Hadopi's 3-strikes surveillance obligation revealed
- Author: Monica Horten
- Published: 29 September 2010
The Hadopi - the French authority which oversees the 3-strikes law - has released the draft text of the warning emails which will be sent to Internet users, starting over the next few days. The warning is designed remind users of what will happen to them if their Internet subscription is used to download copyright-infringing material.
The draft text is presented by the Hadopi as a formal letter, a pdf of a printed letter-head (and presumably to be sent as an attachment). It is addressed to the Internet subscriber (not necessarily the same person as the 'user') and contains all the legal requirements as set out under the French government's graduated response / 3-strikes measures: that you Internet access has been used to make available, reproduce or access cultural works protected by copyright without the permission of the rights-holders, and that this constitutes a legal infringement; that this action could have been
taken without your knowledge; and that it is your responsibility to secure your Internet access against such an action.
The Hadopi warning letter has been criticised by the French media for being a 'minimalist' interpretation of the Hadopi's responsibilities to citizens. In particular, it gives no information on how Internet users can obtain copyrighted material without incurring such an allegation of infringement.
Nor does the Hadopi letter provide information on how users can defend themselves against the allegation of 'failure to control their Internet access'. The burden of helping users 'protect' their subscription is neatly shifted to the ISPs, in what appears to be an abbregation of the Hadopi's responsibility.
Users are referred to the Hadopi's own website - hadopi.fr - for more information. According to the French technology website Numerama, hadopi.fr was not working at the time the text was announced. I tried it today and it is still not working.
Numerama also reports that the deadline for the consultation on the Hadopi security software specification (see my other article on this topic) has been extended to 30 October. Which surely leaves users undefended and unable to defend themselves until the Hadopi sorts out this draconian spec.
One point which the Hadopi letter does make clear is the real meaning of this new legal concept: obligation to control your Internet access. The letter points out that the Internet subscriber is responsible for the use of their account. Users must be vigilant that their account is not used fraudulently and that they have secured it against such use (the French word used is 'veiller' which has a more loaded meaning).
Under the FAQs, the first question is 'What am I accused of?' . The answer is that you are accused of failing in your obligation of surveillance.
Thus, Hadopi neatly turns an obligation to control - make sure no outsiders camp on to your wifi, for example - into an obligation to monitor every use made by anyone who has access to your account. Or at least, it could be read that way.
It becomes government sponsored snooping into family correspondence, shopping, business and leisure activities and turns into a reality the fears of many who oppose graduated response/3-strikes measures.
Read the text of the Hadopi letter .
More commentary from Astrid Giradeau .
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial-Share Alike 2.5 UK:England and Wales License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/uk/ It may be used for non-commercial purposes only, and the author's name should be attributed. The correct attribution for this article is: Monica Horten (2009), Hadopi's 3-strikes surveillance obligation revealed http://www.iptegrity.com 29 September 2010.
- Article Views: 9168
IPtegrity politics
- What's influencing tech policy in 2025?
- Online Safety and the Westminster honey trap
- Shadow bans: EU and UK diverge on user redress
- EU at loggerheads over chat control
- Why the Online Safety Act is not fit for purpose
- Fixing the human rights failings in the Online Safety Act
- Whatever happened to the AI Bill?
- Hidden effects of the UK Online Safety Act
- EU puts chat control on back burner
- Why did X lock my account for not providing my birthday?
- Creation of deep fakes to be criminal offence under new law
- AI and tech: Asks for the new government
- How WhatsApp holds structural power
- Meta rolls out encryption as political headwinds ease
- EU law set for new course on child online safety
- Online Safety Act: Ofcom’s 1700-pages of tech platform rules
- MEPs reach political agreement to protect children and privacy
About Iptegrity
Iptegrity.com is the website of Dr Monica Horten, independent policy advisor: online safety, technology and human rights. Advocating to protect the rights of the majority of law abiding citizens online. Independent expert on the Council of Europe Committee of Experts on online safety and empowerment of content creators and users. Published author, and post-doctoral scholar, with a PhD from the University of Westminster, and a DipM from the Chartered Institute of Marketing. Former telecoms journalist, experienced panelist and Chair, cited in the media eg BBC, iNews, Times, Guardian and Politico.
Politics & copyright
A Copyright Masquerade: How Corporate Lobbying Threatens Online Freedoms
'timely and provocative' Entertainment Law Review
Online Safety
- Online Safety and the Westminster honey trap
- Shadow bans: EU and UK diverge on user redress
- Why the Online Safety Act is not fit for purpose
- Fixing the human rights failings in the Online Safety Act
- Hidden effects of the UK Online Safety Act
- Why did X lock my account for not providing my birthday?
- Online Safety Act: Ofcom’s 1700-pages of tech platform rules
- Online Safety - a non-consensual Act
- Online Safety Bill passes as US court blocks age-checks law
- Online Safety Bill: ray of hope for free speech
- National Crime Agency to run new small boats social media centre
- Online Safety Bill: does government want to snoop on your WhatsApps?
- What is content of democratic importance?
- Online Safety Bill: One rule for them and another for us
- Online Safety Bill - Freedom to interfere?