German Data Privacy Commissioner Ulrich Kelber is also a computer scientist, which makes him uniquely qualified to comment on the potential consequences of the proposed new EU Copyright Directive. The Directive will be voted on at the end of this month, and its Article 13 requires that online communities, platforms, and services prevent their users from committing copyright infringement, rather than ensuring that infringing materials are speedily removed.

In a new official statement on the Directive (English translation), Kelber warns that Article 13 will inevitably lead to the use of automated filters, because there is no imaginable way for the organisations that run online services to examine everything their users post and determine whether each message, photo, video, or audio clip is a copyright violation.

Kelber goes on to warn that this will exacerbate the already dire problem of market concentration in the tech sector, and expose Europeans to particular risk of online surveillance and manipulation.

That's because under Article 13, Europe's online companies will be required to block all infringement, even if they are very small and specialised (the Directive gives an online community three years' grace period before it acquires this obligation, less time if the service grosses over €5m/year). These small- and medium-sized European services (SMEs) will not be able to afford to license the catalogues of the big movie, music, and book publishers, so they'll have to rely on filters to block the unlicensed material.

But if a company is too small to afford licenses, it's also too small to build filters. Google's Content ID for YouTube cost a reported €100 million to build and run, and it only does a fraction of the blocking required under Article 13. That means that they'll have to buy filter services from someone else. The most likely filter vendors are the US Big Tech companies like Google and Facebook, who will have to build and run filters anyway, and could recoup their costs by renting access to these filters to smaller competitors.

Another possible source of filtering services is companies that sell copyright enforcement tools like Audible Magic (supplier to Big Tech giants like Facebook), who have spent lavishly to lobby in favour of filters (along with their competitors).

As Kelber explains, this means that Europeans who use European services in the EU will nevertheless likely have every public communication they make channeled into offshore tech companies' servers for analysis. These European services will then have to channel much of their revenues to the big US tech companies or specialist filter vendors.

So Article 13 guarantees America's giant companies a permanent share of all small EU companies' revenues and access to an incredibly valuable data-stream generated by all European discourse, conversation, and expression. These companies have a long track record of capitalising on users’ personal data to their advantage, and between that advantage and the revenues they siphon off of their small European competitors, they are likely to gain permanent dominance over Europe's Internet.

Kelber says that this is the inevitable consequence of filters, and has challenged the EU to explain how Article 13's requirements could be satisfied without filters. He's called for "a thoughtful overhaul" of the bill based on "data privacy considerations," describing the market concentration as a "clear and present danger."

We agree, and so do millions of Europeans. In fact, the petition against Article 13 has attracted more signatures than any other petition in European history and is on track to be the most popular petition in the history of the human race within a matter of days.

With less than a month to go before the final vote in the European Parliament on the new Copyright Directive, Kelber's remarks couldn't be more urgent. Subjecting Europeans' communications to mass commercial surveillance and arbitrary censorship is bad for human rights and free expression, but as Kelber so ably argues, it's also a disaster for competition.

In a new round of talks this week to formulate a UN Cybercrime Treaty, EFF is calling for strictly limiting the scope of the convention’s international cooperation provisions and safeguards to ensure that states respect human rights when responding to legal assistance requests.EFF is among a group of ...

SAN FRANCISCO–The European Union reached another milestone by approving the “Digital Services Act package” this week. The Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act are intended to create a safer and more competitive digital space.By setting out new responsibilities for online platforms, the Digital Services Act (DSA) was supposed...

The executive body of the European Union is pushing forward with a proposal that will endanger privacy and security for us all. When this proposal was made public by the EU Commission last month, we said it was a terrible idea. Today, we’re joining together with more than 70...

Governments should protect people against cybercrime, and they should equally respect and protect people's human rights. However, across the world, governments routinely abuse cybercrime laws to crack down on human rights by criminalizing speech. Governments claim they must do so to combat disinformation, “religious, ethnic or sectarian hatred,” “rehabilitation of...

Update: On 16 June, following the approval by the Council’s Permanent Representatives Committee, the EU Parliament’s Internal Market Committee overwhelmingly endorsed the deal on the EU’s Digital Services Act. EFF helped to ensure that the final language steered clear of intrusive filter obligations. The DSA is expected to...

SAN FRANCISCO—Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) technologists, along with 36 of the world’s top cybersecurity experts, today urged European lawmakers to reject proposed changes to European Union (EU) regulations for securing electronic payments and other online transactions that will dramatically weaken web security and expose internet users to increased risk of...

The European Parliament had an important decision to make this week about the Digital Services Act (DSA). After months of considering amendments, members oscillated between several policy options on how to regulate online platforms, including the dystopian idea of mandating dominant platforms act as internet police, monitoring content on behalf...

Fix What is Broken vs Break What Works: Oscillating Between Policy ChoicesThe European Union's Digital Services Act (DSA) is a big deal. It's the most significant reform of Europe’s internet platform legislation in twenty years and the EU Commission has proposed multiple new rules to address the challenges brought...

The European Parliament’s regulations and policy-making decisions on technology and the internet have unique influence across the globe. With great influence comes great responsibility. We believe the European Parliament (EP) has a duty to set an example with the Digital Services Act (DSA), the first major overhaul of European...