Archive for Privacy

JCP International Experts Spoke at NPC Seminar on E-Commerce Lawmaking联合认证项目国际专家主讲全国人大电子商务立法交流研讨会

Four Members of JCP International Expert Advisory Committees (IEAC) were invited to speak at the National People’s Congress (NPC) Seminar on E-Commerce Lawmaking on November 26, 2014 at NPC Conference Center. The Seminar was organized to share the international experience on e-commerce law. Mr. Joao Ribeiro, Head of UNCITRAL Regional Center for Asia and the Pacific firstly gave an overview on the social, economic and political impacts of  the UN Convention on Electronic Communication. Dr. Luca Castellani, Co-Director of JCP and Legal Office of UNCITRAL, then gave a comprehensive speech on the legal details of the UN Convention on Electronic Communication. After the interaction with the officials and academics from the Chinese community, 4 foreign experts had informative dialogue with the NPC High-Level Officers on the scope and definition of e-commerce and the general framework of the Chinese e-commerce law that is being drafted. Both parties agreed that e-commerce has entered all aspects of social economic life and should not be defined in any line of business. The foreign experts were especially concurred Mr. Lu Zushang, Member of NPC Standing Committee, Deputy Chair of NPC Fiscal and Financial Committee, that the E-Commerce Law should be a basic law to set out all the necessary principles and overarching issues and lay the ground for further legal development. In the afternoon session, Dr. Yann Duval from UNESCAP talked about the draft Regional Agreement on Paperless Trade, and Prof. Giusella Finocchairo from Bologna University talked about the EU new initiative on data protection. There were valuable communication with the Chinese community all through the seminar.
The Seminar was suggested and co-organized by the JCP and IIPL. All four keynote speakers are the Members of JCP International Expert Advisory Committees (IEAC). Prof. Hong Xue was the interpreter of the Seminar and participated the discussion.
Program
26 November 2014, 9:00-17:00
Chair: Mr. Lu Zushan, Member of NPC Standing Committee, Deputy Chair of NPC Fiscal and Financial Committee
&
Mr. Peng Seng, Member of NPC Standing Committee, Deputy Chair of NPC Fiscal and Financial Committee
Mr. Fu Shuangjian, Member of NPC Fiscal and Financial Committee
Ms. Qian Fangli, Member of NPC Fiscal and Financial Committee
Foreign Experts:
Mr. Joao Ribeiro, Head of UNCITRAL Regional Center for Asia and the Pacific
Dr. Luca Castellani, Co-Director of JCP and Legal Office of UNCITRAL
Dr. Yann Duval, UNESCAP
Prof. Giusella Finocchairo, Bologna University
Chinese Experts:
Ms. Liu Hong, Ministry of Commerce Treaty and Law Department, Head of Communication Section
Mr. Ma Yuchi, Ministry of Commerce Treaty and Law Department, Deputy Head of Communication Section
Mr. Wang Yan, General Administration of Customs, Politics and Law Department, Deputy Head
Mr. Li Zhengjun, State Administration of Industry and Commerce, Law and Regulation Department, Officer
Mr. A La Mu Si, China E-Commerce Association
Ms. Zhang Zejin, China Online Transaction Security Center
Mr. Pan Jianshan, Shenzhen Market and Quality Supervision Commission
Staff:
Mr. Shi Yuzhi,  NPC Fiscal and Financial Committee Research Department, Deputy Head
Mr. Liu Rui, NPC Fiscal and Financial Committee Research Department
Ms. Song Yanni, NPC Legislative Committee Economic Law Department
Mr. Gu Yan, NPC Standing Committee Secretariat Supervisory Department
Ms. Zhou Jin, NPC Fiscal and Financial Committee Office
Observers from Beijing University, Beijing Normal University, Beijing University of Post and Telecommunication, University of International Business and Economics and a couple of law firms.

Comments off

国际电子商务法联合认证项目全球首发!

追求卓越,协作共赢

北京师范大学—联合国国际贸易法委员会

联合认证项目[1]

国际电子商务法:理论与实践

一、目标 与使命

为了适应我国电子商务国际贸易的飞速发展,促进我国机构与企业了解电子商务的国际法及主要国家与地区的法律,更积极地参与有关国际律规则的发展进程,维护我国重要的经济利益,北京师范大学与联合国国际贸易法委员会合作,于2013年10月签署合作协议,建立了全球首个专门关于“国际电子商务法”的联合认证项目,由联合国国际贸易法委员会亚太中心、北京师范大学国际交流与合作处及法学院作为支持单位,联合国国际贸易法委员会电子商务工作组负责人卢卡.卡斯特拉尼博士与北京师范大学互联网政策与法律研究中心薛虹教授担任项目的联合主任。作为中国协助联合国向发展中国家提供法律技术援助的有机组成部分,联合认证项目已经向柬埔寨、哈萨克斯坦、斯里兰卡等国家政府官员提供国际电子商务法的能力建设法律培训及该国电子商务立法的咨询与建议。国际电子商务法联合认证项目从事电子商务立法国际比较研究及国际法律研究,正在成为我国与国际组织与国外机构进行电子商务法国际交流与合作的桥梁与纽带。

二、合作基础

联合国国际贸易法委员会是联合国系统在国际贸易法领域中的核心法律机构,在全球拥有广泛成员,四十多年来在全世界范围内专门从事商法改革,致力于协调各种国际商务规则并使之现代化。除此之外,联合国国际贸易法委员会还可以提供法律技术支持,以促进在商业交易领域制定现代、公平、和谐的法律规定的法律改革计划。

联合国国际贸易法委员会起草了《电子商务示范法》及《电子商务公约》等重要的国际电子商务法文件,并正在拟定新的国际法律规范。与北京师范大学共同打造的这一联合认证项目,将为电子商务领域,特别是跨境电商,带来全新知识与智慧体验。

三、课程内容

项目共有6个课程单元,在每学年秋季/春季学期的两周内集中授课。可同时获得北京师范大学的学分。学生也可选择参加任一学期的课程学习。

课程内容单元如下:

1. Legal Issues in Cross-Border E-Transactions (跨境电子交易法律问题)

2. Legal Issues in Cross-Border Data flow (跨境数据流通的法律问题)

3. Dispute Resolution For Cross-Border E-Commerce(跨境电子商务的争议解决)

4. Internet Governance in E-Commerce (电子商务中的互联网治理问题)

5. Intellectual Property Issues in Cross-Border E-Commerce(跨境电子商务的知识产权法律问题)

6. Governmental Regulation on Cross-Border E-Commerce (跨境电子商务的监管法)

 

四、教学管理和师资力量

联合国国际贸易法委员会与北师大共同组建国际专家顾问委员会,监督及保障教学质量。北京师范大学国际交流与合作处、北京师范大学法学院为项目提供支持。

联合国国际贸易法委员会秘书长Renaud Sorieul先生、北京师范大学陈光巨副校长任国际专家顾问委员会联席主席。
项目由国内外知名法律专家团队授课,并将定期邀请国内外电子商务业界、政府、司法机关的专家进行实务讲座。授课专家包括:
Dr. Luca Castellani, Secretary of UNCITRAL Working Group IV (Electronic Commerce) & Co-Director of Joint Certificate Program

Mr. Joao Ribeiro, Head, UNCITRAL RCAP

Prof. Guisella Finocchiaro, Professor of Internet Law and of Private Comparative Law at the University of Bologna, Italy; Chair of UNCITRAL E-Commerce Working Group

阿拉木斯,中国电子商务协会政策法律委员会副主任、国家电子商务示范城市创建项目专家组成员、国家发改委高技术司专家组成员、阿里巴巴集团政策研究室高级顾问、网规研究中心主任

薛虹,北京师范大学法学院教授、博士生导师、互联网政策与法律研究中心主任、联合国无纸化贸易专家网络顾问委员会委员、商务部电子商务咨询专家、联合认证项目中方主任

课程教学语言英文、中文。2周内集中授课。招生面向从事电子商务管理及经营的专业人员,每期仅限15人。学习完成,可获得联合国国际贸易法委员会与北京师范大学联合签署的文凭;完成其中任1学期,获得联合国国际贸易法委员会与北京师范大学联合签署的该学期文凭。参加者向北京师范大学交纳全额4,000美元(每个学期2,000美元)学费。
2014-2015学年秋季学期集中授课将于11月24-30日“JCP国际电子商务法活动周”进行。学员除了参加集中授课,还可免费参加“中外专家系列专题讲座”/“首届国际电子商务法高层论坛”等活动。

有意参加者可向北京师范大学与联合国国际贸易法委员会联合组成的工作委员会提出申请,于2014年9月30日前提交中英文简历及与电子商务有关的工作经历的陈述。提交申请以电子邮件方式进行,邮件地址为jcp@bnu.edu.cn。经工作委员会进行审查、录取的学生,将成为北师大正式在校生,并能获得有关课程学分。


[1] 本项目获得了使用联合国标志的专门授权。

Comments off

Amber Alert on Micro-Blog

Professor Jianrong Yu, from Chinese Academy of Social Science, launched a campaign to save “children beggars” via micro-blog system.

It’s reported that more than 200,000 children were missing in China every year. The number is astonishing. Most missing children were kidnapped and sold to gangsters who use children to beg for money on the streets. There has been a considerable large black market of children trafficking operating many years. The children beggars, as young as 3 or 4 years old, are in miserable condition, frequently being beaten, starved and abused.

Prof. Yu’s campaign is let the people to photograph the children beggars on the streets and post the photos on micro-blog so that the parents of the missing children could find the clue of their babies. Prof. Yu’s call was warmly responded by more than 55,000 micro-blog posts with 800 photos of children. It’s reported that several children were indeed saved by the information revealed on the micro-blog.

However, the civil society campaign could make mistakes. For example, the parents from Shanxi discovered a boy beggar in a photo taken in Zhuhai looking extremely similar to their baby and reported to police. The local police immediately arrested the man who led the said children beggar and declared a success of micro-blog salvation. Sadly, it was too early to celebrate for the family reunion.  The boy was not the son of Shanxi parents.

There are other concerns over the campaign. All the children’s photos are published online. Does it violate the children’s privacy and minor’s legal protection? Would the photos be utilized for illegal purposes, such as commercial ads or extortion by organized crimes? Who is responsible for protecting the children’s personal information?

Fortunately, the campaign has noted these issues. Prof. Yu said a database of missing children will be set up and people’s submissions will not be publicly accessible anyway. Then it arises other issues, such as transparency of information and sustainability of the operation.

Some Congressmen have urged the police to take more effective actions against children kidnapping and trafficking and improve the social welfare system to help poor children, particularly in migrant workers’ families.

Comments (7)

BBS Operator not Liable for Defamation but Not Without Obligation

Professor Cai who publicly called for cancellation of the so-called Golden Week (week-long public holidays) in China found himself defamed and cursed by a large number of people on a BBS named after him. The furious Professor sued the BBS service provider, Baidu (one of the largest Internet company in China), for defamation. The first-instance court recently rendered the decision that Baidu was not the direct tortfeasor, neither did it knowing providing service to defame Prof. Cai. The court noted that Baidu’s act of taking timely measures to prevent the further spread of defamatory information after receiving valid notification from Prof. Cai was capable of proving its innocent. Interestingly, the court dismissed Prof. Cai’s claim for deleting the relevant BBS in the same name as him, because name of the BBS, per se, was not infringing and the people had the right to make comments on public issues or figures. However, the court ruled that Baidu must, within the capable of network technology, assume the obligation of a honest manage to identify its subscribers who had posted the defamatory information. Prof. Cai’s agent declared to appeal against the decision.

The decision rings the alarm for Internet users. With the implementation of the Tort Liability Law, netizens are exposed to more liabilities for infringement against civil rights. Previously, they were only subject to copyright enforcement. Now they must watch out any other rights, such as rights for reputation, honor, portraits and names. A service provider’s obligation to disclose users’ identities would have serious impact on privacy. In the above-mentioned case, the court demanded Baidu to identify all the persons who had cursed, insulted or verbally threatened Prof. Cai. However, how would Baidu judge if a post is insulting, defamatory or threatening? What if Baidu makes arbitrary judgment and unreasonably disclose some users’ personal information to Prof. Cai?

Comments (275)

A War between “Penguin” and “Tiger”

What is the most sensational ICT news in China this week? Of course, it is the War between two animals–Penguin representing Tencent and  Tiger for Qihoo. After sending its 0.6 billion Chinese IM users a “Public Condemnation against Qihoo 360′” via pop-up windows, Tencent, which has been using the logo of two cute-looking penguins, publicly announced that it stops inter-operating with Qihoo’s 360′s newly released security program, Kou Kou Bodyguard. Tencent condemned Qihoo (Chinese name “Magical Tiger”) for hijacking users’ accounts through striping ads attached to QQ and redirecting QQ users to 360 browers. Qihoo that developed from an anti-virus company to the second large security and online assistance program service provider to 0.5 billion Chinese users denied the allegation that Kou Kou Bodyguard was a Trojan program to steal users’ information but has removed the program offline.

The War between  two leading Internet companies have devastated many Internet users, particularly who  had solely relied on these domestic services on IM, chatting, searching and email, etc. Under Tencent’s unilateral announcement, any user who has Qihoo 360 installed on the computer will not be able to login Tencent’s popular IM program QQ. Tencent has sued Qihoo for unfair competition and other claims to Beijing Court. Meanwhile, angry QQ users (especially those who paid fees to Tencent) have gather to bring collective action against Tencent. Ministry of Industry and Information Technology and Ministry of Public Security have summoned both parties for investigation.

For more information, please refer to “QQ-360 Battle Escalates into War” on WSJ.

The case shows the poor legal protection on privacy and personal information for more than 1 billion Internet users in China. It is widely believed that Internet giants are all blatantly detecting, collecting and trading their users’ privacy information for profit. In this case, tens of million of users become the virtual hostage of commercial strategy. Internet companies’ tremendous technical capacity can be a threat of the users’ choice and legitimate interest.

How would Tencent implement its anti-360 campaign? How did it detect and verify whether a user has uninstall Qihoo 360 or not? The answer is that Tencent’s widely used IM client integrates QQ Housekeep (formerly named QQ Doctor) that can automatically scan users’ drive and detect the files and programs installed on users’ computers.  Qihoo 360 had labelled QQ Doctor as a privacy-infringement program but Tencent rebutted that 360 lied for fear of competition in security product market.

In addition, malice competition actions not only directly hurt the consumers but potentially endanger the network security and stability. Civil disputes may deteriorate into cyber-crimes. Common use of cloud computing gives Internet giants “invisible hand” to manipulate, control and imperil billion’s of users. When data, computer and usage are more beyond the control of users, we have good reason to worry who is really in control.

The competent governmental agency, MIIT, finally stepped in the dispute. In an official announcement made on November 21,  both parties were condemned for acts of unfair competition and bad social impacts. Both were required to stop any acts that may damage the legitimate interests of users, stop mutual attacks and apologize to the users. The announcement also asked both to take appropriate make-up measures.  Interestingly, MIIT ordered both to carefully learn relevant laws and regulations and improve their moral construction. Let alone the morality standards that are apparently in doubt, people may wonder what kind of laws and regulations they should “carefully learn”. Obviously, there has no law or regulation to touch a commercial operator’s proactive or aggressive self-defensive actions.

Comments (423)

« Previous Page« Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries »Next Page »