong>de</strong>z Pe<strong>la</strong>yo, Valencia, España,<br />
<strong>de</strong>l 27 al 29 <strong>de</strong> marzo <strong>de</strong>l 2006.<br />
Holmes, D. (1997). Virtual Politics. I<strong>de</strong>ntity and Community in Ciberspace. London. Sage.<br />
Rash, W. (1997). Politics on the Nets. Wiring the Political Process. New York. W.H. Freeman.<br />
Rodota, S. (2004). Tecnopolítica. La <strong>de</strong>mocracia e le nuove tecnologie <strong>de</strong>l<strong>la</strong> comunicazione.<br />
Sagittari.<br />
Sánchez, D. (2011). Política 2.0 en <strong>la</strong> campaña presi<strong>de</strong>ncial <strong>de</strong> Sebastián Piñera. Recuperado<br />
el 01 <strong>de</strong> febrero <strong>de</strong> 2011 <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> página http://www.politicare<strong>de</strong>s.com.
<strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet.<br />
Actas <strong>de</strong>l VII Congreso Internacional Internet, Derecho y Política<br />
(IDP 2011)<br />
ISBN: 978-84-694-7037-4<br />
Para citar <strong>la</strong> obra, por favor, utilicen <strong>la</strong>s<br />
siguientes referencias indistintamente:<br />
Cerrillo-i-Martínez, A., Peguera, M., Peña-López, I. & Vi<strong>la</strong>sau So<strong>la</strong>na, M. (coords.) (2011).<br />
<strong>Neutralidad</strong> <strong>de</strong> <strong>la</strong> <strong>red</strong> y <strong>otros</strong> <strong>retos</strong> <strong>para</strong> el futuro <strong>de</strong> Internet. Actas <strong>de</strong>l VII Congreso<br />
Internacional Internet, Derecho y Política. Universitat Oberta <strong>de</strong> Catalunya,<br />
Barcelona 11-12 <strong>de</strong> julio <strong>de</strong> 2011. Barcelona: UOC-Huygens Editorial.<br />
Cerrillo-i-Martínez, A., Peguera, M., Peña-López, I. & Vi<strong>la</strong>sau So<strong>la</strong>na, M. (coords.) (2011).<br />
Net Neutrality and other challenges for the future of the Internet. Proceedings of<br />
the 7 th International Conference on Internet, Law & Politics. Universitat Oberta <strong>de</strong> Catalunya,<br />
Barcelona, 11-12 July, 2011. Barcelona: UOC-Huygens Editorial.<br />
http://edcp.uoc.edu/symposia/idp2011/proceedings/<br />
Universitat Oberta<br />
<strong>de</strong> Catalunya<br />
www.uoc.edu