Uloga države i internet intermedijatora u zaštiti prava internet korisnika

Abstract

U ovom radu istraţuje se pravo na slobodno izraţavanje i pravo na privatnost internet korisnika, što se analizira kroz uloge tri aktera: drţave, internet intermedijatora i internet korisnika. Cilj doktorskog rada je da se na osnovu analize uloga navedenih aktera i poreĊenjem razliĉitih nacionalnih praksi ponudi model upravljanja internetom. PonuĊeni model bi za centralni koncept imao odgovornost, ĉime bi osiguravao i poštovanje prava internet korisnika. Istraţivanje je sprovedeno na ĉetiri nivoa. U okviru prvog nivoa razmatra se uloga drţave u zaštiti prava internet korisnika. S obzirom na to da je uloga drţave najvidljivija kroz njen regulatorni okvir, u ovom delu rada se najpre predstavljaju pozitivni i negativni aspekti regulacije informaciono-komunikacionog sistema u tradicionalnom okruţenju, a zatim se razmatraju i izazovi regulisanja internet prostora. Problematizovanje uloge drţave u globalizovanom informaciono-komunikacionom sistemu, odnosno oĉuvanje drţavne jurisdikcije u doba interneta, takoĊe je predmet teorijske analize ovog dela rada. Navedeno se ostvaruje kroz sukobljavanje stavova autora koji ulozi drţave u novom okruţenju pristupaju iz ugla realista i liberala. Nakon razmatranja uloge drţave u novom okruţenju i definisanja njene pozicije u gobalizovanom informaciono-komunikacionom sistemu, pristupa se analizi njene uloge u zaštiti prava internet korisnika. Kroz studiju sluĉaja Srbije, analizira se naĉin na koji se mlade demokratije, postsocijalistiĉke zemlje, odnose prema pravima internet korisnika. Hipoteza kojom se tvrdi da regulatorni okvir Srbije nije u dovoljnoj meri posvećen zaštiti prava na slobodno izraţavanje i prava na privatnost internet korisnika, potvrĊena je. Pri testiranju hipoteze, pored analize regulatornog okvira Srbije, u obzir su uzete i analize civilnog sektora, izveštaji Poverenika za informacije od javnog znaĉaja, kao i primeri iz prakse kojima se ilustruju kršenja prava. Drugi nivo analize podrazumeva ispitivanje uloge privatnih aktera – internet intermedijatora u zaštiti prava internet korisnika. Internet intermedijatore Tomas Koter (Thomas Cotter) definiše kao: „bilo koji subjekt koji omogućava prenos informacija od jedne do druge straneˮ, odnosno bilo koji „pruţilac komunikacijskih uslugaˮ (2005: 2). Intermedijatori su, dakle, posrednici u internet kominikaciji. Za analizu njihove uloge u zaštiti prava internet korisnika odabrani su intermedijatori koji su u najneposrednijoj vezi sa internet korisnicima – pretraţivaĉi i društvene mreţe. Ovi akteri odbijaju da se deklarišu kao mediji, tvrdeći da su u osnovi tehnološke kompanije ĉija je uloga samo neutralno prenošenje sadrţaja na internetu. Jakuboviĉ (Jakubowicz, 2009) ih prepoznaje kao aktere nalik-medijskim, istiĉući da su pojedine njihove funkcije suštinski medijske. Argument u ovom radu je da internet intermedijatori ne moraju biti nedvosmisleno odreĊeni kao mediji u tradicionalnom smislu, ali ih to ne oslobaĊa odgovornosti prema korisnicima. Njihova uloga u zaštiti prava internet korisnika istraţivana je na primeru kompanija Gugl i Fejsbuk, analizom njihove samoregulatorne politike u delu koji se tiĉe prava na slobodno izraţavanje i prava na privatnost. Hipotezom se pretpostavilo da navedene kompanije ne garantuju apsolutnu zaštitu prava svojim korisnicima. Analizom uslova korišćenja Gugla i Fejsbuka, kroz poreĊenje sa EU regulativom, hipoteza je potvrĊena. Najzanaĉajniji nalazi pokazuju 1) da korisnicima nije zagarantovan afirmativni pristanak, 2) da je jezik kojim su napisani uslovi korišćenja sloţen i preteţno tehniĉki, 3) da korisnici nisu nedvosmisleno upoznati sa naĉinima na koje se njihovi podaci dele sa trećim licima, niti u koje svrhe se to ĉini, 4) da obe kompanije imaju mogućnost uticaja na slobodu izraţavanja, kroz upravljanje informacijskim iskustvom korisnika (News Feed na Fejsbuku, rezultati pretrage na Gugl), 5) da je naĉin ĉuvanja i brisanja liĉnih podataka netransparentan, 6) ; da obe kompanije prikupljaju prekomernu koliĉinu liĉnih podataka.

The starting points for the research in this dissertation are the right of freedom of expression and the right of privacy of Internet users, which are being analyzed through the roles of three agents: the state, Internet intermediaries and Internet users. The purpose of the doctoral thesis is to offer a model of Internet governance, based on the analysis of the roles of the aforementioned agents and a comparison of different national practices, which would have responsibility as its central concept, and in that way would ensure the respect of Internet users‘ rights. The research was conducted on four levels. The first level investigates the role of the state in protecting the rights of Internet users. Since the state‘s role is the most visible through its regulatory framework, this part of the thesis introduces the positive and negative aspects of regulating the communication and information system in the traditional environment, with the challenges of Internet space regulation being discussed subsequently. The complication of the role of the state in the globalized communication and information system, more precisely, the preservation of the state‘s jurisdiction is also the subject of the theoretical analysis in this part of the thesis, which is done by clashing views of authors who approach the role of the state in the new environment from the perspective of realists and liberals. After examining the role of the state in the new environment and defining its position in the globalized information and communication system, the following step is to approach the analysis of its role in the protection of the rights of Internet users. In the case study of Serbia, the subject of analysis is the relation of young democracies, post-socialist countries, towards the rights of Internet users. The hypothesis suggesting that the regulatory framework of Serbia is not sufficiently dedicated to protecting the rights of freedom of expression and privacy of Internet users, was confirmed. Along with the analysis of Serbia‘s regulatory framework, in the process of testing the hypothesis, the civil sector analysis, reports of the Commissioner for information of pubic importance, as well as practical examples of the violation of rights, that were the subject of the analysis, were also taken into account. The second level of the analysis involves examining the role of private agents – Internet intermediaries in protecting the rights of Internet users. Thomas Cotter defined Internet intermediaries as: ―any subject enabling the transfer of information from one party to the other‖, or any ―communication service provider‖ (2005, p.2). Therefore, intermediaries are the mediators in the Internet communication. For the analysis of their role in protecting Internet users‘ rights, the intermediaries with the most direct connection to Internet users were chosen – search engines and social media. These agents refuse to declare themselves as the media, claiming that they are primarily technological companies, whose role is to neutrally transmit the content on the Internet. Jakubowicz (2009) recognizes them as the media-like agents, indicating that some of their functions are essentially media-like. The argument in the thesis is that Internet intermediaries need not be unambiguously defined as the media in the traditional sense, but that does not absolve them of responsibility toward users. Their role in protecting the rights of Internet users was examined through the example of companies such as Google and Facebook, that is, by analyzing their self-regulatory policy in the section concerning the rights of freedom of expression and privacy. The hypothesis suggested that the aforementioned companies did not guarantee the absolute protection of rights to their users. From the analysis of terms of use of Google and Facebook, that implied a comparison with EU regulations, the hypothesis was confirmed. The most significant findings indicate that users are not guaranteed the affirmative consent; that the language used to write terms of use is complex and predominantly technical; that users are not unequivocally informed of the ways in which their data is shared with third parties and for what purposes; that both companies have the ability to influence the freedom of expression, by managing the information experience of users (News Feed on Facebook, Search Results on Google), that the method of saving and deleting personal data is non-transparent; that both companies collect excessive amounts of personal data.