Sanctions imposed on Afghanistan will hurt its internet, an Urban Media Institute webinar was told Tuesday. Afghanistan lags neighbors Iran and Pakistan, where the internet emerged in the 1990s, said Mujibullah Shams, a member of the National Information Technology Professional Association of Afghanistan (NITPAA). Afghanistan was engaged in civil war then and, before 2002, the Taliban banned Western technologies such as broadcasting and the internet. When the new government took over in 2003, the country-code top-level domain (ccTLD) .af was delegated to a government ministry. Around 327,0000 IP addresses are allocated to the country, which has about 12 million users. Afghanistan faces "enormous challenges," said NITPAA President Mohibullah Utmankhil, a professor at Kabul Polytechnic University. About 25 provinces have long been connected to fiber networks, but foreign aid supported these: There are some 63 registered ISPs, but since aid organizations pulled out, they're suffering financially. If this continues, Afghanistan could lose internet connections with its neighbors; and even maintaining its current IT infrastructure is in doubt, he said. Others such as Microsoft and Amazon are limiting their cloud services to the country, he said. It's reported that less than 10% of .af domain names are hosted in-country, and if anywhere they're hosted imposes sanctions, that may affect those domains, he said. The ccTLD itself is outside Taliban control, but the government has apparently locked all gov.af domains, he noted. The Afghan internet community is committed to bringing the technology to the country, said Digital Medusa Director Farzaneh Badii. But the ccTLD .af could become dormant if registrars can't register af. domain names, or if the Taliban or some other regime takes control of the ccTLD, she said. Even registries that manage generic TLDs such as .com have become "sensitive" about providing services to residents of sanctioned nations, she said. Another worry is that IP addresses could be pulled back from Afghanistan, severing its connection to the world, she noted. ICANN doesn't play a day-to-day role in ccTLD management because that's a local responsibility, emailed a spokesperson. The decision to remove responsibility for a domain to a different entity must be arrived at locally, including by the government in charge, and would be submitted to ICANN for recognition, she wrote. The .af domain is managed by the Ministry of Communications IT, she added. "Any ICANN assessment relating to a requested change is limited to ensuring ongoing stability of the domain is preserved and the request is in accordance with local decision-making."
A 2017 European Commission antitrust decision on Google Shopping was correct, as was the $1.7 billion fine (see 1903200004), the EU General Court confirmed Wednesday in Google and Alphabet v. Commission, case T-612/17. The court mostly dismissed Google's appeal. The ruling, which Google can appeal to the Court of Justice within two months, was cheered by consumers, rivals and the EC, which said it clears the path toward better platform regulation.
A U.K. proposal for reining in tech companies could affect intermediary liability protections and set up a conflict with a similar measure moving through the EU legislative process, experts said. The draft Online Safety Bill (OSB) establishes a new regulatory regime to address content harmful to children and illegal online content. The EU Digital Services Act (DSA) seeks to boost user trust in online services by countering illegal content and by making platforms, especially very large ones, more accountable (see 2012150022). But unlike the OSB, the DSA builds on existing "safe harbor" rules for intermediaries. It also addresses only illegal content, while the U.K. measure gets into the murky area of harmful material.
Technologies are emerging to combat deepfakes, but rules might be needed, panelists said at a Tuesday webinar hosted by the Convention of National Associations of Electrical Engineers of Europe (EUREL). Deepfake technology enabled some beneficial uses, but it's increasingly difficult to distinguish between real and fake content and people, said Sebastian Hallensleben, chairman of German EUREL member VDE e.V. One common argument is that AI fabrications aren't a problem because we can use other AI systems to detect them. As deepfakes become more sophisticated, there will be more countermeasures, causing a "detection arms race," said Hallensleben. What's needed is a "game-changer" to show what's real online and what isn't, Hallensleben said. He's working on "authentic pseudonyms," identifiers guaranteed to belong to a given physical person and to be singular in a given context. This could be done through restricted identification along the lines of citizens' ID cards; a second route is through self-sovereign identity (SSI). If widely used, authentic pseudonyms would avoid the "authoritarian approach" to deepfakes, Hallensleben said. SSI is a new paradigm for creating digital ID, said Technical University of Berlin professor Axel Kupper. The ID holder (a person) becomes her own identity provider and can decide where to store her identity documents and what services to use. The infrastructure is a decentralized, tamper-proof, distributed ledger. The question is how to use the technology to mitigate the use of automated content creation, Kupper said. Many perspectives besides technology must be considered for cross-border identification infrastructure, including regulation, governance, interoperability and social factors, said Tanja Pavleska, a researcher at the Joef Stefan Institut Laboratory for Open Systems and Networks in Slovenia. Trust applies in all those contexts, she said. Asked whether the proposed EU AI Act should classify deepfakes as high-risk technology, she said such fakes aren't just done by a single player or type of actor, so rules aimed at single points might be difficult. All panelists agreed the EU general data protection regulation should be interpreted to cover voice and facial data.
The EU and U.S. may not ever agree on some tech regulation but must cooperate, panelists said Tuesday at an EU40-The Network of Young Members of the European Parliament webcast. Both sides of the Atlantic are at a defining moment to meet the challenges of the digital and green economies and must work together, said Mariya Gabriel, European commissioner for innovation, research, culture, education and youth. The EU/U.S. policy agenda includes innovation, which the newly created Trade and Tech Council (TTC) is tackling, she said. “We need to set the global agenda together.” Slovenian Minister for Digital Transformation Mark Boris Andrijanic urged “comprehensive, smart regulation” of digital markets, which can be achieved only by working closely with other trusted allies: The EU and U.S. “will never agree on every detail,” but there's no alternative to partnership, he said.
EU governments generally back the European Commission's proposed AI act, said EU Council telecom officials Thursday after a virtual debate on the legislation. Everyone agreed there must be a systematic, unified approach to AI in the single market based on fundamental rights, said Bostjan Koritnik, public administration minister for Slovenia, which holds the current EU presidency. Officials want a horizontal regulatory framework that covers use of AI in all sectors. The vast majority of ministers support the EC's risk-based approach but said many issues need further discussion, such as the scope of the measure, law enforcement aspects and definitions of key terms, the Council said. The debate raised two key questions, said EC Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton: The need for a unified approach that generates trust and the necessity of balancing innovation against citizens' confidence in using AI. EU rules will also have to apply to AI producers outside the EU, he said. Rules must be proportionate, limited to what's necessary, adaptable to emerging risks and respectful of values, and must stimulate investment, he said. Governments must ensure access to the data on which AI depends, Breton added. Discussions will continue in the Council's telecom working party, with a compromise proposal expected in November.
Global digital technology rules should be compatible, not identical, speakers said at a Thursday Politico virtual event. There's discussion about the new Trade & Technical Council (TTC) (see 2109290006) because, in an interconnected world, what's relevant in one country becomes relevant in others, said former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, now Brookings Institution visiting fellow and Harvard Kennedy School senior fellow: The TTC effort must be to agree on consistent rules.
Stakeholders unveiled their wish lists for the EU-U.S. Trade and Technology Council, before the TTC's first meeting Wednesday in Pittsburgh. The council had planned to approve an agreement on the way forward at the meeting, the European Commission told us. The joint EU-U.S. TTC statement sets out five areas of joint work -- investment screening, export controls, AI, semiconductors and global trade challenges -- and establishes 10 working groups. The export control panel will hold a joint virtual event for stakeholders Oct. 27. The American Chamber of Commerce for the EU set out priorities Tuesday for working groups it expects to be established. It seeks a "transparent and open stakeholder engagement mechanism" to ensure outcomes are supported by business. The European Consumer Organisation said consumer groups "support the voluntary exchange of best practices and information between regulators" as long as it doesn't weaken EU ambitions to better safeguard consumers. It said the EU recently tried to improve the transparency of its cooperation with third countries: "This is a positive process that should continue." The Information Technology Industry Council made requests, saying the TTC's work "can be best supported by a successor agreement to the Privacy Shield." Chips "should top the EU-US partnership agenda," Intel blogged.
The O-RAN Alliance and two of its members said they resolved issues about possible ramifications of the U.S. decision to list three Chinese alliance members on the Commerce Department's entity list. Equipment vendors Nokia and Ericsson had halted activities with the alliance over concerns about possible penalties (see 2109030053). The alliance said Sept. 13 its board "approved changes to O-RAN participation documents and procedures." It's up to individuals members "to make their own evaluation of these changes, [but] O-RAN is optimistic that the changes will address the concerns." The alliance didn't comment on what the changes were. Ericsson told us Tuesday it's now "satisfied" the alliance "found a solution that resolves the issue." Nokia said Wednesday it's "delighted" the alliance's work can now continue and will resume its technical contributions.
Two members of an open radio access network alliance have halted activities over concerns about possible ramifications of the U.S. decision to place three Chinese alliance members on the "entity list" of enterprises deemed security risks. Ericsson and Nokia responded that they remain committed to the project. Resolving the issue could require the O-RAN Alliance to throw out its Chinese members or have the U.S grant an exception, we were told last week.