The contents of the submission:

This text is from a January 1997 document (Jan 1997). For more information (in Finnish) see web site: http://www.telmo.fi/tiveke/raportit/julkilyh.htm

* Legal regulation of data network communications must aim at impartiality vis-a-vis the medium. Hence, the same rules should apply to all communications and services of the same kind, regardless of how they are implemented.

* Protection of privacy is guaranteed in the Finnish Constitution. It should also be guaranteed on information networks.

* Protection under the Constitution also applies to confidential communications via information networks. In practice, protection can be improved by encryption of messages, but even an unencrypted message enjoys the protection of confidentiality.

* Users of information networks should be entitled to anonymity in situations where user identification is not essential. Data network services should in fact favour proof of individual rights over proof of identity.

* A message transmitted in a data network may accidentally reach some person other than the intended recipient, and without protection. Such recipient must be required not to save the message, and not to pass on or use its contents or the knowledge of its existence.

* Protection of confidentiality in data network communications must be improved in the case of the confidentiality duty of the parties transmitting communications, to bring this up to the same level of protection afforded telephone communications under the current law.

* Under the present standards, the authorities may intervene in the protection of telephone confidentiality in more cases than with data network communication confidentiality. Special provisions have been issued on such intervention in the case of telephone communications, but these cannot be applied to information networks. The provisions should be changed in this respect, to make them more neutral vis-a-vis the medium.

* The technical requirements for data protection in data network communications and the responsibility of service providers with regard to data protection must be clarified urgently.

* The legal regulation applicable to information networks must not prevent freedom of speech there. It is the authorities' duty to ensure freedom of speech on information networks as elsewhere, and if necessary to intervene in action to limit it.

* In the case of the electronic press and other edited material in information networks, the principles generally applied to the mass media concerning the subsidiary responsibility, duty to rectify and right to defend a position of an editor in chief, editor or the like can be brought into effect by legislation.

* Some public communications via information networks takes place without any advance supervision. It is proposed that the term 'public message' (or 'public communications') be used in this case. This term would distinguish such messages from targeted communications and indicate that the system of responsibility applicable to these communications differs from that applied to the mass media. Only those parties involved in compiling the message would be responsible for its content.

* Self-regulation of public communications should be encouraged when it takes the form of personal choices by the parties responsible for the content, e.g. within a framework of agreed rules of game. Such parties include those producing, editing and publishing the content.

* There may be problems with self-regulation of public communications when regulation or supervision is organized by making it the job of a private 'third' party, such as a data network operator. Such activities could then constitute limits on freedom of speech.

* Effective and recommended way of protecting the individual actor on information networks from harmful material is to introduce technical systems (e.g. PICS) for individual recipients that utilize various kinds of classification service. The users, e.g. children's parents or teachers, can specify in advance what they are willing to receive in terms of subject area and content.

* In the case of proof of identity and individual rights, a study should be made on the cases in which information networks can require proof of identity, and how widely proof of identity can be replaced by proof of rights.

* Regarding the concept of personal data under the Personal Register Act, a study should be made of the kind of electronic traces that could be considered to identify the user, and the cases in which the collection and registration of personal data could be considered necessary and an element in the service provider's role.

* A study should be made of whether the 'common carrier' concept would be useful in regulation of communications. This means a carrier that is not entitled to intervene in the content of the material carried and bears no responsibility for it.

* A study should be made to establish the level of involvement in communications ultimately becoming public that could confer subsidiary responsibility on the service provider.

* If the user is to be made responsible for his activities on information networks, it must be possible to establish who this user is. As groundwork for the system of collecting traffic data that would be needed to trace the user, a study must be done to establish at what level and by whom traffic data would be collected, how the obligation to do so would affect the operating potential of different actors, and how the protection of users' privacy could be safeguarded in the system.

In this report two new concepts have been adopted to clarify the handling of public communication on information networks. The working group proposes that public network communication shall accordingly be divided into "public personal network communication" and "content distribution". Content distribution is mass communication one-to-many: the content is distributed or it is made publicly available on information networks. Free personal communication is typical for public personal network communication i.e. communication many-to-many. Communication is mass communication, especially as regards those who only listen conversation (public). It is, however, difficult to draw an exact line between public personal network communication and content distribution. Public personal network communication cannot be totally excluded from the sphere of rules on electronic mass communication.

Publishing a message may cause penal and/or civil responsibility if the preconditions regarding causal connection between the actions of a party and the commission of an offence or damage and the intention or negligence of the party are met. The responsibility is, however, limited by the principle that it must on the basis of general life experience be possible to foresee that the action of a party (e.g. data transmission) will as a result of the publication of a message lead to the commission of an offence or damage.

In public communication carried out on information networks all participating in communication in a way or another (from creator of a message up to a data transmission service provider) contribute to the publication of a message i.e. their action is in causal connection with the violation of the law or damage possibly caused by the publication of the message. Parties participating in technical content carrying are not, however, aware of the content of a message carried and do not make decision on the publication of a certain message or messages.

In accordance with the opinion of the working group technical carriers are not responsible for a message that has been published. Technical carriers are: data transmission service providers i.e. parties who provide switching, routing and distribution services on data communications networks personal communication service providers, who transfer the users' messages and who do not limit or choose the messages knowingly, for example, electronic mail,news and IRC services, host service providers i.e. those who provide platform and processing services needed for offering network services, as well as resources that are necessary for producing network services.

In accordance with the opinion of the working group the following parties are responsible for messages published in public personal network communication:

• users i.e. who are the authors of messages or publish them,
• personal communication supervisors i.e. who choose beforehand messages to be published in their services (for example, in news services) or who act as supervisor in a network meeting or choose or exclude participants in a network meeting.

In accordance with the opinion of the working group the following parties are responsible for messages published in content distribution:

• content producers i.e. the producers of content to be published
• content brokers i.e. who purchase and sell or represent contents, in other words, seek distribution channels for content,
• final service providers i.e. who offer content in their services publicly and exceptionally users i.e. receivers of illegal content.

Under the existing laws various obligations exist under mass communication activities.

Provisions on efficient advance- and afterwards-control is directed to mass communication formats that are the most significant from the viewpoint of society. Such obligations are, for example, an obligation to appoint an editor in chief, an obligation to publish a rejoinder, an obligation of correction and an obligation to record a programme.

In the legislation in force dividing mass communication into lightly and efficiently controlled formats is based, as far as regards printed publications, on the character and purpose of a publication (publication/periodical publication). As far as concerns electronic mass communication, dividing is based on data format and the way of distribution applied (distribution of electronic content, programmes and videos on radio frequencies, by cable or as records).

The development of communication technology and the creation of information networks as mass communication channels have led to a need to reform the effective legislation applied to mass communication. The working group has wanted to take a stand on the proposal of the Committee on freedom of speech for a new law on using freedom of speech in mass communication. In the proposal for law prepared by the Committee on freedom of speech, different rules on the control of different data formats have kept unchanged according to the effective legislation. In the proposal for law mass communication having mainly another content than sound and/or moving picture is divided into lightly and efficiently controlled formats, but mass information contenting mainly sound and/or moving picture belongs to the sphere of efficiently controlled communication in all respects. In accordance with the opinion of the working group the proposal of the Committee on freedom of speech leads to interpretation problems and to unnecessary extension of the area covered by efficient control.

In accordance with the opinion of the working group dividing electronic communication into lightly or effectively controlled communication should be realised not depending on a data format. Significant would not be a data format applied (for example text, sound and moving picture), but more efficient control would be directed towards communication which is large-scale, professional and regular. Besides the publication of traditional periodicals and newspapers and TV and radio programme broadcasting, large-scale, professional and regular communication would be public communication on information networks which fulfils the following conditions:

A message forms an entity, a provided content comprising one ore more data formats. Communication is directed towards unlimited or large group of receivers, public. Communication is carried on professionally. Communication is carried on regularly.

The self-regulation of information networks (of Internet) signifies the co-operation between parties involved on information networks (Internet) in order to prevent the publication and spreading of harmful and criminal content. The objective is that the Internet environment as its own community would be able to restrict the spreading of harmful and criminal materials within the network. The outside observers, i.e., above all, the authorities would need to interfere in the situation only exceptionally.

In accordance with the opinion of the working group the self-regulation as described above is problematic, because parties involved operating on the Internet are not a coherent group but every one has its own tasks, rights and obligations. For example, technical carriers, i.e., above all, teleoperators and Internet operators (ISP, Internet Service Providers) have no right to interfere (without special authorisation), for example, in the addresses of users in personal network communication or the materials of final service providers or content producers or to prevent to distribute materials.

In accordance with the opinion of the working group self-regulation in the strict sense of the word comprises only the measures taken by those who have a right to decide on content publication themselves. Such bodies are content producers (including user) and final service providers. The regulation of other content is not, properly speaking, self-regulation, but restricting communication in advance or afterwards.

In accordance with the opinion of the working group the common control of content having been published on information networks rests with the government in the same manner as the control is carried out under the law in force. The control of network requires international co-operation between authorities.

In accordance with the opinion of the working group the regulation of content shall be realised solely by bodies who have a right to carry on such measures. Such bodies are content producers, final service providers, users and authorities. Those who technically transmit data have no right to restrict data to be transmitted. Unauthorised restricting may fulfil the elements of disturbance offence in the field of electronic communication.

Content producers and final service providers shall prepare common rules on what kind of content is not acceptable to produce and publish. As regards users and minors, it will be increased the opportunities of parents and teachers to influence on content being received. Courts will be given authorisation to impose criminal contents to be excluded from publicity or content distribution to be interrupted. To promote the co-operation between the authorities of different countries to prevent distribution of criminal content. The activities of authorities can be supported by establishing hot-line services.